Red faction
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 208
- Points
- 0
it was a joke
-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
Debunking Michael Jackson haters
- Thread starter anime_kitty_gal
- Start date
it was a joke
Skipadeedoodah
Verified
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 16,593
- Points
- 38
Can I just say two things?
1.) I love all the creative spellings of pedophile in this thread.
2.) On topic at 1:45
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wWBQu4in3xo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wWBQu4in3xo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
1.) I love all the creative spellings of pedophile in this thread.
2.) On topic at 1:45
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wWBQu4in3xo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wWBQu4in3xo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
anime_kitty_gal
Registered User
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Messages
- 47
- Points
- 0
I know, right?
Isn't this such an interesting conversation?
It's like, you think you know the answer, but I also think I know the answer.
We totally need to talk about this more.
Here's my thing: he was definitely a child molester.
Now you go.
Prove it.
D
Deleted member 66627
Guest
Dussicar
2nd Level Green Feather
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2003
- Messages
- 4,267
- Points
- 0
Usually, when there is a heated debate about something like this, I tend to interject with "That dude? Isn't he, like, dead or something?"
Under the circumstances, this rather obviously takes the piss out of my attempt at smarmy interlude.
I go now!
Under the circumstances, this rather obviously takes the piss out of my attempt at smarmy interlude.
I go now!
anime_kitty_gal
Registered User
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Messages
- 47
- Points
- 0
Might as well post this again. Doubt anyone will read it though. Probebly won't understand half the words.
First: Diane Dimond claimed that 20 adult males testified against Jackson. That's untrue. 32 adult males testified saying that Michael DIDN'T rape them. Only two testified saying that Michael had raped them. One of them admitted that he was lying. The other, Gavin, was just RIDDICULOUS.
Second: Jordan Chandler's Case: In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal—which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson. A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year [1994] that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with allegations. Asked for this article about his use of the drug on the boy, Torbiner replied: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.”
Given the facts about sodium Amytal and a recent landmark case that involved the drug, the boy’s allegations, say several medical experts, must be viewed as unreliable, if not highly questionable.
“It’s a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact,” says Dr. Resnick, the Cleveland psychiatrist. “eople are very suggestible under it. People will say things under sodium Amytal that are blatantly untrue.” Sodium Amytal is a barbiturate, an invasive drug that puts people in a hypnotic state when it’s injected intravenously. Primarily administered for the treatment of amnesia, it first came into use during World War II, on soldiers traumatized—some into catatonic states—by the horrors of war. Scientific studies done in 1952 debunked the drug as a truth serum and instead demonstrated its risks: False memories can be easily implanted in those under its influence. “It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question,” says Resnick. But its effects are apparently even more insidious: “The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened,” says Resnick.
Recently, the reliability of the drug became an issue in a high-profile trial in Napa County, California. After undergoing numerous therapy sessions, at least one of which included the use of sodium Amytal, 20-year-old Holly Ramona accused her father of molesting her as a child. Gary Ramona vehemently denied the charge and sued his daughter’s therapist and the psychiatrist who had administered the drug. This past May, jurors sided with Gary Ramona, believing that the therapist and the psychiatrist may have reinforced memories that were false. Gary Ramona’s was the first successful legal challenge to the so-called “repressed memory phenomenon” that has produced thousands of sexual-abuse allegations over the past decade.
As for Chandler’s story about using the drug to sedate his son during a tooth extraction, that too seems dubious, in light of the drug’s customary use. “It’s absolutely a psychiatric drug,” says Dr. Kenneth Gottlieb, a San Francisco psychiatrist who has administeredsodium Amytal to amnesia patients. Dr. John Yagiela, the coordinator of the anesthesia and pain control department of UCLA’s school of dentistry, adds, “It’s unusual for it to be used [for pulling a tooth]. It makes no sense when better, safer alternatives are available. It would not be my choice.”
During the trial, no evidence from the prosecution side was produced (and the prosecution spent millions and millions: it was the most expensive trial in history), and, according to court documents, the kids couldn't keep their story straight. They would contradict themselves on court. The kid [accuser], Gavin Arvizo, even admitted he was lying, after being confronted with his brother's contradiction, while talking about account 6.
Moreover, the mother of Gavin, Janet Arvizo, had a history of trying to work the system to her benefit (she even robbed a charity institution...). I was fortunate enough to read courtroom transcripts and all I can say is not once did he, Michael Jackson, ever have anything to worry about.
The majority of his 'accusers' (including MacCauly Culkin) found the allegations laughable and the only teen who cried abuse gave testimony that was RIDDICULED with innacuracies (even the jurors started giggling one time, during Jason's testimony).
Many people will admit that they never even researched about the 2005 Child Molestation Case and still say that Michael Jackson is guilty. However, if they knew the facts, their opinion would be quite different.
It was known that the accuser, Gavin Arvizo, was a thief and a very unbehaved young man. He had previously had many suspensions and detentions because of his behavior in school. George Lopez, the well know comedian, testified in court that young Gavin Arvizo had stolen 40 dollars from his wallet in the previous months. He [Lopez] would give money to the family (who kept asking for more) and was accused of having stolen 300 dollars from the family by Janet.
Gavin Arvizo's mother, Janet Arvizo, was pending a fine for assaulting a security guard at a JCPenney's and stealing over $1,000,000 worth of merchandise from that store. As you can see, the accuser and the accuser's family were well known scammers.
So, how could you believe the story of the molestation, when Gavin Arvizo himself admitted, before the trial, to his teacher and 4 other attorneys, that Michael Jackson never molested him?
The media's coverage of this case was awful. They never showed to the public the defence side and that's why everyone got surprised when Jackson was acquitted.
Without a shadow of a doubt Michael Jackson was innocent in this case and the accusers were just out for cash. They had conned celebrities, charities and police departments before, but their target in this case was not about to roll over as they expected. Now, seriously, you should read court transcripts!!! You will die laughing; Davelin Arvizo, sister of the accuser, "forgot" to mention Michael Jackson had given her alcohol back when she talked to the cops, but of course remembered MJ given her alcohol on the stand. The Who "would believe me?" excuse given by 4 prosecution witnesses as to why they never called the cops is laughable. Jason cries over his balls being tickled (perhaps he just cries because he would lose the 2.5 millions of dollars he got from "National Enquirer" to lie against Jackson?).
As I said, Janet Arvizo had previously sued JC Penney's for alleged assault and molestation. In which her sons Star and Gavin testified and were later proven to have lied on the stand. During Star Arvizo's testimony, he explained the molestation act that Michael had supposedly performed on Gavin Arvizo. While I will not go into details, I can tell you that it was a completely different story than Gavin told. Read court transcripts. One big flaw in the prosecutions case is the time line of events. Tom Sneddon claimed that the molestation occurred AFTER the airing of the Martin Bashir "Living With Michael Jackson" documentary. Sneddon claimed that after the airing of the documentary, Jackson's people did everything in their power, including forcing the Arvizo's to make a rebuttal video in which the Arvizo's claim that everything stated was coached by Jackson's team, however (here's where it gets interesting), according to Sneddon and Gavin Arvizo, the molestation occurred AFTER this series of events. If Michael Jackson was already being questioned by almost every news media outlet about his involvment in Gavin Arvizo's life after the Bashir airing, WHY would he molest the child during that time? Why would he put himself in that position when people are already questioning his actions? The time line makes no sense.
Lastly, not only did Gavin Arvizo's testimony greatly vary from his brother's, but it also varied from his own previous grand jury testimony in which he claimed that the molestation happened before he saw officials who were investigating Michael due to the Bashir documentary, while during the criminal trial Gavin claimed the molestation happened AFTER the officals investigated.
Michael wasn't a drug addict. He abused prescripted drugs. I, and billions of people, have already done that in tough periods of life. That doesn't mean I'm an addcit. An addict is a person who has convulsions whenever she/he doesn't get the drug he/she wants. An addict is a drug-seeker. Michael Jackson had trouble sleeping and, therefore, he needed pills to sleep. He got a doctor who was supposed to give him the right quantities of pills so that he wouldn't get addicted. If he didn't have those pills, he just wouldn't be able to sleep. He wouldn't have convulsions or anything like that.
Aphrodite Jones is a woman who thought that Jackson was guilty of molesting Gavin. She worked for FOX news and her reports were completely biased. After hours and hours of investigation, she reached one conclusion: Michael Jackson never raped children. So she decided to write "Michael Jackson Conspiracy". If you have doubts about MJ's innocence, read her book. It's completely objective and factual.
The same goes for Ian Halperin. He thought Jackson was a pedophile until he researched about the allegations. He reached one conclusion: Jackson was a sweet man who didn't even know what is a pedophile.
As Michael said: "I would slit my wrists before hurting a child."
But he was guilty of one thing: being too naive, kind and God-like.
First: Diane Dimond claimed that 20 adult males testified against Jackson. That's untrue. 32 adult males testified saying that Michael DIDN'T rape them. Only two testified saying that Michael had raped them. One of them admitted that he was lying. The other, Gavin, was just RIDDICULOUS.
Second: Jordan Chandler's Case: In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal—which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson. A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year [1994] that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with allegations. Asked for this article about his use of the drug on the boy, Torbiner replied: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.”
Given the facts about sodium Amytal and a recent landmark case that involved the drug, the boy’s allegations, say several medical experts, must be viewed as unreliable, if not highly questionable.
“It’s a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact,” says Dr. Resnick, the Cleveland psychiatrist. “eople are very suggestible under it. People will say things under sodium Amytal that are blatantly untrue.” Sodium Amytal is a barbiturate, an invasive drug that puts people in a hypnotic state when it’s injected intravenously. Primarily administered for the treatment of amnesia, it first came into use during World War II, on soldiers traumatized—some into catatonic states—by the horrors of war. Scientific studies done in 1952 debunked the drug as a truth serum and instead demonstrated its risks: False memories can be easily implanted in those under its influence. “It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question,” says Resnick. But its effects are apparently even more insidious: “The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened,” says Resnick.
Recently, the reliability of the drug became an issue in a high-profile trial in Napa County, California. After undergoing numerous therapy sessions, at least one of which included the use of sodium Amytal, 20-year-old Holly Ramona accused her father of molesting her as a child. Gary Ramona vehemently denied the charge and sued his daughter’s therapist and the psychiatrist who had administered the drug. This past May, jurors sided with Gary Ramona, believing that the therapist and the psychiatrist may have reinforced memories that were false. Gary Ramona’s was the first successful legal challenge to the so-called “repressed memory phenomenon” that has produced thousands of sexual-abuse allegations over the past decade.
As for Chandler’s story about using the drug to sedate his son during a tooth extraction, that too seems dubious, in light of the drug’s customary use. “It’s absolutely a psychiatric drug,” says Dr. Kenneth Gottlieb, a San Francisco psychiatrist who has administeredsodium Amytal to amnesia patients. Dr. John Yagiela, the coordinator of the anesthesia and pain control department of UCLA’s school of dentistry, adds, “It’s unusual for it to be used [for pulling a tooth]. It makes no sense when better, safer alternatives are available. It would not be my choice.”
During the trial, no evidence from the prosecution side was produced (and the prosecution spent millions and millions: it was the most expensive trial in history), and, according to court documents, the kids couldn't keep their story straight. They would contradict themselves on court. The kid [accuser], Gavin Arvizo, even admitted he was lying, after being confronted with his brother's contradiction, while talking about account 6.
Moreover, the mother of Gavin, Janet Arvizo, had a history of trying to work the system to her benefit (she even robbed a charity institution...). I was fortunate enough to read courtroom transcripts and all I can say is not once did he, Michael Jackson, ever have anything to worry about.
The majority of his 'accusers' (including MacCauly Culkin) found the allegations laughable and the only teen who cried abuse gave testimony that was RIDDICULED with innacuracies (even the jurors started giggling one time, during Jason's testimony).
Many people will admit that they never even researched about the 2005 Child Molestation Case and still say that Michael Jackson is guilty. However, if they knew the facts, their opinion would be quite different.
It was known that the accuser, Gavin Arvizo, was a thief and a very unbehaved young man. He had previously had many suspensions and detentions because of his behavior in school. George Lopez, the well know comedian, testified in court that young Gavin Arvizo had stolen 40 dollars from his wallet in the previous months. He [Lopez] would give money to the family (who kept asking for more) and was accused of having stolen 300 dollars from the family by Janet.
Gavin Arvizo's mother, Janet Arvizo, was pending a fine for assaulting a security guard at a JCPenney's and stealing over $1,000,000 worth of merchandise from that store. As you can see, the accuser and the accuser's family were well known scammers.
So, how could you believe the story of the molestation, when Gavin Arvizo himself admitted, before the trial, to his teacher and 4 other attorneys, that Michael Jackson never molested him?
The media's coverage of this case was awful. They never showed to the public the defence side and that's why everyone got surprised when Jackson was acquitted.
Without a shadow of a doubt Michael Jackson was innocent in this case and the accusers were just out for cash. They had conned celebrities, charities and police departments before, but their target in this case was not about to roll over as they expected. Now, seriously, you should read court transcripts!!! You will die laughing; Davelin Arvizo, sister of the accuser, "forgot" to mention Michael Jackson had given her alcohol back when she talked to the cops, but of course remembered MJ given her alcohol on the stand. The Who "would believe me?" excuse given by 4 prosecution witnesses as to why they never called the cops is laughable. Jason cries over his balls being tickled (perhaps he just cries because he would lose the 2.5 millions of dollars he got from "National Enquirer" to lie against Jackson?).
As I said, Janet Arvizo had previously sued JC Penney's for alleged assault and molestation. In which her sons Star and Gavin testified and were later proven to have lied on the stand. During Star Arvizo's testimony, he explained the molestation act that Michael had supposedly performed on Gavin Arvizo. While I will not go into details, I can tell you that it was a completely different story than Gavin told. Read court transcripts. One big flaw in the prosecutions case is the time line of events. Tom Sneddon claimed that the molestation occurred AFTER the airing of the Martin Bashir "Living With Michael Jackson" documentary. Sneddon claimed that after the airing of the documentary, Jackson's people did everything in their power, including forcing the Arvizo's to make a rebuttal video in which the Arvizo's claim that everything stated was coached by Jackson's team, however (here's where it gets interesting), according to Sneddon and Gavin Arvizo, the molestation occurred AFTER this series of events. If Michael Jackson was already being questioned by almost every news media outlet about his involvment in Gavin Arvizo's life after the Bashir airing, WHY would he molest the child during that time? Why would he put himself in that position when people are already questioning his actions? The time line makes no sense.
Lastly, not only did Gavin Arvizo's testimony greatly vary from his brother's, but it also varied from his own previous grand jury testimony in which he claimed that the molestation happened before he saw officials who were investigating Michael due to the Bashir documentary, while during the criminal trial Gavin claimed the molestation happened AFTER the officals investigated.
Michael wasn't a drug addict. He abused prescripted drugs. I, and billions of people, have already done that in tough periods of life. That doesn't mean I'm an addcit. An addict is a person who has convulsions whenever she/he doesn't get the drug he/she wants. An addict is a drug-seeker. Michael Jackson had trouble sleeping and, therefore, he needed pills to sleep. He got a doctor who was supposed to give him the right quantities of pills so that he wouldn't get addicted. If he didn't have those pills, he just wouldn't be able to sleep. He wouldn't have convulsions or anything like that.
Aphrodite Jones is a woman who thought that Jackson was guilty of molesting Gavin. She worked for FOX news and her reports were completely biased. After hours and hours of investigation, she reached one conclusion: Michael Jackson never raped children. So she decided to write "Michael Jackson Conspiracy". If you have doubts about MJ's innocence, read her book. It's completely objective and factual.
The same goes for Ian Halperin. He thought Jackson was a pedophile until he researched about the allegations. He reached one conclusion: Jackson was a sweet man who didn't even know what is a pedophile.
As Michael said: "I would slit my wrists before hurting a child."
But he was guilty of one thing: being too naive, kind and God-like.
D
Deleted member 66627
Guest
Do you? It's clear you didn't write that article. So how is that any different from grabbing it from a news rag and claiming you're an expert?
You weren't there. You only see what we all are seeing. Everyone draws their own conclusions.
You're honestly no better then someone trying to force Religion down someone's throat. It's almost disrespectful. People are going to have their own opinions on his lifestyle and his choices in life. But at the end of the day, we don't know for certain. Get over it. Michael in my eyes will be remembered for the incredible amount of powerful music he provided us.
vladtickleman22
2nd Level Violet Feather
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
- Messages
- 7,273
- Points
- 0
Dane Cook is fucking awesome.
NO U
She can't prove he definitively wasn't anymore then others can prove he was. But the ones who believe he was have the fact he was sleeping in the same bed with strangers kids as evidence. All she has as proof is her opinion that he could not possibly have done anything wrong simply do to the fact he was MJ.
anime_kitty_gal
Registered User
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Messages
- 47
- Points
- 0
Can you prove I didn't write it? No, you cannot. However, these facts have been mentioned in several books.
and don't tell me to get over it. I'll get over it when I'm good and god damn ready. Got it?
If you don't have anything else to add, then leave. You are just wasting your own time.
vladtickleman22
2nd Level Violet Feather
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
- Messages
- 7,273
- Points
- 0
Aw, how cute. Resorting to name calling at the bad people who don't agree with you. Btw, that's THREE THINGS and three things that are your opinion.
My opinion is that he was obviously messed up sleeping with children, having all kinds of different childrens toys throughout neverland, even naming the place he lived neverland in the first place. He was also a phenominally talented person. But in no way shape or form God-like.
anime_kitty_gal
Registered User
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Messages
- 47
- Points
- 0
Again, I actually researched the whole thing. Now tell me honestly, did you?
..Glamorous..
Verified
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,402
- Points
- 0
You didn't. You can't even spell probably right.
Then again, maybe you did, Ridiculous is spelt wrong as well. I think you're the one that doesn't understand half the words.
..Glamorous..
Verified
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,402
- Points
- 0
Omg, I know right.
vladtickleman22
2nd Level Violet Feather
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
- Messages
- 7,273
- Points
- 0
I've read everything that everyone has posted. I have a different opinion then you do. I as well as others disagree with you. Deal with it! People will disagree with you a shitload more times in life. You have the right to your opinion and i have the right to mine.
anime_kitty_gal
Registered User
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Messages
- 47
- Points
- 0
Technically, I didn't call anyone anything. If you don't agree, then fine. But you could actually come up with reasons WHY you disagree instead of dodging the subject all together.
As it was said before, Michael just wanted to be a kid again. Why was that wrong? He never had a childhood like any of us..
D
Deleted member 66627
Guest
If anyone disagrees with you, you go apeshit all over them. -- You refuse to have a discussion about it and anyone who tries to you just yell at them to do their research. Your research consists of reading books, watching videos and "examining" the same exact material that any one of us NOT involved in his life can and are allowed to see.
But you are Not behind the scenes of this entire process, nor will you ever be. All you're doing is accumulating opinion and hear-say and creating your own assumptions. Which makes you no different then one of us saying he did molest children.
vladtickleman22
2nd Level Violet Feather
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
- Messages
- 7,273
- Points
- 0
I gave reasons several times throughout this topic. He slept with strangers kids in the same bed and he paid off one of them rather then going to trial and proving without a shadow of a doubt he was not guilty.
As for never having a childhood like any of us. You have no clue whatsoever the shit i've been through in my life. So don't assume i had some wonderful childhood. I don't go around sleeping with kids in my bed and playing with kids toys though. Life sometimes sucks major balls. DEAL WITH IT AND MOVE ON.
D
Deleted member 66627
Guest
Word for word taken from This book.
And I'm sure if I go on pulling blurbs and quotes, I can put together the list of books and articles you read that led you to copying it out of the books and claiming it research.
That's not research. That's hand-written/typed copypasta.
natural tickler
Verified
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,625
- Points
- 0
*popcorn anyone??*
anime_kitty_gal
Registered User
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Messages
- 47
- Points
- 0
I just don't understand why people hate him. He didn't do anything. Why do you want to believe that he did do something wrong?
Skipadeedoodah
Verified
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 16,593
- Points
- 38
Just for the record, I don't know or care if Michael Jackson was a pedophile. However, I feel the need to point out a few things...
1.)
Pedophiles routinely say this, and get angry when their actions are referred to as "molestation" "rape" or "abuse" because they don't believe they're hurting the children they abuse. They're "loving" them.
2.)
Yeah - this is definitely an objective piece of evidence you've got here. Good find. 🙄
3.)
1.)
Pedophiles routinely say this, and get angry when their actions are referred to as "molestation" "rape" or "abuse" because they don't believe they're hurting the children they abuse. They're "loving" them.
2.)
Yeah - this is definitely an objective piece of evidence you've got here. Good find. 🙄
3.)
D
Deleted member 66627
Guest
And that's your opinion that he didn't. My opinion is he might have not. C7 believes he did. And many of us have listed reasons why we believe our opinion. You were too busy flashing your copied "research" and arguing to even give anyone else the same consideration they gave you when they read the OP.
NO U
Ok, that just cracked me up lol!
