Quote from: curls on September 30, 2013, 05:43:58 AMEnjoying 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.
