|
Post by electriceyes on May 24, 2023 17:10:21 GMT
I saw some hater saying how MJs photographer Harrison Funk gave some interview (on MJCast I think) prior to the release of LN. In the interview Funk mentioned how he was asked not to photograph the train station at Neverland as it was built before they had gotten a permit. The hater argued there was therefore no real way of knowing when the train station was actually built but it was absolutely before the date listed on the permit.
So has this now been debunked?
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on May 24, 2023 18:20:17 GMT
Haters didn't debunk anything. They are talking nonsense as usual. Read Update 3 here. themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2019/03/30/safechuck-alleges-sexual-abuse-at-a-train-station-that-did-not-even-exist-at-the-time/There are tons of dated photos, media articles etc from the time that prove the train station did nor exist until 1994. In photos taken of Neverland in August 1993 there's nothing there other than the floral clock. Mike Smallcombe even contacted one of the photographers to make sure that the date on his photos on Getty Images is correct. He said it is correct, he took the photos when the Chandler allegations broke in August 1993. Additionally newspaper photos made in December 1993 show a train station still under construction. No amount of reaching and mental gymnastics on haters' part will change these facts.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on May 24, 2023 18:45:15 GMT
Haters have done all kinds of mental gymnastics to try and explain this one away. It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic.
|
|
|
Post by electriceyes on May 25, 2023 7:27:19 GMT
Haters didn't debunk anything. They are talking nonsense as usual. Read Update 3 here. themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2019/03/30/safechuck-alleges-sexual-abuse-at-a-train-station-that-did-not-even-exist-at-the-time/There are tons of dated photos, media articles etc from the time that prove the train station did nor exist until 1994. In photos taken of Neverland in August 1993 there's nothing there other than the floral clock. Mike Smallcombe even contacted one of the photographers to make sure that the date on his photos on Getty Images is correct. He said it is correct, he took the photos when the Chandler allegations broke in August 1993. Additionally newspaper photos made in December 1993 show a train station still under construction. No amount of reaching and mental gymnastics on haters' part will change these facts. I should've known they were full of it. I saw an interview with the two clowns from the other day, Wade's still using his therapy-speech every other sentence and James's puppy dog face was even more cringe than I remembered. The woman interviewing was so holier than thou, "Michael Jackson is banned in my house" - congratulations, you take the tabloid press at their word. But funniest of all was when she said to Wade "MJ didn't make you a great dancer, that was you." Presumably she's never seen him dance. And surely even Wade himself isn't deluded enough to believe he would've been plucked out of obscurity from Australia if his paths had never crossed with MJ??
|
|
|
Post by ghost on May 25, 2023 8:08:36 GMT
Haters didn't debunk anything. They are talking nonsense as usual. Read Update 3 here. themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2019/03/30/safechuck-alleges-sexual-abuse-at-a-train-station-that-did-not-even-exist-at-the-time/There are tons of dated photos, media articles etc from the time that prove the train station did nor exist until 1994. In photos taken of Neverland in August 1993 there's nothing there other than the floral clock. Mike Smallcombe even contacted one of the photographers to make sure that the date on his photos on Getty Images is correct. He said it is correct, he took the photos when the Chandler allegations broke in August 1993. Additionally newspaper photos made in December 1993 show a train station still under construction. No amount of reaching and mental gymnastics on haters' part will change these facts. I should've known they were full of it. I saw an interview with the two clowns from the other day, Wade's still using his therapy-speech every other sentence and James's puppy dog face was even more cringe than I remembered. The woman interviewing was so holier than thou, "Michael Jackson is banned in my house" - congratulations, you take the tabloid press at their word. But funniest of all was when she said to Wade "MJ didn't make you a great dancer, that was you." Presumably she's never seen him dance. And surely even Wade himself isn't deluded enough to believe he would've been plucked out of obscurity from Australia if his paths had never crossed with MJ?? What's annoying is how anybody interviewing W&J panders to them, because everyone's so afraid of challenging "victims". But if they want to go public and seek millions in compensation then they SHOULD be challenged to prove the validity of their claims. If it had gone to court, they would've had to have done this under cross examination. I would love just one time for an interviewer to have the guts to ask James about the train station. I wonder how "sincere and relatable" he would come across as if he weren't always being treated with kid-gloves by the people interviewing him. At the end of the day, the truth holds up to scrutiny... what are they so afraid of?
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on May 25, 2023 9:36:14 GMT
fans debunked this since LN came out. there's wasn't no train station built yet.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on May 25, 2023 11:07:05 GMT
I should've known they were full of it.ย I saw an interview with the two clowns from the other day, Wade's still using his therapy-speech every other sentence and James's puppy dog face was even more cringe than I remembered.ย The woman interviewing was so holier than thou, "Michael Jackson is banned in my house" - congratulations, you take the tabloid press at their word. But funniest of all was when she said to Wade "MJ didn't make you a great dancer, that was you." Presumably she's never seen him dance. And surely even Wade himself isn't deluded enough to believe he would've been plucked out of obscurity from Australia if his paths had never crossed with MJ?? What's annoying is how anybody interviewing W&J panders to them, because everyone's so afraid of challenging "victims". But if they want to go public and seek millions in compensation then they SHOULD be challenged to prove the validity of their claims. If it had gone to court, they would've had to have done this under cross examination. I would love just one time for an interviewer to have the guts to ask James about the train station. I wonder how "sincere and relatable" he would come across as if he weren't always being treated with kid-gloves by the people interviewing him. At the end of the day, the truth holds up to scrutiny... what are they so afraid of? The pandering to Wade and James and their act as this big "victims' advocates" (with podcast and all) is even more cringe considering what they are actually doing in Court (if only more people knew!)
|
|
|
Post by Russg on May 26, 2023 12:31:16 GMT
What's annoying is how anybody interviewing W&J panders to them, because everyone's so afraid of challenging "victims". But if they want to go public and seek millions in compensation then they SHOULD be challenged to prove the validity of their claims. If it had gone to court, they would've had to have done this under cross examination. I would love just one time for an interviewer to have the guts to ask James about the train station. I wonder how "sincere and relatable" he would come across as if he weren't always being treated with kid-gloves by the people interviewing him. At the end of the day, the truth holds up to scrutiny... what are they so afraid of? The pandering to Wade and James and their act as this big "victims' advocates" (with podcast and all) is even more cringe considering what they are actually doing in Court (if only more people knew!) Yeah, that's pretty diabolical. It says to me that neither of them really believe JC was a victim, because if they did (because they were themselves), they would surely be a bit more understanding and compassion about a fellow victim not wanting to get involved. They could so easily have had everyone believing them, hell even I would be inclined to, if they hadn't been on a relentless pursuit to fleece his estate from day one. Actions speak louder than words.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on May 26, 2023 12:49:42 GMT
The pandering to Wade and James and their act as this big "victims' advocates" (with podcast and all) is even more cringe considering what they are actually doing in Court (if only more people knew!) Yeah, that's pretty diabolical. It says to me that neither of them really believe JC was a victim, because if they did (because they were themselves), they would surely be a bit more understanding and compassion about a fellow victim not wanting to get involved. They could so easily have had everyone believing them, hell even I would be inclined to, if they hadn't been on a relentless pursuit to fleece his estate from day one. Actions speak louder than words.Even if they weren't suing for monetary gain, the inconsistencies, constantly-evolving recollections and provable lies would still exist. Plenty of abuse victims sue for compensation from big names, that alone doesn't undermine their credibility. The evidence is what vindicates MJ, not the fact that his accusers have sought money. Guiltists love to pull that one on us, in an attempt to undermine us, the "it's all about money" argument, because quite frankly, if that was all I had in MJ's defense, I wouldn't be so convinced of his innocence. Too many people are unwilling to take the time to actually pick apart the allegations themselves, what exactly was alleged, the timeline of events etc - it's just easier to be led by emotions and pick a side. This is why fans say to do the research, because if you do, you can only come to one conclusion about Wade and James.
|
|
|
Post by Russg on May 28, 2023 9:08:21 GMT
Yeah, that's pretty diabolical. It says to me that neither of them really believe JC was a victim, because if they did (because they were themselves), they would surely be a bit more understanding and compassion about a fellow victim not wanting to get involved. They could so easily have had everyone believing them, hell even I would be inclined to, if they hadn't been on a relentless pursuit to fleece his estate from day one. Actions speak louder than words.Even if they weren't suing for monetary gain, the inconsistencies, constantly-evolving recollections and provable lies would still exist. Plenty of abuse victims sue for compensation from big names, that alone doesn't undermine their credibility. The evidence is what vindicates MJ, not the fact that his accusers have sought money. Guiltists love to pull that one on us, in an attempt to undermine us, the "it's all about money" argument, because quite frankly, if that was all I had in MJ's defense, I wouldn't be so convinced of his innocence. Too many people are unwilling to take the time to actually pick apart the allegations themselves, what exactly was alleged, the timeline of events etc - it's just easier to be led by emotions and pick a side. This is why fans say to do the research, because if you do, you can only come to one conclusion about Wade and James. I'm playing devils advocate here a little, but the trouble with the "do the research" line is, you can't honestly deny that we fans don't have a heavy bias towards believing in MJ's innocence. This is something I'm acutely aware of and try to wrestle with to ensure I'm not backing the wrong horse. It's not like when Wade first came out on the Today show that a whole bunch of fans said "lets wait and see what his allegations are exactly and do the research, before we make any rash judgements." Fans were calling Robson a liar from day one, it was only later on that a lot of the inconsistencies in his story backed up the fans kneejerk assertion that Robson was likely full of shit.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on May 28, 2023 9:27:28 GMT
Even if they weren't suing for monetary gain, the inconsistencies, constantly-evolving recollections and provable lies would still exist. Plenty of abuse victims sue for compensation from big names, that alone doesn't undermine their credibility. The evidence is what vindicates MJ, not the fact that his accusers have sought money. Guiltists love to pull that one on us, in an attempt to undermine us, the "it's all about money" argument, because quite frankly, if that was all I had in MJ's defense, I wouldn't be so convinced of his innocence. Too many people are unwilling to take the time to actually pick apart the allegations themselves, what exactly was alleged, the timeline of events etc - it's just easier to be led by emotions and pick a side. This is why fans say to do the research, because if you do, you can only come to one conclusion about Wade and James. I'm playing devils advocate here a little, but the trouble with the "do the research" line is, you can't honestly deny that we fans don't have a heavy bias towards believing in MJ's innocence. This is something I'm acutely aware of and try to wrestle with to ensure I'm not backing the wrong horse. It's not like when Wade first came out on the Today show that a whole bunch of fans said "lets wait and see what his allegations are exactly and do the research, before we make any rash judgements." Fans were calling Robson a liar from day one, it was only later on that a lot of the inconsistencies in his story backed up the fans kneejerk assertion that Robson was likely full of shit. Bias exists on both sides though, you can't just point the finger at the fans and say "their research into the case is clouded by bias because of their fandom", when staunch guiltists are just as heavily biased to the other side and routinely overlook some glaring holes in W&J's story to further their own agenda. Facts are facts and no amount of mental gymnastic can change certain things, like Safechuck lying about being molested in a building that hadn't been built at the time of his alleged abuse or Wade claim to having been first abused at Neverland when his family went to The Grand Canyon, when Wades mother testified under oath that Wade went with them on that holiday. These things are just the tip of the iceberg. As for fans condemning Robson as a liar from day one, I think many of us who'd already lived through the 1993 and 2005 cases were well aware of what an easy target MJ had already been in the past and our understandable suspicions that this was yet another moneygrab were confirmed when it leaked even before the Today show that Wade had tried to seek a multi-million dollar settlement from MJs estate under seal, before his phoney spiel about "talking the truth as loudly as he hid the lie."
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on May 28, 2023 18:07:26 GMT
I'm playing devils advocate here a little, but the trouble with the "do the research" line is, you can't honestly deny that we fans don't have a heavy bias towards believing in MJ's innocence. This is something I'm acutely aware of and try to wrestle with to ensure I'm not backing the wrong horse. It's not like when Wade first came out on the Today show that a whole bunch of fans said "lets wait and see what his allegations are exactly and do the research, before we make any rash judgements." Fans were calling Robson a liar from day one, it was only later on that a lot of the inconsistencies in his story backed up the fans kneejerk assertion that Robson was likely full of shit. Bias exists on both sides though, you can't just point the finger at the fans and say "their research into the case is clouded by bias because of their fandom", when staunch guiltists are just as heavily biased to the other side and routinely overlook some glaring holes in W&J's story to further their own agenda. Facts are facts and no amount of mental gymnastic can change certain things, like Safechuck lying about being molested in a building that hadn't been built at the time of his alleged abuse or Wade claim to having been first abused at Neverland when his family went to The Grand Canyon, when Wades mother testified under oath that Wade went with them on that holiday. These things are just the tip of the iceberg.ย As for fans condemning Robson as a liar from day one, I think many of us who'd already lived through the 1993 and 2005 cases were well aware of what an easy target MJ had already been in the past and our understandable suspicions that this was yet another moneygrab were confirmed when it leaked even before the Today show that Wade had tried to seek a multi-million dollar settlement from MJs estate under seal, before his phoney spiel about "talking the truth as loudly as he hid the lie." If only I could like this a hundred times! Having a bias does not necessarily mean you're wrong, but asserting so means the person using that argument is using a logical fallacy. It's an error in logic and reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by electriceyes on May 29, 2023 5:47:56 GMT
I'm playing devils advocate here a little, but the trouble with the "do the research" line is, you can't honestly deny that we fans don't have a heavy bias towards believing in MJ's innocence. This is something I'm acutely aware of and try to wrestle with to ensure I'm not backing the wrong horse. It's not like when Wade first came out on the Today show that a whole bunch of fans said "lets wait and see what his allegations are exactly and do the research, before we make any rash judgements." Fans were calling Robson a liar from day one, it was only later on that a lot of the inconsistencies in his story backed up the fans kneejerk assertion that Robson was likely full of shit. Bias exists on both sides though, you can't just point the finger at the fans and say "their research into the case is clouded by bias because of their fandom", when staunch guiltists are just as heavily biased to the other side and routinely overlook some glaring holes in W&J's story to further their own agenda. Facts are facts and no amount of mental gymnastic can change certain things, like Safechuck lying about being molested in a building that hadn't been built at the time of his alleged abuse or Wade claim to having been first abused at Neverland when his family went to The Grand Canyon, when Wades mother testified under oath that Wade went with them on that holiday. These things are just the tip of the iceberg. As for fans condemning Robson as a liar from day one, I think many of us who'd already lived through the 1993 and 2005 cases were well aware of what an easy target MJ had already been in the past and our understandable suspicions that this was yet another moneygrab were confirmed when it leaked even before the Today show that Wade had tried to seek a multi-million dollar settlement from MJs estate under seal, before his phoney spiel about "talking the truth as loudly as he hid the lie." Is this true? I've never heard this one before. ๐ณ
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on May 29, 2023 6:30:34 GMT
Bias exists on both sides though, you can't just point the finger at the fans and say "their research into the case is clouded by bias because of their fandom", when staunch guiltists are just as heavily biased to the other side and routinely overlook some glaring holes in W&J's story to further their own agenda. Facts are facts and no amount of mental gymnastic can change certain things, like Safechuck lying about being molested in a building that hadn't been built at the time of his alleged abuse or Wade claim to having been first abused at Neverland when his family went to The Grand Canyon, when Wades mother testified under oath that Wade went with them on that holiday. These things are just the tip of the iceberg.ย As for fans condemning Robson as a liar from day one, I think many of us who'd already lived through the 1993 and 2005 cases were well aware of what an easy target MJ had already been in the past and our understandable suspicions that this was yet another moneygrab were confirmed when it leaked even before the Today show that Wade had tried to seek a multi-million dollar settlement from MJs estate under seal, before his phoney spiel about "talking the truth as loudly as he hid the lie." Is this true? I've never heard this one before. ๐ณย Yes, this video talks about the Grand Canyon story contradiction around 8:40 also showing both Robson's and Joy's depositions.
|
|
|
Post by kelley on Jun 10, 2023 3:52:47 GMT
Yeah, that's pretty diabolical. It says to me that neither of them really believe JC was a victim, because if they did (because they were themselves), they would surely be a bit more understanding and compassion about a fellow victim not wanting to get involved. They could so easily have had everyone believing them, hell even I would be inclined to, if they hadn't been on a relentless pursuit to fleece his estate from day one. Actions speak louder than words.Even if they weren't suing for monetary gain, the inconsistencies, constantly-evolving recollections and provable lies would still exist. Plenty of abuse victims sue for compensation from big names, that alone doesn't undermine their credibility. The evidence is what vindicates MJ, not the fact that his accusers have sought money. Guiltists love to pull that one on us, in an attempt to undermine us, the "it's all about money" argument, because quite frankly, if that was all I had in MJ's defense, I wouldn't be so convinced of his innocence. Too many people are unwilling to take the time to actually pick apart the allegations themselves, what exactly was alleged, the timeline of events etc - it's just easier to be led by emotions and pick a side. This is why fans say to do the research, because if you do, you can only come to one conclusion about Wade and James. That font says questionable things all the time. Everytime I see a comment that makes me go wtf its almost always them.
|
|