2 MJ's

curls

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.<br /><br />Part 1: http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/page,two_1.html<br />Part 2: http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/forum/index.php/page,two_2.html<br /><br />

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 <br />know who you are

<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />

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, <br />but at the same moment it made a LOT clear!

<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The glove, worn on different hands is, I think, a somewhat weak argument for a twin as well.<br /><br />

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 <br />burial they have 3 gloves on the right and 2 on the left. Makes you <br />wonder…

<br />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!<br /><br />So, I have a few basic questions about all this.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Why wouldn't they have just performed openly as individuals or together as twins?  Why would they need to pretend to be one person?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />EDIT: So, Souza, did one of them die on June 25th or is it a joint hoax?

Thriller4ever

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?<br /><br />What was the need to do that? <br /><br />That kind of doesn't make any sense to me.  Is there any way we can debunk this?

Thriller4ever

Maybe 'Mike J Jackson' is an alias, to create confusion? is that possible?

Souza

on 1379793015:

<br />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?<br /><br />What was the need to do that? <br /><br />That kind of doesn't make any sense to me.  Is there any way we can debunk this?<br />

<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...<br /><br /><br /><br />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.<br />

curls

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?

blankie

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:<br />They both are disappeared in June 25 ?  :smiley-vault-misc-150:<br /><br />

suspicious mind

i suppose there is no information as to when these documents became unavailable to be researched ( the birth records that is)  :suspect:

Thriller4ever

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.<br /><br /><br />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.

curls

on 1379830826:

<br />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.<br />

<br /><br />If Joe wanted to make things easier he'd have kept his pants zipped!

Thriller4ever

@Curls ;:icon_lol:<br /><br /> thank you curls, i felt inhibited to say that! 

starchild

on 1379830826:

<br />If Joe found it hard to raise 10 kids ( the 9 known children + the 'other' Michael) [size=12pt]why would he send that one extra somewhere else and keep all the other 9 to himself?[/size] If Joe wanted to make things easier, he could have sent at least [size=12pt]three kids[/size] to some place else.<br /><br /><br />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.<br />

<br />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)?

Thriller4ever

Another point I'd like to add. <br /><br />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.<br />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.

bec

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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I think O2 guy is simultaneously the proof for and against the 2 MJs theory. It's a brilliant performance.

Lena

And just because they are twins they have the same illness?(aka vitiligo) I think that there is nothing that can bleach your skin..

curls

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.<br /><br />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!

underthemoon

I think too that there are 2 Michael, but i rearly have no idea why they are separated since a so Young Age.<br /><br />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 ?<br /><br />So i more think it's not a brother...one has more english Accent, one american.<br /><br />The lyrics from " Best of Joy " are so interesting and it rearly sounds like two are singing a Duett :<br /><br />http://www.metrolyrics.com/best-of-joy-lyrics-michael-jackson.html<br /><br />Much love from Germany 

underthemoon

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... <br /><br />I wonder why they delete it... <br /><br />

underthemoon

on 1379869933:

<br />I think too that there are 2 Michael, but i rearly have no idea why they are separated since a so Young Age.<br /><br />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 ?<br /><br />So i more think it's not a brother...one has more english Accent, one american.<br /><br />The lyrics from " Best of Joy " are so interesting and it rearly sounds like two are singing a Duett :<br /><br />http://www.metrolyrics.com/best-of-joy-lyrics-michael-jackson.html<br /><br />Upsy....i see it Jet... please scroll down at the lyric site and you see :<br /><br />Songwriter Michael Joe Jackson !  :th_bravo:<br /><br />Much love from Germany  <br />

sweetsunsetwithMJ

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.

MaryK

on 1379867142:

<br />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.<br /><br />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!<br />

<br /><br />I will elaborate later. But first, please, let me collect my thoughts.<br />I have a ton of pics and I even have a folder "the other" in my files.  :icon_lol:<br />I think it´s especially interesting to watch performances from the HIStory tour. <br />Ok but like I said: will collect my thoughts first  :icon_e_wink:

curls

on 1379795007:

<br />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. <br />

<br /><br />Who Is It?  I've listened. What am I supposed to notice?

MFFreedom

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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

applehead250609

on 1379795007:

<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...<br /><br /><br /><br />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.<br />

<br /><br /><br /><br />

why we always see the round eyed one with layers and layers of make-up.

<br /><br />  :LolLolLolLol: :LolLolLolLol: :LolLolLolLol:<br />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: !!!<br />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:.

bec

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.<br /><br />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.

curls

(Hoping to get back to this soon - busy with life! Thanks applehead and MFFreedom for your posts.)

Sandal8259

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. <br /><br /><br />http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/hoaxpic/?v=mural3huh.jpg