EmbattledWarrior said:

I don't have it

Do you know where I can contact a MJ brigade?

floetcist said:

By yelling at the mirror sweety, lol

EmbattledWarrior said:

You MJ fans really don't possess the biggest brains do you? You can't even keep track of your own arguments. You're supporting MY argument here without even knowing it. IMO make up is not the issue, but according to you vitiligo believers, make up is EVERYTHING since you claim he evens out his skin with make up. Now you're saying make up's got nothing to do with it and he just looked lighter because of the lighting. Dude, if you're gonna tell a story at least try and keep the story straight.

This excuse about lighting is so weak that I almost feel bad for pointing it out because it's like beating up a disabled two year old, so I'll just keep it brief and pray for your sake you don't persist with this hair brained argument. First of all, Michael has been photographed in all different kinds of light. Indoors, outdoors, at press conferences, airports, concerts, etc. by thousands of photographers. Are you telling us that on a thousand different occasions in the 70s the light conspired to make him look darker? And then a thousand different times in the 80s it conspired to make him look lighter wherever he was filmed? How many other blacks from the 70s appeared to change colour in the 80s because of random lighting? How come none of his brothers appeared that light skinned when they were photographed under the same light as him in '84 and '89? Maybe God just directed a special light on Michael to make him look lighter than everyone else in the 2300 Jackson Street video. Yes, it's all making sense now.

EmbattledWarrior said:

He had what looked like rashes on his face throughout the 80s he went through a period where he was different shades:
1986:





1987:






1988/9:

bboy87 said:

What do these photos have to do with the question? You can't even remember what the question is. We're talking about why he was using light brown make up when, according to you guys, he had black skin with white patches on it. So why in these pics is he using neither black nor white make up? These pictures confirm that Mike's skin in the late 80s was halfway between it's natural black and it's eventual white. Our explanation for that is simple. We think he was bleaching it. Your explanation for it is non existent since you can't even answer this basic question. You've now deserted the whole vitilgo story and seem to be suggesting it was all just lighting. Make up your mind.
[Edited 11/3/07 14:46pm]
[Edited 11/3/07 15:14pm]

bboy87 said:

I'm sorry but what were we talking about again?

midnightmover said:

First off, I wasn't answering a question, I posted those pictures because EW made the point that one major factor to Michael's skin change in the late 80s was, along with lighting, alot of makeup. I was also starting the fact that Michael's skin between 1985-1989 was going through periods where it was different shades

Simple as that.
[Edited 11/3/07 21:15pm]

nmidnightmover said:

What is ironic is that in his biography Michael used the same explanation on why his skin looked lighter in many recent pictures: he put it down to lightening. Now I do agree lightening can make a difference and back in the 70s lightening was never kind to black people. For instance Marlon Jackson is quite light-skinned and he also had naturally, reddish brown hair when he was in the Jackson 5 but this never showed up on TV and or in many pictures for that matter.

However in the 80s even lightening will only make you look so much lighter or darker for that matter; what fans were seeing with Michael is that he was actually getting lighter, each time you saw him he will be lighter still. By the time the Black and White video came out he looked a lot lighter than his sister Janet who were always naturally lighter him.
[Edited 11/4/07 5:03am]

bboy87 said:

But these pics don't even prove that point. We all know his skin colour was getting lighter over time with small fluctuations here and there. Whatever caused those fluctuations was not just lighting. It was Mike regulating the changes himself. One piece of evidence you guys try to sweep under the carpet is that a tube of skin bleach was found in Mike's possessions on the Victory Tour. How do you explain that?

whatsgoingon said:

You only have to look at the 2300 Jackson Street video to see what nonsense the lighting story is. He's standing in the same light as the rest of the family and he's clearly lighter than them. In the 70s he was more or less the same colour as them, and Jackie was actually lighter. The fact that Mike seriously used that weak excuse is another sign of how divorced he is from reality. A normal person would know how silly that sounded, but Mike doesn't. He also abandoned that story the moment he came up with the vitiligo story which meant finally admtting that he had indeed got lighter.

Womp,womp,womp. Womp,womp,womp, womp,womp,womp.
the truth is balck, white, vitligo downed, round brown, michael can still pull more women than these guys here hating on him. So there!

Why should i care about some freaky childmolestor like Michael Jackson?

I mean, the only reason he did get out of jail was because he had enough money to pay the advocates to keep him out, just like in the O.J. Simpson case.

That alienfaced fucker has abused little boys, and is still thinking he can make a comeback.....geeze....

Sorry, Michael, you better put a pistol against your ugly head, and just it blow....thats better for you and the people around you.

Riverpoet31 said:

this is one of the most disgusting things I've read on the org. Congrats on wasting possibly 2 minutes of your life posting this bullshit
[Edited 11/8/07 23:58pm]

Riverpoet31 said:

IGnorance

One of the dumbest comments i have ever read on the Org.....Get a hobby.
[Edited 11/9/07 7:44am]

bboy87 said:

I agree.....

Plus , wasting 1 minutes of my life reading such ignorant lame comment,some of the ignorance i see on here when it comes to Mj's trial is really bewildering and unimaginable .....

Sees how far some people go in 'idolisation' of artists.

Michael might have a skin disease, but whats more important is that he is an insecure, misguided person bleaching his skin, trying to look 'white', ruining his face by plastic surgery, ruining his integrity by lying about it.

And the fact he is sued for possible childabuse is definitely NOT off-topic. If your fat, ugly redneck neighbour was accused of that, you would be the first to scream: lets get him in jail, now!
Just because its someone you idolise, makes you threat him differently? Yeah right....
When youre sincere, honest and realistic, you threat your 'idols' the same as the guy living next door. Otherwise you are blinding yourself and your common sense.
By the way, James Brown did beat his women and Rick James did kidnap a woman with his wife and molested her in a very brutal way.

Riverpoet31 said:

wtf?

why are you even in this thread if you don't care bout him.


[Edited 11/9/07 15:03pm]

Riverpoet31 said:

river you a great man

Riverpoet31 said:

Here goes the oversimplified "OJ" explanation reasoning for his vindication again

Michael Jackson was tried in a court of law, and his case was deliberated among his peers of 12 jurors. Mind you, no minorities, conservative whites who are residents of Santa Barbara, that has a very little population of black people; and a significants amount of racists who live there, that were even behind the fences from the court house with their hate speeches. The jurors are the people who witnessed the case first hand; they were the ones who were at court every day; they were the ones who heard everything. They found Michael Jackson not guilty.

Money has nothing to do with anything.

You can't "buy" your way out of jail. OJ was acquitted not because he had 'money', he was acquitted because the jury of his peers - all black - found him not guilty. It was their decision.

What so-called "advocates" did he have, that he had paid?

Are you telling me that 12 conservative whites deemed Michael Jackson, a controversial rich black man, not guilty of child molestation? Do you realize the significant weight in his case, which is completely DIFFERENT from OJ Simpson? You think because they were both found guilty, they have some correlation, regardless of the fact that the juries and situations, and the prosecution, was COMPLETELY different as night and day?

The idea that some faceless nobody behind a computer screen, who never even sat through a single minute of direct testimony, would have the unbelievable arrogance and utter stupidity to claim that their opinion is better formed and more valid than the twelve experts who personally sat through every second of trial… It’s shocking, but it’s also extremely representative of the society we live in.

I have to laugh at all the imbeciles who persist in their allegations that Jackson is a pervert, in an extremely childish and illiterate way, when many many fans here who have already wrote long, educated and factual account on why exactly he was so obviously innocent. The only people who believe Michael Jackson is guilty are the people who are not educated enough on the topic to be bleating their opinions as facts. Anybody who actually knows either case knows that there is simply no argument in favor of Jackson’s guilt but insurmountable evidence which shows he is innocent.

Twelve jurors gave unanimous not guilty verdicts on every charge. That is how the court system works. Don't blindly say he "got off" because he "has a lot of money". We the people, are in charge of who is found guilty or not guilty. No sorry, you cannot "bribe" anyone to be acquitted, no matter how much money you have. The American citizen who is tried in the court of law has no contact with the jurors whatsoever. So unless you sat through every day of trial the same as they did, you are in no position to be arguing with their decision; it is both arrogant and imbecilic.
[Edited 11/11/07 13:37pm]

The very significant, differences between Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson; Jackson was arrested, he pleaded not guilty and cooperated with the police of Santa Barbara, California. OJ Simpson fled the scene in the now infamous Bronco chase in Santa Monica, California. If that doesn't speak volumes on who is innocent, whose case is which, you lack common sense and knowledge.

Riverpoet31 said:

Michael never lied about his plastic surgery. He obviously tried to make it seem like he hasn't had many, but he never denied it.

And the fact that you think being sued for possible child abuse makes any sort of sense in terms of morality in the first place, you need to wake up. What people also don’t realize is that Michael paid his settlement, he was settling a civil case not a criminal case; he was not being prosecuted, he was being sued. There is a clause in the settlement which states that Jackson in no way acknowledges any wrongdoing by signing the settlement, as well as the parents of Jordan, the 'victim'. Why on earth would someone who's son was abused want money instead of the abuser being sent to prison is beyond me.




If my fat, ugly redneck neighbor was accused of that, I have no right to judge him because I wasn't there, I didn't know what happened, and I'm not a blind ignorant asshole like yourself who thinks they know everything from what they see on the surface, not from the interior. We are the ones who are treating Michael Jackson like the human being citizen that he is, YOU are not.
[Edited 11/11/07 13:37pm]

Riverpoet31 said:

sounds like I anal fucked your mother too hard! no wonder you crying like a bitch, lol

get a life.
so what if Michael loves cock. what you gonna do about it?!!

I swear the authorities need to cut off internet access at mental institutions. Only members of staff should be allowed to participate online. Not inmates.

dirtyman2005 said:

Loving cock is o.k but not little boys winkies

yes,
but it doesn't change the fact that i anal fucked his/her mother!

dirtyman2005 said:

o.k I hope you had fun with that

fcukthepolice

No response? I'm waiting.

floetcist said:

for what?

Floetcist, your signature (as above) shows how prejudiced and smallminded you are.

I bet you could never clearly look at the allegations, because you allready suspected 'racistic' tendencies played a role in this case? Am i right?

I have read quite a lot of the jurisdiction from this case, and i didnt give a damn if this guy was white, black, mulato, yello, irish, afro-american or whatever, because that is NOT the point. I have read about a worldweary, psychologically confused PERSON who has abused the trust of kids, who has gone over the edge when it comes to what proper communication between grown ups and children should be. I have read about a person who definitely needs professional help to get his life back in order. Because otherwise he would most probably hurt other kids.

"It dont matter if your black or white". I agree, but when youre sick, you need help. And when you (or your lawyers) dont (want) to see that, you need other people to point you at that fact.

Poor Native Americans...