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.htmlPart 2:
http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/page,two_2.htmlQuoteWe 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 
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.
QuoteSo...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.
QuoteYou 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?
