Simpsons pulling episode with Michael Jackson from streaming/future box sets - Sensationalist Headlines

Agreed that they're a conspiracy loon, but, we've also told you time and time again that a documentary with no factual evidence to back up it's emotionally manipulative claims also has arguments that don't make sense. Multiple court cases being thrown out and him being found innocent just furthers our point. And yet here you are.

btw. From that court hearing. This is why he lied. https://youtu.be/jzF4kfFugmI

You're not going to give this up any time soon and your entire argument is based on hearsay by these guys in a documentary that is literally designed to make you believe it despite no substantiated claims and evidence. So, I'm done here.

Yeah. I'm the guy who's spouting that shit. Meanwhile you fucking posted word for word a conspiracy theory that was ripped off of r/conspiracy.

Can you stop it with the conspiracy crap already?

Cool yourself off, lad. Seriously.

It's a good thing that that conspiracy guy's video isn't being used as evidence -- where credibility would matter -- but rather to share his argument.

What I want to know is how MJ was such a master criminal that he managed to hide evidence through constant surveillance and several raids on his home.

Two words for you Beat it

I initially posted them because - even if the youtubers aren't exactly entirely credible - what they're saying is something that can be checked. So far no ones even tried to address that the documentary seems to have had multiple takes, or the other video showing a voice clip being edited to give it a different negative meaning than it had. I'd be perfectly fine with admitting that their claims are wrong (as I did with the running time), but those are quite suspicious things that can be directly addressed rather than just going "don't believe them, they have conspiracy videos" as if that's enough on its own.

How can it "further your point" when you had none? You're trying to make something out of nothing here and it doesn't work. People are arguing against you in completely valid ways and you switch it up by saying "but it's a conspiracy tard, how can you trust them, here's their youtube channel", that isn't called furthering your point, it's called moving the goalposts.

I guess he's just Bad

I gotta be honest here, between the early pages with Rusty, Ak'z, and HumanAbyss, and now Death-trooper, this might just be the thread with the most terrible quality of arguments that aren't just straight up shitposting I remember. I like MJ's music, always have, but for a good while I did find it easy to believe MJ had diddled kids due to the media circus years back, but reading this thread has made me gain a whole new perspective on the man himself and on the accusations. I didn't even fucking know he had a stunted childhood. I don't know how anyone can find an emotionally manipulative documentary more compelling than decades of FBI investigation and two unannounced raids on MJ's property. Do you know what that entails? In a high-profile case like this with implications as serious as this you scour everything, you look for stains and traces of bodily fluids on bed sheets and mattresses. Everything has been thoroughly investigated, how can you sit here and bring up old "evidence" as if time suddenly makes it more valid? How can you trust a documentary like this, a biased and emotionally charged documentary complete with le sad music to make sure you know this is sad, any more than you trust an Ancient Aliens episode on the History channel?

What is bad about multiple takes? As far as I know, that is pretty standard.

Welcome to documentary editing 101. None of what you mentioned is out of the ordinary

I just registered again to come point out a couple of things. I couldn't log on to my older account (hope a mod could help?). First things first, you kept complaining "where the US is going?" Yet you don't seem to accept a 10-years lasting FBI surveillance as proof of innocence. Second, you kept asking for someone to point out false things from the documentary; I'l gladly post some links later, I'm on my phone, but in the documentary as far as I remember they burnt some of MJ's stuff, im reality Wade had sold these already and they burned replicas. They had stories of going to places wih MJ and in reality MJ was on world tour. It was absolutely nonsense. Third, it seems like the only touch to MJ's persona for you is through media outlets and a bad documentary, how about trying to get to know the man behind the mask first?

So maybe we shouldn't be using documentaries as sole evidence of guilt...... You're not defending the MJ documentary when you say this, you're just making every documentary look bad.

Are you seriously accusing other people of spouting shit when you have literally zero evidence beyond an emotionally manipulative monetarily driven pseudo-"documentary" which has confirmed fabricated lies in it? Multiple FBI raids on MJ's house found nothing, two police investigations found nothing, decades of public scrutiny have amounted to nothing that can actually be confirmed, theres confirmed accounts of accusers having lied, the step-father of the kid for the original accusation is on record essentially gloating about how cool his extortion scheme is going to be, what exactly is it going to take for you to even entertain the concept that there might be something shady, perhaps monetarily driven going on behind these cases?

why are you putting a documentary on the same ground as a trial a trial is literally designed to try to determine the truth in an unbiased manner a documentary is not designed to be unbiased - nor are the awards he received for journalistic merit or integrity The film's director, Dan Reed, acknowledged not wanting to interview other key figures because it might complicate or compromise the story he wanted to tell https://youtu.be/tPdTmWwK8Rs?t=198 And where did you get the idea that the documentary isn't made for the money? The documentary is a commercial product that is making bank for HBO. The director is probably earning a lot from this and getting his name in the spotlight. It's silly to suggest HBO isn't publishing this doc for the money. The lawsuit claims he been struggling with his work and can't work because he associates his work with michael jackson's abuse, therefore he needs money from the jackson estate Q: Shane [Wade's brother] testified this week that he was worried about his ability to support his family and financial concerns. Did he share that with you? The Witness: I don't remember him saying -- not at that time. I mean, I Know at some point it -- it was a real concern for him, because he'd always had such an amazing career. And -- and you tend to live at a standard according to what you're earning. And then if -- if that went away, then there -- there was a concern, yes Lynette Joy Robson Deposition pg 218 & 2198

I'm sure lots of documentaries with interviews end up having multiple takes and there could be all sorts of reasons for the different takes, but it's absurd for people to say things like "Look at the way they talk about it, they can't be lying!" when there's there's clearly been several different takes cobbled together to appear to be one cohesive interview. As for the voice clip, yes, obviously documentaries will shorten things to remove unneccesary information...but are you really excusing editing a voice clip in such a way as to give it an entirely different cnegative context that just so happens to fit their narrative? That is not something an unbiased documentary would do.

I'm not, I haven't even seen it. By saying documentaries get multiple takes from interviewees and using archival footage in such a way as to add a different context to it? Like I said, that's standard practice. Sometimes interviewees fumble what they're trying to say, or say it in a way that could require clarification or just plain say it too fast or too slow and the director might ask for them to repeat what they said. And yes, docs have biases and yes docs are created to elicit emotional responses, just like every other film out there. They have stories to tell, and whether or not you believe in them by the end is up to you.

They cannot prove sexual contact, they did prove sexual assault, the same assault Louis CK perpetrated. Two of the witnesses identified jackson's genitals and provided a visual description beforehand which matched the photos without a face present from a photo lineup of 5 individuals. While that could indeed be coincidence or even coercion by the police, there is very high likelihood it isn't, and for two witnesses to pick the same set of features without prompting or cross corroboration is pretty damning. Jackson suffered from the skin discoloration disease vitiligo. Chandler drew a picture of the markings on the underside of Jackson’s penis. His drawings were sealed in an envelope. A few months later, investigators photographed Jackson’s genitalia. The photographs matched Chandler’s drawings. People also tend to forget there were two cases, not one. Jackson was acquitted in one, and the other which contained the above photographic evidence was settled out of court for 25 million dollars. Jackson also had an alarm system in floor leading to his bedroom, an alarm that was armed in the daytime when the house was open. Whether or not he had penetrative sex can be disputed until the cows come home, that he exposed himself to kids regularly isn't really up for debate.

People keep saying his bedroom was ridiculously huge, i cant find anything about that when I google it, can someone point me in the direction of some resources which discuss how large his bedroom actually was?

https://youtu.be/QeQFGT5Jbgo?t=79

His actual bedroom was pretty big but not huge, although apparently people referred to a whole wing of his house as his bedroom even though it consisted of several guest rooms and other entertainment rooms.

Source for this claimed lineup? Not only did the grand jury disagree with police about whether the picture matched, Chandler claimed MJ was circumcised when his autopsy shows he was not. The pictures have never been released so we can not judge them ourselves. The Chandlers also refused to testify in the 1993 criminal trial - the settlement did not prevent them from doing so. They settled because MJ started abusing drugs as a result of the allegations, stopped eating, and cancelled an tour. MJ didn't settle, his legal team did while he was seeking medical help. A lengthy trial would have been horrible for his health and his public image regardless of whether he was innocent or not. Jackson was largely portrayed as guilty by the media,which used sensational headlines implying guilt when the content itself did not support the headline, purchased stories of his alleged criminal activity leaked material from the police investigation, and deliberately used unflattering photographs. 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson

I worked in the film industry for a time. I did a few documentaries. The easiest way to get the best shot coverage possible is to do a 3 camera interview setup. You can literally grab any, and all shots in whatever framing you want to, as an editor, it's a grab bag of choice. I'm not saying they didn't do multiple takes, but your argument that they did because of multiple cameras isn't exactly solid.

Also, what exactly is the bad thing about multiple takes? I'm trying to understand what's negative about that. Are people thinking the multiple takes is them fucking up a hypothetical script or what?

Probably more like they believe it’s the director or interviewee trying to milk the testimony so it’s more “emotional” and therefore convincing.

I feel like people are mixing up "Emotional words" with "Emotional Topics". Cause they're basically explaining what happened as down to earth as possible. its just what they're talking about is fucked up. Like i could explain something that's fucked up casually, you'd be able to still discern that it's fucked up on its own. Like, it doesn't need any "Emotionally loaded words" to make the explanation of sex abuse to sound fucked up as shit. Cause news flash. Its Sex Abuse.