Blog

[~Souza~]

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

[curls]

It's called dramatic license. This is a drama not a documentary.

[~Souza~]

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.

[Sandal8259]

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.

[curls]

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!

[curls]

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!

[Snoopy71]

....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:

[flory24]

....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

[Australian MJ BeLIEver]

[RK]

[sweetsunsetwithMJ]

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.

[Australian MJ BeLIEver]

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.

[bec]

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.

[Australian MJ BeLIEver]

 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)

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

[bec]

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.