OfftheWall said:

Come on, if Michael bleached his skin to the point where he was translucent, he would have probably died 20 years ago from chemical inhalation and burns, his health would have simply crumbled to pieces. No way could he have gone from his natural skin to snow white. Who in the world has gone that white through bleach? Especially 25 years ago?

If the family bought a fake autopsy, then why didn't they fake some other stuff on there to save face for Michael and the family again? Why would they want the world to know the details of his personal business, from his hair, to his medicine intake, they even reported on his tattooed make up and what not. Come on. And the tattoed eyeliner, brows is another clue to Vitiligo... the pigment in the hair goes too by the way.

Vybz Cartel and other people who are open with their bleaching go an ashy grey look, there's a dull undertone to the skin, they never look naturally lighter skinned or white skinned. Michael had no pigment what so ever, that's what made his skin like milk, he didn't go a white persons colour, he went white - the actual colour.

Honestly, Michael would have saved alot of stress if he came out and said he had vitiligo and did a photoshoot instead of covering it up, but this was 30 years ago. Now diversity is cool and in, back then Michael was still breaking new ground. Maybe he liked the mystery back then, but I don't think he was naive to think he could bleach his skin and make his nose thinner and suddenly make the world believe he was a Puetro Rican guy... the world had known of him since 1969 for crying out loud. He was a black man on the cover of Thriller. I know why theres doubt, because he went from brown - light skin - white. The middle part doesn't make sense with vitiligo, but again, it's all in the make up. And he wore it... alot. Michael used make up ALOT. Like to the point of it coming off on his clothing. It wasn't just blush and lipstick, he had foundations, concealers, contouring... it was professional make up.

Michael had vitiligo, there's no doubt about it. You can see his natural brown patches all over his body in They Don't Care About Us. His hands were still brown in Black or White... and if he was bleaching surely, the hands would take to it quite easily, like people who tan... their hands go brown more than any other part of the body. Anyway, you can't win as Michael sung... the autopsy proved it, but it's now a 'lie'. I sincerly doubt with a death investigation as big and controvrsial as Michael's that they would allow the autopsy to be bought. Michael's health meant big bucks.

[Edited 10/23/15 13:03pm]

Explain to me how he was able to film the video for In The Closet in the middle of the desert on what looks like a scorching day. If he was really suffering from vitiligo, he was advised to avoid sunlight at all costs.

This is from a fansite:

http://www.mjfancommunity.com/facts.htm

So how did he manage to be out all day, spending probably 5-8 hours each day out in the desert if his skin was so delicate? On top of the vitiligo the guy is supposed to suffer from lupus.

As for the fake autopsy, the family is going to make it look realistic and believable. If it didn't include all the warts, nobody would have believed it. His tatooed eyeliner has been talked about in magazines since 1987.

MichaelJackson5 said:

Thanks PatrickS77. MichaelJackson5 how can you have a screen name dedicated to MJ and not know about the In the Closet behind the scenes! The videos are filmed throughout the day/days, and he has a trailer, and look at him with his hat, shirt on in the desert. And his beloved umbrella was there in two shades.

Also, look at how his vest is filled with make up.

umbrella guy on stand by

^ That Font is not a Michael Jackson fan. Don't be fooled by his username. He has bashed and trashed MJ since joining the site. His sole purpose of being here is to troll mj fans with his mj hate.

[Edited 10/23/15 17:16pm]

PatrickS77 said:

MichaelJackson5 said:

So how did he manage to be out all day, spending probably 5-8 hours each day out in the desert if his skin was so delicate? On top of the vitiligo the guy is supposed to suffer from lupus.

As for the fake autopsy, the family is going to make it look realistic and believable. If it didn't include all the warts, nobody would have believed it. His tatooed eyeliner has been talked about in magazines since 1987.

Ever heard of sun cream? And why don't you post pictures of when they weren't shooting? [img:$uid]http://i819.photobucket.com/albums/zz117/Tholstrup83/Michael%20Jackson%20-%20Dangerous%20Era/InTheClosetShortBehindTheScenes6.jpg[/img:$uid] [img:$uid]http://41.media.tumblr.com/816a0ba76a62dc759ced1756461a29cb/tumblr_mzeq2x08PK1r116s7o4_500.jpg[/img:$uid] [img:$uid]http://www.mjjultimate.com/forum/gallery/data/607/michael-jackson-in-the-closet-music-video-behind-the-scenes-cygy-950.jpg[/img:$uid] [img:$uid]http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/michael-jackson/images/1/10/In-The-Closet-michael-jackson-7483356-1064-918.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131205205159[/img:$uid] [img:$uid]http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/19200000/in-the-closet-behind-the-scenes-mj-behind-the-scenes-19276313-289-411.jpg[/img:$uid] [img:$uid]http://i819.photobucket.com/albums/zz117/Tholstrup83/Michael%20Jackson%20-%20Dangerous%20Era/InTheClosetShortBehindTheScenes11.jpg[/img:$uid] [img:$uid]http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/19200000/in-the-closet-behind-the-scenes-mj-behind-the-scenes-19276314-583-473.jpg[/img:$uid] As for the report. Quit reaching, you fool. The whole actual thing is out there. Including identities of examiners and signatures. They would get into deep shit, would they have faked it. But they haven't. It is legit. It was used in the Murray trial. [Edited 10/23/15 16:59pm]

He's only carrying the umbrella so his skin doesn't tan letting the melanin return, smart guy. MJ hated being a man of color.

And what does the picture of him wearing his trademark fedora prove? That was part of his image since the 80s.

Oh, look out MJ, the spotlights might damage your skin. Lucky you have that fedora.

LOL I gotta give it you Troll you are hilarious!!!

PatrickS77 said:

Oh. And he hated african americans so much that again, he had a black woman as his leading lady.

That's because the majority of his African American fans abandoned him during the Bad Era. He desperately wanted that fanbase back but they mostly despised him after seeing what he did to his face when Bad's video premiered across the nation on Aug. 31 1987.

MJ wanted the advantages of blackness without being visibly black himself and it backfired on him, at least in America. Maybe in Bulgaria, they loved him.

I never said he hated blacks, just that he hated being one himself.

Even with a song as good as In The Closet, with a great video, the single couldn't even crack the Top 5 on Billboard's Hot 100. The next single, Jam, didn't even make the Top 20.

And that's about when he decided to have the Oprah interview. Nobody forced him to do that. If he wanted his privacy, he could have just kept quiet like during the Bad Era. But he could see that the sales of Dangerous were plummeting by this point and even his 4th single couldn't crack the Top 20 which was the first time a 4th single from a solo Jackson album couldn't reach the Top 10 on Billboard during his tenure with Epic Records.

mjscarousal said:

LOL I gotta give it you Troll you are hilarious!!!

Oh it's no troll if you look closely it's one and the same cough cough Scorp cough cough

kremlinshadow said:

mjscarousal said:

LOL I gotta give it you Troll you are hilarious!!!

Oh it's no troll if you look closely it's one and the same cough cough Scorp cough cough

Well. That doesn't mean he's not a troll though.

kremlinshadow said:

mjscarousal said:

Free2BMe said:

What video was more expensive than scream? What is the director talking about?

Scorp has made great points here.

Fans like us don't need to resort to childish name-calling or profanity to get our points across because we have the truth on our side.

Most of you were too young or not born to witness the spectacular backlash against Michael Jackson in 1987 when he appeared with his lightened skin and reshaped face. He lost fans from all major demographics in America including most adults, most teenage suburban white girls, and practically all blacks. It's why Bad only sold 1/3 of what Thriller did.

That's why the Moonwalker video was targeted towards young children. Especially the videos for Smooth Criminal and the segment for Speed Demon.

He became a public embarrassment and if you were an MJ fan in the late 80s, you couldn't talk about his music because everyone hated him. Think Justin Bieber level hatred. If a kid walked into highschool wearing a Bad T-shirt, odds are he wasn't going to make it through the day without getting beaten to a pulp. You might as well have worn a My Little Pony shirt.

And if you don't believe us, then ask the other non-MJ fans here how far MJ's public image had fallen in just three years in the United States.

You over-zealous fans seem to think it should be about his music, but his new face combined with his lighter skin took away from his music. By the time Dangerous was released, his music took a backseat to the circus that was his life.

That's unfortunate because Dangerous was his best album since Thriller and better crafted than Bad. When folks saw an even whiter MJ with more surgery, the album sales took another hit as Dangerous couldn't even compete with Garth Brooks who's Ropin' The Wind destroyed it in sales.

Nobody is feeling scorned love here. If anything, it's you zealous fans that get emotional and cannot have a rational discussion about Michael Jackson. Guess what? Michael Jackson was an entertainer and not your relative or best friend. He could care less about you. He secretly probably loathed fans like you guys and always wanted the original fans back when he really was actually the ruler in the Kingdom of Pop Music.

People like Scorp and I don't go around doing things like this to him:

Talk about being a creepy fan not giving the poor man his privacy in the middle of a trial for his life.

You can't control what's discussed here like a couple of MJ forums where it's a bannable offense to even question those kids lineage, his skin color or anything controversial. And if so many rules need to be enforced, it just proves that what Scorp and I say is the honest truth regarding MJ. Censorship is only needed when the truth needs to be suppressed. This has always been the case in the history of mankind.

And if you have a problem discussing, in a civil manner, topics like his skin color, his fake kids or his dozens of operations then maybe you should go to those kind of forums where they have a daily circle-jerk in this man's honor celebrating three kids that have no relation to him at any level.

If he really cared about kids other than whites, why did he only focus on "Katy" in the Smooth Video short film? Why was the black and eurasian kid relegated to the background? The man loved the privelige associated with whiteness and mastered the art of being black without physically being black.

This commercial with one of his trustworthy young friends is further proof:

Nothing good came from his transformation in 1987. Not his popularity in the US, not his self-respect, not his health, not his eventual self-destruction, not Jimmy Safechuk and definitely not the quality of his fans.

Its not that we are hostile, its just that we don't give a shit what you have to say. Go take your press ass some place else. Your repeating yourself over and over and over and over, your nuts ... nobody cares. The only one that cares are you and Scrop who are MJ haters. Your disrupting the thread but you know exactly what you are doing.

[Edited 10/24/15 16:48pm]

kremlinshadow said:

mjscarousal said:

LOL I gotta give it you Troll you are hilarious!!!

Oh it's no troll if you look closely it's one and the same cough cough Scorp cough cough

I wouldn't be surprised...

mjscarousal said:

Its not that we are hostile, its just that we don't give a shit what you have to say. Go take your press ass some place else. Your repeating yourself over and over and over and over, your nuts ... nobody cares. The only one that cares are you and Scrop who are MJ haters. Your disrupting the thread but you know exactly what you are doing.

[Edited 10/24/15 16:48pm]

Who are you kidding? Even the prominent MJ Forum members who think like you don't want you back there. Maybe it's that winning personality of yours that forced you to this site. Go back there to reunite with your fellow delusionals and let the adults have a conversation, child.

[Edited 10/24/15 17:06pm]

Just to add to the vitiligo discussion. In published photographs and during the Bad era itself we saw this. Michael with what looks like an even skin tone, it looks very natural, doesn't look like a grey ashy bleached look either. It looks like Michael was born this colour.

But when you find a rare HQ picture upclose of Michael in a natural light with no editing, it shows how caked up his face was with make up. Foundation, powder, contouring. If he just bleached all of this make up would be simply a waste of time.

But arguing is of no use, because his autopsy proved it. If you think that's a lie, so be it. Nothing will change your mind.

OfftheWall said:

Just to add to the vitiligo discussion. In published photographs and during the Bad era itself we saw this. Michael with what looks like an even skin tone, it looks very natural, doesn't look like a grey ashy bleached look either. It looks like Michael was born this colour.

But when you find a rare HQ picture upclose of Michael in a natural light with no editing, it shows how caked up his face was with make up. Foundation, powder, contouring. If he just bleached all of this make up would be simply a waste of time.

But arguing is of no use, because his autopsy proved it. If you think that's a lie, so be it. Nothing will change your mind.

OfftheWall

do you really believe he fathered them 3 kids?

that oldest kid is pratically grown and he knows what's up

if he looked a picture of MJ in his unequivical natural state before all this begin, he knows what's up......

that youngest kid doesn't have one iotal of a clue what his true lineage is at all

[Edited 10/24/15 17:58pm]

That's why the Moonwalker video was targeted towards young children. Especially the videos for Smooth Criminal and the segment for Speed Demon.

He became a public embarrassment and if you were an MJ fan in the late 80s, you couldn't talk about his music because everyone hated him. Think Justin Bieber level hatred. If a kid walked into highschool wearing a Bad T-shirt, odds are he wasn't going to make it through the day without getting beaten to a pulp. You might as well have worn a My Little Pony shirt.

If he really cared about kids other than whites, why did he only focus on "Katy" in the Smooth Video short film? Why was the black and eurasian kid relegated to the background? The man loved the privelige associated with whiteness and mastered the art of being black without physically being black.

This commercial with one of his trustworthy young friends is further proof:

Nothing good came from his transformation in 1987. Not his popularity in the US, not his self-respect, not his health, not his eventual self-destruction, not Jimmy Safechuk and definitely not the quality of his fans.

That is simply untrue. What about Brandon Adams who had probably the most memorable part out of all the kids in that movie? Katie was the little girl out of the two boys - one being John Lennon's second son. She wasn't the centre of the story, she was just the girl of the three kids, the Wendy, as the others were Michael and John to Michael's Peter Pan. (Wendy, Michael, John are the kids in Peter Pan btw).

And Michael's fanbase always had alot of children, he was singing about being Peter Pan during 1983/4 too, so it's not surprising he wanted to have Moonwalker be a sort of childrens movie wrapped around his music... he did that years previous with Captin freaking E.O which was made for Disneyland. He did it with the E.T. Storybook LP. He loved kids, he loved those types of movies aimed at the imagination of children too. All colours, not just white. He didn't just decide to do Moonwalker out of thin air because of dimming sales and support. If he never had a bloody nose job in his life and never had vitiligo, he'd still have made Moonwalker, I betcha!

Scorp said:

OfftheWall said:

Just to add to the vitiligo discussion. In published photographs and during the Bad era itself we saw this. Michael with what looks like an even skin tone, it looks very natural, doesn't look like a grey ashy bleached look either. It looks like Michael was born this colour.

But when you find a rare HQ picture upclose of Michael in a natural light with no editing, it shows how caked up his face was with make up. Foundation, powder, contouring. If he just bleached all of this make up would be simply a waste of time.

But arguing is of no use, because his autopsy proved it. If you think that's a lie, so be it. Nothing will change your mind.

OfftheWall

do you really believe he fathered them 3 kids?

that oldest kid is pratically grown and he knows what's up

if he looked a picture of MJ in his unequivical natural state before all this begin, he knows what's up......

that youngest kid doesn't have one iotal of a clue what his true lineage is at all

[Edited 10/24/15 17:58pm]

I don't think it's right to discuss children of a deceased parent in such a horrible nature. The children are online and they simply Google themselves and can stumble across these discussions. Yes, being the children of controversial superstar Michael Jackson, it's to be expected that debates will arise, but it's just unnecessary to keep on, especially after we learned that Paris was very vulnerable.

Since Prince has addressed it himself with a "mysterious" tweet. "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" I was raised by my dad with my brother and sister." I guess I'll respond.

Prince's tweet does seem to hint at Michael not being his father biologically. Debbie's water of the womb means nothing compared to the blood of a covenant. (a covenant being a contract/agreement). The proverb Prince tweet is also said this way "My relationship with those to whom I am joined in covenant is to be considered of more value than the relationship with a brother with whom I may have shared the womb." So, It reads as the exact opposite of "blood is thicker than water".

Prince's tweet reads as if he's saying the lineage of the womb meant nothing compared to who his dad was, the man who raised him. His family is his father, brother, sister... regardless of who's biology put his body together. That's how I read the tweet, and that's how the media has picked it up unsurprisingly. Prince will have to speak more about it to clear the air if he ever wants to.

It's a shame people can be so cruel to say such things to him online, but that's life for you. If a child is adopted, or brought into this world through sperm donors/womb renters, it doesn't make them any less of a child to the parent who raised them as their own. Prince is Michael Jackson's first born son, and he is doing his father proud I think. He seems like a nice, smart young man. His tweet to that idiot proves so. Even if Michael (and Debbie) lied to the public about how the children came to be, it doesn't change anything.

Maybe one day the world will know for sure, but it's truly not anyones business regardless. They don't owe us an explanation.

[Edited 10/24/15 18:51pm]

OfftheWall said:

Scorp said:

OfftheWall

do you really believe he fathered them 3 kids?

that oldest kid is pratically grown and he knows what's up

if he looked a picture of MJ in his unequivical natural state before all this begin, he knows what's up......

that youngest kid doesn't have one iotal of a clue what his true lineage is at all

[Edited 10/24/15 17:58pm]

I don't think it's right to discuss children of a deceased parent in such a horrible nature. The children are online and they simply Google themselves and can stumble across these discussions. Yes, being the children of controversial superstar Michael Jackson, it's to be expected that debates will arise, but it's just unnecessary to keep on, especially after we learned that Paris was very vulnerable.

Since Prince has addressed it himself with a "mysterious" tweet. "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" I was raised by my dad with my brother and sister." I guess I'll respond.

Prince's tweet does seem to hint at Michael not being his father biologically. Debbie's water of the womb means nothing compared to the blood of a covenant. (a covenant being a contract/agreement). The proverb Prince tweet is also said this way "My relationship with those to whom I am joined in covenant is to be considered of more value than the relationship with a brother with whom I may have shared the womb." So, It reads as the exact opposite of "blood is thicker than water".

Prince's tweet reads as if he's saying the lineage of the womb meant nothing compared to who his dad was, the man who raised him. His family is his father, brother, sister... regardless of who's biology put his body together. That's how I read the tweet, and that's how the media has picked it up unsurprisingly. Prince will have to speak more about it to clear the air if he ever wants to.

It's a shame people can be so cruel to say such things to him online, but that's life for you. If a child is adopted, or brought into this world through sperm donors/womb renters, it doesn't make them any less of a child to the parent who raised them as their own. Prince is Michael Jackson's first born son, and he is doing his father proud I think. He seems like a nice, smart young man. His tweet to that idiot proves so. Even if Michael (and Debbie) lied to the public about how the children came to be, it doesn't change anything.

Maybe one day the world will know for sure, but it's truly not anyones business regardless. They don't owe us an explanation.

[Edited 10/24/15 18:51pm]

and that's the problem, fans didn't want to talk about it years before and they dont' want to talk about it now, and they will never want to talk about it because they love the false narrative and the false image, but that very false narrative and image threw everything off whack and why everything fell off the rails

what, is that oldest kid immature by saying what he said the other day when its 6 years after the fact...........

the world was minding its own business when it was MJ who presented these kids to the public and not only said he was teh father, but that he actually fathered him, that they are his biological offspring....nobody forced him to do that

because of the false image and narrative, its' the false image and narrative that caused those negative comments to be directed at this young man online as well as that young girl a couple of years ago

it aint about its nobody's business, MJ presented them kids to the world as his when everyone, including those who dont' want to acknowledge it know good and well they are not

its' like the fans loved the controversy, the controversy that brought necessary static to the experience

the false image is what has exploited these 3 kids when they should be existing in a situation where they know who they are

and as I mentioned, this is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg

the blood of the covenant may be more thicker than the water of the wound but its the water of the wound that determines the bloodline of the covenant of which you are naturally supposed to be part of

it's not the kids the people online or attackin directly, it's the false image and narrative

the human value is more important to me than the entertainment value of it all, especially when there is no true entertainment value to speak of

[Edited 10/24/15 19:12pm]

MichaelJackson5 said:

mjscarousal said:

Its not that we are hostile, its just that we don't give a shit what you have to say. Go take your press ass some place else. Your repeating yourself over and over and over and over, your nuts ... nobody cares. The only one that cares are you and Scrop who are MJ haters. Your disrupting the thread but you know exactly what you are doing.

[Edited 10/24/15 16:48pm]

Who are you kidding? Even the prominent MJ Forum members who think like you don't want you back there. Maybe it's that winning personality of yours that forced you to this site. Go back there to reunite with your fellow delusionals and let the adults have a conversation, child.

[Edited 10/24/15 17:06pm]

The only one that is a child is you.Your trolling this thread on purpose to instigate arguments and to agitate MJ fans. Your a loser. The least you can do is be honest about the fact that your not a MJ fan.You want to lecture others on how to act like an adult but you can't have a mature discussion yourself, CHILD.

[Edited 10/24/15 19:21pm]

OfftheWall said:

That's why the Moonwalker video was targeted towards young children. Especially the videos for Smooth Criminal and the segment for Speed Demon.

He became a public embarrassment and if you were an MJ fan in the late 80s, you couldn't talk about his music because everyone hated him. Think Justin Bieber level hatred. If a kid walked into highschool wearing a Bad T-shirt, odds are he wasn't going to make it through the day without getting beaten to a pulp. You might as well have worn a My Little Pony shirt.

If he really cared about kids other than whites, why did he only focus on "Katy" in the Smooth Video short film? Why was the black and eurasian kid relegated to the background? The man loved the privelige associated with whiteness and mastered the art of being black without physically being black.

This commercial with one of his trustworthy young friends is further proof:

Nothing good came from his transformation in 1987. Not his popularity in the US, not his self-respect, not his health, not his eventual self-destruction, not Jimmy Safechuk and definitely not the quality of his fans.

That is simply untrue. What about Brandon Adams who had probably the most memorable part out of all the kids in that movie? Katie was the little girl out of the two boys - one being John Lennon's second son. She wasn't the centre of the story, she was just the girl of the three kids, the Wendy, as the others were Michael and John to Michael's Peter Pan. (Wendy, Michael, John are the kids in Peter Pan btw).

And Michael's fanbase always had alot of children, he was singing about being Peter Pan during 1983/4 too, so it's not surprising he wanted to have Moonwalker be a sort of childrens movie wrapped around his music... he did that years previous with Captin freaking E.O which was made for Disneyland. He did it with the E.T. Storybook LP. He loved kids, he loved those types of movies aimed at the imagination of children too. All colours, not just white. He didn't just decide to do Moonwalker out of thin air because of dimming sales and support. If he never had a bloody nose job in his life and never had vitiligo, he'd still have made Moonwalker, I betcha!

You make some valid points. It's just that the Thriller short film was beloved by audiences of all ages while the Smooth Criminal short film was only amusing to kids. It did help Joe Pesci's career though which was good because he was awesome in Goodfellas, the Lethal Weapon movies and My Cousin Vinny.

MJ did children's projects like the E.T. Storybook and Captain EO. But it was balanced by more adult-themed videos like Beat It and Billie Jean. Now the videos for Bad, Dirty Diana, Way You Make Me Feel were supposed to cater to his adult fans but most of them abandoned him during this time because they couldn't take his new face seriously. At least in the US market. Maybe in the UK adults still loved him. Bad did a lot better overseas.

mjscarousal said:

MichaelJackson5 said:

Who are you kidding? Even the prominent MJ Forum members who think like you don't want you back there. Maybe it's that winning personality of yours that forced you to this site. Go back there to reunite with your fellow delusionals and let the adults have a conversation, child.

[Edited 10/24/15 17:06pm]

The only one that is a child is you.Your trolling this thread on purpose to instigate arguments and to agitate MJ fans. Your a loser. The least you can do is be honest about the fact that your not a MJ fan.You want to lecture others on how to act like an adult but you can't have a mature discussion yourself, CHILD.

[Edited 10/24/15 19:21pm]

There are no MJ-Haters here. There are people such as Scorp and I who hate the false narrative and I can say, for myself, the delusional zealous fans are hated by everyone. They're the ones that make it embarassing today to people who want to continue being his fan because they make fools of themselves on YouTube with silly videos to "prove" those three kids are his biological children. Any fool can see those kids aren't from him. Then, they wonder why they're the biggest joke out of all music fanbases.

Let OffTheWall speak. He/she has more class and decency than you can ever comprehend.

Scorp said:

OfftheWall said:

I don't think it's right to discuss children of a deceased parent in such a horrible nature. The children are online and they simply Google themselves and can stumble across these discussions. Yes, being the children of controversial superstar Michael Jackson, it's to be expected that debates will arise, but it's just unnecessary to keep on, especially after we learned that Paris was very vulnerable.

Since Prince has addressed it himself with a "mysterious" tweet. "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" I was raised by my dad with my brother and sister." I guess I'll respond.

Prince's tweet does seem to hint at Michael not being his father biologically. Debbie's water of the womb means nothing compared to the blood of a covenant. (a covenant being a contract/agreement). The proverb Prince tweet is also said this way "My relationship with those to whom I am joined in covenant is to be considered of more value than the relationship with a brother with whom I may have shared the womb." So, It reads as the exact opposite of "blood is thicker than water".

Prince's tweet reads as if he's saying the lineage of the womb meant nothing compared to who his dad was, the man who raised him. His family is his father, brother, sister... regardless of who's biology put his body together. That's how I read the tweet, and that's how the media has picked it up unsurprisingly. Prince will have to speak more about it to clear the air if he ever wants to.

It's a shame people can be so cruel to say such things to him online, but that's life for you. If a child is adopted, or brought into this world through sperm donors/womb renters, it doesn't make them any less of a child to the parent who raised them as their own. Prince is Michael Jackson's first born son, and he is doing his father proud I think. He seems like a nice, smart young man. His tweet to that idiot proves so. Even if Michael (and Debbie) lied to the public about how the children came to be, it doesn't change anything.

Maybe one day the world will know for sure, but it's truly not anyones business regardless. They don't owe us an explanation.

[Edited 10/24/15 18:51pm]

and that's the problem, fans didn't want to talk about it years before and they dont' want to talk about it now, and they will never want to talk about it because they love the false narrative and the false image, but that very false narrative and image threw everything off whack and why everything fell off the rails

what, is that oldest kid immature by saying what he said the other day when its 6 years after the fact...........

the world was minding its own business when it was MJ who presented these kids to the public and not only said he was teh father, but that he actually fathered him, that they are his biological offspring....nobody forced him to do that

because of the false image and narrative, its' the false image and narrative that caused those negative comments to be directed at this young man online as well as that young girl a couple of years ago

it aint about its nobody's business, MJ presented them kids to the world as his when everyone, including those who dont' want to acknowledge it know good and well they are not

its' like the fans loved the controversy, the controversy that brought necessary static to the experience

the false image is what has exploited these 3 kids when they should be existing in a situation where they know who they are

and as I mentioned, this is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg

the blood of the covenant may be more thicker than the water of the wound but its the water of the wound that determines the bloodline of the covenant of which you are naturally supposed to be part of

it's not the kids the people online or attackin directly, it's the false image and narrative

the human value is more important to me than the entertainment value of it all, especially when there is no true entertainment value to speak of

[Edited 10/24/15 19:12pm]

That's MJ's main dilemna. Once he began his lies, he was stuck in a no-win situation.

I was watching a documentary on Ricky Martin and once he finally admitted his sexual orientatiion he felt that he was freed by the truth.

That's not to say MJ was gay, because like Taraborelli says, MJ was likely asexual. But the truth would have made him a happier person and he might still be alive today if he chose the righteous path.