Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Earth is Flat, and Other Widely Accepted Innaccuracies

Just think about all the things you once believed that you now understand to be false….

Recently Badkolo’s infamous theory commonly know as the “2005 Trials Were a Hoax” theory has resurfaced thanks to my posts regarding the Pepsi accident possibly having been hoaxed by Michael Jackson. It has come to my attention that there is a great deal of misinformation out there in the hoax community about this theory so I elected to officially document it to clear up the rumors and correct the misconceptions that run rampant in some circles.

The theory does not state that the 2005 trial itself was a hoax, in fact it depends on the fact that the proceedings were very real. More accurately the theory states that Michael in a sense baited the DA (and the Arvizo family) in an attempt to prove a point. An attempt that ultimately failed in it’s purpose and message.

Do you really think Michael got fooled by Bashir? Do you really think he is that stupid? I don’t understand how someone can think Michael is brilliant enough to orchestrate a death hoax of this magnitude yet dumb enough to get fucked over that badly. Come on. Of course he knew Bashir would smear him, that’s why he had his own cameras filming everything in the back round. Do you really think after one set of child molestation allegations Michael would continue to host sleepovers with minors WITHOUT CCTV in the bedroom? And then do a very personal revealing train wreck of an interview designed for a national audience where he gave up all control over the aired edit?

Don’t you agree that it’s possible Michael called the DA’s bluff by taunting him with this interview KNOWING they had nothing on him, and that’s why he did that Bashir piece with the kid and the insistence that sharing your bed is a loving thing to do? Because he could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt nothing inappropriate happened- perhaps he was defiantly trying to set it all up to prove once and for all his innocence on the public stage. You want to call me a kid toucher mother fuckers? I’m gonna prove you’re all sick liars.

Do you really think Michael was naive enough to trust that family of track record con artists the Arvizos or do you think it’s possible he set them up/used them if you will?

Perhaps, just maybe, he intended to take it to trial to PROVE that the DA is shady and the cops are corrupt and the family were gold diggers and that the media unfairly condemn people with no evidence of wrong doing but the plan backfired and the message never got properly relayed.

People weren’t listening, the media reported their version of the facts, and the “hoax” was a PR fail. You win some you lose some. With CCTV in the bedroom, there’s no way he’d ever set one foot in prison. It would be the wild card of defense evidence and ended up being unnecessary to present. Why wouldn’t Michael’s defense team present CCTV tapes if they existed? Because then there would have been no trial, no public display, no hoax.

Do you REALLY think Michael Jackson would do a DEATH hoax the first time out? Or do you think it’s plausible that he has hoaxed before, possibly many times?

Badkolo adds this:

The same way its so easy for so many of us to accept that he hoaxed his death is the same way it should be easy to comprehend that it takes time and a agenda to pull off something as complicated as a death hoax. Whatever sparked the initial idea of a death hoax is what we are all searching for. If we are to believe that he wasn’t as naive and fragile as some make him out to be then we can agree that Michael Jackson was a genius. If we are going to be open minded enough to allow the thought that he left clues in many of his songs, left them in his memorial, and that almost everything surrounding this so called death hoax is full of clues, then it shouldn’t be a issue to be open minded about the possibility that Michael Jackson has staged and hoaxed numerous other events in his life.

Perception is key. If we can agree that Michael is hoaxing his death, then we can also agree that hes the one pulling the strings behind the scenes, and if that is the case, then everything that has been revealed to us over time is exactly what Michael wanted us to see. Take into account everything that has been revealed and then decide how much of what has been seen throughout the years is real or a matter of perception. Do you really know what you have been seeing, do you?


2 Responses to “Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Earth is Flat, and Other Widely Accepted Innaccuracies”

  1. Doctor Death Says:

    Well, the thing that beats me is —-

    Would he also be so NAIVE to underestimate the smear campaign that the media would unleash once news about the second set of allegations broke? How can you say that “This was a PR fail……He intended to prove that the DA is shady….”

    Michael was way past his prime 2001 onwards..Invincible had bombed…Strife with Sony….And as if the lifelong image of an eccentric in the public eye was not enough, those infamous photographs of his disfigured face at the Avram trials (Double or no double….Its still “officially” him) accompanied with the latest child molestation accusations carried more than enough weight to make him hit rock bottom face first. He would have known that better than anyone else.

    When you’re accused of harming a minor, the advantage always lies with the minor, because him/her being physically weaker than the adult and no matter how many times you’re acquitted, you’ll always be guilty in the public eye, unless you happen to be a certain Malcolm X or a certain Martin Luther King, which Michael was clearly not to the public at the begining of the decade…..Plus him making those comments about “Sharing a bed ” didnt help it and on the contrary, further cemented his image as a pervert in the people’s eyes…..Because if the first trial left people guessing, by the time the second was over, people were convinced that somehow, something fishy is going on at Neverland….A belief taht most people cling on to to this day.

    If this was a hoax as you say it was, the executors grossly underestimated the fact that doing this was like throwing yourself in front of an incoming train….The aftermath—quite predictable….Michael ended up messed up than ever before……

    In other words, a man who can pull off a death hoax couldnt be foolish enough to underestimate the fact that innocent or guilty, the media would come after him like starving dogs and tear him to shreds…..As for the people, he’d been all the more NAIVE if he thought that people would actually think for themselves….I mean c’mon, how many people do?

    Its just like a rape case….the advantage always lies with the woman and even if the man is genuinely acquitted, that is, acquitted without having to flex his financial muscle—on the basis of evidence only, people will always sense/cook up stories as to how he’d got away using “unfair” means.

    So if this was a hoax, Yes it was quite a NAIVE one.

  2. Interesting Doc, and a very good reply.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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: