Ama Dablam
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 6 de Feb, 2019
When cocks are hard it is difficult to tell if they are circumcised or not. Just sayin
Leaving Neverland - heehee
- Iniciador del tema samuraicrack
- Fecha de inicio
-
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Orkeosaurus
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 18 de Jul, 2016
I know Razorfist has a thread here, but he brings up some great points. Doesn't it trouble anyone that Safechuck has these insanely dubious claims like that he took the thriller jacket and Indiana Jones's bullwhip despite those claims being demonstrably false? This is Smollett tier insanity and this whole thread is pedoshielding shit.
- Registrado
- 13 de Jun, 2016
Totally believable.
Do you realize how many thriller jackets MJ probably handed out? I mean the actual jacket worn in the video is one thing, and there were several of those, one of which was roughed upped and dirtied for the zombie dance scene. They were Marc Laurent jackets.
There were tons of extras jackets made for Jackson to wear on his concert tours when he performed the song. Jackson probably owned 40 of those jackets easy given how many they’d produce for him to always have a clean one ready to wear on tour. The jacket was iconic for him for several years so he needed a lot of them.
What better way to make someone feel special than hand them that famous red jacket? I’m sure he told each one that it was the very same jacket he wore in the video. I’m sure every kid or adult he gave one to totally believed it too. Safechuck Im sure realized much later it wasn’t “the jacket” because the jacket famously sold for $1.6 mil at some auction.
the original jacket, which was a Mark Laurent design, was given to Jackson’s costume designers which makes sense since they would have been the ones tasked with making all the copies of it for his tour.
Costume designers have to carefully study a garmet before copying it. They probably had to make alterations to it to make sure he could wear it comfortably while dancing under stage lights too. I’m sure it’s easy to tell the original Marc Laurent jackets from the copies produced for performances.
But the guys who had 50 copies of it made for the concert tour were given the original and auctioned it off some years back. It was also enscribed to them by Jackson and autographed.
Costume designers have to carefully study a garmet before copying it. They probably had to make alterations to it to make sure he could wear it comfortably while dancing under stage lights too. I’m sure it’s easy to tell the original Marc Laurent jackets from the copies produced for performances.
But the guys who had 50 copies of it made for the concert tour were given the original and auctioned it off some years back. It was also enscribed to them by Jackson and autographed.
Jimmy just got a Thriller tour jacket, still valuable, but there’s probably a easily several dozen floating around. I’d be interesting to know how many of those jackets were given to his special little friends. Jackson’s greedy brothers also licensed like 1000 “special editions” of the jacket to try and make some money.
As for the Indianan Jones bull whip? Sure I bet there were a couple dozen of those on set too but most likely a bunch made to hand out as cool gifts to VIPS that visted the set or were friend of ppl on the cast/producers. MJ would have def been a very VIP visitor who they would have given anything he wanted that was replaceable. If he asked for one of Indy’s bullwhips for sweet little Jimmy here, he got it. I mean the cast and Lucas even did photos with him so obviously his visit was a big ass deal - they don’t do cheesy photos like that for just anyone. Jimmy was in those photos too remember, absolute proof MJ visited the set with him. The photos with Ford and Lucas would have been harder to get than a prop bullwhip.
Given the time frame this would have been the 3rd Indiana Jones movie so the bullwhip was already a big icon of the franchise. I’m sure there’s a number of ppl with a bullwhip from that movie. (Big production budget movies always have sweet gifts and merch to hand out to VIPs and various people visiting the set. They usually had nice jackets and hats with the movie logos made up as gifts too.) The whips were made, and are still made, by David Morgan leather shop so in this case the production could easily order as many as they pleased, it’s not even a custom made prop. It’s an actual useable bullwhip and they are still made today.
Now, the bullwhip used in Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981 would be a big deal but after that Indy’s bullwhip became famous in the first film fuck loads were ordered for the sequels, more as special gifts than for use in the movie.
I looked it up. The only bullwhips selling at auction for any real bank are the relatively rare ones from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Any whips from the sequels don’t seem to matter probably because there were a lot of more ordered/made than actually used in the movie. There is a big emphasis on proof the whip was actually used in the move and shows signs of said use.
Jackson also gave Wade “the hat” from the Smooth Criminal video. You’ll remember the video of Wade showing off the hat on an Australian TV show when he was a little kid. But MJ really just gave him one of the 50 white hats he had made for the Bad Tour. But it shows MJ certainly gave special gifts from his famous videos to his little friends to make them feel so special and important to him.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 22 de Jul, 2015
Apparently there were multiple copies of the Thriller jacket, made for touring and performances. There are about one hundred of them around according to this. I don't remember the bit about the bullwhip? Safechuck got a demonstration from Ford, but I'm not sure that he took the bullwhip with him, only that he got to play with it.
Orkeosaurus
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 18 de Jul, 2016
He said that Harrison Ford gave him the bullwhip that he was holding, presumably one used on set. And also that he took Michael's thriller jacket, one from his closet. Not just a jacket that MJ might have given kids like it was candy. Regardless of whether he was given these gifts he says these things as an adult in a way that specifically provokes one to think that he was Michael's special childbride, and presumably he still thinks this.
Someone would have to go back to the documentary to confirm if he kept the bullwhip, I could be wrong. I thought he said he did.
- Registrado
- 13 de Jun, 2016
I mean given all the coy notes/letters, sleep overs, video birthday messages, vacations together, jewelry, trips to movie sets and gifts Jackson treated him exactly like his special childbride.
It’s not like we even have to just take Jimmy’s word for it. It’s Michael’s own handwriting on the notes, his voice on the answering machine, his video birthday greetings, photos of all their trips together and at Neverland, etc... make it all pretty clear that MJ was swooning over little Jimmy.
ETA: makes a lot more sense for Jackson to have copies of the jacket hanging in his closet than the special one used in the video just hanging there. Now the impression he gave Jimmy is another matter, but copies of the jacket being in his closet makes a lot more sense. We also know they were copies since his costume designers had the original. (Jimmy was with Jackson several years after Thriller)
- Registrado
- 11 de Jul, 2017
Ok, so... At what point in time did MJ turn into this complete freakshow? Was it the Pepsi commercial burns etc that put him completely over the edge? Post "Bad"? I just remember him getting weirder and weirder.
It took about 14 pages of this thread before someone properly addressed his drug addiction. I don't believe this is a minor detail, we are talking about a man who apparently used propofyl (sic?) an anaesthetic drug used during surgery to HELP him sleep. HELP? Wtf. And his addiction did kill him. I think we can safely assume he was out of his gourd for at least the last two decades of his life. However, I'm not bringing this up to justify his behaviour, which was plainly and obviously extremely inappropriate at BEST. The fact that he had a very specific age range and spent time one on one with this age range alone is impossible to defend. If he wanted to live a childhood that he never had, there was no reason for him to consistently isolate these boys. He could have had sleepovers with a bunch of kids and everyone could have had their own bed and they could have stayed up playing video games and telling ghost stories as he claimed. However, he was fucked up all the time and certainly got sloppy, indecent, and again, inappropriate. I'm not certain that means he was actually technically raping them - to me, he seemed sexually stunted - I mean his voice only ever got higher and he had very few signs of virilization, particularly compared to his brothers. (!) Joe probably actually was evil enough to cut off his balls, though that is not my point. At the end of the day there really is no excuse to share a bed with an unrelated minor of any age, period, and being inebriated makes his own words or recall wholly unreliable.
I'm also very wary of accepting testimony from any family who would willingly seek stardom for their child, if you are willing to sacrifice your child for money or fame your word and ethics are shit. Michael was fucked up mentally physically emotionally and sexually. The same can not be said for the guardians of the children.
That he didn't molest Macaulay/every boy he was friends with is completely moot.
I can never, ever, think badly about that little 11 year old boy on the Ed Sullivan show singing "Who's loving you" though. If only he could have escaped and had a normal life.
TLDR; MJ was a addict on mind blowing amounts of narcotics who was certainly sexually inappropriate with a very targeted demographic who should have been protected by their fame/money whoring parents, but wasn't necessarily sodomizing them or engaging in obvious sexual acts with them - this does not mean his behaviour was acceptable at all. I'm also an asshole offering my general opinion in a thread about a documentary which I haven't seen.
It took about 14 pages of this thread before someone properly addressed his drug addiction. I don't believe this is a minor detail, we are talking about a man who apparently used propofyl (sic?) an anaesthetic drug used during surgery to HELP him sleep. HELP? Wtf. And his addiction did kill him. I think we can safely assume he was out of his gourd for at least the last two decades of his life. However, I'm not bringing this up to justify his behaviour, which was plainly and obviously extremely inappropriate at BEST. The fact that he had a very specific age range and spent time one on one with this age range alone is impossible to defend. If he wanted to live a childhood that he never had, there was no reason for him to consistently isolate these boys. He could have had sleepovers with a bunch of kids and everyone could have had their own bed and they could have stayed up playing video games and telling ghost stories as he claimed. However, he was fucked up all the time and certainly got sloppy, indecent, and again, inappropriate. I'm not certain that means he was actually technically raping them - to me, he seemed sexually stunted - I mean his voice only ever got higher and he had very few signs of virilization, particularly compared to his brothers. (!) Joe probably actually was evil enough to cut off his balls, though that is not my point. At the end of the day there really is no excuse to share a bed with an unrelated minor of any age, period, and being inebriated makes his own words or recall wholly unreliable.
I'm also very wary of accepting testimony from any family who would willingly seek stardom for their child, if you are willing to sacrifice your child for money or fame your word and ethics are shit. Michael was fucked up mentally physically emotionally and sexually. The same can not be said for the guardians of the children.
That he didn't molest Macaulay/every boy he was friends with is completely moot.
I can never, ever, think badly about that little 11 year old boy on the Ed Sullivan show singing "Who's loving you" though. If only he could have escaped and had a normal life.
TLDR; MJ was a addict on mind blowing amounts of narcotics who was certainly sexually inappropriate with a very targeted demographic who should have been protected by their fame/money whoring parents, but wasn't necessarily sodomizing them or engaging in obvious sexual acts with them - this does not mean his behaviour was acceptable at all. I'm also an asshole offering my general opinion in a thread about a documentary which I haven't seen.
- Registrado
- 12 de Jul, 2018
The big problem with the documentary is that Wade and Safechuck are lying about what happened to them. At what point does someone decide to claim that you were molested by someone for years, but defend them in court? I mean Wade had every opportunity to throw him under the bus in 2005 but didn't. By that time he hadn't any contact with the Jacksons for several years and begged to be on the witness stand.
Michael was way too trusting of other people and that was taken advantage of numerous times. MJ was very socially awkward and didn't quite understand that many would have an issue with him hanging around kids all the time. His reasoning was pretty much, "these kids won't beg for money like the adults would". Was he weird? Of course, but I don't think he had the capacity to abuse anyone.
I think people underestimate what kind of fucked up shit people will do for money. If you can keep up a lie long enough and get paid millions for it? Why not go all the way. At least the #metoo crowd has their back.
- Registrado
- 7 de Ene, 2016
Has anyone who believes the documentary up and down watched Razorfists videos as well? He brings up so many contradictory points I'd be kind of shocked if anyone could explain them all away.
- Registrado
- 10 de Abr, 2013
All I have to add to this is Michael was constantly on Demerol thanks to his many nose jobs, and drinking wine is a bad idea when you're high on Demerol. I dont say this from personal experience, doctors will tell you not to drink on painkillers. Michael would have died from an OD one way or another. Booze and pills don't mix.
- Registrado
- 12 de Jul, 2018
Uh oh... looks like our errverrlord has spoken.
L
LN 910
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Lmao always knew you were a degen Null
- Registrado
- 3 de Ene, 2017
Razorfist, lolcow or not, MJ shill or not, makes some legitimately good points. If the documentary really has been edited as he claims, and if the editing really did occur in the wake of tough questioning from British journos that American journos were too busy giving a tongue bath to do (not exactly an unprecedented state of affairs), then it raises serious questions as to Leaving Neverland's credibility. Also, not gonna lie, since the beginning I've never bought the "secret wedding ceremony" in MJ's bedroom. It struck me as exactly the sort of over the top detail that exposes an outrageous allegation of child molestation as the smear job it is (think the McMartin preschool tunnels and Satanic ceremonies, although I'll grant this is more plausible). I wasn't surprised to see that the guy who claimed that couldn't produce the written vows, or that the ring he produced has no distinctive marks on it. The obvious chopped up editing, during which he clearly had hours if not days to dig up a ring, was amazingly blatant.
However.
There is so much smoke around MJ, and there has been for decades, the overall allegations are really, really difficult to shake off. I haven't watched all of Razorfist's series, but does he ever address the "art books" featuring nude boys that were found in MJ's possession? I've never heard an adequate explanation for them. "Oh, a fan sent them to Michael, he never saw them" really does not cut it, and those books are such a specific part of the boyfucking culture of the 1970s and 80s I don't think there's any reasonable excuse for him to own them. Oh, he had 400,000 books? Yeah, Michael Jackson was curating his own Bodleian Library and just didn't realize he had significant volumes of the Gospel of Boyfucking lying around.
It strikes me that the people behind this documentary might well be victims of Michael Jackson, or they might not and are looking to cash in. Or both. Obviously there are tons of unscrupulous people around the estate, just as there were when he was alive. That Michael Jackson might have been a horrific serial predator and that the people behind Leaving Neverland are dissembling fabulists are not mutually exclusive possibilities.
However.
There is so much smoke around MJ, and there has been for decades, the overall allegations are really, really difficult to shake off. I haven't watched all of Razorfist's series, but does he ever address the "art books" featuring nude boys that were found in MJ's possession? I've never heard an adequate explanation for them. "Oh, a fan sent them to Michael, he never saw them" really does not cut it, and those books are such a specific part of the boyfucking culture of the 1970s and 80s I don't think there's any reasonable excuse for him to own them. Oh, he had 400,000 books? Yeah, Michael Jackson was curating his own Bodleian Library and just didn't realize he had significant volumes of the Gospel of Boyfucking lying around.
It strikes me that the people behind this documentary might well be victims of Michael Jackson, or they might not and are looking to cash in. Or both. Obviously there are tons of unscrupulous people around the estate, just as there were when he was alive. That Michael Jackson might have been a horrific serial predator and that the people behind Leaving Neverland are dissembling fabulists are not mutually exclusive possibilities.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 1 de Abr, 2017
L
LN 910
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Alright I just discovered LA today. Interesting forum to say the least, I actually kinda like some threads but they’ve got a big conspiracy boner. I noticed this thread was full of “we live in a society” tier shit about muh racist men killed Janet Jackson’s career but they didn’t (men love Janet Jackson... ‘s looks) and also pro-MJ stuff which got me thinking if they still have this stance a year later. https://www.lipstickalley.com/threa...-with-ruining-janet-jackson’s-career.1814585/
So I checked and oh look, an entire thread simply overflowing with salt from them over this documentary. https://www.lipstickalley.com/threa...premier-review-discussion-etc-thread.2109899/ Enjoy.
So I checked and oh look, an entire thread simply overflowing with salt from them over this documentary. https://www.lipstickalley.com/threa...premier-review-discussion-etc-thread.2109899/ Enjoy.
- Registrado
- 30 de Sep, 2016
They seem to obsess with the fact that he's black, and the whole world is so racist that it wants to destroy his "legacy". It's funny for various reasons, first: he doesn't have a legacy, he was a fucking entertainer, for Christ's sake, he didn't find the cure for cancer. And second: he's the biggest racist I've ever seen in my life, he hated his black skin so much that he bleached it until he became a mummy.
I don't have hard feelings, I still enjoy some of his music and the fantastic OST for Sonic 3. But he fucked children's ass.
Something that nobody has said on this thread yet: why only boys? He had never brought girls to his tours, they only chose blonde boys as his companions. Nobody chooses friendships based on sex and physical characteristics, you do it for sexual partners.
- Registrado
- 13 de Dic, 2016
I haven't watched Razor's recent videos nor have I watched the documentary yet, but I did watch his initial MJ defense video from a few years back. He addressed the books in the first video, but he brushed them off as art books and said they weren't pornography. I don't really buy that personally, especially since MJ was a grown man with these books in his possession which is a red flag to me.
- Registrado
- 24 de Ene, 2018
I get really tired of going back and forth on all these weird little things, when the facts as MJ admitted them are concerning. Here are the major things everyone agrees on:
- he slept in beds with A LOT of boys of prepubescent boys
- he settled lawsuits for millions of dollars for molestation claims from some of those boys
- and after paying out the millions of dollars, he didn't stop sleeping in beds with prepubescent boys.
#3 is especially damning. If it was so hurtful to be called a pedo and he was so innocent why the fuck would he keep doing the exact thing that got him accused and in trouble? If it was just innocent sleeping then why would he find it worthwhile to continue? If it were completely innocent why did he keep doing this shit after he had his own kids to sleep next to? His own explanations do not even get near explaining away the problems with the set of facts he admits to. The simple explanation is that he molested some kids. What specific kids got molested and if they were in the leaving neverland documentary isn't really relevant, I'm talking about what can be concluded based only on the facts that MJ volunteered to the world.
that isn't how it works lol, Josh isn't a moral authority. He is an authority on the rules of his own forum and who gets to stay or go. Razorfist is a lolcow with a thread and josh RTs stuff about lolcows. It may go as far as that, or not, I don't really care because I can make up my own mind.
I'm surprised you haven't shared your motivations for defending MJ (from the "things that personally piss you off" thread):
you have a heavy emotional investment in MJ being innocent. It might be helpful for other people to know this before they decide to argue with you or not.
- Registrado
- 12 de Jul, 2018
I've been consistent in stating my reasons why, plus I have been giving sources to support those claims. It really boils down to, "I don't like people who lie about about abuse to ruin someone." And it isn't only MJ, I just used it as an example at the time and didn't realize it would be relevant now (how convenient!).
I posted Josh's tweet because I found it interesting that someone who is very against pedophiles can see that the documentary is a boatload of shit. He acknowledges that at least someone can at least back up what they're talking about with actual facts and not rumors or theories. Plus I thought what he said was funny.
Razorfist isn't someone I would consider a lolcow though. He makes a fair amount of hot takes and I can see how his persona can be considered cringey. But I don't think he's so bad to the point that he's a danger to himself or others.
I mean people are very emotionally invested in the documentary and what the guys have to say. The claims that they make are very graphic and people are going to have very predictable reactions to it. People have every right to question Wade and Safechuck's claims to see if they're being truthful about it. Unfortunately they might have to take a lie detector test sometime down the road.
As for the trials he didn't originally want to pay in 1993. He did want to go to court, but his insurance people weren't having that because at that time because he was still touring. Evan Chandler wanted money anyways so he got it.
Dave Schwartz Evan Chandler Tape Recording 1993
On July 8 1993, Jordan Chandler's stepdad Dave Schwartz, recorded a series of phone conversations between himself and Evan Chandler, Jordan's father. In them...
youtu.be
By 2005 he was in a lot of debt so he couldn't really "pay anyone off" like some have claimed. They brought in way too many witnesses and those who said he totally did it crumbled under cross examination. Wade shouldn't have been defending him in court then if he's saying that he was a victim now.
Am I not allowed to be upset when people lie about a very serious accusation? Something that's going to to create a whole bunch of problems down the road for actual abuse victims?
- Registrado
- 3 de Ene, 2017
Yeah, I don't buy that for a red hot second. At least one of those books has images pornographic enough that they can't be displayed in some countries (from what I gather, those would be photographs of nude boys sporting erections). These books were deliberately produced -- in some cases by actual NAMBLA members -- to slip in under the radar when child porn was just beginning to be outlawed in this country to cater to the pederast subculture. Is it possible to own them purely for their artistic value or for archival reasons? Sure. It is plausible someone who's known for his close friendships with young boys and who's paid tens of millions of dollars to settle abuse claims with some of those boys to own them for those reasons? I guess it is, if you just loved Thriller that much.