Skip to content

How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used By Michael Jackson Haters, Part 2 of 5

November 16, 2011

In this part, we will look at how the media has completely distorted Michael Jackson’s plastic surgeries in order to advance their agenda, among other issues, so let’s get started……………..

Bandwagon (also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum ad populum): The fallacy of arguing that because “everyone” supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right. E.g., “Everyone thinks undocumented aliens ought to be kicked out!” Sometimes also includes Lying with Statistics, e.g. “Surveys show that over 75% of Americans believe Senator Snith is not telling the truth. For anyone with half a brain, that conclusively proves he’s a dirty liar!”

The bandwagon fallacy is also known as an “ad populum” technique. This is typically used by the media to justify their attacks on MJ. For example, let’s look at this quote from Charles Thomson’s “Most Shameful Episode In Journalistic History” article:

Why was Michael Jackson so stressed and so paranoid that he couldn’t even get a decent night’s sleep unless somebody stuck a tube full of anesthetic into his arm? I think the answer can be found in the results of various polls conducted in the wake of Michael Jackson’s trial.

A poll conducted by Gallup in the hours after the verdict showed that 54% of White Americans and 48% of the overall population disagreed with the jury’s decision of ‘not guilty’. The poll also found that 62% of people felt Jackson’s celebrity status was instrumental in the verdicts. 34% said they were ‘saddened’ by the verdict and 24% said they were ‘outraged’. In a Fox News poll 37% of voters said the verdict was ‘wrong’ while an additional 25% said ‘celebrities buy justice’. A poll by People Weekly found that a staggering 88% of readers disagreed with the jury’s decision.

The media not only loves to play the “most people think MJ is guilty” card, but they also break it down by race, in order to imply that only blacks are really into him! The best way to refute someone who tries to use this fallacy is to say that “Well, there was a time when most people thought that the earth was flat, but Christopher Columbus proved them wrong!

Big Lie Technique (also “Staying on Message”): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.   

The big lie technique is arguably the most effective technique that the media has used to brainwash an impressionable and gullible public, and turn them against MJ.  By constantly repeating the “Wacko Jacko” moniker, rumors of skin bleaching, plastic surgery, being a self-hating black man, and numerous other lies, the public has been conditioned into thinking the worst about MJ. Essentially, by repeating the same lies over and over again, they start to sound like the truth! If that phrase sounds somewhat familiar, it’s because there was a famous dictator who was 100% successful in using the big lie technique to brainwash his citizens; that person was Adolf Hitler! Here’s his quote:

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.   Adolf Hitler

Let’s look at MJ’s so-called “facial mutilation” to see how the media used the big lie technique to say that MJ butchered his face! In this video, you’ll hear Fox News “journalist” Juliet Huddy call MJ a “freak”, in an attempt to dehumanize him just a few days prior to his memorial (and pay attention to O’Reilly’s use of ad populum techniques to bolster his claim that only blacks care about MJ):



First, let’s look at this photo, which consists of 2 photos taken 20 years apart and merged together. One photo is from MJ’s cover shoot of the December 2007 issue of Ebony magazine, and the other photo is from 1988. Look closely at the photo, and try and guess which photo is from 1988, and which is from 2007:


I don’t see any evidence of facial mutilation. Do you?

Pretty tough, huh? You can barely tell the difference! And this proves what MJ said all along, that he only had surgery on two areas of his face: his chin, and his nose! The rest of his face is completely structurally sound!

Below is the photo from Ebony magazine’s December 2007 issue:


Below is the photo from 1988 (you can easily tell because of his Bad attire):


Here are those same two photos merged with a photo from either 1980 or 1981. Once again, you’ll only see t change in his chin, nose, and the overall size of his face (as he had grown and gained weight over the years). I want to acknowledge LunaJo67 for creating the following 3 photo comparisons. You are amazing!


I don’t see any evidence of body dysmorphic disorder. Do you?


He aged pretty well over the 26 year time period in between these photos, huh?

Let’s look at this excellent photo comparison of MJ from the “Thriller” era and during his trial! 

While we’re on the subject of plastic surgery, let’s look at what Dr. Willa Stillwater wrote in her amazing article “Rereading Michael Jackson”, which is now posted on her new MJ blog “Dancing With The Elephant”. Open the article and scroll down to the section titled “I’m Gonna Be Exactly What You Wanna See” (a lyric taken from the song “Is It Scary?”), where Dr. Stillwater eradicates the “facial mutilation” garbage by analyzing photos of MJ throughout the years that actually MATCH each other, which is the opposite of what the media did to portray his face as a science experiment. Here are a few excerpts:

So why was it so commonly accepted that Jackson had extensive plastic surgery? I think partly it’s because he defied accepted notions of race and identity by changing the color of his skin and the shape of his nose, so both the media and the public became obsessed with his face. The tabloids, especially, were constantly photographing and analyzing his face, searching for additional changes. He also had a very angular jaw line and prominent cheekbones that could look quite different depending on camera angle, lighting, and the expression on his face, providing the tabloids with plenty of material for speculation.

However, the occasional odd photograph by itself could not have caused the media hysteria that came to surround Jackson’s face. There was more going on than that, and the explanation lies in the nature of perception itself, and how our beliefs shape our perceptions: we see what we expect to see. Once the media and the public became convinced that Jackson had had numerous plastic surgeries — that he was, in effect, addicted to plastic surgery — they began to interpret the photographic evidence in ways that supported their preconceived ideas.

However, that was not the explanation that was presented in the tabloids, and it was not what the public came to accept as true. The dominate narrative in the tabloids, and eventually in the mainstream media and the public mind as well, was that Michael Jackson was born with a cute pointy chin, rounded chipmunk cheeks, and a narrow jaw line, and then completely changed his face through obsessive plastic surgery, making his chin wider and more masculine and his cheekbones sharper and more prominent. And because that’s what our minds came to believe, that is what our eyes began to see. This progression as we imagined it looks something like this:

In effect, we highlighted and prioritized the images that fit the narrative we believed, and mentally edited out the ones that didn’t. And each time we saw a new photo, we evaluated it in terms of the pre-existing story line. If it fit the narrative and somehow suggested additional alterations to make his face more masculine, it was accepted as yet more proof of plastic surgery and was added to the “changing faces” photo series that sprang up like mushrooms all over the web. If it didn’t, it was largely ignored.

Notice how she referenced the media’s use of anecdotal evidence, which is the fallacy of only using evidence and research that supports your claim, while IGNORING anything that refutes your claim. (This is also known as “cherry picking”.) As Dr. Stillwater asserted, any photo that didn’t “fit” the facial mutilation meme was ignored and tossed on the cutting room floor.

Please, PLEASE take a moment to read that section and look at the photo lineups that she presented! It was excellent research that only a true MJ advocate could accomplish!

Let’s look at some additional photos of MJ to and see how the media really did a number on him. This photo below, taken in the early 2000s, is actually photo-shopped in order to make MJ’s skin even lighter than it really is, so that people could say to themselves “Yuck! He looks like a freak! I think he’s guilty!

This is NOT his true complexion!

It’s similar to what Time Magazine did to O.J. Simpson in June 1994 (before he had his day in court!), when they intentionally darkened his complexion to make him look guilty! (Newsweek magazine ran the exact same mug shot, but without altering it.)

Throughout American history, darker skin has been associated with violent behavior.


This is what’s MJ’s skin complexion really looked like!

His real complexion!


Here is a comparison photo of MJ in 1996 and 2005; by the way, the 2005 photo is on the left, and the 1996 photo is on the right! When you look at the photo, you naturally assume that the older photo is on the left:


Let’s focus on what’s really important: regardless of how much plastic surgery MJ had on his face, he NEVER had plastic surgery on his heart! He was a kind, loving, and philanthropic person throughout his life, and genuinely cared for the welfare of the less fortunate.  Here is a comprehensive list of his charitable contributions throughout his career. And here’s one last photo comparison of MJ, before we move on:

Photos taken from 2005, 1992, and 1989.

Finally, as we all know, haters absolutely love to project their hatred of MJ unto his kids, and the number one method of doing so is to deny them their paternity! We’ve heard it over and over again: “Those aren’t his kids! He bought them! They’re ___ kid’s!” (You can fill in the blank with Arnold Klein, Mark Lester, or anyone else who has claimed paternity.) A new MJ blogger named Xena Eve Gabby recently wrote an amazing piece on the paternity of MJ’s kids, and how much of a non-issue it is, and here is a quote that really sticks to me, because it exemplifies the “big lie” technique used by the media:

Now that the kids are being photographed out more and more, people are starting to notice Paris’ looks.  While her eyes are not blue, but more of a green color like Joe Jackson’s, people are still thrown off.  However, her darkened skin has some screaming “tan” even though she’s been naturally tanned since childhood, and others re-thinking their stance of her paternity.  Many are starting to believe she is half-white and half Middle Eastern.


So, at the beginning, the kids were all white because it suited people’s needs to paint Michael as a self-hating black man who wanted to be white and have white babies.  But when people could not deny that the kids were mixed with SOMETHING, they totally abandoned the “all white” theory and decided to go with “mixed with anything but black.”  It’s amazing.  People cannot seem to come up with a single coherent thought when it comes to Michael and the paternity issue.  If the man wanted all white, blonde babies, he would have ensured that the donors were all white with a long history of blondes in the family.  But he ended up with two dark haired babies.  So why didn’t he learn his lesson the third time around?  The third time around, he got a baby with even darker features.  So there’s the “blonde/blue eye” theory all put to bed. 

One of the main reasons why it was “okay” for MJ to be made fun of is because of his overwhelming and unprecedented success! As he said in 2002 with Al Sharpton, as soon as he surpassed Elvis in record sales and bought the Beatles’ catalog, OVERNIGHT he became a “freak”, “gay”, “weird”, he bleached his skin, took female hormones, and whole bunch of other lies!  But let’s compare his face with his rival Prince’s face:


Wow! They look pretty similar, huh? Ever wonder why Prince wasn’t ridiculed the same way MJ was over his looks? It’s simple: it’s because, although he was very talented, he wasn’t the cultural icon that MJ was, and only sold a fraction of the records that MJ sold, and it wasn’t very profitable for the media and tabloids to smear him for revenues!

Let’s end this subject of plastic surgery with this last photo, which is an artist’s perfect representation of how MJ’s fundamental features never changed!

On another note: let’s look at what conservative media critic Brent Bozell wrote about their paternity on July 9th, 2009, in his article “The Jackson Whitewash”:

Many people were touched by the Jackson tributes, and none were more heart-rending than his adopted daughter Paris declaring through tears that he was the best father you can imagine. How sad: No one can seem to explain precisely who is the biological father or mother of Jackson’s children. Such was his family.

Brent Bozell, you are a HEARTLESS BASTARD! How dare you condescendingly refer to Paris as MJ’s “adopted” daughter! (Can you tell how snide he’s being when he says that?).  She cried her heart out about her love for her father, and you want to use that opportunity to insinuate that she isn’t even his, and then say how “sad” it is that no one can “explain precisely who is the biological father or mother of Jackson’s children”?

You’re someone who, as a pro-life activist, routinely advocates for the adoption of unwanted children, yet you use Paris’ so-called “adoption” as a way of delegitimizing MJ’s authenticity as her biological father! Is it a “shame” that many of the millions of people whose parents put them up for adoption instead of aborting them may never know their biological parents, you hypocrite?

Despite the fact that he loved and provided for his kids, both emotionally and financially, that’s not good enough for you, because you think that MJ is “weird”. Maybe he should have just aborted his children, huh Brent? Instead of discrediting MJ’s relationship with his kids, you should be PRAISING MJ for “adopting” those kids, especially when you consider the tens of thousands of children who are stuck in foster care!

Let me be clear on this: I’m upset at the fact that he brought up the issue of adoption at the most inopportune time, and he did it to dehumanize MJ.  I’m not upset because he thinks that MJ adopted his kids; in fact, you’d be surprised how many casual fans think he did!

And on top of that, the only photo of MJ that Bozell included in his article is one that shows him in an unflattering light! While Paris humanized her father, he chose to take the opportunity to further caricaturize him as a “freak”!!

You’re not as honest and compassionate as you claim you are, huh?

I dug into Bozell’s background, and he sure does have some skeletons in his closet! Bozell is the founder of the Parent’s Television Council (PTC), a watchdog group that monitors the entertainment industry. In 2000, the group prematurely blamed the Word Wrestling Entertainment corporation for the death of a young girl who was killed by a teenager, who they claimed was influenced by wrestling moves he saw during a wrestling match. The PTC was sued for defamation and slander, and of course Bozell’s initial reaction was to deny everything and accuse them of filing “one of the most malicious and dishonest pleadings ever placed before a court”. But by July 2002, he was singing a different tune! The PTC settled out of court with the WWE for a whopping $3.5 million dollars! Here is an excerpt from an article about the settlement (my commentary is in red):

The next time media critic Brent Bozell and his Parents Television Council (PTC) claim to be persuading advertisers to yank advertising from some tawdry TV program, it might be useful to check out the claim carefully.

That’s an interesting sidelight to Bozell’s settlement of a libel suit filed by World Wrestling Entertainment last week. The suit centers on Bozell’s admission that, in 2000, he falsely blamed what was then called the World Wrestling Federation for children’s killing other kids using “wrestling moves” learned on TV.

What’s more, Bozell also acknowledged that he exaggerated the number of advertisers that pulled ads from wrestling programming: He claimed to have persuaded advertisers to withdraw from WWF Smackdown! on UPN that had never been advertisers there to begin with.

Libel lawyers not involved in the case expressed surprise at the size of the $3.5 million PTC agreed to pay in the case, an unusually large amount for a pretrial settlement with a plaintiff that has the huge legal hurdle to overcome because the WWE and its chief Vince McMahon are considered “public figures.” Courts always make it harder for them to win libel cases. (Somebody should mention this to Maureen Orth the next time she brags about the fact that MJ never sued her!)

In addition to paying the $3.5 million dollars, Bozell was also ordered to issue a public retraction and apology, and post it on the PTC website for 6 months (and as you can imagine, it has long since been removed from their website, but you can read it here in its entirety). Here are a few excerpts:

We based our statements on media reports and source information. We now believe, based on extensive investigation and facts which have come to light since making those statements, that it was wrong for MRC, PTC, their spokespersons and myself to have said anything that could be construed as blaming WWE or any of its programs for the deaths of the children. Simply put, it was premature to reach that conclusion when we did, and there is now ample evidence to show that conclusion was incorrect. I now believe that professional wrestling played no role in the murder of Tiffany Eunick, which was a part of our “Clean Up TV Now!” campaign, and am equally convinced that it was incorrect and wrong to have blamed WWE or any of its programs for the deaths of the other children.

Because of our statements, PTC, MRC and the WWE have been in litigation since November 2000. WWE vigorously advanced its position that neither it, nor “professional wrestling” lead to these deaths. WWE also contended that MRC, PTC, their spokespersons and I had misrepresented the number of advertisers who withdrew support from WWE’s Smackdown! television program after receiving communications from the PTC, some of which regrettably connected the WWE and Smackdown! to the deaths of children. As such, WWE exercised its right to initiate this litigation, during which facts came to light that prompted me to make this statement.

By this retraction, I want to be clear that WWE was correct in pointing out that various statements made by MRC, PTC and me were inaccurate concerning the identity and number of WWE Smackdown! advertisers who withdrew support from the program. Many of the companies we stated had “withdrawn” or pulled their support had never, in fact, advertised on Smackdown! nor had any plan to advertise on Smackdown! Again, we regret this error and retract any such misleading statements.

This man blatantly lied about getting advertisers to drop their support of the WWE, yet he called it an “error”! This wasn’t a little “fib”; it was a material misrepresentation of the truth in order to achieve his goal of maligning the WWE, the same way he materially misrepresented the truth about MJ by not giving any exculpatory facts, thus fooling his readers into thinking that MJ was guilty! (Thus, the misleading title “The Jackson Whitewash”.)

This is just another example of an MJ hater throwing stones while living in a glass house. This guy lied to promote his political agenda, got caught, and was forced to cough up some serious dough, yet he had the audacity to use MJ’s settlement as a sign of guilt. Typical.

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the “Team Player” appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (an expert, parents, one’s own “side,” team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) says it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth or above one’s own reason and conscience. In extreme cases, a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining “That’s what I was told to do,” or “I was just following orders.”  

You often hear the media’s so-called legal “analysts” refer to their vast experience as a prosecutor, judge, sex crimes investigator, etc., prior to ripping MJ to shreds. The reason they do this is because they want to appear infallible in the eyes of the general public, who will surely feel intimidated by their distinguished record.  Let’s look at how Sunny Hostin rammed her credentials down her viewers throats before trashing MJ on the Sean Hannity show on the day before MJ’s memorial in July 2009 (and don’t worry guys, I refuted her and her partner in crime Nancy Grace in this post):


The blind loyalty technique also applies to religious leaders who bash MJ because, whether they realize it or not, the fact that they have the title of Father, Reverend, Pastor, Bishop, Rabbi, Imam, etc. gives their attacks credibility to their parishioners, who naturally assume that what they’re saying has been vetted and fact-checked.

Equivocation: The fallacy of deliberately failing to define one’s terms, or deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand. (E.g., Bill Clinton stating “I did not have sex with that woman,” meaning no sexual penetration, knowing full well that the audience will understand the statement as “I had no sexual contact of any sort with that woman.”) This is a corruption of the argument from logos, a tactic frequently followed in American jurisprudence.

The best example of the media using the equivocation fallacy is in relation to MJ’s comments about sharing his bed. The media, led by Martin Bashir, deliberately twisted his comments to make them have a sexual connotation, and to this day, this is the number one reason why people believe that MJ was guilty.

Let’s look at this example: just after the trial, Mesereau granted an interview to Katie Couric, and when she asked if MJ would continue to “sleep” with boys, Mesereau immediately corrected her and clarified MJ’s comments, before mentioning that MJ would discontinue this practice. (Notice how he didn’t say that MJ never had a childhood, or was mentally regressed, or that people around the world also do this, etc.) Couric did a very noble thing and apologized to Mesereau, which implies that she truly didn’t intentionally misconstrue MJ’s words, which cannot be the same for many other media pundits.

False Analogy: The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. E.g., “Just like an alley cat needs to prowl, a normal human being can’t be tied down to one single lover.”   

Let’s look at Congressman Peter King try use both the false analogy and the ad populum fallacies in the same interview! While making a ludicrous attempt to defend his indefensible comments, he said that if you asked people what they thought about a grown man who takes children into his bed, that 90% would say he’s a pedophile. (There are other things said in this interview that I will address later.)

All of Hebert’s awards and accolades should be rescinded!

That is an inapt analogy because, obviously1) MJ didn’t invite, force, bribe, or cajole any child into his bed, and 2) the reason that 9 out of 10 would call MJ a pedophile is because of how the facts about the sleepovers were inaccurately presented to them.

King tried to “play the race card” by referencing a poorly researched article written by a “respected, award winning journalist” from the New York Times named Bob Hebert, who happens to be black. On July 3rd, 2009 he posted an op-ed titled “Behind the Façade”, which is nothing but another example of sloppily researched drivel. Here’s an excerpt:

Jackson was the perfect star for the era, the embodiment of fantasy gone wild. He tried to carve himself up into another person, but, of course, there was the same Michael Jackson underneath — talented but psychologically disabled to the point where he was a danger to himself and others.

Reality is unforgiving. There is no escape. Behind the Jackson facade was the horror of child abuse. Court records and reams of well-documented media accounts contain a stream of serious allegations of child sex abuse and other inappropriate behavior with very young boys. Jackson, a multimillionaire megastar, was excused as an eccentric. Small children were delivered into his company, to spend the night in his bed, often by their parents.

One case of alleged pedophilia against Jackson, the details of which would make your hair stand on end, was settled for a reported $25 million. He beat another case in court.

The Michael-mania that has erupted since Jackson’s death — not just an appreciation of his music, but a giddy celebration of his life — is yet another spasm of the culture opting for fantasy over reality. We don’t want to look under the rock that was Jackson’s real life.

As with so many other things, we don’t want to know.

Let’s look at the fallacies he used: first, he went ad hominem, which is every hater’s Ace of Spades! He scared readers into thinking MJ is guilty by lying to them and saying had young children “delivered” to him, and then told them that the details of the 1993 case would “make their hair stand on end”.

The most egregious deception he gave his readers was the whopping six word summary of the 2005 trial: “He beat another case in court.” Is that it? Is that the most you will get out of a journalist who has numerous awards for “distinguished” writing? He writes an article trashing MJ, and devotes two whole sentences to the allegations! Unbelievable!

And don’t get me started on Maureen Orth (who King cited in that interview)! I will certainly refute her trash in greater detail at a later date! But for now, this post has information to debunk the lie that MJ installed the alarms to alert him to when adults were coming. (Go to bullet point #17.)

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Rep. King clung to these pieces of “objective journalism” to justify his hate, as this is what haters typically do. He had to invoke Hebert’s piece in order to say “Hey! How can you accuse me of being a racist against MJ when there are black people who think he’s guilty too!”, and he had to invoke Orth’s work to give an example of the “evidence” against MJ.

Other false analogies that we’ve all heard a gazillion times already is the comparison of MJ’s acquittal to OJ Simpson’s acquittal, and the comparison of MJ to serial child molesters, solely because of his desire to help and be around children.

In Part 3, I will totally rip Gloria Allred to shreds over what she wrote about MJ in her book. Stay tuned………………..

55 Comments leave one →
  1. nakitaw1380 permalink
    September 30, 2021 4:19 am



  2. sanemjfan permalink
    March 2, 2012 9:32 pm

    I deleted the reference to you. Thanks for the correction!


  3. March 2, 2012 1:05 pm

    Hello vindicatemj team.

    Thank you for the lovely shout out in this posting with regards to one of the photos you’ve used but I merely collected the photo you’ve used – I did not create it. Some other, very talented MJ fan did that.

    Sorry for the late correction – I knew sanemjfan had tweeted the photo but didn’t realize until allforloveblog’s recent posting that it also appeared in this blog.

    Please don’t get me wrong, I’m delighted you have used it – I just would like you to correct the entry so that I am not given credit for something I don’t deserve.


  4. January 27, 2012 2:43 am

    “why? when I do a search on conspiracy by aphrodite jones that amazon adds a book about peadophiles underneath:
    it makes my blood boil”

    Jan, it makes my blood boil too. But to tell you frankly the fact that Amazon is doing it to Michael only confirms the conclusion I slowly came to – what was and is still being done to Michael is not simple malice on the part of individual people. It is being guided by someone and in my opinion it is a powerful pedophilia lobby, which is probably functioning on a worldwide scale.

    The number of ped-les uncovered here and there is TREMENDOUS – whenever you look you see dozens and probably hundreds of cases. However the only person they are talking about is Michael Jackson who is totally INNOCENT! Let me remind the Amazon people that Michael was fully acquitted and all people are innocent until proven guilty, so Amazon is breaking all human and legal principles on which the society is based.

    What is surprising is that they talk of Michael as if he were a p. while real ped-les are given a free hand! Amazon is promoting the book by Thomas O’Carroll, a convicted pedophile who served a sentence for possessing child porn. And child porn is not just pictures – it is the ruined life of real children!

    And they dare sell a book by a convicted ped-le, who is a totally sick person with a perverse mind! It isn’t the case of a criminal who slipped once and will never do it again – no, ped-les do not change their nature if they served a sentence! Therefore giving them a forum for talking is CRIMINAL as it allows to spread their ideas further! No, this is possible ONLY in case there is a huge ped-le lobby standing behind all that.

    Here are some articles on more and more ped-les found everywhere around us. It is a sort of an avalanche!

    This took place a week ago:

    And this happened at the end of October 2011:

    And this was reported by Orlando Sentinel in September 1994 – a Michael Jackson impersonator named Michael JOHNSON molested children in his name! I wonder how many people saw this impersonator with boys and thought it was real Michael? Isn’t it a total nightmare?

    Michael Jackson Mimic Faces Still More Charges
    September 21, 1994
    A Michael Jackson impersonator charged last month with molesting three Orange County boys to initiate them into a gang was charged Tuesday with molesting four more.
    Michael Johnson, 29, is charged with 18 counts of a lewd act on a child and is being held on $485,000 bail in the Orange County Jail.
    Investigators contend Johnson is the leader of a teen-age gang with about 50 members and used sex to build trust and loyalty.


  5. sanemjfan permalink
    January 25, 2012 4:03 am

    Added yet another photo to the post! It’s an artist’s conception of MJ’s face that put’s everything in persepective.


  6. Jan permalink
    January 24, 2012 10:07 pm

    this tina weaver editor of sunday mirror won an award in 1994 for an article she did on michael jackson and it was not complimentary. It is no wonder on complaining to the Press complaints commission in UK regarding coverage and media regarding MJ you get nowhere when she is on the panel. A clear conflict of interests:

    I wish lord leveson would comment on this kind of thing:

    In 1994 she won reporter of the year at the British Press Awards for a world exclusive about
    Michael Jackson and child abuse allegations.

    This clearly highlights how useless the PCC in the UK has been to date when people like Tina gets appointed into such a position.


  7. Jan permalink
    January 24, 2012 9:47 pm

    why? when I do a search on conspiracy by aphrodite jones that amazon adds a book about peadophiles underneath:

    it makes my blood boil


  8. sanemjfan permalink
    January 21, 2012 12:19 am

    Guys, I added a new photo comparison of MJ from the Thriller video shoot and his trial. Check it out!


  9. sanemjfan permalink
    December 13, 2011 8:23 pm

    Thank you for your kind compliments! They’re greatly appreciated! Make sure you read the other parts in this series as well!


  10. Heather Plonski permalink
    December 13, 2011 11:49 am

    That was the most in depth, well researched article I have ever read. Your knowledge of Psychology and Sociology is quite impressive. Thank you very much.
    As a lifelong Michael Jackson fan I feel it is my appointed duty to rectify the uninformed, ignorant or brainwashed haters myself. Often, pertaining to Michael’s children not being his, it is a misinformed fan writing how “It does not matter anyway”. There are relevant videos on youtube that pertain to this issue, so I point them to them. It is another story however with the haters believing that Michael was a pedophile. I will never stop defending him. I have been doing it for decades it seems. People do not understand how his fans were truly his friends, and how he let us in on his life as a friend would. I can tell how you defend him that you feel the same way. I look forward to reading more of your comprehensive, informative blogs.


  11. anniedomino permalink
    November 19, 2011 4:01 pm

    I think there are also people with a vested interest in ensuring that people continue to think of MJ as a CM and addict.
    Obviously all the people involved in ’93 and ’05. There are prosecutors, lawyers and journalists to staked their careers on MJ being found guilty. They can NEVER admit they were wrong. I believe the reason Dimond and co. remain in touch with the Arviso’s is that they are terrified Gavin will recant. If he does – their reputations are gone. Orth also falls into this category. Allred is a classic ambulance chaser, she just makes it seem more sophisticated by calling herself a “victim’s advocate”. Of course if there were no victims she would have no career. To me she is actually quite a silly woman. Every single time some poor slob gets accused of abuse or harassment in the US her sad old self is right there in front of the cameras. Who was surprised when she got involved in the Herman Cain allegations? And yes – I admit – I have grown very cynical about all people making allegations and since ’93 I am afraid my default setting is to have sympathy with the accused rather than the accuser. I have this belief that if you are really abused you should go to the authorities and make a criminal case. The minute these people go to civil attorneys and get TV interviews I tune out. I prefer to have these things decided in a criminal court.
    Dr. Drew calls himself an “addictionologist”. Would he be on TV if there were no “addicts”, does he not need celebrity poster boys and girls to parade on his show as “learning moments”. The entire Jackson family want Michael to be a “drug addict” because it helps their lawsuit against AEG and they thought it would help their challenges to the Will.
    And there are people who I believe are just plain jealous and resentful of Michael’s fame.


  12. November 19, 2011 12:43 pm

    @ lynande51:

    Regarding Dr. Ratner and propofol . . .

    The story originated on a CNN show in July 2009.

    Sanjay Gupta reported the following: “As we talk about insomnia, Propofol, sedative drugs and Michael Jackson, there was a name that kept popping up, Dr. Neil Ratner. A source told me that he saw Dr. Neil Ratner with Michael Jackson in a hotel room [during the HIStory World Tour] with lots of equipment, including I.V. poles, drips, and this rack with lights and monitors on it. It was unclear what exactly was going on. But the source told me that Ratner said he ‘takes him down and then brings him back up in the morning,’ referring to Michael Jackson.”

    When Gupta tracked Dr. Ratner down to his home in Woodstock, NY, all Ratner said was: “I’m very upset. I’m distraught. Michael was a good person. I can’t talk about it right now.”

    According to Gupta, Dr. Ratner is a board-certified doctor, but he had his license suspended for three years back in 2002 because of insurance fraud. =/

    (link to CNN transcript:


  13. lynande51 permalink
    November 19, 2011 12:25 am

    Hi Luna Jo Dr. Neal Ratner was only in South Africa on the HIStory tour. He did not accompany MJ on the rest of the tour and also with MJ at the same time was Dr. Allen Metzger the Internal Med Dr. that testified at the Conrad Murray trial. When I researched this topic it seems that it originated with Lisa Marie Presley when she gave a statement to the police after Michael died.
    Her version is that Dr. Neil Ratner was giving Michael Demerol in 1995 prior to when he collapsed onstage during rehearsals for the upcoming HBO special that he was going to do. She said it was Demerol not propofol. Then the story seemed to have grown over the years since then and has been slanted by those telling it.
    I know one thing with absolute certainty and that is that Dr. Metzger would never have allowed that if he was there. Demerol or propofol he would never have allowed it.
    Secondly we know that Michael was not found to have any drugs in his system at the time he collapsed when Dr.William Alleyne gave his story of treating Michael in 1995 to the Herald Online here is a link to that article on another site. We do have one here in one of our posts from last year. One question is that at the time Lisa was not at the rehearsals or with Michael they were separated. She has always maintained that when she got to the hospital and was asking questions she was not given the answers that she wanted. That is from other interviews that she has given and from the JRT book. That was when she decided that she was going to get divorced. It should also be noted that in JRT’s book he says that Debbie was at the hospital with Michael and had to be taken away when Lisa got there. What part of that is true I can’t say for sure?
    What was released by Dr. Alleyne at the time he said that Michael had come in with an irregular heart rhythm due to dehydration from over exertion and a recent bout of gastro enteritis or to put it plainly the runs. When you have that happen you lose the electrolyte potassium. If you become hypokalemic you can develop irregular heart rhythms called ventricular tachycardia and these can be life threatening requiring cardio-version unless it can be stabilized and managed medically with fluid and electrolyte replacement. That is what they did for Michael at that hospital. The thing is that you have to be kept in a Cardiac ICU on telemetry during the treatment to prevent complications from the original dysrhythmia and over replacement of the potassium.
    The prosecutors in another federal case against an OB-GYN in New York for insurance fraud had Dr. Ratner testify for them. That is when they were questioning him about giving Michael drugs during the time he was on tour. He denied doing this in court. So where the information comes from is something altogether different. Is it from Lisa Marie? If so I understand her desire to help the family in the immediate aftermath of Michael’s death especially when you consider what she wrote on her blog about how she felt she had failed him. But that does not make her right. The trouble with some of the people around Michael including his family is that they don’t seem to know that propofol is not Demerol and Demerol is not propofol so when they talk about it they sound like they are talking about the same thing or hasn’t anyone else noticed that.
    One thing that is clear about Michael’s alleged former use of propofol is that it has come from reports to each other and the media strictly through a document filed in court by Conrad Murray’s Defense team so what does that tell you about them. It is always the same line attributed to Dr. Neil Ratner and that line is “I used to take him down and bring him back up”. I reality Dr. Neil Ratner has ever answered that question and most of that is on assumption. It is also skewed by the media because when they report this because they also include the information from Dr. Lee but ever single article says that Michael BEGGED for propofol yet she never said any such thing. She said he was asking about it and she looked it up. He told her his doctors had told him it was safe.
    The thing is that all of the information has become like a terrible case of the game telephone.I can tell you that no one survives that kind of use of propofol in that setting.I think Michael’s death should speak for the truth in that statement.After you guys read the links to those articles and what we know about Dr. Ratner do you think he could have competently done what they say he did with propofol? As for the Demerol I’m sorry to say this but he would have kept that for himself he would not have given it to Michael.


  14. JM51 permalink
    November 18, 2011 9:46 pm

    I thought on Dr. Drew, Frank tried to say that an anesthesiologist discussed what he was doing to Michael by taking him down and waking him back up — Frank tried to say that he didn’t know what the doctor was doing to do that. Of course, Drew interrupted everything he said and talked over him as if he was actually there when it happened. Drew was very unprofessional in my opinion.


  15. November 18, 2011 9:14 pm

    Thanks for the little “shout out” to my blog. I really appreciate your wonderful posts. You guys keep me going sometimes. It’s not easy being an MJ fan sometimes. Of course it’s easy to love Michael and his music, but it’s really hard when you are constantly faced with negativity when proclaiming you are an MJ fan. I had an incident the other night on Facebook with someone I know who pretty much laughed at me for saying something about Michael having vitiligo. Her response was “you don’t actually believe that, do you?” Even when I provided her with the fact that it was determined by autopsy that he did in fact have it, she was still set in her tabloid-following mindset. It’s so sad. And of course, when I pointed out other facts to her, she defended herself by insulting me and saying she had a life and didn’t have time to read the facts. I merely responded that people shouldn’t talk about things they don’t know the facts about.

    Anyway, it amazes me on the paternity issue. If Jesse Williams (actor who plays Jackson Avery on Grey’s anatomy) can have lighter skin and green eyes like Paris and have a Swedish mother and an African American father, then Paris Jackson can certainly be the daughter of an African American man–Michael Jackson– and blonde-haired, blue eyed Debbie Rowe.

    People just hate to admit that they were wrong for following tabloid lies over the years. People hate to admit they’re wrong, period. But they can at least retain some dignity by researching the facts and coming to the conclusion that they’re wrong themselves. Instead, fans constantly have the point them in the right direction, and 9 times out of 10, they still don’t want to look at the facts.

    I actually ran into a hater on a message board the other day who said that she didn’t WANT to research Michael. And she was spouting the “self-hating black man,” “didn’t want to pass on his genes” bullcrap that most haters without knowledge want to spew. It’s exhausting dealing with these people, but somebody has to do it. We can provide links to facts, and if haters want to remain ignorant and completely bypass the lies, then they can do that, but it just makes them look more ignorant.


  16. LunaJo permalink
    November 18, 2011 6:19 pm

    Does anyone know if Dr. Neil Ratner gave Michael propofol during the HIStory tour? I seem to remember that was the issue. Ratner certainly had the necessary equipment with him on that tour and he is an anesthesiologist. That would have been in 1996/’97.


  17. November 18, 2011 7:31 am


    He says MJ used Demerol to sleep in 1993 and Propofol in 1999 and again Propofol in 2001


  18. November 18, 2011 6:29 am

    I don’t have the book, but according to fans he said he didn’t know the existence of Propofol before 2009.


  19. lynande51 permalink
    November 18, 2011 6:15 am

    It is odd to me that last night on Dr. Drew he said he saw a Dr. give MJ propofol to sleep.In the book it is Demerol to sleep or which way around is it? I don’t have the book so I don’t know.


  20. November 18, 2011 3:09 am


    Although he says Mike gave him that explanation later (I have no idea why he chose to reveal that in the book), in the book he talks about how during the time they were with him a doctor would come in at night to give him Demerol on a drip, he needed it to sleep. Although he says MJ would try and keep his composure around kids he does say there were a couple of times that it seemed MJ was out of it.


  21. LunaJo permalink
    November 18, 2011 1:54 am

    Wow David, what can I say…and this is just part 2. It made me cry. reading this and having watched this all happen to Michael Jackson over many many years, it hits me hard every time to even imagine a little bit of how thios must have been for him. It must have been like hell sometimes…And he knew defending himself was almost impossible since people already bought the lies of the media and were brainwashed. Up untill the trial in 2005 he was fighting, like we saw when he was with rev. Sharpton. But the false allegations broke him and I believe he decided to concentrate on what made him truly happy: his children. He felt like people didn’t understand him, while I think people just didn’t want to becasue of all the things, all the fallacies you described for us so far. What’s not to understand and what’s not to like about this man? Why do people like Diane Dimond so eager to destroy a amn they didn’t even know, never talked to…? This poems written by Michael says it all:

    “I walk alone in darkness and despair
    Thoughts of happier times seem to dissolve into thin air
    I try to stay positive, and prosper through these times
    The world among me, filled with hatred and terrible crimes

    There must be a light at this end of this tunnel, there must be a way to sooth the pain
    For I look upon myself, with such anger, and disdain
    Illuminate me with strength, courage, not despair
    These emotions that consume my thoughts, make life seem so unfair
    Powerful, benevolent god, where are you in my time of need?
    Powerful, benevolent god, please do a good deed!
    I want to be free, to be at ease
    This plagued mind of mine seems so diseased

    I carry thoughts of loved ones in my heart
    For in my mind we shall never part
    You don’t know me, you don’t see what I see
    Try being someone else, try being me

    If you have never sinned, please cast the first stone
    Try walking in my shoes, so you can feel all alone
    Things have to get better, things have to improve
    If nothing changes, I shall simply move
    I’ll move far away from here, I won’t shed a tear
    I will never return, all traces of me will burn
    I bet non-one will miss me, I bet no-one will care
    A life of isolation, is too much to bear”

    Thank you so much, David….LYM


  22. lynande51 permalink
    November 18, 2011 1:51 am

    You know what I don’t get is this.The tabloids say that MJ bleached his skin when he used the only known course of correction for his vitiligo which is Benoquin cream to even out the color in his face.No one has asked why he was still using it years later?Because he still had dark areas on his face.Look closely at the photos and you will see that one of the dark areas is his nose.Now think of how light versus dark causes contrast in a photo and you will come up with the answers to why he wore a bandage over his nose sometimes. Then last what kind of names would the Tabloids have bestowed upon him if he hadn’t used makeup or the Benoquin and left his nose dark? His vitiligo was a no win situation for someone to make more fun of him than they already did.


  23. November 18, 2011 1:06 am

    Good job on researching this blog David Edwards. I can tell you spent countless hours finding photos of him from different eras. It’s apparent how hard you worked on this blog. I know how long these blogs take so thank you. Thank you for defending Michael. I tire of the bashers and all the misconceptions of Michael Jackson. VindicateMj is my favorite source for reliable MJ research.

    Michael Jackson was the most photographed man on the planet. I’ve seen videos
    where he would simply try to go out shopping for a pair of sweat pants, something most of us take for granted, and he was stalked at every turn. I can’t imagine how hard it must have been for him, a basically shy person to be cornered everywhere he went. Being photographed everywhere he went must have created a greater need to look good. Unfortunately he didn’t see himself as we did. He was a beautiful man and never needed to do anything to himself.

    I read his father called him “fat nose” and called him “ugly” not to mention he went
    from being cute little Michael to having bad acne. This was all damaging to him not to mention losing his skin color due to vitiligo and having his hair burnt off from the Pepsi commercial gone bad. What is the big deal that he had a tattoo on his scalp to cover his bald spot? It was clearly difficult on him as it would be for any sensitive person.

    I know a British tabloid called The Daily Mirror had pictures of his face deliberately deformed to sell fake articles about his face being deformed from cosmetic surgery. Michael sued them and won 6 years later. He endured so much abuse in every corner of his life.

    As David said, Michael had the biggest heart in the world so who cares how many nose jobs he had. Personally it doesn’t matter to me what Michael did to try to make himself more comfortable with his looks. All I know is he brought music to my life for decades and he tried to bring happiness, care and compassion and a smile wherever he turned.


  24. ares permalink
    November 17, 2011 9:16 pm

    @ Kris Heywood

    I don’t know why Frank says that but MJ did have a problem with addiction on prescribed drugs in 1993 and he did go in the rehab for that and not because he didn’t want to be on the american soil out of fear of being arrested.That is totaly stupid and Frank is equal stupid for saying such dumb things. Maybe MJ told him otherwise because he didn’t want Frank to think him as a junkie or things like that but Mike did have a problem back then. He admitted this himself, he wrote a song about it, friends and other people who convinced him to go to the rehab have confirmed this also (Elton John being one of them) and also there is a video of Mike’s from the 1993 deposition in Mexico where you can clearly see that he was under the influence of something.
    So Frank should be very carefoul when talking about serious things concerning MJ.


  25. JOC permalink
    November 17, 2011 9:15 pm

    One thing that does annoy me when defending Michael Jackson as well, is that when you put up a good argument, suddenly the other person in the argument will go-“You must really be a Michael Jackson fan”, as if that is the only reason why your defending him. I always look into my facts before I say anything. Everyone deserves a fair trial. Why do people always assume someone is guilty when they are accused of something?!


  26. November 17, 2011 8:26 pm

    Out of that whole lovely book Frank wrote, Dr. Drew is interested in only one thing–Michael’s addiction. It’s funny, according to the book, Michael was not addicted to anything when he checked himself into rehab. It was the only way he could keep himself safe, since word was out he was going to be arrested as soon as he stepped foot onto U.S. territory. According to Frank, Michael’s problems with prescription drugs came later, after the bridge-accident in Munich, when he started to be in severe pain. And yet, Dr. Drew points to Michael’s statement of drug dependency as the only proof he needs that Michael was an addict. To no one’s surprise, he only hears what he wants to hear. Having finished Frank’s book, I still appreciate his take on Michael, but I now feel that, even with his best intentions, he saw Michael from the perspective of a very young man. It became obvious when he compared his own suffering during the trial with Michael’s. Bless him, though–the book was written with love.


  27. lynande51 permalink
    November 17, 2011 7:18 pm

    David last night I watched Frank Cascio’s interview with Dr. Drew. It did not go well even though I have to say Frank gave it his best shot.What I noticed that happened is not that Frank did not have the right answers but rather that Dr. Drew repeatedly interrupted him when he was in the middle of a sentence or a comment at a time when only half of the information was out.That makes Frank look like he has weak comments or only a half comment when in fact it is Dr.Drew that is loud and rude when he does this.That is a typical hater tactic that is used daily on our media especially by people like Nancy Grace and others.How do we combat that and heavily edited footage to explain the actual content?


  28. Maria permalink
    November 17, 2011 4:33 pm

    MJ has vitiligo. This we know for a long time, but now it is a fact confirmed by a report of an autopsy. Dr. Rogers spoke about this on the Murray trial.


  29. BlueLotus permalink
    November 17, 2011 3:25 pm

    And yes those tattoos were most likely because Lupus not only makes you bald, it makes the hair shed all over…eye-brows, lashes n other places.

    The tattoo on the head must be from Bad era…he must hv been balding on the front.

    God what all this one man endured. The King of courage – Michael Jackson!


  30. BlueLotus permalink
    November 17, 2011 3:21 pm

    Lovely rebuttal. But I must confess, I am really, really awed by how Michael Jackson endured this “garbage”…this ridicule n mockery of everything HIM…to me it feel like a Himalaya crushing me…how did Michael endure it? He was a “steel” man surely and thats why he wore all those armours….to keep this relentless pounding at bay…to whatever degree it could.
    Coming to his looks, there is no denying that he changed over years. But getting thinner and change of complexion and hair-style could definitely be big factors. I know just how much a hair style can make u look so different!

    Also, I think Michael’s acnes problem persisted even through his adult years…I think he was having treatment and injections for that as well and it could have contributed to “changed looks”…I remember reading about this somewhere in 2009 can’t find it now.

    But then, to be honest I found Mike’s looks around “Living with MIchael Jackson” mockumentary, Invincible promotion and Rock my world video…”odd”. Something was wrong…either a flared up lupus or something he got done that did not work very well. However, again 2005, he looks fine.

    What is incredible that the autopsy report analysis on one of the tabloid sites, has almost nothing about plastic surgery….just what Michael himself admitted! Check this out.


  31. nan permalink
    November 17, 2011 9:43 am

    Another great article !!
    I think MJ looks beautiful in any era..mesmerizing ,,you just cant stop looking at him , those eyes are stunning..It must have been uncomfortable for the poor guy to have people staring and gaping at him all the time..I think it was Kenny Rogers who said that is why he thought he brought Bubbles around with him ..To distract people .

    At any rate when I talk to people ..I find I have to do a little sound bite that draws them in , I ask them if they ever heard of Larry Feldman , and of course they say no and I explain how he went about building these molestation cases even as the families continued to visit MJ ,
    And how every time he opened his mouth to sing a note , everybody made millions ….that was putting alot of pressure on him to let the INSURANCE company settle , then i mention how he refers to insurance in the anything for money song..

    When I get someone on the internet who tells me EVERYBODY thinks he is guilty , i used to bring up one of the mainstream media videos from youtube of mj 14 not guilty verdicts and tell them to check the likes and dislikes because it is obvious they are losing ground, ……..tons and tons of likes and very few dislikes…..people kind of stop arguing that point after that…
    But now, unfortunately, my favorite reference to that …the likes and dislikes have been disabled so will have to find another one..
    I see that lately the media has been trying to inject Mj into the Penn State discussion..They need him for ratings almost like oxygen…so I keep emailing..
    I noticed Tom Mesereau was on Bill Orielly tonight and I know for a fact he thinks he is ludicrous.., but there he was standing up for MJ..I am just so impressed with him..
    I could tell from his body language , that Tom was prepared for anything and he handled ORielly just fine.I will try and remember to put the link when it comes out…

    the media has had a field day for a long time ..It is understandable some people are not convinced,
    The thing that aggravates me is the media knows he is innocent,,,they are just thinking of profit so they trash him …
    We just have to keep putting the facts out there and all these official transcripts and first hand experiences people have had with the real man ,.
    It is almost like some kind of a scrimmage game with the media…..cant wait for the next installment.:)


  32. November 17, 2011 8:44 am

    I just finished reading Frank Cascio’s book. The one thing he said that really struck me is that he could care less what Michael looked like, he never even noticed facial changes because he was looking at a friend he loved, and that love was a constant. To me, Michael is Michael no matter how he looked. Throughout the years, his awesome soul is imprinted on his features, and that’s good enough for me.


  33. Nikki permalink
    November 17, 2011 7:47 am

    The Ebony photos were “touched up” were they not? You can tell a big difference between the photos published and the photos behind the scenes…

    TBH–I think MJ had a lot of “minimally invasive” things done–AKA Botox, fillers, temporary measures, etc. The one thing that was altered a lot of course, was his nose (and yes, there were more than 2 surgeries). However, it was still REAL. He did not have any physical implants in his face when he died, nothing extreme. The scaring behind his ears was likely from the scalp stretching (from the burn), too, not a face lift. I mean, look at the photos of his eyes–first you have to realize he had make-up tattooed (minor) which will change how he looked. Then, you realize in 2001 he had some Botox done. Then, you look in 2005 and wow, his eyes look like they did decades prior–again, looking past the make up, and things he had done faded. The feature that changed MJ the most was his skin color–which he could not help. Regardless, he was always a handsome, masculine man, too. People look for the differences when in reality they are not that many–they simply choose to see them. I can look at photos of him in 2005 and still see that bubbly little 10 year old who sang like an old soul much wiser than his physical years.

    I also always say–imagine being the most photographed and stalked man in the world–being called a “big nose”, having acne, being told your ugly, then losing your pigment and having to deal with becoming a white black man–not easy, if you ask me. I think anyone would struggle to deal with the change–and not very easily, either.

    BTW–Prince (the artist) was made fun of by others (not so much the media) about his coloring. He was also made fun of for his height and his face (he was teased and called a German Shepard as a child). He refers to his skin color as “yellow”. In person, he is! His parents were both light-complected African Americans, possibly with some French and/or Native American ancestry. Prince also addressed the issue of his race in “Controversy” and for whatever reasons, a white woman played his mother in “Purple Rain”. Regardless, both these men are handsome–so what if MJ’s color changed in adulthood and Prince was born light (photos of him when he was younger were darkened)–it was something he had to go through to try and minimize ridicule–other options would be to look like a “zebra” as some cruel people would say or try dark make up only to have it fail. He had limited options.

    David summed it up perfectly with this–“Let’s focus on what’s really important: regardless of how much plastic surgery MJ had on his face, he NEVER had plastic surgery on his heart! “


  34. Tahlia permalink
    November 17, 2011 7:11 am

    Absolutely! I’m really enjoying these new posts of yours, I can relate to so much of it having debated with so many people over the internet, and you’re absolutely right, anyone who is rational and intelligent will pay very close attention to what you’re saying, and there really isn’t anything they can come back with, there’s no evidence to back up their side. I’m very much looking forward to your other posts! I spend hours on this site reading things on here, some days I’ve spent up to 7-8 hours reading things here… I’m trying to find courses in my home town, I’m seriously considering doing a course in Private Investigation. I’ve always been very curious and I like to know how everything works and why. This blog has made me an even more curious person, and I think making a living doing things similar to what you’re doing here would be a great job.


  35. sanemjfan permalink
    November 17, 2011 6:24 am

    @ Tahlia
    Yes, you’re right, there are fans who have “faith” that MJ is innocent because he made “Man in the Mirror” and “Heal The World” and helped so many kids with his charity, and then you have fans who are just groupies, and are too lazy to do any substantive research. They only want a very basic knowledge of the allegations, if even that much! It’s frustrating to see those types of fans, because they make the whole community look bad!

    I hope to make it easier for fans to debate haters intelligently, and judging by Jill’s earlier comment, I know I’m making a difference! When I mentioned those questions that will be included in part 4, which I said would silence haters, what I meant is that if you’re engaging in civil discourse with someone, and you ask them those questions, and they make an INTELLIGENT, EDUCATED, AND RATIONAL attempt to answer those questions, then they will start to doubt themselves, and their reasons for thinking that MJ is guilty, and that will be the turning point (hopefully).

    But if that person has no intention of learning the truth, and only wants to put you down for being a fan and believing he is innocent, then there is absolutely nothing that you can say them, and the best course of action would be to end the conversation.


  36. Tahlia permalink
    November 17, 2011 5:46 am


    In part 4, I will present a list of foolproof questions that will absolutely SILENCE any hater! Stay tuned!

    Unless that hater is incredibly stupid. I’ve given people exonerating evidence for MJ and have seen people attempt to come back at me with some pretty pathetic arguments. Sometimes I think they do it because they don’t want to lose the argument and be the one who was wrong, especially when the argument is on the internet and so many people are reading it. A smart person however would know when they’ve been beaten and gracefully accept that they were wrong… some people simply will not do that.

    I’ve been defending MJ for a long time, and I’ve only ever come across two people over the internet that genuinely wanted to know the truth, it was on the main MJ fan page on facebook when it still had a discussion board. These two people were branded haters simply because they asked about the accusations and many of the fans got angry at me for talking to them. I would never have learned the truth about MJ’s accusations if someone on that same board hadn’t spoken with a hater months earlier, and I never would have found this blog.

    I explained to the fans on the discussion board that the reason I debated with these people wasn’t for the hater themselves, the genuine haters will never change their minds, but there are millions of people on that page, and you just never know who may be reading the discussion topics. The haters were asking valid questions, and if nobody answered them, what would the people reading the topic think? Unfortunately it seems that most of the fan base has little or no knowledge about the allegations against Michael, and many seem to frightened to look into it, but they shouldn’t be.

    On the official Michael Jackson fan page forum I once saw people saying that they didn’t need to research anything about it because they ‘just knew’ that he didn’t do it. This is the worst thing you can say when someone questions you about, and they will if you say you love MJ the man. I tried to tell them that if that’s what they said to people who asked them about the allegations that they would be written off as a blind fan that has no credibility… it seems what I said fell on deaf ears. Fortunately one other time someone posted up a topic about their teacher in school being a prick, and he wanted evidence that Michael was innocent, so I gave them a bunch of links to posts on this blog. I never heard the conclusions to that story, but the common trend when that topic comes up is that a lot of the time nobody can provide the person with any information because they don’t know anything about it. Other times when I posted something about the allegations the topic was largely ignored. I believe many people in the fan community are very scared of this subject.


  37. sanemjfan permalink
    November 17, 2011 4:03 am

    @ Jill
    Thank you for the warm compliments! I know EXACTLY how you feel! I’ve seen so many fans who get discouraged because they cannot effectively defend MJ against the thugs who hate him, so that’s why I was motivated to write this series.

    In part 4, I will present a list of foolproof questions that will absolutely SILENCE any hater! Stay tuned!


  38. November 17, 2011 3:20 am

    “vindicatemj: Thank you again for all your hard work on this blog. Now that I realize after starting to read these series of articles that you’ve started..”

    Jill, I am indeed working hard on this blog, but the series on the haters’ fallacies was started by my co-editor David Edwards, whose username is sanemjfan.

    He is also working hard here!



  39. Jill permalink
    November 17, 2011 3:02 am

    vindicatemj: Thank you again for all your hard work on this blog, every time I come here I am so astounded to read any new articles and I applaud you for all that you’ve done and continue to do in Michael Jackon’s name.

    I have loved Michael for ten years, but have been a fan for almost 4. And I must say that when there came times when I had to defend him against haters, I usually became very emotional about their disgusting trash talk of him. I would use the same technique over and over again when defending him, always talking about how wonderful he was, he didn’t have a childhood, etc. But now that I realize after starting to read these series of articles that you’ve started, that’s not the way to do it. You must leave the emotionality out of it and instead imply our intelligence of the facts pertaining to the cases, his life and what he had to deal with.

    We loved him very much but the haters don’t care about that, so to do justice to Michael’s name we must compose ourselves when dealing with haters and continue to be the educated voices for him always whenever we come in contact with ignorant people regarding Michael.


  40. November 17, 2011 12:07 am

    David, thank you for your post! When you were talking about haters claiming that Michael’s children “are not biologically his” I recalled one thing again.

    IF the kids are not his, then it is proof that Michael COULD be trusted with adopted or anyone else’s children.

    Haters should decide which point of view to adhere to – either they accuse him of unspeakable crimes, or they admit that children could be very well entrusted into Michael’s care and he was the best (foster) father in the world.

    EITHER this OR that.


  41. sanemjfan permalink
    November 16, 2011 1:19 pm

    @ Leo and Christina
    Thank you for your support! Feel free to leave a comment or ask a question anytime!


  42. Leo permalink
    November 16, 2011 12:51 pm

    I admire your blog and your dedication and a lot of my friends read it too, thank you for defending Michael! We love u!


  43. sanemjfan permalink
    November 16, 2011 10:57 am

    @ Johanna MJFan
    Thanks for clearing that up for me. I will remove that photo comparison of Paris.


  44. Jovana permalink
    November 16, 2011 10:34 am

    Thank you so much , once again. Your articles are amongst handful that are worth reading these days.


  45. November 16, 2011 10:22 am

    Paris’s skin was not lightened. The whole photo was too dark. This happens when the camera and the printer are not calibrated to the same mid-point, thus the brightness needs to be adjusted to suit the printer. If the photo is not calibrated properly, the resulting printout would be too dark, like the photo on the left. This results in loss of details in the darker areas, like Paris’s hair. As a result of this mid-point readjustment, the whole photo was brought to the correct point of lightness. If they had only lightened her skin, her hair and the grass would have remained the same colour. They are not. Also, the photo on the left has a yellowish cast. The whites of her eyes and dress are yellowish. The photo on the right has been colour corrected, although not entirely well because it now has a slightly pink cast. These are all merely artefacts of cameras and printers.


  46. November 16, 2011 10:18 am

    Excellent work once again. Can’t wait for Part 3…. Thank you for keeping me so informed. God bless!


  47. November 16, 2011 9:29 am

    Wow, I’ve had a busy day of playing catch up here! You’ve outdone yourself yet again with another outstanding piece. As for the paternity issue, Blanket certainly looks more and more like Michael every day. I just don’t see how anybody with eyes can deny that! I still wish I could find out if the alleged DNA test that Michael was said to have taken before signing the prenuptial agreement with Debbie actually exists; it would certainly be a bombshell if that evidence could be found. At the time that Prince and Paris were born, it did not seem to be an issue of paternity then. The media’s main concern was how much money Michael had paid to Debbie for their “arrangement.” Paternity did not seem to become a real issue until several years later. But let’s face it, it was only ever an issue to begin with because of the children’s complexions. Had those children been dark skinned and “looked” more African-American, nobody would question their paternity-regardless of whether they looked ANYTHING like Michael. And that is the simple truth. I also believe that the need of the media and haters to deny Michael the paternity of his children has to do with deeper issues regarding alleged “black self hatred” (the need to continue to perpetuate that belief) and also the need-for whatever reason-to keep him as a sort of emasculated, asexual eunich. There are people who have bought so strongly into the whole myth of Michael as either gay/gay pedophile or as an asexual man who seemed to have issues with women and adult sexuality-and apparently have invested so much into these myths-that they can’t accept something so simple as that maybe MJ actually fathered his own children. To admit such a thing would be to have to concede that just maybe he actually had sexual relationships with women, and that goes against the grain of all they hold precious and dear regarding their misconceptions of Michael Jackson.

    But I’ll just add here that regardless of whatever the truth might be regarding paternity, those kids are Michael’s and that should be the end of the issue.


  48. lynande51 permalink
    November 16, 2011 5:59 am

    David I am going to leave links for 3 articles about a lawsuit that MJ filed against the British Tabloid the Daily Mirror.In 1992 on the Dangerous Tour a photographer took photos of MJ.He took the photos to the Daily Mirror where they were distorted to appear as though his face was deformed from Cosmetic Surgeries MJ sued them for breech of contract and libel.They countersued and demanded his medical records.The case went on for 6 years before it was settled with Michael winning and a retraction and apology had to be published.During the examination of his records there was also an in person examination of his face done by Doctors for both sides. The interesting thing about the whole case is that even though he was not the managing editor when the story and photos were published the managing editor when the retraction and apology were released was Piers Morgan.So over the course of at least 6 years MJ could not have had any further surgery to alter his face and had to provide medical records to prove it.


  49. sanemjfan permalink
    November 16, 2011 4:51 am

    Thanks in advance for the compliments! I used Arial 12 point font, which is smaller than the font in the previous post, but larger than the standard WordPress font. I hope you guys like it! If not, I can use 13.5 font in the next post, which is slightly larger.

    I also want to address those photo comparisons. There is already some controversy over it, and someone who I respect very much challenged me over them. I’m not trying to whitewash MJ’s plastic surgeries, but what I am trying to say is that it was not as extensive as the media made it out to be!

    I’ve heard people say he “destroyed” and “mutilated” his face, but that’s not true. The basic structure of his face remained unchanged, and even though that Ebony 2007 photo is doctored.

    I feel that when you look at the totality of everything that MJ accomplished throughout his life, it’s petty and unimportant to focus on how much surgery he had. It’s really nobody’s business, and if you feel that you’re entitled to know about it, then you need to just get a life.

    The same people who tease him for having “too much plastic surgery” are the same people who THEMSELVES would get tans, botox, facelifts, breast implants, tummy tucks, liposuctions, nose jobs, wear wigs, wear weaves, wear extensions, etc., if money wasn’t an issue.



  1. Adventures Along the Color Line | pamelakjohnson
  2. Who Is It, Really? « dancing with the elephant
  3. Why I Love The Mature Face Of Michael – Source: AllForLove Blog – By Raven (Reprinted By Permission Of The Author) | ALL THINGS MICHAEL! ♥
  4. Why I Love The Mature Face of Michael | AllForLoveBlog
  5. Summary and Analysis of Martin Bashir’s Testimony from the 2005 Trial, Part 2 of 2 « Vindicating Michael
  6. How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used by Michael Jackson Haters, part 2 of 5 « Fan Blog for MJ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: