Maybe there were two babies born, one in 1960 and one in 1958. We have the two year age difference.
There used to be labor laws concerning how many hours a child could work... remember the Olson twins... and I think they used twins on "little house on the prarie" not sure if I am remembering corectly.
Both babies would not have had to have been given the same name at birth. One could have changed the name latter. So then we would have one... Michael Joe and one Michael Joseph...
Looking over the credits for the "This is it" CD credit is given to both Michael joseph and Michael J Jackson... If we were talking about the same person would the producers of the CD want to keep the name consistant?
We have also seen Michael at different heights... If you do an internet search for Mike's height you get several different answers.
We all know Mike had some plastic surgery done... not big deal... but what if it was to keep the two looking alike?
Don't forget the will.... signed by Michael while we know he was in NY??? and its still be accepted as leagal, not even being reviewed????
The MB documentry... it looks like two different people.. The Mike in the burgandy shirt looks different than the one shown in the earlier footage....You can chalk that up to being taped over 8 months but the personalities are different as well... Burgandy shirt Mike is more stable, more self assured, than the Mike in the hotel room holding blanket... watching that piece almost made me think of my mother who is bi-polar and manic.....Compare Mike at the end of the show to the one wearing black and white holding blanket.... personalites are too different....The interview questions and answers almost seemed like they were taken from the Oprah interview years before... like someone had studdied that interview.
We have people swearing Mike was gay, yet we have women swearing that they were with him...and he was married to LMP. The courts have rejected requests for dna tests to prove paternity... yes I know there are a lot of quacks out there but what if just one of these so called "MJ love kids" really is his?
Why is everyone so reluctant to do dna?
Why didn't he use his own sperm to have children? I am sory I don't believe he did. and his reasons are his own... and yes he loved them and they are his children. but they are white... In my humble opinion, both of his kids would not look totally white if he had used his own sperm. I think blanket was adopted. Maybe he felt having his own biological children would make it too tempting for Debbie to keep them... I don't know.
I do believe that over the years we have seen more than one MJ. Just too many contrerdictions.
The twin theory; why would the family hide a child?
One Michael replacing other for the shows?. Workers of the show would have known.
That kind of secret can´t be kept for too long. We are talking about a human being (2 of them). The double theory fits better in to the picture just for the morality involved.
The twin theory; why would the family hide a child?
One Michael replacing other for the shows?. Workers of the show would have known.
That kind of secret can´t be kept for too long. We are talking about a human being (2 of them). The double theory fits better in to the picture just for the morality involved.
I have never understood nor will I ever understand the "why would the family hide a child" or "how could the family hide a child" comments. If there is a "missing Jackson" and he is Mike's double (we dropped the biological twin theory months ago already, but very few people seem to have picked up on that) then he has been in plain sight all the time. The only thing we don't know is his name.
Indeed, there used to be labor laws concerning how many hours a child could work. We know Mike had to lie about his age, that is a documented fact. We have Michael Joseph Jackson born on August 29, 1958 but we also have the Intelius file of Mike J. Jackson, born January 28, 1960.
Look at some of the old pictures from the Jacksons. They are time stamped, but when you look at the kids themselves I can't help but wonder if those kids aren't older than they are according to the time stamps.
Regarding keeping secrets: the best kept secrets are those involving a lot of money. Michael Jackson has been THE person to make money off for 4.5 decades. To reveal a secret like that would be to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
(we dropped the biological twin theory months ago already, but very few people seem to have picked up on that) then he has been in plain sight all the time. The only thing we don't know is his name.
In this context, twin implies biological to the average reader, including myself <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
We have Michael Joseph Jackson born on August 29, 1958 but we also have the Intelius file of Mike J. Jackson, born January 28, 1960.
Does that intelius file explain if that Mike J. Jackson is connected 100% to the Jackson Family?
Regarding keeping secrets: the best kept secrets are those involving a lot of money. Michael Jackson has been THE person to make money off for 4.5 decades. To reveal a secret like that would be to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs
If one is dead and the other one is alive, why to show the world one is gone at all?
The easiest is to go on making people believe that he (only one) is still alive and have a private funeral for the deceased one.
I believe MJ had a double, but not in this context, basically because to me looks too elaborated and machiavelic <!-- s:| -->:|<!-- s:| -->
We have Michael Joseph Jackson born on August 29, 1958 but we also have the Intelius file of Mike J. Jackson, born January 28, 1960.
Does that intelius file explain if that Mike J. Jackson is connected 100% to the Jackson Family?
Well, Michael Jackson's real estate is listed under Mike J. Jackson's name. How about that?
Regarding keeping secrets: the best kept secrets are those involving a lot of money. Michael Jackson has been THE person to make money off for 4.5 decades. To reveal a secret like that would be to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs
If one is dead and the other one is alive, why to show the world one is gone at all?
The easiest is to go on making people believe that he (only one) is still alive and have a private funeral for the deceased one.
I do believe that someone died on June 25 2009 and had a private burial. I remember seeing a video of the Jacksons having a "rehearsal" of the funeral on July 6, on a lawn. Why would they rehearse a funeral on a lawn when they planned a memorial the next day in Staples Center..?
It's clear that Mike has a huge purpose with hoaxing his death, and therefor he had to "die".
Well, Michael Jackson's real estate is listed under Mike J. Jackson's name. How about that?
(excluding the "double" theory in this case)
Makes me think as well that MJ could have had 2 id´s? One listed with 1958 as a date of birth and the other with 1960? Possible reason; avoiding labour law punishments?
Is there any ID pusblished of this Mike J.Jackson where we can read his height or see a pic?
I am sure I have not been following the threads regarding this topic. I am full of questions.
Mike J and Michael J, double trouble <!-- s --><!-- s -->
@latoyajackson Dear Latoya, I was wondering about Michael's middle name. Is it Joe or Joseph? I would be grateful if you answer:) Hugs!
12:27 PM Sep 23rd via web
Retweeted by you and 24 others
@neverendinghop it's Joe!
1:11 PM Sep 23rd via Twitter for iPad in reply to neverendinghop
Retweeted by you and 60 others
Reply Retweeted (Undo)
neverendinghop
________________
Wasn't LaToya the one in charge of giving the information for the autopsy report and so the rest of documents why did she give the name "Joseph" and not "Joe" ?
latoyajackson @jenwren20 That mistake has alway been made because his middle name is after my father, Joseph, but my mother shorten it to Joe at his birth
10 minutes ago via Twitter for iPad in reply to jenwren20 <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
latoyajackson @jenwren20 That mistake has alway been made because his middle name is after my father, Joseph, but my mother shorten it to Joe at his birth
10 minutes ago via Twitter for iPad in reply to jenwren20 <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
Interesting,... then she needs to answer the questions about the legal documents <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
Ok, I asked LaToya about the wrong names on the papers, let's see if she answers...
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Maybe there were two babies born, one in 1960 and one in 1958. We have the two year age difference.
There used to be labor laws concerning how many hours a child could work... remember the Olson twins... and I think they used twins on "little house on the prarie" not sure if I am remembering corectly.
Both babies would not have had to have been given the same name at birth. One could have changed the name latter. So then we would have one... Michael Joe and one Michael Joseph...
Looking over the credits for the "This is it" CD credit is given to both Michael joseph and Michael J Jackson... If we were talking about the same person would the producers of the CD want to keep the name consistant?
We have also seen Michael at different heights... If you do an internet search for Mike's height you get several different answers.
We all know Mike had some plastic surgery done... not big deal... but what if it was to keep the two looking alike?
Don't forget the will.... signed by Michael while we know he was in NY??? and its still be accepted as leagal, not even being reviewed????
The MB documentry... it looks like two different people.. The Mike in the burgandy shirt looks different than the one shown in the earlier footage....You can chalk that up to being taped over 8 months but the personalities are different as well... Burgandy shirt Mike is more stable, more self assured, than the Mike in the hotel room holding blanket... watching that piece almost made me think of my mother who is bi-polar and manic.....Compare Mike at the end of the show to the one wearing black and white holding blanket.... personalites are too different....The interview questions and answers almost seemed like they were taken from the Oprah interview years before... like someone had studdied that interview.
We have people swearing Mike was gay, yet we have women swearing that they were with him...and he was married to LMP. The courts have rejected requests for dna tests to prove paternity... yes I know there are a lot of quacks out there but what if just one of these so called "MJ love kids" really is his?
Why is everyone so reluctant to do dna?
Why didn't he use his own sperm to have children? I am sory I don't believe he did. and his reasons are his own... and yes he loved them and they are his children. but they are white... In my humble opinion, both of his kids would not look totally white if he had used his own sperm. I think blanket was adopted. Maybe he felt having his own biological children would make it too tempting for Debbie to keep them... I don't know.
I do believe that over the years we have seen more than one MJ. Just too many contrerdictions.
The thing that also stands out for me with the This Is It CD is the statement "Always great to sing with my brother"...has anyone ever explained who that came from? It makes no sense that it would be from MJ's brothers because then it would say "always great to sing with our brother". Maybe it was from only one of the brothers (Jermaine?)...but if so, then why isn't his name mentioned after the quote? IF the brother theory is right, though, (and 'brother' doesn't necessarily have to be a brother by blood)...then this statement on the back cover takes on a whole new meaning....yet also raises a ton more questions.
The thing that also stands out for me with the This Is It CD is the statement "Always great to sing with my brother"...has anyone ever explained who that came from? It makes no sense that it would be from MJ's brothers because then it would say "always great to sing with our brother". Maybe it was from only one of the brothers (Jermaine?)...but if so, then why isn't his name mentioned after the quote? IF the brother theory is right, though, (and 'brother' doesn't necessarily have to be a brother by blood)...then this statement on the back cover takes on a whole new meaning....yet also raises a ton more questions.
You can sign contracts with a nick name in the middle as long as the first and last name are the same as your given name.
IMO you can't use a nickname on official papers like a passport, drivers license or in court.
I know here in the UK that is the case, so i also went n checked online for the usa...below is Orgeons standards for using your full legal name for a driving licence
Proof of Your Full Legal Name
Your full legal name is your first name, middle name(s), and last or surname, without use of initials or nicknames.
You must provide additional documentation proving your current full legal name if it is different than the name shown on your proof of legal presence (see the Proof of Your Legal Presence, Identity and Date of Birth section below for more information).
and i know that applies to other states that i have read up on... so i would say it is state wide legality..and would apply to passports/marriage certs/insurance polices/court appearances - anything of a legal nature...and makes total sense as to why so many are questioning it...unless of course Michael changed his middle name...but that still makes no sense - because during the trial. records had his middle name as Joe... but on Prince´s birth cert it's Joseph....So he could not have changed his middle name to Joseph, than back to Joe,than to Joseph again..this does make one go around in circles lol
x
Here is the video where Michael names himself Michael Joseph Jackson at the court in 1994.
Michael's father's full name is Joseph. Joe is a short version of that name.If in some Michael's documents whoever wrote middle name Joe, it is not wrong. It is common in the USA. It even can be written only letter J. and would not be wrong. What is important not to misspell first and last name.
Comments
There used to be labor laws concerning how many hours a child could work... remember the Olson twins... and I think they used twins on "little house on the prarie" not sure if I am remembering corectly.
Both babies would not have had to have been given the same name at birth. One could have changed the name latter. So then we would have one... Michael Joe and one Michael Joseph...
Looking over the credits for the "This is it" CD credit is given to both Michael joseph and Michael J Jackson... If we were talking about the same person would the producers of the CD want to keep the name consistant?
We have also seen Michael at different heights... If you do an internet search for Mike's height you get several different answers.
We all know Mike had some plastic surgery done... not big deal... but what if it was to keep the two looking alike?
Don't forget the will.... signed by Michael while we know he was in NY??? and its still be accepted as leagal, not even being reviewed????
The MB documentry... it looks like two different people.. The Mike in the burgandy shirt looks different than the one shown in the earlier footage....You can chalk that up to being taped over 8 months but the personalities are different as well... Burgandy shirt Mike is more stable, more self assured, than the Mike in the hotel room holding blanket... watching that piece almost made me think of my mother who is bi-polar and manic.....Compare Mike at the end of the show to the one wearing black and white holding blanket.... personalites are too different....The interview questions and answers almost seemed like they were taken from the Oprah interview years before... like someone had studdied that interview.
We have people swearing Mike was gay, yet we have women swearing that they were with him...and he was married to LMP. The courts have rejected requests for dna tests to prove paternity... yes I know there are a lot of quacks out there but what if just one of these so called "MJ love kids" really is his?
Why is everyone so reluctant to do dna?
Why didn't he use his own sperm to have children? I am sory I don't believe he did. and his reasons are his own... and yes he loved them and they are his children. but they are white... In my humble opinion, both of his kids would not look totally white if he had used his own sperm. I think blanket was adopted. Maybe he felt having his own biological children would make it too tempting for Debbie to keep them... I don't know.
I do believe that over the years we have seen more than one MJ. Just too many contrerdictions.
One Michael replacing other for the shows?. Workers of the show would have known.
That kind of secret can´t be kept for too long. We are talking about a human being (2 of them). The double theory fits better in to the picture just for the morality involved.
I have never understood nor will I ever understand the "why would the family hide a child" or "how could the family hide a child" comments. If there is a "missing Jackson" and he is Mike's double (we dropped the biological twin theory months ago already, but very few people seem to have picked up on that) then he has been in plain sight all the time. The only thing we don't know is his name.
Indeed, there used to be labor laws concerning how many hours a child could work. We know Mike had to lie about his age, that is a documented fact. We have Michael Joseph Jackson born on August 29, 1958 but we also have the Intelius file of Mike J. Jackson, born January 28, 1960.
Look at some of the old pictures from the Jacksons. They are time stamped, but when you look at the kids themselves I can't help but wonder if those kids aren't older than they are according to the time stamps.
Regarding keeping secrets: the best kept secrets are those involving a lot of money. Michael Jackson has been THE person to make money off for 4.5 decades. To reveal a secret like that would be to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
In this context, twin implies biological to the average reader, including myself <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Does that intelius file explain if that Mike J. Jackson is connected 100% to the Jackson Family?
If one is dead and the other one is alive, why to show the world one is gone at all?
The easiest is to go on making people believe that he (only one) is still alive and have a private funeral for the deceased one.
I believe MJ had a double, but not in this context, basically because to me looks too elaborated and machiavelic <!-- s:| -->:|<!-- s:| -->
I do believe that someone died on June 25 2009 and had a private burial. I remember seeing a video of the Jacksons having a "rehearsal" of the funeral on July 6, on a lawn. Why would they rehearse a funeral on a lawn when they planned a memorial the next day in Staples Center..?
It's clear that Mike has a huge purpose with hoaxing his death, and therefor he had to "die".
(excluding the "double" theory in this case)
Makes me think as well that MJ could have had 2 id´s? One listed with 1958 as a date of birth and the other with 1960? Possible reason; avoiding labour law punishments?
Is there any ID pusblished of this Mike J.Jackson where we can read his height or see a pic?
I am sure I have not been following the threads regarding this topic. I am full of questions.
Mike J and Michael J, double trouble <!-- s
@latoyajackson Dear Latoya, I was wondering about Michael's middle name. Is it Joe or Joseph? I would be grateful if you answer:) Hugs!
12:27 PM Sep 23rd via web
Retweeted by you and 24 others
@neverendinghop it's Joe!
1:11 PM Sep 23rd via Twitter for iPad in reply to neverendinghop
Retweeted by you and 60 others
Reply Retweeted (Undo)
neverendinghop
________________
Wasn't LaToya the one in charge of giving the information for the autopsy report and so the rest of documents why did she give the name "Joseph" and not "Joe" ?
then i got this:
latoyajackson @jenwren20 That mistake has alway been made because his middle name is after my father, Joseph, but my mother shorten it to Joe at his birth
10 minutes ago via Twitter for iPad in reply to jenwren20 <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
Interesting,... then she needs to answer the questions about the legal documents <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
Ok, I asked LaToya about the wrong names on the papers, let's see if she answers...
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."The thing that also stands out for me with the This Is It CD is the statement "Always great to sing with my brother"...has anyone ever explained who that came from? It makes no sense that it would be from MJ's brothers because then it would say "always great to sing with our brother". Maybe it was from only one of the brothers (Jermaine?)...but if so, then why isn't his name mentioned after the quote? IF the brother theory is right, though, (and 'brother' doesn't necessarily have to be a brother by blood)...then this statement on the back cover takes on a whole new meaning....yet also raises a ton more questions.
With L.O.V.E. always.
With L.O.V.E. always.[/quote]
EXACTLY! This has always bugged me too!
I know here in the UK that is the case, so i also went n checked online for the usa...below is Orgeons standards for using your full legal name for a driving licence
Proof of Your Full Legal Name
Your full legal name is your first name, middle name(s), and last or surname, without use of initials or nicknames.
You must provide additional documentation proving your current full legal name if it is different than the name shown on your proof of legal presence (see the Proof of Your Legal Presence, Identity and Date of Birth section below for more information).
and i know that applies to other states that i have read up on... so i would say it is state wide legality..and would apply to passports/marriage certs/insurance polices/court appearances - anything of a legal nature...and makes total sense as to why so many are questioning it...unless of course Michael changed his middle name...but that still makes no sense - because during the trial. records had his middle name as Joe... but on Prince´s birth cert it's Joseph....So he could not have changed his middle name to Joseph, than back to Joe,than to Joseph again..this does make one go around in circles lol
x
Michael's father's full name is Joseph. Joe is a short version of that name.If in some Michael's documents whoever wrote middle name Joe, it is not wrong. It is common in the USA. It even can be written only letter J. and would not be wrong. What is important not to misspell first and last name.
[youtube:qfpr5l6w]