rainman1985 said:

Well you obviously don't know your MJ faces very well. The first pic IS from 1984.

I don't think MJ has had any face lifts. He has had a brow lift and I would assume botox. Not to mention black peoples skin does age well.

WildStyle said:

Yeah I didn't see the date till I posted, silly me. It must of been a bad angle cause it looked at first like the BAD nose. Dark skin only ages better cause sun damage is reduced but MJ hasn't had dark skinned for 10 years. He's definetly had a face lift cause his jaw line is extra tight too. His eye lids look to of lost elastcity which doesn't come from just one browlift.

I think MJ hasn't changed much after the late 80s. He has done his nose a couple of times (+ possible fix-operations, but only a coupld of REAL plastic surgeries which really change the nose). He has also done his jaw, or he did that cleft there. Those are for sure. But it could be possible that he hasn't done anything else than his nose and the cleft in his jaw. His cheekbones have always been high, well now they look more high but I guess it's his age...and he didn't get those cheekbones in a day, it took like 10 years for them to change to what they're now.

And I know that MJ has vitiligo. It's not even possible to bleach your skin as much as what MJ has. Maybe he has whitened his skin, but probably because of the disoster. And well, he has had Vitiligo for 20 years now so I guess it has gone quite far already...and he uses A LOT of makeup. I wish he used a bit less, he would look much more normal. He uses so much lipstick...that's why his mouth looks so weird. And his look has changed much because of his skin, I mean that the same nose looks much different when it's white than when it was black...But yeah, he has gone too far, but I'm not surprised when you think about his life. He's a product of american music bussiness. A good product.

About that pic about what MJ should look like. That's so stupid. He looks fat there. Would a guy who weights about 60kgs look like that??
[This message was edited Wed Apr 14 7:58:35 2004 by Hobzie]

I've seen pics where he's "smiling" but he can't really smile...
It looks like his skin is so stretched that he just can't
he looks he's 60
that's sooooo wrong

WildStyle said:

BUT

Novabreaker said:

yes, I dont think the nose would be that large from that picture.. but im pretty sure its going by the fact that the ears and nose never stop growing. Thats a fact.

I don't think the manipulation is anywhere near correct also on the grounds of seeing what he looked like when he was a young adult - before the first operations. I think it's quite questionable that they've done this thing from a photo where he is 11 (or something) instead of using a source picture from the Off The Wall -era. I doubt they would have been too hard to find. So to me the relevancy of this manipulation is pretty close to nil.

Novabreaker, I agree. Let's see a picture from 1977-1979 (pre-surgery but post-adolescence) and see how MJ is supposed to look.

Someone emailed me this flash presentation of a bunch of MJ face pics. He was very handsome up until 1984. (Fifth pic with the red/white striped shirt I remember ).
Click on this: http://www.meehawl.com/Fl...ce%20Melt/
I'd like to see an age-enhanced MJ from the second picture!

does anyone sorta see a similiarity between emancipation-era and the 1984 shot of mj?

MrSquiggle said:

So he actually wanted to look like PRINCE not Diana Ross...

Not true. It's just that they look bigger because other parts of the face change or something like that...this is 100% fact, a doctor told this.

About that flash-animation...the last pic is SO weird. He definitely hasn't looked like that, I mean the nose. It's not like that. It has never been like that. Actually, as you can see his nose hasn't changed much between 1984 and 2004. I don't think he has done like 50 surgeries (that's what they always "prove" in every magazine and tv-show...). More like 10 or a few.

Hobzie said:

SOMEONE's in denial... C'mon, even in the 1984-2004 pics the tip of his nose has gone from a downward rounded shape to a Peter-Pan-pointy upward tip. The contrasting angles of the photos seem to have obscured this for you.

Hobzie said:

yeah, i've seen that pic before... I did not look that(!) horrible... I agree...!

One of the Photos the MJ family didn't want to show. Minie Jackson.

Without the airbrushing, evening of the skin tone, etc. THIS is what he looks like:



Those eyes freak me out. LOVE the eyebrows, though. They look like they're ready to crawl off his face.

Oh, and Michael needs to eat something. 5'11'', 120lbs. WTF, is he Paris Hilton?
[This message was edited Sat Apr 17 5:12:32 2004 by VoicesCarry]

CinisterCee said:

NO, he wanted to look like Sissy Spacek y'all...






.
[This message was edited Sat Apr 17 4:02:42 2004 by CalhounSq]

Emancipation88 said:

Who's that?

CinisterCee said:

That my friend is what I called Codename: Grandma.

He is Evil, Ugly, and act's Like a Grandma. I got his photo and have been editing onto many things.
Be afraid if you bump into him.
[This message was edited Sat Apr 17 4:11:47 2004 by Emancipation88]

The thing about that mugshot is just that it's just a really bad picture of him and, again, he's wearing shitloads of make-up (isn't it supposed to be washed off?). Other than that, the guy looks almost like a human being.

Basically he looks just like a 45-year-old drag queen. Which he quite obviously also is.

Emancipation88 said:

Uh, so who is it again?

tritoncin said:

I've heard that his lupus might be responsible for that as it paralyses skin tissue.

Cloudbuster said:

Michael does not have lupus. Is there any disease known to man that you don't believe he has?

This is what lupus looks like:



It's an autoimmune disease. The body basically attacks itself. No cure.

And his hands would look like http://www.handfixer.com/..._large.jpg, becase it causes rheumatoid arthritis. Dude still dances like a spring chicken, though.
[This message was edited Sat Apr 17 5:21:21 2004 by VoicesCarry]

Ummmm... did you see his hands in court a couple of years ago. One of them looked very much like the pic in the link you put up. His official biographer has said that he has a discoid lupus. I think it's more likely than not.

VoicesCarry said:

just call him. GRANDMA.

Cloudbuster said:

I see, so lupus and vitiligo. What next? He secretes his own pancake makeup?

Those hands are completely arthritic. They cannot be manipulated. Michael does not seem to have a problem with that (or any kinesthetic skills), although his "official biographer" (sanctioned propaganda master?) might have us believe differently.

Additionally, I don't think his internal organs are degenerating at the moment (discoid lupus has that nasty habit).
[This message was edited Sat Apr 17 5:34:50 2004 by VoicesCarry]

VoicesCarry said:

He may well do. And let's remember that most diseases are stress related. That would make a lot of sense. Apparantly he was diagnosed with it in the late 1980's when it originally appeared on his scalp.

Cloudbuster said:

Lupus is genetic. Runs in families. It is not "stress-related"
[This message was edited Sat Apr 17 5:40:44 2004 by VoicesCarry]

Emancipation88 said:

Jigga what?

VoicesCarry said:

Well, let's see, then.

Types of Lupus

There are three types of lupus: discoid, systemic, and drug-induced. Discoid lupus is always limited to the skin. It is identified by a rash that may appear on the face, neck and scalp. Discoid lupus is diagnosed by examining a biopsy of the rash. In discoid lupus the biopsy will show abnormalities that are not found in skin without the rash. Discoid lupus does not generally involve the body's internal organs. Therefore, the ANA test, a blood test used to detect systemic lupus, may be negative in patients with discoid lupus. However, in a large number of patients with discoid lupus, the ANA test is positive, but at a low level or "titer."
In approximately 10 percent of the people with lupus, discoid lupus can evolve into the systemic form of the disease, which can affect almost any organ or system of the body. This cannot be predicted or prevented. Treatment of discoid lupus will not prevent its progression to the systemic form. Individuals who progress to the systemic form probably had systemic lupus at the outset, with the discoid rash as their main symptom. Systemic lupus is usually more severe than discoid lupus, and can affect almost any organ or system of the body. For some people, only the skin and joints will be involved. In others, the joints, lungs, kidneys, blood or other organs and/or tissues may be affected.

Generally, no two people with systemic lupus will have identical symptoms. Systemic lupus may include periods in which few, if any, symptoms are evident (remission) and other times when the disease becomes more active (flare). Most often when people mention "lupus," they are referring to the systemic form of the disease.

Drug-induced lupus occurs after the use of certain prescribed drugs. The symptoms of drug-induced lupus are similar to those of systemic lupus. The drugs most commonly connected with drug-induced lupus are hydralazine (used to treat high blood pressure or hypertension) and procainamide (used to treat irregular heart rhythms). However, not everyone who takes these drugs will develop drug-induced lupus. Only about 4 percent of the people who take these drugs will develop the antibodies suggestive of lupus. Of those 4 percent, only an extremely small number will develop overt drug-induced lupus. The symptoms usually fade when the medications are discontinued. Although drug-induced lupus and discoid lupus share features of systemic lupus, the rest of this brochure primarily discusses systemic lupus.


Cause

The cause(s) of lupus is unknown, but environmental and genetic factors are involved. While scientists believe there is a genetic predisposition to the disease, it is known that environmental factors also play a critical role in triggering lupus. Some of the environmental factors that may trigger the disease are: infections, antibiotics (especially those in the sulfa and penicillin groups), ultraviolet light, extreme stress, and certain drugs.
Although lupus is known to occur within families, there is no known gene or genes which are thought to cause the illness. Only 10 percent of lupus patients will have a close relative (parent or sibling) who already has or may develop lupus. Statistics show that only about 5% of the children born to individuals with lupus will develop the illness.


Well, that debunks a few of your comments.

.
[This message was edited Sat Apr 17 7:21:00 2004 by Cloudbuster]