Was Michael Jackson killed by the PTB to distract from Iran and/or NK?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 10:47 AM by grapesofraft
reply to post by Kaytagg



Why do you think it is not possible?



reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 10:53 AM by grapesofraft
reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest



Good point. A new child molestation scandal could have been even huger. However, we know the Cali government is strapped for cash these days, so maybe they just thought it was cheaper to kill him than all the costs associated with another huge trial.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by grapesofraft]


reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 10:54 AM by Kaytagg
reply to post by grapesofraft



It makes no sense.

The MSM, the media that gets the most views, is already owned by TPTB.

Why would they have to kill celebrities to censor the news? They already do that, without having to kill anyone. They control the debate, the stories, the perspectives, etc.

CNN/FOX/NBC/CBS/ABC are not public or independent news stations. They're owned by very rich, powerful people with an agenda. They derive their revenue from people with even more money, with a much bigger agenda (the advertisers).

The reason they're talking about MJ so much is because people tune in to listen to it, which gives them more leverage when they set their advertising prices.


reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 10:55 AM by InterconnecteD
reply to post by grapesofraft



no i think its because there is some bill going to be signed today that was only presented yesterday... Waxmaley-something i do not know the enitre name but it is suppose to make our taxes sky rocket or give them the right to do so.. and like i mentioned above it has to been signed today or in senate to see if it will "pass" it is 400 pages and only presented to them yesterday.. who needs to read when you hve a fill-a-buster


reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 10:57 AM by grapesofraft
reply to post by InterconnecteD



So you think MJ was killed by the PTB but not because of Iran or NK, but so they can pass a new tax laden bill? Could be!



reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 11:00 AM by grapesofraft
reply to post by Kaytagg



It is one thing to keep it off the MSM, but they know they cant keep it off the internet. They know that if they get us focused solely on the MSM, watching MJ covreage then we wont be looking at other sources of info or even be as aware of what is going on in the world. Things like this are captivating events. See my point?

We need to think outside the box like the PTB do.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by grapesofraft]


reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 11:03 AM by grapesofraft
reply to post by Sarahko



Ahh I see. So you think his death was faked? That could be so. I bet it would be attractive to him to lead a normal life.


reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 11:05 AM by sugarmonkey
reply to post by grapesofraft



Honestly, in my opinion, I'd say no. If you think about it, Ed Mcmahon was what, 86 with health problems? It's not really a bad age to die at either, he lived a long full life. Farah Fawcet was 62, and had been fighting cancer that had ended up spreading to her liver for the last 3 years. MJ was a shock death because no one really expected it. The stuff going on in Iran etc. has been going on long enough to grab the public attention where they really don't need to off celebrities to distract us.

Just my 2 cents


reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 11:08 AM by Kaytagg
reply to post by grapesofraft



The MSM could shut down tomorrow, never air a single second of any kind of news, and you would still have just as many clueless cows in the dark.

Real news is available, often in the business press, but mostly online, as you say. It's always there for people to find. They just have to look for it -- and lets face it, most people are too lazy or incompetent to know where to find real news.

They're also too caught up in the left/right paradigm to actually listen to what's being said. Instead they just care about who's saying it.



reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 11:10 AM by grapesofraft
reply to post by Kaytagg



This could be why MJ's death is such a good distraction, because he was bigger than left/right. People from both sides loved him and so his death would be a distraction to most of the population. Just look at how much news resources are spent on a man who hasnt had a hit song since the 90's, and whose face is basically a mask, and who is an alleged child molester. WTF!


reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 11:14 AM by grapesofraft
reply to post by jerico65



I agree and you could be right that it is to hide something much bigger than Iran or NK. Something like the Climate Control Bill could be just such a thing. My bad, I should have thought more outside the box.


reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 11:16 AM by grapesofraft
reply to post by redhead57



To me this could just be proof that they killed him off in the right time to distract the public from something big. He abused himself and others and he was probably going to die early anyway, so they use that logic to kill him off for their own purposes without having to feel too guilty about it.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 15 days ago with 276 member flags
Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 11 days ago with 122 member flags
STOP....Take a STEP BACK....and look at the BIG PICTURE!!
  Posted 17 days ago with 115 member flags
Was this the real reason why Megaupload was closed down?
  Posted 16 days ago with 96 member flags
The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 14 days ago with 85 member flags
Denver Airport Allows Camera Crew in Underground Facility
  Posted 13 days ago with 83 member flags