Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
Hoax Theories => The Double Theory => Topic started by: curls on September 21, 2013, 10:05:18 AM
-
I'd like to talk and hear about 2 MJ's. Souza, if you'd rather this was a new thread, feel free to make it into one. I remember briefly coming across this idea when I was new here but I think it was information overload in those days and I admit to not giving it much serious thought. I've just read Souza's 'It Takes Two to Tango' blogs, with an open mind, I might add, as nothing surprises me where MJ is concerned, and these are my honest, as I read, thoughts.
Part 1: http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/page,two_1.html
Part 2: http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/page,two_2.html
We have had help. We have been receiving information, photo’s, video’s, documents and clues for months that we could work with. These ‘plants’ as we call them, are legit, we have no doubt about that. Through this way we want to thank them all for their help and even the ones that were send to mislead us, because that kept us sharp. You all
know who you are (http://s1.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif?m=1129645325g)
This implies the 2 MJ idea (and others) did not come directly from Souza but were 'planted' - this doesn't make them true or false, but I think it's worth bearing in mind.
Intelius threw up Michael J Jackson and Mike J Jackson, both aged 51 (at time of search), with some relatives in common. At this point I have to ask about some of those relatives' names - is there a Billie Jean Jackson?? Randy Steven and Steven Randall?? Many more who I haven't heard of, which means nothing - in the extended family there are bound to be members I've not heard of. This led me to the thought that Michael and Jackson are both extremely common names, there are many Michael Jacksons (one, interestingly wrote Blame it on the Boogie!) and it's also not impossible that within the extended Jackson family there indeed IS another Michael. (I have two Matthew ---------'s in my extended family)
Unfortunately (or conveniently, depending on how you're looking at things), we don't have access to any Jackson birth certificates, but even if we did, unless there was definite proof there of a twin for Michael, they could not be used as conclusive proof. Not seeing (or being shown) a BC for a twin would not disprove his existence.
So…according to the info we got, Michael Jackson is one of a twin… Michael has a TWIN BROTHER, named Mike J Jackson. We were speechless,
but at the same moment it made a LOT clear!
I think this is a huge leap. Souza, I'd love to hear more on why you found these Intelius records so conclusive. You obviously have seen something I haven't.
None of the pictures that are then shown on the blog prove a twin for me. Knowing MJ's capacity for disguise and love of mystery and intrigue, and the fact that people can and do look different depending on health and mood before we even start on lighting and make up, I'm far more inclined to go with MJ himself being responsible for any differences seen, not a twin.
The glove, worn on different hands is, I think, a somewhat weak argument for a twin as well.
You can see the brothers wear the gloves both right and left. At the memorial they have 2 gloves on the right, 3 on the left, at the
burial they have 3 gloves on the right and 2 on the left. Makes you
wonder…
Sorry, but all that makes me wonder is if they were saving money and only bought 3 pairs of gloves, to share between the 5 brothers!
So, I have a few basic questions about all this.
Why did we never hear of this twin while MJ was still young? Were they pretending to be one person right from the outset of MJ's public performances? Did no-one in Gary know about these twins, and ask questions?
If Katherine and Joseph had found out they had two equally talented identical twin boys, would they see that as an opportunity to 'lighten the load' of both of them by getting them to secretly share performances, and be prepared for a life of secrecy, deception and just plain old hassle forever ... or ... would they see it as double the 'cute' factor of a single little MJ, an entertainment 'gimic', with huge money making potential?
Why wouldn't they have just performed openly as individuals or together as twins? Why would they need to pretend to be one person?
Or, did they look into the future and know life would get tough for one of their twins, so they kept one hidden, in reserve, ready to provide back-up and respite for the other?
Finally, surely no-one calls their twins the same name! So if one was registered under a different name at birth (and only assumed Mike or Michael later), then is it even possible to track him down at all?
Ok. this has turned out much longer than I intended! Well done if you've got this far! I'd love to hear any comments.
EDIT: So, Souza, did one of them die on June 25th or is it a joint hoax?
-
Why would the parents [katherine and joe] hide the other Michael, while all of these other brothers weren't much famous yet during their childhood?
What was the need to do that?
That kind of doesn't make any sense to me. Is there any way we can debunk this?
-
Maybe 'Mike J Jackson' is an alias, to create confusion? is that possible?
-
Why would the parents [katherine and joe] hide the other Michael, while all of these other brothers weren't much famous yet during their childhood?
What was the need to do that?
That kind of doesn't make any sense to me. Is there any way we can debunk this?
This was the 50's, they did not have a lot of money, Joe was working his ass off to feed all those kids so why would it be so strange if one extra baby was just one too many at that particular time and he lived with a family member, probably visiting a lot? Those blogs are old, I do not believe in twins anymore, but brothers for sure. You can not have a complete stranger look and sound that much like you. There is a difference if you where to look, but it's not big, at least not when they were younger. I bet that difference became bigger and bigger and then there was the problem that one had vitiligo and turned lighter and lighter so they had to cake one up in make-up. Also there is a pretty obvious hight difference. One is my height, the other is definitely skinnier and taller.
Go to the home page of this website again and listen very good to that song, keep repeating if needed. And I am not just talking about lyrics. I have so much more on this, but I'll leave it at that for now and the pic below...
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/images/wtf.jpg)
Me thinks the one on the first row is a bit younger than the one on the bottom row and does not have vitiligo which is why we always see the round eyed one with layers and layers of make-up.
-
Souza, how's this: at some point in the late 70's maybe, the 'original' Michael Jackson decided that he was going to become a 'character', let's call him 'MJ' (in fact, didn't he say something to that effect in that manifesto?) - a character who would henceforth be 'played' by two people - himself and his hitherto unknown brother who luckily happened to look, sound and dance (almost) the same as he did?
-
I always thought a lot about the many expressions and the many faces of Michael :icon_rolleyes: and now reviewing all the material I am amazed and speechless... :smiley-vault-misc-150:
They both are disappeared in June 25 ? :smiley-vault-misc-150:
-
i suppose there is no information as to when these documents became unavailable to be researched ( the birth records that is) :suspect:
-
If Joe found it hard to raise 10 kids ( the 9 known children + the 'other' Michael) why would he send that one extra somewhere else and keep all the other 9 to himself? If Joe wanted to make things easier, he could have sent at least three kids to some place else.
Plus the pictures in the front row are all from 'photoshoots' and the ones in the second row are candids/appearances. There will always be a difference in a photo shoot pic and a candid.
-
If Joe found it hard to raise 10 kids ( the 9 known children + the 'other' Michael) why would he send that one extra somewhere else and keep all the other 9 to himself? If Joe wanted to make things easier, he could have sent at least three kids to some place else.
If Joe wanted to make things easier he'd have kept his pants zipped!
-
@Curls :icon_lol:
thank you curls, i felt inhibited to say that!
-
If Joe found it hard to raise 10 kids ( the 9 known children + the 'other' Michael) why would he send that one extra somewhere else and keep all the other 9 to himself? If Joe wanted to make things easier, he could have sent at least three kids to some place else.
Plus the pictures in the front row are all from 'photoshoots' and the ones in the second row are candids/appearances. There will always be a difference in a photo shoot pic and a candid.
Agree with this question. The last three kids were Michael, Randy, and Janet. Why not send away all three (i.e., the alleged double plus Randy and Janet)?
-
Another point I'd like to add.
The other MJ had no reason to not be famous or atleast known to the public, when all the other Jackson kids were making public appearances.
It's known that Michael penned that manifesto in 1979, so that was the period when Michael started having such intentions. This other fellow had enough time to be public before the original Michael used him as a double.
-
The best evidence, in my opinion, for 2 MJs is the Bashir tapes. But over the years I concede that it may well be just one MJ pretending to be 2 or more different persons... or suggesting heavily-- by use of makeup, wigs/hair styles, and persona screenacting-- to be 2 or more distinct persons.
Considering that I firmly believe the O2 guy is MJ pretending to be a bad impersonator of himself, it suggests via a documented historical pattern of behavior, that he has done this before. If someone does something once, it's most likely they have done it before/will do it again, rather then being an isolated incident. History usually repeats when it comes to behavior.
In straight English, I think has MJ publicly pretended to be two, or more, different people, on multiple occasions over the years, in order to be mysterious and keep people wondering. I believe that MJ is the ultimate showman and his public life is a constant performance. Over MJ's public life, I theorize that, once in awhile the "double" would come out, for fun, or perhaps when he wanted to "hide". Similar to sunglasses, pretending to be someone other then yourself is a way of securing one's own privacy. He would wear a mask, literally at times, figuratively at others. Sometimes he's real, and genuine, sometimes he's the double. Real MJ/Public MJ. Who knows which is which? It's not really possible to discern. That's why he's the man we never knew and his own personal privacy is forever insured.
I think that once we were sucked into the hoax, it was inevitable that we would look back on MJ's life in order to do research, and what better way to do that then to pull up old videos of interviews and appearances. Unfortunately for us but fortunate for him, this isn't really research in the scientific sense, rather an entertaining way to immerse ourselves in all things MJ. By "researching" MJ, we are playing a sort of game, encountering all sorts of amazing and fantastic side stories and plots. Contained within that old media is MJ doing this kind of stuff for years, in very subtle fashion, culminating with one of the least subtle performances of this faux double @O2.
If you watch the O2 performance and suspect that this guy isn't MJ, it's natural that you will look back on other MJ appearences over the decades in search for more evidence of this double, as it's clearly done too well to be something concocted over night. It's really impossible to prove O2 guy isn't MJ, and there were 347985 photos to use in good lighting and close up, down to the dentition; which IS possible to fake, don't get me wrong, but not easily. And if someone went through that much trouble, it's probably not the first time.
I think O2 guy is simultaneously the proof for and against the 2 MJs theory. It's a brilliant performance.
-
And just because they are twins they have the same illness?(aka vitiligo) I think that there is nothing that can bleach your skin..
-
Souza, you are being very quiet on this! I have to ask if this is in fact a 'theory' you (or your 'sources') came up with just to see what members reactions would be! If you seriously believe in the 'other brother' theory, please explain more. I'd love to hear too from those who expressed a belief in 2MJ's on the 'questions' thread.
Until I see more a more logical explanation for the differences we have seen, I agree with bec, as I said in my opening post - we are dealing with a showman here, an illusionist. What better way to raise questions, create mystery & intrigue and have some fun, than to play around with disguises of yourself!
-
I think too that there are 2 Michael, but i rearly have no idea why they are separated since a so Young Age.
Then it let some things Michael said shining in a different light, like on the Album Invincible he thanks his " other Family " and his grandma Nicholette Sottilem which i never could find in Michaels Family ....who is it ?
So i more think it's not a brother...one has more english Accent, one american.
The lyrics from " Best of Joy " are so interesting and it rearly sounds like two are singing a Duett :
http://www.metrolyrics.com/best-of-joy-lyrics-michael-jackson.html
Much love from Germany :)
-
I find no Video with the soundtrack frpm " Best of Joy "...they delet the Sound and so only the one who have the CD are able to listen to the voices... :(
I wonder why they delete it... :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrzYSSO_CG0
-
I think too that there are 2 Michael, but i rearly have no idea why they are separated since a so Young Age.
Then it let some things Michael said shining in a different light, like on the Album Invincible he thanks his " other Family " and his grandma Nicholette Sottilem which i never could find in Michaels Family ....who is it ?
So i more think it's not a brother...one has more english Accent, one american.
The lyrics from " Best of Joy " are so interesting and it rearly sounds like two are singing a Duett :
http://www.metrolyrics.com/best-of-joy-lyrics-michael-jackson.html
Upsy....i see it Jet... please scroll down at the lyric site and you see :
Songwriter Michael Joe Jackson ! :th_bravo:
Much love from Germany :)
-
I agree with you Bec, Michael likes to play us and make us believe there are more than 1 MJ but he's only playing several MJs to confuse the audience like in O2 and in TII maybe his propose was just to fool the bad guys and make them be confused about who is the real MJ, regarding the twin theory OMG that's ridiculous that's a far fetched theory I will never ever believe that.
-
Souza, you are being very quiet on this! I have to ask if this is in fact a 'theory' you (or your 'sources') came up with just to see what members reactions would be! If you seriously believe in the 'other brother' theory, please explain more. I'd love to hear too from those who expressed a belief in 2MJ's on the 'questions' thread.
Until I see more a more logical explanation for the differences we have seen, I agree with bec, as I said in my opening post - we are dealing with a showman here, an illusionist. What better way to raise questions, create mystery & intrigue and have some fun, than to play around with disguises of yourself!
I will elaborate later. But first, please, let me collect my thoughts.
I have a ton of pics and I even have a folder "the other" in my files. :icon_lol:
I think it´s especially interesting to watch performances from the HIStory tour.
Ok but like I said: will collect my thoughts first :icon_e_wink:
-
Go to the home page of this website again and listen very good to that song, keep repeating if needed. And I am not just talking about lyrics.
Who Is It? I've listened. What am I supposed to notice?
-
My 2 cents about possible two MJ: When BAD was released I remember I turned the album cover and the picture of 'Michael' on the back of it made me instantly say: THAT'S not Michael. I told that story a couple of years ago here already, should someone remember. My view of 2 MJs is really going far - so just have an open mind :-) And please consider: what I will write does have holes but it helps to connect new synapses. I dismissed the idea there were two MJs as it did not fit my world view AT ALL, although it took quite an amount of 'work' to buriy that thought :-) Thanks to Souza and Mo back then with their 'it take two to tango'-blog I was reminded of that moment in 1989. However. I don't believe there was a brother of Michael acting as second MJ but more so, Michaels well known ambition in show business let him bring in another 'Michael' around BAD (Pic of Michael2 smoking during BAD shoot?), at first just for PR reasons with a few pictures of MJ2 mingled into those of real MJ, maybe also because Michael knew from the beginning his role and made sure he had a plan B over years to come, but later on in turned into a much more detailled scenario to 'play' with the masses. I began to believe that it was MJ2 - not the real one - who had gotten out of realMJs control during Neverland times around 2001 and Sony took MJ2 under his control > Sony Rant?. Therefore realMJs last studio album Invincible. He knew he would have to hide at some point. I consider here the facts that realMJ was not present in Neverland very often. Almost to the degree that real MJ might have avoided Neverland and let MJ2 take over the stage there (Oprah & Co.), and also that he was not having contact with his family. After 2004/5 acquittal he left for a year. MJ2 has not the talent to make a new album, so Sony decided to keep MJ2 on a short leash > no chance for a new studio album ever again and real MJ was kept out of sight. Real MJ = actually no drug addict. MJ2 = drug addict under Sonys' control. June 25, 2009 is either Michaels' sting against all who tried to stop him and he predecessed Sonys' plans by 'dying' first, or Sony is the one who controlled June 25, 2009 from the get go by killing realMJ to make the death hoax and let MJ2 take over at some point. I sure do hope it's Michaels' sting.
As I said. It's the first time I have brought that down in writing - so it does have holes. But I think we cannot dismiss anything anymore.
EDIT: realMJ had to stand trial for what MJ2 did to discredit realMJ - maybe by order of Sony . When I look at realMJ during trial inmy minds eye now I get the feeling that Michael always thought, he should not be there before a jury. And what about all the music that was about to come out since 2001?! We never heard anything. Sure, because realMJ was a) not available for Sony or b) he was silenced.
-
This was the 50's, they did not have a lot of money, Joe was working his ass off to feed all those kids so why would it be so strange if one extra baby was just one too many at that particular time and he lived with a family member, probably visiting a lot? Those blogs are old, I do not believe in twins anymore, but brothers for sure. You can not have a complete stranger look and sound that much like you. There is a difference if you where to look, but it's not big, at least not when they were younger. I bet that difference became bigger and bigger and then there was the problem that one had vitiligo and turned lighter and lighter so they had to cake one up in make-up. Also there is a pretty obvious hight difference. One is my height, the other is definitely skinnier and taller.
Go to the home page of this website again and listen very good to that song, keep repeating if needed. And I am not just talking about lyrics. I have so much more on this, but I'll leave it at that for now and the pic below...
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/images/wtf.jpg)
Me thinks the one on the first row is a bit younger than the one on the bottom row and does not have vitiligo which is why we always see the round eyed one with layers and layers of make-up.
why we always see the round eyed one with layers and layers of make-up.
(http://i1.ytimg.com/i/K3TATBj5wz2deYH7I728ow/mq1.jpg?v=ab7308) :LolLolLolLol: :LolLolLolLol: :LolLolLolLol:
Souza I agree with everything you wrote :),but for a minute let's just leave the physical diffrences out of it,because, this has already been discussed several times and anyway it seems like people don't believe in this version.Now,have you ever noticed that when MJ was going through legal litigations for the child abuse claims the name on the documents were Michael JOE Jackson. And when he was being sued for for professional and contractual things like [breaches,copyrights.wrongful termination etc.] His name is Michael JOSEPH Jackson. Those two names are not LEGALLY interchangable. The name you were given at birth and the one that is stated on your BIRTH CERTIFICATE .Is the name that shall be used in the court of Law. There is no MIchael Joseph the "Entertainer" and Michael Joe "The Man". These are clearly two different men. Of course this would not be something made public simply because it is not the public's duty to know. But a majority of the industry know and will remain tight lipped about it. These two have been playing mind games for years :icon_lol: :icon_lol:. And they've been sucessful at it because people's inability to differentiate and reason with themselves :thjajaja121: !!!
That's why everything is so secretive and secured :icon_cool:. That's why everyone who has had some sort of informal or personal contact with "them" has had to sign away their rights to speak on it. And I'm sure there are plenty out there who know the truth. "The Bosum Buddies" Have been "Alledgly" deceased for almost 4 years now ;). I'm sure those agreements have expired. Nobody has come forward yet? Wonder why that is? Because their NOT dead. It's deep, it really is :icon_eek: :icon_geek:.
-
There is a very simple way of naming yourself something other then your birth name called a 'dba' or 'doing business as'. I can be Suzy Smith dba Suzie Smythsonian and I don't have to use the title dba, I can just refer to myself legally as Suzie Smythsonian forever more and it's perfectly legal and legit. The dba can be anything you want, even 'the big red bus' so long as you file the one page document with the state.
I'm not saying MJ is dba Michael Joseph Jackson I'm just saying this is an example of how he could have two perfectly legal names.
-
(Hoping to get back to this soon - busy with life! Thanks applehead and MFFreedom for your posts.)
-
Can anyone please explain this to me. I count ten children faces around the record. How can they have a picture of the (deceased) son. I see a boy face between Marlon and Michael.
http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/?v=mural3huh.jpg
-
Ah Sandal, that's more like it! Something definite we can all see, to try and explain. Thanks!
(I've been reluctant to answer MFFreedom and applehead's posts because there's no point in pulling them apart just for the sake of it - you guys simply see/imagine one thing, I see/imagine another!)
But, back to the picture on the Michael album - I think we talked about the 10 children pictured before, when I've got more time I'll see if I can find the thread. So, is the artist showing Brandon, Marlon's twin, (strangely as a young man when he died as a baby) ...or...... !!!!
More later! xx
-
I just came across this on Arnold Klein's Facebook page 2hrs ago. Arnold Klein is on a roll with confirming it WAS
NOT Michael at the London announcement, but rather an impersonator.......
Arnold W. Klein
the problem with AEG....during the London interview this was not Michael ...look at the chin!
https://www.facebook.com/#!/arnold.klein?hc_location=stream
Arnold W. Klein
the impersonator had a cleft in the bottom of his chin like a tooth. When /i rebuilt Michael's face there was no cleft!!! look at the width of the impersonator's mouth.Like · · Share · 3 hours ago · 10 people like this..
Lesley Anthony http://michaeljacksonnotdead.wordpress.com/tag/imposter/
Lesley Anthony... latex MJ moulded mask Ines Parrain.. What do mean Arnold ? I mean, Michael had a chin's cleft for ages.... Look at the 2005' pictures... Anyway, there was an impersonator in TII, I agree with that.
Lesley Anthony ..Arnold W. Klein can you please comment on this blog / article that claims, that you were reonstructing his face so he could get away unrecognized? http://michaeljacksonnotdead.wordpress.com/.../
-
I often ask myself when AEG wanted to have a DNA proof that it was Michael Jackson who died.....but where is the dead Body ??????
:errrr:
-
Ah Sandal, that's more like it! Something definite we can all see, to try and explain. Thanks!
(I've been reluctant to answer MFFreedom and applehead's posts because there's no point in pulling them apart just for the sake of it - you guys simply see/imagine one thing, I see/imagine another!)
But, back to the picture on the Michael album - I think we talked about the 10 children pictured before, when I've got more time I'll see if I can find the thread. So, is the artist showing Brandon, Marlon's twin, (strangely as a young man when he died as a baby) ...or...... !!!!
More later! xx
Ok, here is my theory and food for thought:
Katherine gives birth to Michael #1 on 8/29/1958. Then she becomes pregnant again in 1959 of a boy (Michael #2), giving birth on 1/28/1960. It is winter, they are poor and they can't feed another hungry mouth. This little boy will be raised by family, like Joe's brother Luther and his wife. I don't think they had any kids and I believe he often came to the Jacksons for rehearsals. So the kid was not 'hidden', just raised in a different home. The kid growing up at Luther's turned out to be a talented little shit like his brothers, PLUS looks a lot like big bro Michael. I am not sure if they were both named Michael at birth (first one Michael Joe, second one Michael Joseph) or if they changed that later when they started performing both under the same name. I think it was not strange back then to have kids with the same names, maybe they looked alike as babies already or maybe they legally changed that later. Not important for my theory.
So recap: we have two MJ's:
Michael Joe Jackson, born August 29, 1958
Michael Joseph Jackson, born January 28, 1960
I name that date in January for a few reasons. Firstly it is a date I came across in the Intelius records, secondly we had MJ's will revoked on January 28, 2010 (MJ #2 would have been exactly 50 years old then, perfect day to revoke your will) and lastly, if you watch The Jacksons, an American dream, you see Katherine pregnant of MJ in 1959 giving birth in winter (Joe walks around on a frozen potato field or something, I don't think that would be frozen in Indiana in August...).
Anyway, MJ #1 and #2 both perform, both make records, both make videos. There is a difference in height (5'8" vs. 5'11"/6'), there is a difference in attitude (shy vs. anything but shy), a difference in eyes (big round eyes vs. smaller curved eyes), a difference in voice (high voice vs. low voice (and yes I believe one FAKED a high voice because his brother had a higher voice), a difference in skin color (MJ #1 having light skin due to vitiligo vs. MJ #2 being a full blown black dude and Quincy Jones being HONEST when he said: MJ did not have vitiligo, he just wants to be white!). In my opinion, Quincy only knew MJ #2 who had to cake himself in make up to match his bro's skin color, not able to tell Quincy why he did that because I believe only the family knows. The picture I posted earlier in the thread clearly shows the 2 different men, the top one being the younger one, caked in make-up, doing most of the official photo shoots. The bottom one being the older MJ we have seen since the early 90’s.
At a certain point in the late 80's, MJ#2 quits, which is why I was so confused not to see much differences anymore in public appearances after that time. He is still black, they start to look alike less and less, he is sick of the mob in his neck and he has a family (TDCAU: I have a wife and 2 children??) and who knows what other reasons there were for him to stop being in the limelight that much. He does make some music still, some shoots and some videos and helps out his bro when needed all the way through the 90’s, but he is out of the public eye, his older brother does all that from the early 90's on. (One Michael LEAVES in Moonwalker, the one returning is the older brother. It is ‘Stranger in Moscow MJ’ that leaves, ‘Dirty Diana MJ’ that comes back.
But his absence is not permanent, he will return, they both need to make $$$ for their big plan and in the meantime they want to out the evil powers surrounding them and all of us while also doing something NO ONE has ever done. This is it 'Staging the Return'. What return? MJ never really left. He didn’t tour much, but he was never really gone. This is the return of MJ #2 plus the biggest show on earth with his brother. I still believe what I said in my blog, that they had a fight and hadn't been in contact for a decade or more, which is why MJ was not touring or making lots of music. The TII album cover: 'Always nice to sing with my brother'. Not brotherS, but brother. But at the memorial MJ's painS, not pain. Everything points to MJ the entertainer being 2 brothers. THAT is why he ‘can be in two places at the same time'. That is why he is invincible. Even IF they would have managed to kill one, the other MJ would still be alive. No double (though I bet there are plenty), but blood. 2 MJ's, both real, both would be recognized as MJ, yet next to each other would make people go 'WTF???'.
Who is it? Is it a friend of mine? Is it my brother?
There is an interview with little Mike (#2, the not so shy one) with Dick Clark where he is asked how many brothers and sisters he has:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Z83IHxFSA[/youtube]
6 brothers?? Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon & Randy makes 5… You do not include a dead brother you have never met, that is a worthless excuse. The kid has 6 brothers at the time of the question, clear as day.
Donald Trump had a very interesting comment on the phone with LKL after the ‘death’. There were TWO Michael Jacksons, and he knew them both… Hear what he has to say:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krtg_V2W4HA[/youtube]
There are videos, lyrics and tons of other stuff pointing to what I have been saying all along: MJ is really MJs. Two people, one entertainer. As applehead mentioned: that is how the name Michael JOSEPH Jackson can be in the dangerous deposition. It is why some songs are written by JOE, some by JOSEPH. It really is 2 people. So is the Death Certificate real now? NO. Michael JOE is the oldest, born 8/29/1958. Michael JOSEPH is the youngest, born January 28, 1960. Michael Joseph Jackson born 1958 does not exist. It’s a morph of the 2 bro’s.
It is how MJ #1 can be in NY on 7/7/2002, and MJ #2 in LA signing a will (or the other way around).
There is so much more I could mention, but I guess I made my point for now. Every ‘weird’ and ‘unexplainable’ things about MJ can be perfectly explained when it is 2 different people.
Call me crazy but if you do, prove me wrong!
-
I just came across this on Arnold Klein's Facebook page 2hrs ago. Arnold Klein is on a roll with confirming it WAS
NOT Michael at the London announcement, but rather an impersonator.......
Arnold W. Klein
the problem with AEG....during the London interview this was not Michael ...look at the chin!
https://www.facebook.com/#!/arnold.klein?hc_location=stream
Arnold W. Klein
the impersonator had a cleft in the bottom of his chin like a tooth. When /i rebuilt Michael's face there was no cleft!!! look at the width of the impersonator's mouth.Like · · Share · 3 hours ago · 10 people like this..
Lesley Anthony http://michaeljacksonnotdead.wordpress.com/tag/imposter/
Lesley Anthony... latex MJ moulded mask Ines Parrain.. What do mean Arnold ? I mean, Michael had a chin's cleft for ages.... Look at the 2005' pictures... Anyway, there was an impersonator in TII, I agree with that.
Lesley Anthony ..Arnold W. Klein can you please comment on this blog / article that claims, that you were reonstructing his face so he could get away unrecognized? http://michaeljacksonnotdead.wordpress.com/.../
DUH! LOL. His chin looks like an ass!
-
This implies the 2 MJ idea (and others) did not come directly from Souza but were 'planted' - this doesn't make them true or false, but I think it's worth bearing in mind.
I would like to add that even though people threw pics and vids at us back then, this is something I have always seen. I had never looked into it before, but I always have seen at least 2 MJ's. With a double too many things still didn't make sense, with a brother it suddenly did. And yes, I believe it is a joint hoax! Neither on the 'bad side'.
-
I just came across this on Arnold Klein's Facebook page 2hrs ago. Arnold Klein is on a roll with confirming it WAS
NOT Michael at the London announcement, but rather an impersonator.......
Arnold W. Klein
the problem with AEG....during the London interview this was not Michael ...look at the chin!
https://www.facebook.com/#!/arnold.klein?hc_location=stream
Arnold W. Klein
the impersonator had a cleft in the bottom of his chin like a tooth. When /i rebuilt Michael's face there was no cleft!!! look at the width of the impersonator's mouth.Like · · Share · 3 hours ago · 10 people like this..
Lesley Anthony http://michaeljacksonnotdead.wordpress.com/tag/imposter/
Lesley Anthony... latex MJ moulded mask Ines Parrain.. What do mean Arnold ? I mean, Michael had a chin's cleft for ages.... Look at the 2005' pictures... Anyway, there was an impersonator in TII, I agree with that.
Lesley Anthony ..Arnold W. Klein can you please comment on this blog / article that claims, that you were reonstructing his face so he could get away unrecognized? http://michaeljacksonnotdead.wordpress.com/.../
DUH! LOL. His chin looks like an ass!
Loooooool with doo doo in it :)
-
Thank you Souza, I've been waiting and hoping you'd post here with more. Need to re-read and digest your theory properly before I comment!
-
~Souza~ whatever you said makes sense and I'm shocked and like fml, but if M Joseph died and the autopsy was real they confirmed that he had vitiligo and height around 1.80(?) I think. When you say #2 you mean Michael Joseph right?
I am confused in that part.
-
Huh? No one died..
-
Ok so comment number one!
In the Dick Clark vid, look at his lips when he answers the question about how many brothers and sisters he has. He clearly shows the 'w' sound with his lips although I admit you can't really hear him say the second one - I think he's saying 'we have three sisters and we're six brothers' NOT 'I have three sisters and six brothers'.
More interesting part of the vid in relation to your theory Souza, is the supposed date 1970 and the fact 'Michael' says he's 9 years old. This show had to have been recorded before Jan 28th (which of course it could have) or else it doesn't fit either Michael does it?!! I have read in the past that he said he was made to lie about his age to appear 'cuter' for longer, but of course, I don't know how accurate that is.
I'm not going to call you crazy (yet!) Souza, thanks for the brain workout - it beats the boring as hell trial coverage anyway! And LOL I never thought I'd be putting the word Michael in '---' s!!
-
(TDCAU: I have a wife and 2 children??)
As of now I only have this to say.
MJ married Lisa Marie Presley in May 1994 and divorced sometime around in 1996 (?).
The song was recorded in 1995, so MJ was still in marriage that makes him a step-dad to LMP's two kids.
-
Yeah that song was written much earlier. Plus if you believe the marriage license to LMP was real, you also believe the DC is real.
-
song was written much earlier? when was it...am i missing something here?
-
Souza, quick question(s). Why? What's the motive behind becoming one MJ? If MJ#2 turned out to be as talented as MJ#1, why not just go it alone? Or indeed, openly join the brothers? And make his own fortune, rather than sharing MJ#1's?
-
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bNWeRLasW0I
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=bNWeRLasW0I[/youtube]
At 2:07 Katherine says: "I never lost a child, children supposed to bury their parents, not the parents their children."
.....so, no child of them died, not even Brandon!?? Were there 10 children after all?
-
(http://ctstudents.smccme.edu/~allenj/eportfolio/pics/mjmirror1.jpg)
-
@Souza
Wonderful outlining of your thoughts - again. And it makes complete sense. Had to grin from side to side when reading. Almost wanting more to read ...
@Do
This is a clear clue: a mother would always remember having lost a child no matter what circumstances. For her to say she never lost a child implies clearly that she in fact never did. So there must be another brother.
Exciting!
-
if you watch The Jacksons, an American dream, you see Katherine pregnant of MJ in 1959 giving birth in winter (Joe walks around on a
frozen potato field or something, I don't think that would be frozen in
Indiana in August...)
I'm not so sure 'The Jacksons: An American Dream' can be used as credible evidence of dates. Look at this lot:
Differences
There were a few scenes in the movie that are different from how they happened in real life.- In the beginning of the film, Joseph Jackson and Katherine Scruse are depicted meeting in Chicago in 1945, when in reality they met in 1947.
- The film depicts Michael as being born in 1959, as opposed to his actual birthdate in 1958.
- In one scene, The Jackson 5 sing "Since I Lost My Baby", and Michael sings the lead vocals. In real life, the Jackson 5 version of the song was recorded during the recording sessions for Diana Ross Presents The Jackson 5, and the lead vocals were sung by Jermaine Jackson.
- In the scene where The Jackson 5 are in the recording studio, they are recording the song "Kansas City" In real life, The Jackson 5 never recorded the song.
- In the scene where the Jackson 5 are singing the national anthem, the outfield of Dodger Stadium is clearly visible. In reality, they performed it in Cincinnati's Riverfront Stadium during the 1970 World Series. In addition, the Cincinnati Reds lineup shown in the movie features a player with similarities to Joe Morgan. In reality, he did not join the Reds for another two years.
- The song "I wanna be where you are" was originally recorded by only Michael Jackson for his 1971 solo album. The other Jackson Brothers were not on the sessions.
- The song "Rockin Robin" was actually recorded in 1971, not 1970, and it was Motown, in response to Donny Osmond's solo album, that Michael Jackson got pushed to make a solo album that very same year, entitled "Got to be There."
- The song "Dancing Machine" was actually recorded in 1974, not 1976, when the Jackson Five were in the studio before deciding to move on.
- Jermaine Jackson got divorced from Hazel Gordy in 1984.
- In another scene, Michael is recording "Human Nature" for his album, Thriller in 1983. In real life, the album was released in 1982.
- In the Motown audition scene, They sing James Brown's "I Got the Feelin'". The entire group sings "baby, baby, baby", while in reality it was only Michael singing that part.
- In the Motown audition scene, Berry Gordy was not actually in attendance. Instead the audition was videotaped and shown to Gordy at a later time.
- During the Motown 25 performance of "Billie Jean", Michael is wearing his sequined glove on his right hand. In real life, during the actual performance, it was on his left hand.
- In the scene where The Jacksons are shooting a Pepsi commercial, Michael's hair catches on fire and he falls down the stairs. In real life, Michael was unaware that his hair was on fire as he continued dancing down the stairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jacksons:_An_American_Dream
-
I am not arguing that The American Dream is not completely accurate. This movie was produced in the early 90's though by Jermaine and I understand dates are mistaken or changed on purpose for whatever reason but we are talking about the birth day of the most famous member of the group. Not only do we see 1959 on the screen before he is ever born, they even put in the detail that it was freezing when he was born. Just the year could have been an honest editing mistake for me, but that little detail about the weather when he was born is too much. It doesn't freeze in Gary in August. This is one of the hottest months and that was no different in 1958: http://weatherspark.com/history/30851/1958/Chicago-Illinois-United-States while on Januaty 1960 it was indeed freezing: http://weatherspark.com/history/30851/1960/Chicago-Illinois-United-States
-
It's called dramatic license. This is a drama not a documentary.
-
It's called dramatic license. This is a drama not a documentary.
Why is it more dramatic to give birth in winter than when it's a hundred degrees? I do not see this movie getting any better from it, it's not even a big part in the movie. They could have easily just used the 1958 DOB.
-
Souza, I love your food for thought. Question for you in the literal sense of the word can you be considered or would people considered you a twin if you and your siblings are less that 2 years apart and always together. Let's say for example Marlon considers Brandon his twin because they are less than 2 years apart and they are both are thicker than thieves(the old saying) because you cannot find one without the other and now the phrase twins come into play.
-
Why is it more dramatic to give birth in winter than when it's a hundred degrees? I do not see this movie getting any better from it, it's not even a big part in the movie. They could have easily just used the 1958 DOB.
They might have wanted to include the winter picking potatoes scene to show how tough life was for Joe, but because it would've been disjointed and wouldn't fit in 'in isolation', it could've been incorporated into the Michael's birth section. How can we know the reasons for a drama production team's decisions? They could've easily just used the other correct dates too. But they didn't, for no apparent reason!
Has anyone read Katherine Jackson's autobiography, My Family, which the drama was based on to see if she actually confirms any of this?
I've watched the whole of 'The American Dream' today, having only seen snippets in the past. Had me in tears several times I have to admit! And with names and ages on my mind, I noticed Katherine saying twice that she was naming the baby Michael Joe, and Suzanne de Passe drilling Michael into saying he was 9, when he was 11, for the cute factor (I knew I'd picked that up from somewhere before!). So they'd morphed into one right from the outset?
@Sandal, Marlon and Michael were shown as very close (thick as thieves) in The American Dream. Don't know if that means anything, but thought I'd mention it in light of your post!
-
This is an extract from Chapter 2 of Katherine's book 'My Family':
......... My experience with Marlon and Brandon didn’t dissuade me from getting pregnant again. The following year August 29, I gave birth to another boy.
I remember that day well because my water broke while my neighbor Mildred White and I were driving over to see the new grammar school under construction, Garnett Elementary.
“Oh, my God, Mildred, I can’t sit in your car like this!” I exclaimed.
“Girl, don’t worry about it,” Mildred said, turning the car around.
At my request Mildred drove me home. I called my mother and she and my stepfather drove me to Mercy Hospital. Shortly after I got there, I began having contractions. Later that night, my son was born.
“I want to name him,” my mother said. I hated her first suggestion: Ronald. “How about Roy, then?” “Oh, my gosh, Mama, no.” She thought for a little while. “I’ve got it -- Michael.” “That’s it,” I said.
By then I was used to seeing my babies born with funny looking heads, so I wasn’t alarmed by Michael’s. The two other things I
remember about him as I held him in my arms for the first time were his big brown eyes and his long hands, which reminded me of my father-in-law’s.
“I bet I was an accident!” Michael has teased. He wasn’t, but after he was born, I did decide to take a break from childbearing
--after eight births in eight years I felt I deserved one -- and go to work part-time as a sales clerk at Sears.
Randy, our next child, didn’t arrive for another three years, on October 31, 1961. Almost five more years elapsed before I gave birth to Janet, on August 16, 1966. ......
http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-04/kj/kj02.html
I've been trying to find out when Garnett Elementary school was constructed - but no luck so far, and I really must do some work now!
-
....Almost five more years elapsed before I gave birth to Janet, on August 16, 1966. ......
I've been trying to find out when Garnett Elementary school was constructed - but no luck so far, and I really must do some work now!
Janet was born in May I thought? :icon_e_confused:
-
....Almost five more years elapsed before I gave birth to Janet, on August 16, 1966. ......
I've been trying to find out when Garnett Elementary school was constructed - but no luck so far, and I really must do some work now!
Janet was born in May I thought? :icon_e_confused:
Janet Damita Jo Jackson (born May 16, 1966) is an American pop recording artist and actress. Known for a series of sonically innovative, socially conscious and sexually provocative records, as well as elaborate stage shows, television appearances, and film roles, she has been a prominent figure in popular culture since the early 1970s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Jackson
-
(http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/2558/earcomparasion.png)
-
(http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x365/jaykay959/524ff7f3-6856-4097-b404-f2fc5241c833_zpsac7fb8d4.jpg)
-
I don't know what you all are pretending to say, all those photos belong to the same man---> MJ, the ears, mouth, eyes, etc... seem to be different depending on perspective, I have pics where I look totally different depending on the light, position, etc.. and however I am the same person.
-
Not pretending anything. Ears and bum chins can't shapeshift lol! :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen:
Has nothing to do with angles, lighting or position and has everything to do with two different persons ears.
Not saying its a truth. Just my belief, or my premise which I choose for me is true.
-
It has everything to do with lighting and camera angles.
Not that it matters but they look like the same ear to me as well.
I have done huge projects on this myself, over the years, examining hundreds of photos, and I have yet to see anything that gets my heart racing as definitive proof of more then one MJ. The teeth are always the same too.
Besides, if one was going to have plastic surgery to more closely resemble the other, why would they stop at noses.
It's never going to be proven. Not from pictures found on the internet anyway.
-
Not that it matters, but just to clarify, I def think we have been seeing two MJ's since bad era. Don't know if I believe that this other person is his also 'crazy talented' adopted out brother, as per the theory outlined at the start of this thread.
Def believe at a minimum a second one was bought in at at the very 'latest' the start of bad era, but not so that 2 people can simply create the one character as theorised earlier, but rather so that hoax preparations can start. (i.e: throwing us off, creating confusion about looks, in an attempt to make the audience not question that there are two because after all the surgeries which were made prominent around this time are a pacifying explanation and hence these two MJs would be helpful later down the track with PR events, tours, paparazzi, TII etc) I don't know if I can believe the notion that the idea for two ppl playing the same character MJ was etched when he was a child. (lol, although I have known to have been swayed)
However.... Then, just to confuse myself and play devils advocate with myself, I see photos such as this one (referring to the black and white child shots)
(http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8946/aaaabdp.jpg)
And I actually *don't* like saying what I see and that is that I see two different children. Which is weird because I don't really buy, the brothers both playing MJ from day dot, premise.
However in this pic of child MJ, I see different brows one kids is more rounded and meets in the middle closer than the other, clear different noses, a fuller face in one child compared to cheekbones in the other, different lips, different eyes, heart shaped jaw and a square shaped jaw, etc etc.
But then again, to play devil's advocate on this photo, psychology studies prove that you will subconsciously seek evidence, and WILL find it for a presupposition you choose to believe is true. We form a belief and seek evidence of that. Just like when you buy a car and think you are the only one to have that car, when you start driving it you see them all over the road because on a subconscious level you are looking for the car.
In a nutshell, you will see what you want to believe...
(BTW not trying to explain psychology to you bec, know you get it and are more than aware of what I am talkign about, more trying to figure this out for me :icon_e_wink:)
It's what I believe, that is the biggest issue. Because if you believe truth you will seek the right evidence, if you believe a fallacy then you will seek evidence of the wrong thing, lol)
Well done MJ! Yep its 2013 and we are STILL talking about it.
******EDITED
-
But then again, to play devil's advocate on this photo, psychology studies prove that you will subconsciously seek evidence, and WILL find it for a presupposition you choose to believe is true. We form a belief and seek evidence of that. Just like when you buy a car and think you are the only one to have that car, when you start driving it you see them all over the road because on a subconscious level you are looking for the car.
In a nutshell, you will see what you want to believe...
Yes that is true except that when I tried to prove the O2 guy wasn't MJ I ended up proving, to myself, that he was. A similar thing happened when I worked on the general doubles theory. My harddrive is full of pic comparisons of "different" MJs. Like I said earlier, I think the Bashir tapes are the best argument for multiple MJs.
-
oh, without a doubt, bashir tapes are a goldmine. and in fact will say, if you can't see it there, never will
-
I just came across this on Arnold Klein's Facebook page 2hrs ago. Arnold Klein is on a roll with confirming it WAS
NOT Michael at the London announcement, but rather an impersonator.......
Arnold W. Klein
the problem with AEG....during the London interview this was not Michael ...look at the chin!
https://www.facebook.com/#!/arnold.klein?hc_location=stream
Arnold W. Klein
the impersonator had a cleft in the bottom of his chin like a tooth. When /i rebuilt Michael's face there was no cleft!!! look at the width of the impersonator's mouth.Like · · Share · 3 hours ago · 10 people like this..
Lesley Anthony http://michaeljacksonnotdead.wordpress.com/tag/imposter/
Lesley Anthony... latex MJ moulded mask Ines Parrain.. What do mean Arnold ? I mean, Michael had a chin's cleft for ages.... Look at the 2005' pictures... Anyway, there was an impersonator in TII, I agree with that.
Lesley Anthony ..Arnold W. Klein can you please comment on this blog / article that claims, that you were reonstructing his face so he could get away unrecognized? http://michaeljacksonnotdead.wordpress.com/.../
does he ever mention a period of time over which he rebuilt his face? did every michael we saw in tii have that cleft or at least the ones we got a good look at ? and tell me why it has taken him so long to come out with this?
-
http://michaeljacksonnotdead.wordpress.com/tag/reconstructive-surgery/
Klein has come out a number of times and made these claims. This is nothing new. Just Klein talking about it again and it's been picked up again by hoaxers.
The alleged reconstructive surgery was in 09 getting him ready for TII - see link
-
Enjoying your posts guys, but nothing you've shown me says it wasn't MJ messing about all the time.
Aussie's idea that 2 MJ's was about sowing seeds for a future death hoax, has been the only attempt at an answer to my 'Why?' question. (Thanks Aussie!) Seriously there needs to be a motive, and I can't see one, especially for it having started in childhood.
I've had an open mind and have almost been wanting someone to come up with something indisputable - imagine the world's reaction when not only does he come back from the dead, but there's 2 of 'em! But I haven't been convinced.
Katherine's book appears to have date of birth errors (Janet and Randy, but maybe it's Wiki that's wrong!), 'The Jacksons: An American Dream' as a drama can't be taken as factual, pictures can be interpreted however you want (light and perspective matter hugely, as does professional v casual pics, though they are dismissed by many). Intelius has it's limitations too for reasons I outlined before.
Michael Jackson showed changes - we all do. We can all look different 'in the flesh' because of natural changes in age, weight, health, mood, expression, or cosmetic changes in hairstyles, make-up, surgery, botox etc. Then add the confusion of what may be a low quality off-the-cuff snap/vid or a professionally directed and posed photo/film, which is all we have to work with! No 'in the flesh' for us!
So the question remains whether the more extreme differences people have seen were MJ himself (intentional or otherwise), or a second person, twin/brother/unrelated brought-in-for-a-job guy, or indeed just imagination on the part of the observer, brought about by the clever suggestions of a master illusionist!
I suspect, like most everything else MJ related, we're simply never going to find a definitive answer to this are we?!
-
Can't think of a scientific answer to this. The O2 MJ looked like he was wearing a latex mask. Complexion seemed too rubbery to me but otherwise it just seemed like the MJ we don't normally see or hear - probably due to the fact that he was slightly out of it and had to be sobered up beforehand.
-
http://michaeljacksonnotdead.wordpress.com/tag/reconstructive-surgery/
Klein has come out a number of times and made these claims. This is nothing new. Just Klein talking about it again and it's been picked up again by hoaxers.
The alleged reconstructive surgery was in 09 getting him ready for TII - see link
thanks for info aussie.
did i see in some trial testimony about the propofol use that one of these doctors said murray brought michael in for a repeat visit about some little part around the eyes i think that he wasn't satisfied with and he acted as though he had never been there before. could it be that the person was not michael or that someone else had been there in his place? otherwise you have to wonder if there is truth to all the use and that it had effected his memory. the whole propofol testimony has messed with me badly , it was my main argument against death so i am pretty rattled. :(
-
...... probably due to the fact that he was slightly out of it and had to be sobered up beforehand.
Of course I don't know MJ and cannot say what he would or wouldn't do but I think I'm on pretty safe ground saying that getting yourself drunk just before you kick off the biggest production of your life and present it to the world ("... and when I say this is it, it really means this is it, because, umm ..." deep knowing laugh!), is not the behaviour one would expect from a self-proclaimed perfectionist.
-
...... probably due to the fact that he was slightly out of it and had to be sobered up beforehand.
Of course I don't know MJ and cannot say what he would or wouldn't do but I think I'm on pretty safe ground saying that getting yourself drunk just before you kick off the biggest production of your life and present it to the world ("... and when I say this is it, it really means this is it, because, umm ..." deep knowing laugh!), is not the behaviour one would expect from a self-proclaimed perfectionist.
Nor like any behavior he ever exhibited prior so I'd say that's pretty much a salacious fabrication that I'm shocked to read here.
-
Enjoying your posts guys, but nothing you've shown me says it wasn't MJ messing about all the time.
Aussie's idea that 2 MJ's was about sowing seeds for a future death hoax, has been the only attempt at an answer to my 'Why?' question. (Thanks Aussie!) Seriously there needs to be a motive, and I can't see one, especially for it having started in childhood.
I've had an open mind and have almost been wanting someone to come up with something indisputable - imagine the world's reaction when not only does he come back from the dead, but there's 2 of 'em! But I haven't been convinced.
Katherine's book appears to have date of birth errors (Janet and Randy, but maybe it's Wiki that's wrong!), 'The Jacksons: An American Dream' as a drama can't be taken as factual, pictures can be interpreted however you want (light and perspective matter hugely, as does professional v casual pics, though they are dismissed by many). Intelius has it's limitations too for reasons I outlined before.
Michael Jackson showed changes - we all do. We can all look different 'in the flesh' because of natural changes in age, weight, health, mood, expression, or cosmetic changes in hairstyles, make-up, surgery, botox etc. Then add the confusion of what may be a low quality off-the-cuff snap/vid or a professionally directed and posed photo/film, which is all we have to work with! No 'in the flesh' for us!
So the question remains whether the more extreme differences people have seen were MJ himself (intentional or otherwise), or a second person, twin/brother/unrelated brought-in-for-a-job guy, or indeed just imagination on the part of the observer, brought about by the clever suggestions of a master illusionist!
I suspect, like most everything else MJ related, we're simply never going to find a definitive answer to this are we?!
ou
I think you are right. I have been on this forum for now 4 years. I thought I knew something about 3 years ago, but I've merely gotten increasingly confused since then. Who really IS Michael Jackson? Can one person truly encompass all of Michael's amazing attributes: genius artist, singer, dancer, director, humanitarian, doting father, astute businessman, etc., all the while contriving the most amazing and complex hoax of all time, going through trials and legal battles, romances, etc. I think for me sometimes my love and appreciation for 'Michael' prevents me from looking at things honestly, like a child, without preconceptions. For me, he is everything I would want to be and want to see in another person. But somedays, I don't want to get out of bed, snap at people, and cry over nothing. I'm only human. I imagine Michael, the person(s) and not the persona(s), has those days too, whoever and wherever he may be.
Wasn't it Arnold Klein who 'slipped' and said that MJ was the greatest 'actor' of all times? I think this is the closest to the truth as has been spoken. Whether there is one Michael, a twin, or a thousand doubles. It doesn't matter. It's the story that counts and it doesn't matter which Michael, black or white, plays the part. It makes more sense to me that Michael Jackson plays a central role in a script that was written FOR him and not BY him.
Oddly, the idea that Michael may merely be a fictional character played by a series of actors, only makes him feel more real to me! Haven't we all been moved to tears by great acting even when we know for certain the story is fiction? Aren't we as well moved to tears by a heartfelt song? I can recall 4 years ago watching Smooth Criminal for the first time. I was awestruck in the truest sense. Great art truly can uplift because great artists convey, as Michael said, the divine, in their work. I certainly felt the divine being conveyed in those first two weeks of hoax obsession when I couldn't get enough Michael and wept shamelessly at the beauty of it all.
-
...... probably due to the fact that he was slightly out of it and had to be sobered up beforehand.
Nor like any behavior he ever exhibited prior so I'd say that's pretty much a salacious fabrication that I'm shocked to read here.
Do you mean MJ 'allegedly' being drunk before the Press Conference being a salacious fabrication or me mentioning it? I, of course, was referring to Randy Phillips' account of what was going on directly before the Press Conference and the reasons why he was supposedly 3 hrs late, being a possible reason for his different persona. As opposed to it not actually being MJ and a double.
-
I don't know what you all are pretending to say, all those photos belong to the same man---> MJ, the ears, mouth, eyes, etc... seem to be different depending on perspective, I have pics where I look totally different depending on the light, position, etc.. and however I am the same person.
I can see differences in the ears, are a little more elongated, not much but yes I see
-
...... probably due to the fact that he was slightly out of it and had to be sobered up beforehand.
Nor like any behavior he ever exhibited prior so I'd say that's pretty much a salacious fabrication that I'm shocked to read here.
Do you mean MJ 'allegedly' being drunk before the Press Conference being a salacious fabrication or me mentioning it? I, of course, was referring to Randy Phillips' account of what was going on directly before the Press Conference and the reasons why he was supposedly 3 hrs late, being a possible reason for his different persona. As opposed to it not actually being MJ and a double.
Both. It's malicious slander at worst, a storyline scripted statement at best. What could make you believe that it is within the rhelm of potentially realistic possibility that MJ would show up drunk to a public appearance?
-
...... probably due to the fact that he was slightly out of it and had to be sobered up beforehand.
Nor like any behavior he ever exhibited prior so I'd say that's pretty much a salacious fabrication that I'm shocked to read here.
Do you mean MJ 'allegedly' being drunk before the Press Conference being a salacious fabrication or me mentioning it? I, of course, was referring to Randy Phillips' account of what was going on directly before the Press Conference and the reasons why he was supposedly 3 hrs late, being a possible reason for his different persona. As opposed to it not actually being MJ and a double.
Both. It's malicious slander at worst, a storyline scripted statement at best. What could make you believe that it is within the rhelm of potentially realistic possibility that MJ would show up drunk to a public appearance?
Really? Is he not human? Not saying he did or didn't. I wasn't there. For all we know Jesus might have been a bit tipsy when he turned that water into wine. Reminds me of the time early on in the hoax when I noticed a bunch of misspellings in the hoax videos. I thought to point this out once and was reprimanded....'Life isn't perfect.' Dare I say it? Neither is Michael whoever he might be.
-
Of course he's human but there's no pattern of behavior or past performance to suggest that might be true, it's just wild, slanderous speculation based on nothing and I'm surprised to see it referred to as a potential truth. That is all.
-
I have no idea if there is more than one Michael.
BUT--- Ever since i have been reading and hearing about Michael it has been shown that he is Very shy and Reserved. Or at least that is what i have picked up in a few of his interviews.
When his video came out with Lisa Marie ( You are not Alone) having only a sheet over him at times i found this interesting for a shy person, just not something i would think Michael would do.
Could this have been someone else doing the video?
I love this video always makes me smile, thinking of how happy they both looked.
:) :) :) :) :) :) :)
-
How happy they 'acted' :icon_lol:
#sham (for the greater good)
:smiley_abuv: LMP
-
http://michaeljacksonnotdead.wordpress.com/tag/reconstructive-surgery/
Klein has come out a number of times and made these claims. This is nothing new. Just Klein talking about it again and it's been picked up again by hoaxers.
The alleged reconstructive surgery was in 09 getting him ready for TII - see link
thanks for info aussie.
No worries, here is a bit more info. Not that I believe the claims, however below is a transcript of specific details that Klein gave to LK in an interview about the rebuilding.
http://www.celebitchy.com/59547/dr_klein_admits_he_rebuilt_michael_jacksons_nose_with_injectable_fillers/
-
Of course he's human but there's no pattern of behavior or past performance to suggest that might be true, it's just wild, slanderous speculation based on nothing and I'm surprised to see it referred to as a potential truth. That is all.
There's always a first time, however, far be it from me to slander anyone - heaven forbid!!!
-
I just realized I never posted this! Thanks for asking about it Starchild! This is for you. :)
Well, the only guy of these eight photos posted earlier here, which actually appears to have come from Joe and Kathryn Jackson, is the one with the spider. No matter what we THINK we have seen or what we think we know (because he DOES like to keep changing things), is that he has been testing "substituting" for years, and longer than the implementation of his death HOAX!!
♪"WHO the HECK is it??"♪ Is more apropos. :Pulling_hair: Imo, there have been at least 7 characters playing this part over the years. None of them are dead for real, but one (not even pictured here, you know) could be a twin or even a triplet. Once a couple has twins, it is likely they will have more twins or multiple births. Janet could have a twin brother. Michael could have a twin bro. The twin everyone already (thinks they) know died, may have not died. There could be many more hoaxed things than MJ's passing!! I think we have been thinking too small. This Hoax could have hundreds of horizontal and historical tentacles we haven't thought of yet, because we have only been thinking in stacked layers of misdirection.
MJ and Janet, in pictures used to look so much more alike (besides the obvious M/F differences). EXCEPT when they were together doing something. What do you think THAT could mean????
Since the beginning of time twins have been each others' partners in crime and have taken to fooling others. Twins who aren't even famous or into show business or illusion do this. How much more tempting would it be for a couple of twisted genius twins, from a show biz family, bored with the commonplace AND into magic, illusion AND practical tomfoolery, to have had the foresight and craftiness to make all evidence/ records of twins just GO AWAY for their creative plans.
Maybe the young twins were a bit temperamental or cranky from travelling and it was decided to interchange them because they were so young, and unpredictable.
Maybe all that crap about Joe beating (was it?)Marlon to "do it like Michael" was just a misdirection to keep everyone from looking too closely at the one known as MJ, and realizing there were 2 of him. :icon_e_surprised:
Maybe one's name was “Mike” :michael_jackson-1135: and one's name was “Joe” :michael_jackson-1135: , and in character they both answered to "MJ"! No one is dead; no one has been hidden away for years. They have BOTH been in plain sight, in the Bad video, in millions of photos, AS Michael Jackson. :Michael_Jackson_dancing_smile
Maybe ...the BAD era was the first and last time they appeared together in a piece of work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :affraid: Maybe that was our last chance to discover there were two and we didn't , so........... :icon_albino: :icon_twisted: ON WITH OPERATION DEATH HOAX!!
But, if there ARE 2 persons playing MJ, why did they cancel concerts for illness and such---if there WAS another to take the one’s place? Perhaps one or both LEFT the actual performing business, and the one getting sick all the time was a real double, a hireling. OR, more likely, perhaps THESE were practice runs, to test and iron out any kinks in their planned Hoax---for when they actually cancelled the AEG concerts later. (It would be wise to know if such a cancellation would cause a tar and feathering or no :icon_lol:)
Did you know that the band "Steam" was just some guys who recorded a hit (♪Na na na na ...Kiss Him Goodbye♪) and weren't even a band when they were booked for appearances to promote their record?
http://www.last.fm/music/Steam/+wiki
The record company hastily threw together a band of guys for a road act, because the original singers didn't want to tour. THAT group disbanded before their first appearance, and another bunch of guys were thrown together to do the tour. No one was the wiser! So...it HAS been done, substitutes touring FOR the Real Deal. And even though MJ was 10 or 11 when this was going on, he was right in the middle (AND on top of things very early!!!) of The Business, and could have heard or known about it, just ;) "filing it away" for his own big Hoax, later...!
Anyway, it could be that the last time it was the “real deal” on tour was with his brothers!!!!!! Or perhaps only the first leg of the BAD tour.
Maybe everyone else was a stand-in except for when it HAD to be him for up close or "talkies". :icon_e_surprised: :icon_e_wink: :thjajaja121:
Maybe this is why Frank Dileo never left “his” side during those bizarre interviews ---too dangerous to let a “double” freely speak to the press unmicromanaged!!!!!!!!!!!! :affraid:
Maybe the dark video in Japan was on purpose, and the story that MJ was "very disappointed in it, not being able to control this" just a ruse.
Maybe that was just an excuse for why he never published a concert video until the white album in 2004---because he thought it would... reveal something ...like....that it was not him!!! :affraid: :affraid: :affraid: :over-react-smiley:
Dileo said once that the year was the hardest thing they'd ever done, exhausting both of them, and MJ said NEVER AGAIN! Uh, YeAH! Impersonating yourself via proxy and making sure he always “does it like Michael” WOULD exhaust a guy AND his handler….
Does this mean that the HBO special in 92, or the rest of his tours was "not really HIM"??? Well...no...The Brand is all "Him", he's reinvented himself into a perfected stage act which has mesmerized the entire world. It is his ART. It is his music. It is some of the most inventive dance and persona in history. It came out of him. It’s his blood sweat and tears, you bet! But maybe not EXACTLY, the Michael Jackson who toured with the J5...
Maybe that's what he meant all along, as he sang ,"you're just another part of me". Maybe it wasn't us---but, his brother! :icon_e_surprised:
Just toying with ideas. It COULD be true… :smiley-vault-misc-150:
:animal0017:
-
@Its her :icon_lol: (Thanks!)
-
Interesting thoughts, Itsher, but I don't believe them for a second! ! !
You cannot erase a person's record for so long and making him play the double of his brother, it's simply not possible. What about the neighbors??? Didn't they know the Jacksons before they became famous??? How come they never said a word about the second MJ??? Now let's come to another question: Who is the father of Paris, Prince and Blanket??? Is it MJ or his twin brother??? Or may be both of them?? Could this be possible?? No way and I will never believe for a second that MJ has a twin brother. Photos are not a proof of anything. They can be edited. MJ could manipulate the whole world with edited photos to make everyone think that there are 2 MJ's. It's true that his photos don't look the same. It's the man we never knew, it's the man we don't really know how he looks like! It's another hiding in plain sight, through edited photos. I think the real MJ is the one who performs live on stage. That's how he really looks like. Now can anyone tell me how MJ really looks like? Do we really know?? The question is: no, we don't and I guess he wants to keep it that why, but I cannot figure out why!
-
Interesting thoughts, Itsher, but I don't believe them for a second! ! !
You cannot erase a person's record for so long and making him play the double of his brother, it's simply not possible. What about the neighbors??? Didn't they know the Jacksons before they became famous??? How come they never said a word about the second MJ??? Now let's come to another question: Who is the father of Paris, Prince and Blanket??? Is it MJ or his twin brother??? Or may be both of them?? Could this be possible?? No way and I will never believe for a second that MJ has a twin brother. Photos are not a proof of anything. They can be edited. MJ could manipulate the whole world with edited photos to make everyone think that there are 2 MJ's. It's true that his photos don't look the same. It's the man we never knew, it's the man we don't really know how he looks like! It's another hiding in plain sight, through edited photos. I think the real MJ is the one who performs live on stage. That's how he really looks like. Now can anyone tell me how MJ really looks like? Do we really know?? The question is: no, we don't and I guess he wants to keep it that why, but I cannot figure out why!
We know so little after all, don't we? We do know he was the Master of Disguises who has fooled people repeatedly. I am not sure of anything, so I can't be sure there isn't a twin, but my gut tells me no.
-
Interesting thoughts, Itsher, but I don't believe them for a second! ! !
You cannot erase a person's record for so long and making him play the double of his brother, it's simply not possible. What about the neighbors??? Didn't they know the Jacksons before they became famous??? How come they never said a word about the second MJ??? Now let's come to another question: Who is the father of Paris, Prince and Blanket??? Is it MJ or his twin brother??? Or may be both of them?? Could this be possible?? No way and I will never believe for a second that MJ has a twin brother. Photos are not a proof of anything. They can be edited. MJ could manipulate the whole world with edited photos to make everyone think that there are 2 MJ's. It's true that his photos don't look the same. It's the man we never knew, it's the man we don't really know how he looks like! It's another hiding in plain sight, through edited photos. I think the real MJ is the one who performs live on stage. That's how he really looks like. Now can anyone tell me how MJ really looks like? Do we really know?? The question is: no, we don't and I guess he wants to keep it that why, but I cannot figure out why!
Hi, Diggyon. :)
What you state is exactly Its her's point, I think. Just stating things in an over-the-top fashion as a way of highlighting questions like the ones you posed. (Of course, correct me if I’m wrong, Its her.)
-
Interesting thoughts, Itsher, but I don't believe them for a second! ! !
You cannot erase a person's record for so long and making him play the double of his brother, it's simply not possible. What about the neighbors??? Didn't they know the Jacksons before they became famous??? How come they never said a word about the second MJ??? Now let's come to another question: Who is the father of Paris, Prince and Blanket??? Is it MJ or his twin brother??? Or may be both of them?? Could this be possible?? No way and I will never believe for a second that MJ has a twin brother. Photos are not a proof of anything. They can be edited. MJ could manipulate the whole world with edited photos to make everyone think that there are 2 MJ's. It's true that his photos don't look the same. It's the man we never knew, it's the man we don't really know how he looks like! It's another hiding in plain sight, through edited photos. I think the real MJ is the one who performs live on stage. That's how he really looks like. Now can anyone tell me how MJ really looks like? Do we really know?? The question is: no, we don't and I guess he wants to keep it that why, but I cannot figure out why!
Hi Diggyon, You're right, the photos are one of many of MJ's fiendish tools to confuse everyone :suspect: and keep everyone guessing. I swear there are photos of imposters IN the MJJ official collection of MJ photos, and this confused me for a long time. I wondered why people who KNOW him would collect photos of fake MJs. Now, there ARE people who photograph differently every time we see them, and it is fascinating to behold, especially in the case of someone known to you personally, and you KNOW there is only one of them. But we simply can't know for certain about MJ until he comes out telling all!
I am just listing all kinds of things which must be explained by the Joker, so that we don't all go to our graves completely nuts. He doesn't get official credit for tricks that were never substantiated, you know. All of this could just be misunderstandings and rumors---NOT the misdirection and stealth of a clever illusionist. He MUST reappear and 'splain' ---document his skill---or go down in History as an inflated figment of the imaginations of desperate fans in denial.
SOME fans will have a serious problem with there being more than one MJ character :michael_jackson-1135: :animal0017: :michael_jackson-1135: , the fans who planned on marrying him. But it shouldn't cause the rest of us any problems, RIGHT? I am fascinated by the prospect of twins! If all his fans go rabid, fine! More for me, I'll take TWO.
But you brought up his KIDS in all this, which struck me kind of funny. Whether he has kids or not has nothing to do with him being a twin. NOT jumping on you, I just don't follow why you immediately thought of the children. After all, if MJ is a twin, we will still love him, right? Will we love his twin, the guy we've seen at least HALF of the time we believed we were seeing him? Will we feel any less interest in and affection for PPB, depending upon which twin is which of their father(s)? Whether they are siblings or cousins? :icon_e_surprised: Why did the kids come to mind, while on the subject of MJ hiding a brother?
You think they are Hoax kids, don't you! In the back of your mind you wonder what ELSE he's faked. :errrr: Well, we know the kids are real; we've seen them grow up, very publicly, just like MJ. The names could have been changed to protect the innocent, no matter WHOSE kids they are. Does it matter, really? If the kids belong to Joker #1, Joker #2 (or Joker #3 :michael_jackson-1135: , the character BOTH have been playing the part of for 30 years) ? Is this something some of us just can't deal with---that MJ grew up in the spotlight, very publicly and we NEVER knew he was a twin? Does that make us dimwitted or idiots because we didn't see something we weren't looking for?? No!
(There are a LOT shadier things than a showbiz family secret going on that none of us have seen, so don't feel bad about this, if it's true.)
Would it really bother us that much, to discover that Prince, Paris and Blanket are actors, playing the parts of the fictional children of a fictional character named Michael Jackson, King of Pop? And that both twins took turns acting his part? This Hoax is deep. It's not fair :smiley_abuv: to get all FOR REAL uncomfortable with twists and turns MJ wrote into his fictional THRILLER, for deep suspense. We don't have to believe any of it. But, as far as we know, it is ALL fiction (remember Latoya stating as much??! :icon_eek: ), and the story isn't over yet, so let's just all calm down, wait and see, ok?
@ Starchild, yes, I am highlighting questions that have stumped me in an over the top way, because everything ABOUT Michael Jackson is over the top, especially since this Hoax went "Lights Out"!!!! I remember two drivers licenses, where one MJ looked more like Mic Jagger than Mike Jackson. :icon_e_surprised: Two completely different men in the I.D.s!
As friendly and flirty and charming as the Michael Jackson we "know" appears, there is a very deep introspective side to him, which I sometimes get the feeling is more of a loner than anything else, as most creative geniuses are. It seems really bizarre to me that anyone who isn't all on his own would have the time or energy to accomplish all he has. His marriages seemed hoaxed---pictures with his wives were forced looking---even those faked studio pictures. Something feels "off" to me about all this, and I believe the children will turn out to be godchildren, maybe, but not the real issue of confirmed bachelor and PuppetMaster of this Hoax. They may all be actors or children of low profile, non-celebrities he knows. Check out who was always around him with the kids. You know... Baby Moses (of Bible fame) was nursed by his own real mother, hovering around the palace, playing nanny-nurse to him, as he was officially SAID to be the child of Pharoah's daughter... MJ knows his Bible stories. Clever Boy. It would be the easiest thing in the world, to hire their real mother or dad to be :icon_albino: nurse-maid to their own real kids. But, I don't see how twins figure into this unless the "twin" story is TRUE, and in the Autumn of their lives, they want to take a bow for this expert Illusion. Would it be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad if true? Can't we be a BIT more understanding of someone so misunderstood all his life? Someone we REALLY really appreciated and whose work we LOVED? This may be the crown jewel in his Hoax. A real twin brother. :icon_e_biggrin: TWO of a kind ?! :icon_bounce: Or even if one is a very extroverted, manic Jim Carey type and one is a real strong, silent, Gary Cooper type. Would it cause us to come unglued???? Really?
What if the "twins" are the elaborate illusion----just to soften the blow that there really are two MJ's only one is a character in a hoax that the other one created and produced for his fans? Would that be ok with us? If the man we thought we knew was a figment of the imagination of the other one???
Finally (for now) consider this: maybe all that FBI CIA KGB stuff in his songs is NOT fiction, and a ruse like TWINS has helped him elude and discombobulate them all these years.... :icon_e_ugeek: Many more things are possible than we used to beLIEve... :affraid:
-
What if the "twins" are the elaborate illusion----just to soften the blow that there really are two MJ's only one is a character in a hoax that the other one created and produced for his fans? Would that be ok with us? If the man we thought we knew :icon_e_confused: was a figment of the imagination of the other one???
Finally (for now) consider this: maybe all that FBI CIA KGB stuff in his songs is NOT fiction, and a ruse like TWINS has helped him elude and discombobulate them all these years.... Many more things are possible than we used to beLIEve...
Shocking as it is, I think you may be on to something and I'm very glad you mentioned the possibility that all of this - including the kids - is part of an act. It's just a feeling on my part, perhaps, but sometimes I feel a disconnect between the public Michael and the Michael that we have come to know.
-
Oh what a so complicated minds you all have OMG Michael must be laughing out loud I think it's more simple than that: there is only one Michael, MJ the man who is pulling this hoax off and the man you never knew, that's all. :Pulling_hair:
Michael's kids part of an act, this is crazy !! :over-react-smiley:
-
What if the "twins" are the elaborate illusion----just to soften the blow that there really are two MJ's only one is a character in a hoax that the other one created and produced for his fans? Would that be ok with us? If the man we thought we knew :icon_e_confused: was a figment of the imagination of the other one???
Finally (for now) consider this: maybe all that FBI CIA KGB stuff in his songs is NOT fiction, and a ruse like TWINS has helped him elude and discombobulate them all these years.... Many more things are possible than we used to beLIEve...
Shocking as it is, I think you may be on to something and I'm very glad you mentioned the possibility that all of this - including the kids - is part of an act. It's just a feeling on my part, perhaps, but sometimes I feel a disconnect between the public Michael and the Michael that we have come to know.
Hi Gwynned,
I would be quick to say that if anything, not just part of 'an act' but Hand Picked participants in The Greatest Show On Earth, who got to sit under/in close proximity of the tutelage of a master for part of their young lives. :bowdown: Idk, but it seems if anyone mentions the kids being "in on it" (instead of wrecked and still bawling their eyes out) it somehow makes them less good as people, and if someone dares say that they might be paid actors and not even MJ's children, people get all bent as if it diminishes the children's worth somehow (not actually being blood "Royal"! What. I don't get it. None of us are, including Michael J. :icon_rolleyes:). Neither would ever be true! Whether his kids or not they ARE in on HIS Hoax, and NO harm or foul has been done. All is well. As planned! :icon_mrgreen:
Whether twins or doubles or actors or bonafide Jacksons, WHY does there have to be so much personalized emotion and criticism? The PLAY is the thing. :icon_e_smile: It is some kind of a Hoax. A work of Fiction, a Masquerade, a Hoodwinking, a Production. A BIG one.
I'm not trying to shock anyone by posting about my observations. HE is the one who said years ago that he wanted to really move people. Well, he sure did. :affraid: His death was earth-moving enough and I didn't even know him. But it doesn't pay to get TOO upset about his kids or a twin brother, or even that he set his own hair on fake fire as part of His-Story.
Maybe the reason he is revealing odd bits, piece by piece is because we, ourselves seem so personally invested in this Hoax being something non-scary that we can live with, that he doesn't wish to overwhelm us. :bearhug:
But the Reveal may necessitate telling ALL that was Hoaxed over the years, from the Pepsi thing to his little Darlings, to even some actual, real, weighty points of contention in our world. Idk. (The longer I am here, the less I know. Now, THAT's a bitter pill! :icon_pale: ). If he WANTs to tell it, we want to KNOW right? I do. I really do. :)
If he simply kept us spellbound with tall tale, after rip-roaring tall tale all our lives, and we were content to eat THAT up----HOW can we OBJECT, NOW, as he calms our fears, explaining HOW it was all a lifelong, over the top, Thriller? :o A STORY. :th_bravo:
-
What if the "twins" are the elaborate illusion----just to soften the blow that there really are two MJ's only one is a character in a hoax that the other one created and produced for his fans? Would that be ok with us? If the man we thought we knew :icon_e_confused: was a figment of the imagination of the other one???
Finally (for now) consider this: maybe all that FBI CIA KGB stuff in his songs is NOT fiction, and a ruse like TWINS has helped him elude and discombobulate them all these years.... Many more things are possible than we used to beLIEve...
Shocking as it is, I think you may be on to something and I'm very glad you mentioned the possibility that all of this - including the kids - is part of an act. It's just a feeling on my part, perhaps, but sometimes I feel a disconnect between the public Michael and the Michael that we have come to know.
Hi Gwynned,
I would be quick to say that if anything, not just part of 'an act' but Hand Picked participants in The Greatest Show On Earth, who got to sit under/in close proximity of the tutelage of a master for part of their young lives. :bowdown: Idk, but it seems if anyone mentions the kids being "in on it" (instead of wrecked and still bawling their eyes out) it somehow makes them less good as people, and if someone dares say that they might be paid actors and not even MJ's children, people get all bent as if it diminishes the children's worth somehow (not actually being blood "Royal"! What. I don't get it. None of us are, including Michael J. :icon_rolleyes:). Neither would ever be true! Whether his kids or not they ARE in on HIS Hoax, and NO harm or foul has been done. All is well. As planned! :icon_mrgreen:
Whether twins or doubles or actors or bonafide Jacksons, WHY does there have to be so much personalized emotion and criticism? The PLAY is the thing. :icon_e_smile: It is some kind of a Hoax. A work of Fiction, a Masquerade, a Hoodwinking, a Production. A BIG one.
I'm not trying to shock anyone by posting about my observations. HE is the one who said years ago that he wanted to really move people. Well, he sure did. :affraid: His death was earth-moving enough and I didn't even know him. But it doesn't pay to get TOO upset about his kids or a twin brother, or even that he set his own hair on fake fire as part of His-Story.
Maybe the reason he is revealing odd bits, piece by piece is because we, ourselves seem so personally invested in this Hoax being something non-scary that we can live with, that he doesn't wish to overwhelm us. :bearhug:
But the Reveal may necessitate telling ALL that was Hoaxed over the years, from the Pepsi thing to his little Darlings, to even some actual, real, weighty points of contention in our world. Idk. (The longer I am here, the less I know. Now, THAT's a bitter pill! :icon_pale: ). If he WANTs to tell it, we want to KNOW right? I do. I really do. :)
If he simply kept us spellbound with tall tale, after rip-roaring tall tale all our lives, and we were content to eat THAT up----HOW can we OBJECT, NOW, as he calms our fears, explaining HOW it was all a lifelong, over the top, Thriller? :o A STORY. :th_bravo:
Really enjoy your insight! :th_bravo: He did say he wanted to take his direction to the next level. Is it a reality show with audience participation? Like the song goes, His life was a movie, or at least the public part of his life, and we have been fortunate enough to participate in it. And what are the real weighty points of contention you refer to? JFK? 9-11? If Michael, the Master, trained his protoges, who is Michael? When was the last time we actually saw 'him'? Is it only a him? Or could it be a they? In V for Vendetta, V says behind this mask is more than a person. It's an idea. And you can't kill an idea. What is the idea? What is his agenda? Like you said, the longer we're here, the greater the uncertainty.
And, like the Master Shake-Spear said "All the world's a stage, and we are but actors.' Some of us are paid, I guess, and others unwittingly offer our services for free! :icon_razz:
-
Hope it's ok to resurrect this thread - may as well talk about this as anything else I guess!
Anyway, prompted by the pic of MJ used on that Sony/Estate announcement thing and Souza saying it was the taller/older MJ, I'd like to put a fun challenge out to those who believe there are two MJs!
You can have all the make up, surgery, wigs, clothes etc etc in the world to make you look as identical as possible to someone else - but you can't change your wrinkles and creases! That pic clearly shows (what I've noticed many times with 'MJ') that when he frowns or screws his eyes up, he has horizontal creases at the top of his nose between his eyes. I have the most horrendous vertical frown lines between my eyes when I frown, and there's nothing I can do to frown any differently! So, my challenge to anyone who cares to take it on, is to find pics of 'MJ' with a different type of creasing!
That would be pretty convincing evidence of two MJs IMO!
-
Hope it's ok to resurrect this thread - may as well talk about this as anything else I guess!
Anyway, prompted by the pic of MJ used on that Sony/Estate announcement thing and Souza saying it was the taller/older MJ, I'd like to put a fun challenge out to those who believe there are two MJs!
You can have all the make up, surgery, wigs, clothes etc etc in the world to make you look as identical as possible to someone else - but you can't change your wrinkles and creases! That pic clearly shows (what I've noticed many times with 'MJ') that when he frowns or screws his eyes up, he has horizontal creases at the top of his nose between his eyes. I have the most horrendous vertical frown lines between my eyes when I frown, and there's nothing I can do to frown any differently! So, my challenge to anyone who cares to take it on, is to find pics of 'MJ' with a different type of creasing!
That would be pretty convincing evidence of two MJs IMO!
Hey curls,
I did look, but the problem here is that you assume they both wrinkle there. I could not really see that. That frown you mention is indeed typical for one, not so much for the other.
The other problem with the two MJ's is that they are both MJ, and both real MJ. Even though I see the difference most of the time, I recognize them both as the real MJ which simply makes it harder because you start to doubt. And I am not talking about the doubles that we have seen the last decade. Both are Michael Jackson, both look a lot alike yet look different. One has a round chin, the other a pronounced and longer chin. One has a higher voice, the other one has to fake that voice to make it sound the same as his brother's. It is why some people say that he has a real low voice in real life, they know the older MJ. One is at least 2-3 inches taller than the other. The tall one has vitiligo, apparently Quincy Jones knew the other one because he plain out said: MJ does not have vitiligo. One wears his glove on the right, the other on the left. Read all the lyrics, they have been trying to tell us for ages! Why would MJ be able to be in 2 places at the same time? How can he sign a will in LA while being in NY with Al Sharpton at the same time? Are all those people in on it or is the explanation much simpler: there are 2 MJ's? Brothers. Why could they not look alike that much? I bet if Janet was a boy she could have been the 3rd MJ. Why hide a kid? They never did! the younger one simply lived somewhere else because Katherine got pregnant again in 1959 and they couldn't afford another kid! Joe's brother Luther had no kids I don't think, but in one of the books I read he was around a lot for rehearsals at 2300 Jackson Street. Maybe, just maybe, the younger MJ grew up with him and his wife. For Joe and Katherine that would have been a great solution. It was the 50's, a story like this is not uncommon for that time. It also explains the Joe/Joseph stuff that has been frustrating many for years. How can Joseph be used in a court of law when it is not his real name? Because it's the other one's real name!
Michael Joe Jackson, born 8/29/1958
Michael Joseph Jackson, born 1/28/1960
Explains everything plus it still makes the death certificate bogus. If you look at the writers of the songs in that archive, some say Michael Joe, some say Michael Joseph. They both wrote songs.
I told you before, listen to Who is it. MJ did his own background vocals? Who is it? The one singing Human Nature, Say Say Say, Thriller and Beat it (on the official recording) is not the same as the one singing Black or White, Billie Jean and They don't care about us. Listen to it. Sometimes they both seem to be in one song. They are so alike, but not the same. Moonwalker is about one MJ leaving, This is It is about that MJ returning to the stage after 20+ years. One quit, the other one kept going. Both are equally MJ.
I could go on for hours and hours, seriously. Donald Trump told Larry King in 2009: There were 2 MJ's and I knew them both. From the 90's on it was like a different person, much more shy. It is not an exact qoute, but close enough. It is still on YouTube.
Anyway, challenge me more, I might convince you in the end, hahahahaha! 2 real MJ's make a lot of frustrating mysteries much much clearer. I will stop now. lol...
-
Might be fun to rehash this......for starters, here is the Donald talking to Larry after June 25th.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krtg_V2W4HA[/youtube]
-
Hope it's ok to resurrect this thread - may as well talk about this as anything else I guess!
Anyway, prompted by the pic of MJ used on that Sony/Estate announcement thing and Souza saying it was the taller/older MJ, I'd like to put a fun challenge out to those who believe there are two MJs!
You can have all the make up, surgery, wigs, clothes etc etc in the world to make you look as identical as possible to someone else - but you can't change your wrinkles and creases! That pic clearly shows (what I've noticed many times with 'MJ') that when he frowns or screws his eyes up, he has horizontal creases at the top of his nose between his eyes. I have the most horrendous vertical frown lines between my eyes when I frown, and there's nothing I can do to frown any differently! So, my challenge to anyone who cares to take it on, is to find pics of 'MJ' with a different type of creasing!
That would be pretty convincing evidence of two MJs IMO!
These are the pictures of MJ frowing I have found so far, in any of them I've been able to find the supposed MJ with different creases than those you Curls are talking about, I mean all MJs (assuming there are more than one) have the horizontal creases when they frowns = THERE IS ONLY "ONE" MJ:
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/42006d81c2.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/100268mich.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/414560tdy1.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/celebritya.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/imageshxh.jpg)
-
Now...I know there's only one MJ because the skeleton in every MJ I have seen so far is EXACTLY the same, he has the right shoulder (if you look at the picture then is his left) slightly lower than the other and I've never seen another MJ without this feature, take a look:
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/gqfeature2.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/mj2012dang.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/mjphotocom.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/screenpmp.png)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/screenrmr.png)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/screenbeb.png)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/screendtd.png)
Another feature of his face is that he has his lower lip is slightly fallen towards his left side that you can notice when he smiles (if you look at his picture is his right side), take a look of the pictures:
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/michaeland.png)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/michaejvj.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/71.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/2804721261.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/article231.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/fjgczu99ew.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/michaecqc.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/michaelml.jpg)
This is the supposed Barry Shaw:
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/unknowada.jpg)
And this is the supposed O2 Arena guy:
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/0935183148.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/ac8bbc1d7a.jpg)
(http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/images/mj1291.jpg)
-
Hey curls,
I did look, but the problem here is that you assume they both wrinkle there. I could not really see that. That frown you mention is indeed typical for one, not so much for the other. .....
No, no, no, Souza, I'm not assuming that at all! Quite the opposite in fact. I'm saying that if there are two of them, it's highly unlikely that they both have the same creases when they frown or screw up their eyes.
You say 'the other one' doesn't show the horizontal line frown so much. So I want pics! Does he just never frown at all so we never get to compare (botox maybe?) or does he have a different frown, in which case there should be pics!
While we're at it - which MJ had the mole on his left cheek (which was later removed but the scar is still visible)?
@sweetsunset, nice pics - almost as if you had them all ready and waiting for a debate such as this!!
-
Hey curls,
I did look, but the problem here is that you assume they both wrinkle there. I could not really see that. That frown you mention is indeed typical for one, not so much for the other. .....
No, no, no, Souza, I'm not assuming that at all! Quite the opposite in fact. I'm saying that if there are two of them, it's highly unlikely that they both have the same creases when they frown or screw up their eyes.
You say 'the other one' doesn't show the horizontal line frown so much. So I want pics! Does he just never frown at all so we never get to compare (botox maybe?) or does he have a different frown, in which case there should be pics!
While we're at it - which MJ had the mole on his left cheek (which was later removed but the scar is still visible)?
@sweetsunset, nice pics - almost as if you had them all ready and waiting for a debate such as this!!
He doesn't frown as much. I will see if I can find some pics tomorrow if I don't forget. I have looked at tons of pictures and it frustrates me greatly that I can't really find something new to show. All I posted before wasn't convincing enough for many.
The one with the removed mole is the one with the bigger chin, the older one. So you DID notice one has no scar? Ha! I love this discussion. I am so certain of it and I see some kinda see it but don't want to admit it yet and there are the people that will never want to believe it. Thanks RK for the video, that is the one I meant.
-
I love this discussion too Souza! Even though I'm one who doesn't believe it (yet). Not a question of not wanting to believe it, just haven't seen anything I'd call proof.
'No scar' means nothing - we all know how heavily many of MJ's pics are touched-up/airbrushed to give a flawless finish.
Have you also noticed how some photos are 'reversed'? That too gives a very different look to a person.
-
I love this discussion too Souza! Even though I'm one who doesn't believe it (yet). Not a question of not wanting to believe it, just haven't seen anything I'd call proof.
'No scar' means nothing - we all know how heavily many of MJ's pics are touched-up/airbrushed to give a flawless finish.
Have you also noticed how some photos are 'reversed'? That too gives a very different look to a person.
Oh Curly boy,beLIEve me that I noticed.....the pictureS are reversed as "hell",lol....and that gives a very different look to a person,yes,yes.
(http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Shawn+Chapman+Holley+Lindsay+Lohan+Pre+Trial+EBomg-wBJgnl.jpg)
(http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Shawn+Chapman+Holley+Lindsay+Lohan+Pre+Trial+SatR9MnJUahl.jpg)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1334696.1367630406!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/lindsay-lohan.jpg)
(http://snarkerati.com/celebrity-gossip/files/2013/01/lindsay-lohan-lawyer1.jpg)
(http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images_2/shawn-chapman-holley-1-15-13-1.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/18/article-0-141D4DFF000005DC-988_634x416.jpg)
(http://www.cnn.com/video/crime/2010/09/27/natpkg.lohan.paris.celeb.lawyer.cnn.640x360.jpg)
(http://cdn.ph.upi.com/sv/b/upi/UPI-2981358260202/2013/1/a634913497de67da69248c30f105e04f/Report-Lindsay-Lohan-fires-attorney-Shawn-Holley-later-regrets-it.jpg)
Mirror,mirror on the world,who's the most beautiful GIRL....sorry :icon_mrgreen: BOY in the world?? Think like a MAN......act like a WOMAN,he he !!! That This is it Drill confused me as "hell",but not anymore he he :icon_pale: :Crash:.
-
The "always great to sing with my brother" line from the TII album is something to consider when we are examining this topic also.
-
The "always great to sing with my brother" line from the TII album is something to consider when we are examining this topic also.
Who is it? Is it a friend of mine? Who is it? Is it my brother?
-
I love this discussion too Souza! Even though I'm one who doesn't believe it (yet). Not a question of not wanting to believe it, just haven't seen anything I'd call proof.
'No scar' means nothing - we all know how heavily many of MJ's pics are touched-up/airbrushed to give a flawless finish.
Have you also noticed how some photos are 'reversed'? That too gives a very different look to a person.
Oh Curly boy,beLIEve me that I noticed.....the pictureS are reversed as "hell",lol....and that gives a very different look to a person,yes,yes.
(http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Shawn+Chapman+Holley+Lindsay+Lohan+Pre+Trial+EBomg-wBJgnl.jpg)
(http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Shawn+Chapman+Holley+Lindsay+Lohan+Pre+Trial+SatR9MnJUahl.jpg)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1334696.1367630406!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/lindsay-lohan.jpg)
(http://snarkerati.com/celebrity-gossip/files/2013/01/lindsay-lohan-lawyer1.jpg)
(http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images_2/shawn-chapman-holley-1-15-13-1.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/18/article-0-141D4DFF000005DC-988_634x416.jpg)
(http://www.cnn.com/video/crime/2010/09/27/natpkg.lohan.paris.celeb.lawyer.cnn.640x360.jpg)
(http://cdn.ph.upi.com/sv/b/upi/UPI-2981358260202/2013/1/a634913497de67da69248c30f105e04f/Report-Lindsay-Lohan-fires-attorney-Shawn-Holley-later-regrets-it.jpg)
Mirror,mirror on the world,who's the most beautiful GIRL....sorry :icon_mrgreen: BOY in the world?? Think like a MAN......act like a WOMAN,he he !!! That This is it Drill confused me as "hell",but not anymore he he :icon_pale: :Crash:.
Did i mis something? what is mend by this?? That Travis Payne and shawn holley are one and the same??
Or am i asking a stupid question now?
Or
-
I don't get it either....
-
note to self. reread this thread
-
The way we are taught to process information means it is absolutely very difficult to comprehend 2 michaels.However,i for one have no problem believing it could be plausible.Amazing how quick people are to dismiss certain ideas yet allow themselves to be taken in by others.So good to be back here,but of course ive been here every week since 2009.Family problems meant I couldn't dedicate my time as I would have liked.
-
I do believe there have been multiple Michael's over the years, but when the Michael cd came out and we were given that huge mural to look through, I started to believe that perhaps there was a twin involved.
Who's twin? I think Marlon's twin, Brandon.
On the Michael mural there is this:
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx230/Clueless101/Michael%20cd%20and%20booklet/10children_zps5d5a60fb.jpg) (http://s758.photobucket.com/user/Clueless101/media/Michael%20cd%20and%20booklet/10children_zps5d5a60fb.jpg.html)
This depicts 10 children, with Brandon being depicted as being between 10 and 12. Why would he be depicted at that age if he died at child birth? I can't say for sure which one is Marlon and which one is Brandon, but one of them looks like they are hiding. Or is this person Michael's twin?
There is also a transcript from CNN with this:
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/03/lkl.01.html
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Michael Jackson Laid to Rest
Aired September 3, 2009 - 21:00 ET
KING: Who's putting this all together?
MANNING: The whole family. Everybody is involved (INAUDIBLE)...
ROWE: (INAUDIBLE) has spearheaded it.
MANNING: Yes, right. Yes.
ROWE: Brandon Jackson.
MANNING: Yes.
ROWE: He's doing a great job.
MANNING: Yes.
KING: He's the man, huh?
ROWE: Brandon's the man.
MANNING: Yes, he is. And, you know, Leonard...
ROWE: He's a (INAUDIBLE) guy.
Brandon Jackson? Odd.......
There was discussion on this thread about the scar on his cheek; I totally agree with that - sometimes you can see it and sometimes you can't. Michael also has a scar (or raised skin) on his right index finger - sometimes you can see it and sometimes you can't:
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx230/Clueless101/04-21-09.jpg) (http://s758.photobucket.com/user/Clueless101/media/04-21-09.jpg.html)
Love you Michael!
-
I just came across this on Arnold Klein's Facebook page 2hrs ago. Arnold Klein is on a roll with confirming it WAS
NOT Michael at the London announcement, but rather an impersonator.......
Arnold W. Klein
the problem with AEG....during the London interview this was not Michael ...look at the chin!
https://www.facebook.com/#!/arnold.klein?hc_location=stream
Arnold W. Klein
the impersonator had a cleft in the bottom of his chin like a tooth. When /i rebuilt Michael's face there was no cleft!!! look at the width of the impersonator's mouth.Like · · Share · 3 hours ago · 10 people like this..
Lesley Anthony http://michaeljacksonnotdead.wordpress.com/tag/imposter/
Lesley Anthony... latex MJ moulded mask Ines Parrain.. What do mean Arnold ? I mean, Michael had a chin's cleft for ages.... Look at the 2005' pictures... Anyway, there was an impersonator in TII, I agree with that.
Lesley Anthony ..Arnold W. Klein can you please comment on this blog / article that claims, that you were reonstructing his face so he could get away unrecognized? http://michaeljacksonnotdead.wordpress.com/.../
I keep telling people that you can hear the audience chanting "Get Michael" or at least that is what it sounds like.
-
Very interesting piece this is. Thanks Souza, I don't know what to believe. I do think a lot is taken out of context when it comes to MJ. Even the clip with Donald Trump. He doesn't mean there were 2 MJ's for one he is always talking about one Michael. He is merely saying that MJ changed for whatever reasons. People change over the course of life due to experience or family/friends and according to Trump he seemed to have lost confidence which seems understandable after being bashed by the media over and over again. That would change any person from a happy go lucky guy to one taking caution in everything he does. He knew both of them means he knew the MJ before he changed and the MJ after he changed. Both were the same MJ but his mental state just changed. So Trump knew him a long time...