Day dop 09.11.2014 19:05 |
... or something like that. See > link |
Nitroboy 09.11.2014 20:51 |
Lama or chimp... Either way, it's still hilarious incident, and it cracks me up every time I read about it. |
Ale Solan 09.11.2014 21:16 |
I bet Jacko not only liked to rape children but also part of his zoo. (if not all) Fucking lunatic. |
matt z 09.11.2014 22:44 |
^he was raised a Jehovah's witness. He looked up to HIS MOTHER like a saint. He was full of empathy and shy He watched his dad and brother's screw groupies sometimes in the same room. He worked at strip joints late nights before getting up to go to school the next day. He was repeatedly abused by his dad along with his siblings And it's been suggested that he was "lent out to studio execs etc" some nights to do God knows what. If he had his millions and built a sanctuary then so be it. He earned it. That's what Neverland WAS . As the recordings took place in Encino, it wasn't yet the animal sanctuary he had in Neverland. Boa, chimp, llamas. Now to the extent that things happened according to allegations who really knows. The allegations much like legislation had it's own set of "riders" The first being the Chandler kids nearly estranged father who wanted Michael (rich famous family friend now) to back his production company for films (upwards of 15-20 million) when Michael refused, he put his kid under sodium amythal (hereafter known to be suspect with "planted memories") So those allegations are not without reasonable doubt. The second allegations were by a con artist and were absurd. Until you get the Chandler Kid to tell his own story both are marred by inconsistencies. As for raping animals... That's crazy. |
Riku M 10.11.2014 09:31 |
matt z wrote: ^he was raised a Jehovah's witness. He looked up to HIS MOTHER like a saint. He was full of empathy and shy He watched his dad and brother's screw groupies sometimes in the same room. He worked at strip joints late nights before getting up to go to school the next day. He was repeatedly abused by his dad along with his siblings And it's been suggested that he was "lent out to studio execs etc" some nights to do God knows what. If he had his millions and built a sanctuary then so be it. He earned it. That's what Neverland WAS . As the recordings took place in Encino, it wasn't yet the animal sanctuary he had in Neverland. Boa, chimp, llamas. Now to the extent that things happened according to allegations who really knows. The allegations much like legislation had it's own set of "riders" The first being the Chandler kids nearly estranged father who wanted Michael (rich famous family friend now) to back his production company for films (upwards of 15-20 million) when Michael refused, he put his kid under sodium amythal (hereafter known to be suspect with "planted memories") So those allegations are not without reasonable doubt. The second allegations were by a con artist and were absurd. Until you get the Chandler Kid to tell his own story both are marred by inconsistencies. As for raping animals... That's crazy.Nice to read some common sense every once in a while. The hate against Michael and the amount of shit throwing on this site is really sad. |
Costa86 10.11.2014 10:37 |
No matter which way you put it, Michael Jackson was a rather disturbed personality. Yes, he had a very very unique life with circumstances (abuse from his father, being so famous at such a young age, having to dedicate himself to singing and dancing, not having had a childhood, etc) which can in a way explain his behaviour. But it is impossible to defend completely his behaviour concerning children. While we can say with confidence that some people took the opportunity to use child abuse as a way of getting money from Michael Jackson, I don't think we can dismiss every single (and there are many) claim of improper conduct on his part towards children. One child, for instance, described Michael's penis - and he described it correctly (apparently MJ had some indentifying marks/skin colour on his penis) - how else would this child have known what to describe except by having seen it? Added to this there are countless - literally - of stories, told by a variety of people, some of which stood to gain nothing, of Michael behaving in an abnormal way around children. |
Toon_86 10.11.2014 10:46 |
Not too sure about what David Wigg writes these days. The legend of Freddie / Jackson recording seems to grow continuously. The only accurate description I believe is in Peter Freestone's book, which doesn't mention anything about llama's or chimps in the studio and, unlike the story in the link, seems to indicate that Freddie was only there for 1 day. He also wrote a piece about Freddie finding out about his HIV status as early as 1984. That must be BS. So Freddie would tell a journalist that, but not people he lived with, like Phoebe again. One of the things that his book does mention, but I've not seen on QZ is Freddie was never diagnosed with HIV, but AIDS immediately. |
Ale Solan 10.11.2014 10:53 |
Riku M wrote: Nice to read some common sense every once in a while. The hate against Michael and the amount of shit throwing on this site is really sad.Here you have some common sense, cocksucker. Costa86 wrote: No matter which way you put it, Michael Jackson was a rather disturbed personality. Yes, he had a very very unique life with circumstances (abuse from his father, being so famous at such a young age, having to dedicate himself to singing and dancing, not having had a childhood, etc) which can in a way explain his behaviour. But it is impossible to defend completely his behaviour concerning children. While we can say with confidence that some people took the opportunity to use child abuse as a way of getting money from Michael Jackson, I don't think we can dismiss every single (and there are many) claim of improper conduct on his part towards children. One child, for instance, described Michael's penis - and he described it correctly (apparently MJ had some indentifying marks/skin colour on his penis) - how else would this child have known what to describe except by having seen it? Added to this there are countless - literally - of stories, told by a variety of people, some of which stood to gain nothing, of Michael behaving in an abnormal way around children. |
Thistle 10.11.2014 10:57 |
Brilliant post Matt! Wish the MJ bashing would stop. Yes, he was a disturbed individual - no wonder. Yes, some of the crazy shit he did was fun to parody. BUT, I really don't think he was abusing children (or animals, you sick fuck Solan ;) :p) |
Thistle 10.11.2014 11:30 |
Costa86 wrote: One child, for instance, described Michael's penis - and he described it correctly (apparently MJ had some indentifying marks/skin colour on his penis) - how else would this child have known what to describe except by having seen it? Added to this there are countless - literally - of stories, told by a variety of people, some of which stood to gain nothing, of Michael behaving in an abnormal way around children.I haven't heard that before, but there are other explanations aside from the "obvious". It's no secret that he had kids stay over at Neverland. Whilst it doesn't sound the best, the child in question could have inadvertently caught glimpse as MJ was changing? Or maybe he's walked in on him in the lavvy? Or maybe they went swimming and his trunks fell off? ;) |
matt z 10.11.2014 11:59 |
As for MJ I just said it seems nobody can say for sure. The only things I scrutinize are comments from past friends ofhis who had nothing to gain talking about him. Even those have suggestive leanings. This first posthumous allegation was broadcast on entertainment tonight etc. Then corey Feldman went out and "tweeted" something to the effect of "why don't you leave it alone. Michael was good to you, helped you with your house etc. " THAT bit sounds REALLY questionable. I don't have the exact quote. Another was in the Bashir "documentary" when asked about the allegations Michael used selective somewhat evasive words. "I would never harm a child. I'd slit my wrists before I.... etc" He said HARM although that wasn't the word used in the question. Things like that. Yeah. He's suspect. I always figured him for being an absolute loner with no peers. He WAS in fact alienated by fame (stranger in Moscow" being one of his best to sum it up) So. When he befriended the odd family (there are a few examples including Deepak Chopra's family and kids) you can never know. The Latoya Jackson statement has since been retracted as a lie her husband told her to say to sell a story (he'd also abused her for years and once tried to make her strip for strangers at a club) Who knows. She wasn't a talented one and she's a fame monster and hard to believe. He was the cash cow and the family squandered a ton of his money. Anyways. I wonder if any if the people involved will ever come out and substantially confirm or disprove those stories. Anyways, I'd read it was a llama. All I was saying was geez. After the uniquely twisted life he lived why aren't people grateful he didn't go apeshit and kill someone? . Who the fark even knows. |
winterspelt 10.11.2014 12:04 |
When Jacko died the "abused children" did an interview claiming that Jacko never did anything to him or any other children, said it was all his father's idea and apologized to MJ's family... And still people try to punish the poor guy for something he didnt did. A topic about Jacko's llama suddendly became an attack against MJ and the fake accusations against him... |
Chief Mouse 10.11.2014 13:03 |
Everyone who has interest in Jackson's life in his final years (2007-2009) should read this. It's written by 2 MJ's bodyguards. It's probably closest you can get to understanding him. Written exactly as these bodyguards saw it. link |
Oscar J 10.11.2014 13:47 |
Ale Solan wrote: Here you have some common sense, cocksucker.Why you seem like a nice guy... |
master marathon runner 10.11.2014 14:26 |
/\ /\ Yeah, exactly, I call this fucker the"pumpkin headed nanny goat" - got to be the biggest, most witless baboon in history! Ale friggin who? |
Ale Solan 10.11.2014 15:46 |
Thistleboy1980 wrote: Brilliant post Matt! Wish the MJ bashing would stop. Yes, he was a disturbed individual - no wonder. Yes, some of the crazy shit he did was fun to parody. BUT, I really don't think he was abusing children (or animals, you sick fuck Solan ;) :p)LOL :P |
Ale Solan 10.11.2014 15:47 |
|
Ale Solan 10.11.2014 20:25 |
">link |
GreatKingSam 11.11.2014 05:07 |
There you have it - proof! If only they'd used this in court... One thing people who are so determined to bash Michael Jackson fail to note... Given Michael Jackson was, lets face it, the most famous and known person in the world, and you'd be hard pushed to find someone who hadn't heard of the allegations/accusations made against him - why were parents still letting their children stay at his house as late as the early-mid 2000s...? Speaks volumes. That fact alone, for me, shines a lot of light on things. You've got a guy, who has everything and nothing, with a childlike mind - just wants to be friends with people who don't want something from him. And you've got parents who recognise this, and see a man with a big heart and a lot of money and no sense. What MJ bashers fail to see is, in these discussions, people aren't saying "HE'S INNOCENT", they're simply saying "but what's been said doesn't quite make sense, does it?". Yawn. |
Hoopsie 11.11.2014 05:23 |
matt z wrote: ^he was raised a Jehovah's witness. He looked up to HIS MOTHER like a saint. He was full of empathy and shy He watched his dad and brother's screw groupies sometimes in the same room. He worked at strip joints late nights before getting up to go to school the next day. He was repeatedly abused by his dad along with his siblings And it's been suggested that he was "lent out to studio execs etc" some nights to do God knows what. If he had his millions and built a sanctuary then so be it. He earned it. That's what Neverland WAS . As the recordings took place in Encino, it wasn't yet the animal sanctuary he had in Neverland. Boa, chimp, llamas. Now to the extent that things happened according to allegations who really knows. The allegations much like legislation had it's own set of "riders" The first being the Chandler kids nearly estranged father who wanted Michael (rich famous family friend now) to back his production company for films (upwards of 15-20 million) when Michael refused, he put his kid under sodium amythal (hereafter known to be suspect with "planted memories") So those allegations are not without reasonable doubt. The second allegations were by a con artist and were absurd. Until you get the Chandler Kid to tell his own story both are marred by inconsistencies. As for raping animals... That's crazy.THANK YOU. |
Costa86 11.11.2014 05:27 |
I'd really like to believe that MJ was a guy who never abused children - that he was just this ultra mega-star whose upbringing, fame and fortune lead him to behave in very strange ways. But, somehow, it just all seems a bit too weird and suspicious, as Matt said. I just can't understand why a grown man would have strangers' kids sleeping in his bed. I mean, can you imagine sleeping in MJ's bed as a kid? The guy looked creepy as hell, with his low voice and plastic nose. I sure as hell wouldn't want to sleep in his bed, and I'm 27. Grown men shouldn't sleep with kids who aren't their own - it's fucked up, I'm sorry. As I said, I wish to believe MJ didn't do anything inappropriate, but I just can't. |
GreatKingSam 11.11.2014 06:03 |
Thing is, as stupid as semantics are in this sort of scenario, he wasn't necessarily in the bed with them. Whilst it is odd to have children round for a sleepover as a grown man - no matter your upbringing or conditioning etc - it's not illegal. And again, as per my previous point, who does it say more about - him for doing it, or the parents for allowing it? Especially allowing it when you know the guy has previous, be that manufactured by someone's greed or by actual guilt. |
Costa86 11.11.2014 06:10 |
GreatKingSam wrote: Thing is, as stupid as semantics are in this sort of scenario, he wasn't necessarily in the bed with them. Whilst it is odd to have children round for a sleepover as a grown man - no matter your upbringing or conditioning etc - it's not illegal. And again, as per my previous point, who does it say more about - him for doing it, or the parents for allowing it? Especially allowing it when you know the guy has previous, be that manufactured by someone's greed or by actual guilt.I absolutely agree re the parents being irresponsible or just stupidly naive. |
GreatKingSam 11.11.2014 06:14 |
Would you not say that sheds a little bit of light on this scenario... a naive, rich, famous, lonely guy who had an upbringing that conditioned him a certain way, being taken advantage of...? Drop any petty hatred or whatever, and look at the facts. No one is denying that having kids round for a sleepover isn't weird, but add the "reasoning" to it, and the motives of others, and it paints an extremely different picture to "he's a rapist". |
Costa86 11.11.2014 07:37 |
GreatKingSam wrote: Would you not say that sheds a little bit of light on this scenario... a naive, rich, famous, lonely guy who had an upbringing that conditioned him a certain way, being taken advantage of...? Drop any petty hatred or whatever, and look at the facts. No one is denying that having kids round for a sleepover isn't weird, but add the "reasoning" to it, and the motives of others, and it paints an extremely different picture to "he's a rapist".That's what I'd like to think. But, somehow, it almost sounds too good to be true that he was just a lonely and strange guy - a creature of his circumstances. Recently (2013) Wade Robson (that dancer guy from MTV who coached Britney Spears) said that MJ sexually abused him for a number of years. Is this guy also a liar (well, in a sense he is most definitely a liar, because during the 2005 trial, he said that Michael never abused him)? What's the motive behind him saying this? There are so many other allegations, including from people who worked with him, like maids. |
GreatKingSam 11.11.2014 08:05 |
There's a theme with all the allegations though - they're all from people who want something, no-mark "celebs" or greedy parents. Like someone said on the previous page, what's never spoken about (and pretty much outright dismissed as irrelevant in terms of support for MJ) are things like Jordy Chandler's dad... Michael befriends the family, pays for holidays, shopping trips, brings them to awards etc... yet the second the dad wants him to pay for an extension on the house, or fund his screenplay (Robin Hood: Men In Tights) and Michael says no... oh look, court case. And, for every book written with so-called evidence, there are books written that suggest nothing happened. So, where is the line drawn? I just like to look at what's in front of us. What we know of the man (his upbringing, his naivety etc.), and what we know of the court cases and accusations (questionable motives from the accusers). It's fascinating that people only want to focus on the salacious side of the man, the things that "prove" his guilt, never at the obvious stuff that also points to the fact of a man getting taken advantage of... such as the Arvizo family. That little court case where he was found not guilty on all counts, and the mother was pretty much left ridiculed due to her ever changing tales. Chandler scenario aside, that final case is what ruined the guy. A case that was built on a greedy person's lies, and the desire of a burned district attorney. So sad. |
Riku M 11.11.2014 09:46 |
Ale Solan wrote:I think you just proved my point....Riku M wrote: Nice to read some common sense every once in a while. The hate against Michael and the amount of shit throwing on this site is really sad.Here you have some common sense, cocksucker.Costa86 wrote: No matter which way you put it, Michael Jackson was a rather disturbed personality. Yes, he had a very very unique life with circumstances (abuse from his father, being so famous at such a young age, having to dedicate himself to singing and dancing, not having had a childhood, etc) which can in a way explain his behaviour. But it is impossible to defend completely his behaviour concerning children. While we can say with confidence that some people took the opportunity to use child abuse as a way of getting money from Michael Jackson, I don't think we can dismiss every single (and there are many) claim of improper conduct on his part towards children. One child, for instance, described Michael's penis - and he described it correctly (apparently MJ had some indentifying marks/skin colour on his penis) - how else would this child have known what to describe except by having seen it? Added to this there are countless - literally - of stories, told by a variety of people, some of which stood to gain nothing, of Michael behaving in an abnormal way around children. |
Day dop 11.11.2014 13:10 |
This video is absolute proof he was guilty. |
Jazz 78 11.11.2014 13:43 |
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The tears in my eyes from laughing so hard will probably drown me!!!! |
brENsKi 11.11.2014 14:48 |
Riku M wrote:well chimps do throw shitmatt z wrote: As the recordings took place in Encino, it wasn't yet the animal sanctuary he had in Neverland. Boa, chimp, llamas.Nice to read some common sense every once in a while. The hate against Michael and the amount of shit throwing on this site is really sad. |
Costa86 11.11.2014 15:12 |
GreatKingSam wrote: There's a theme with all the allegations though - they're all from people who want something, no-mark "celebs" or greedy parents. Like someone said on the previous page, what's never spoken about (and pretty much outright dismissed as irrelevant in terms of support for MJ) are things like Jordy Chandler's dad... Michael befriends the family, pays for holidays, shopping trips, brings them to awards etc... yet the second the dad wants him to pay for an extension on the house, or fund his screenplay (Robin Hood: Men In Tights) and Michael says no... oh look, court case. And, for every book written with so-called evidence, there are books written that suggest nothing happened. So, where is the line drawn? I just like to look at what's in front of us. What we know of the man (his upbringing, his naivety etc.), and what we know of the court cases and accusations (questionable motives from the accusers). It's fascinating that people only want to focus on the salacious side of the man, the things that "prove" his guilt, never at the obvious stuff that also points to the fact of a man getting taken advantage of... such as the Arvizo family. That little court case where he was found not guilty on all counts, and the mother was pretty much left ridiculed due to her ever changing tales. Chandler scenario aside, that final case is what ruined the guy. A case that was built on a greedy person's lies, and the desire of a burned district attorney. So sad.You may be right mate, but the indelible truth is that Michael Jackson will forever be tainted in people's memory by allegations of child abuse. Incidentally, these allegations seem to be being thrown around at liberty in this post-Savile world of ours. Our Freddie died before all this crap started - he will forever be remembered as a god who walked on Earth. |
Ale Solan 11.11.2014 22:30 |
brENsKi wrote:">linkRiku M wrote:well chimps do throw shitmatt z wrote: As the recordings took place in Encino, it wasn't yet the animal sanctuary he had in Neverland. Boa, chimp, llamas.Nice to read some common sense every once in a while. The hate against Michael and the amount of shit throwing on this site is really sad. |
Day dop 12.11.2014 20:03 |
^ That's a nifty move. I'll have to practice that. |
The Real Wizard 12.11.2014 20:21 |
Costa86 wrote: the indelible truth is that Michael Jackson will forever be tainted in people's memory by allegations of child abuse.Him and a ton of other people. It's a career killer, even if they're later proven innocent. A week after MJ died, the father of the first boy with so-called molestation accusations committed suicide. Guilty much? The rest is history. And the jokes seen in this thread and elsewhere are precisely why he's dead. We, the public, and our desire to eat celebrities alive, are ultimately what killed him. |
GreatKingSam 16.11.2014 06:35 |
"And the jokes seen in this thread and elsewhere are precisely why he's dead. We, the public, and our desire to eat celebrities alive, are ultimately what killed him." Thank you. I tried to write this sentiment earlier on, but couldn't be bothered. People who will only have one blinkered view on a topic don't seem to realise that it actually says more about them than it does about the person they're criticising. It also goes unnoticed that those who 'defend' people like Michael Jackson aren't actually just simply being fan boys about it, they're just presenting another side to facts in a quite open way. "HE'S A RAPIST!", "Well, what about so-and-so demanding lots of money from him prior to the accusation?", "NAH, HE'S A PAEDO". Brilliant, lolz. |