Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael"/ Excerpt @pg151/New Interview Post 3743

[ginvid]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

I just really can not understand how people can say that a radio host should not talk about the children's parentage when Frank is the one who brought it up in his book. People were saying the children might be listening. Well, the children might read Frank's book. In fact, it is more likely that they would read a book from a person who is a family friend that they are familiar with than listen to a radio broadcasting while they are in class.

Why is it ok for Frank to divulge info about Blanket's mother, and Debbie's relationship with Michael and Frank saying things like MJ played him a tape where Debbie said he could tell the children she died in a car crash when Frank is the one with a personal relationship with these people (the children/Michael) and should be more protective of their feelings? And it is not ok for a third party person who does not care about them to ask if MJ was the biological father, when as a media personality he knows this is on the mind of many of his listeners?

I think it was crass on both their parts to mention something like this about the children. I also don't think he believes they are his biological children and just didn't want to say that. But that is just my assessment of the situation.

There was a doctor on one of those tabloid type shows who said that Michael told him the circumstances surrounding Blanket's birth. When the host pushed him for this information, he said out of respect, he would tell Blanket and then it would be up to Blanket to decide if he wanted to let the world know.

This man who spent a fraction of the time with MJ that Frank did was in this regard so respectful. when you show yourself willing to talk about anything, no one should be surprised when Frank is asked any and everything.

This is just my opinion.

Thank you.

 

[Ashtanga]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

opcorn: izza:

 

[HumanNature2210]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

Love is Magical, I might get shot for saying this but I don't really mind reading about that story. My guess is Frank is probably including that bit to show that Michael is a normal male who like woman (of course all the fans knew that) and that is to dispel the notion that Michael is gay, thanks to some extent the horrible Dr Klien and his friends. Furthermore, I feel he did not give to much details and keep it respectable. In mean, come on, I expect a lot of fans will be offended but when we read so many stuff about Michael, spending hours on the forum, reading articles about his relationship (one particular blog came to my mind), etc and of course some spend many hours on his sexy pictures, we are also to a certain extend invading his privacy. He did put on mask, etc for a reason.

Frank might not be doing the best job defending his friend but I am somehow glad we get to take a peek a "Michael the Man".
My comment of the part that Frank talked about Michael not trusting some stuff in Neverland and the song This Time Around is because of how much songs written by Michael truly reflect his life and how he feels. A lot of people say that History is an angry album but I feel that Michael expresses himself best when he is angry. My 9 years old daughter (I also have a song who is Paris's age) was asking me about the song DS and I tried to explain what the song was all about and she was "HUH? How do you write songs like that?"

Anyway, I wish more people here would discuss about the nice stories in the book instead of all this continuous hate (I rather read story from someone who knows Michael rather than Ian Halprin's, anytime). I find the story where Michael decided that he wants to care for Prince and Paris without the nannies in New York with the help of Frank hilarious.

This reminds me of the story about Emily. Frank said Michael tried to keep the relationship a secret. Emily never stayed in Michael's room as he didnt want people seeing Emily leaving his bedroom. My heart hurt while reading that. Michael never feel safe in his own house.

 

[MJJ7777]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

Frank should have said a simple, "Yes, they are MJ's biological children" instead of repeating "yes they are his children".

Btw I'm sorry but Frank is very inarticulate in his interviews.

:mat: What's his deal???

Or, simply, he doesn't believe they are MJ's biological kids. There is nothing inarticulate about a simple yes or no..which obviously, he didn't want to answer by a "yes".

Wasn't it obvious he didn't want to go "there"? He kept giving them the same answer to the same question, when a simply "yes" would have shut Joyner up.

Sounds a very simply & direct question to most.

Again, this brings us back to Roger Friedman....Frank most likely being his source, I am not surprised he is emphatic about the kids not being MJ's biologically. He's been told something.

This. He's doing the same thing Klein did with this stupid issue. If you're all so close to Michael, ANSWER the --- QUESTION!!! We all know the answer is YES but as a close friend to Michael with the power and voice to be heard please just settle this and shut the media up! I'm tired of these purposefully planned DOUBT filled answers

The damage has already been done to Michael, he's gone and whatever friendship that was not mended before then well its too late the best that can be done is to just do good to his children, just please give these kids a chance to live and grow up in peace thats what Michael always wanted for them, to give them what he didn't have, a normal childhood.
Stop being selfish for once and just THINK about the kids if you learned anything from Michael.

 

[suzynyc]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

I think we should be more focused on much harsher things that go on regarding Michael than nit picking on how Frank words things, or what story we wish was not in the book etc.

My thoughts exactly.

Earlier I brought up that there is a cute, humorous ghost story in Frank's book. I have mentioned other positive tidbits as well. But what are people STILL talking about? Biological children, drug addiction and Frank being accused of feeding information to Friedman. Normally I'm a pretty gloomy person but in this case I have to ask where's the positivity people? This is just not like me lol.

 

[suzynyc]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

http://youtu.be/txdvxOUWTj8

Frank on IN Session. One of his better interviews!

Yes, this is the interview I was referring to in my post a couple pages back. Frank did much better here but I think it's because the interviewer is not the aggressive type (like that annoying Dr. Drew) and actually gave Frank a chance to complete his thoughts.

 

[ivy]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

I just really can not understand how people can say that a radio host should not talk about the children's parentage when Frank is the one who brought it up in his book.

Just a little thing from me : Although children, their birth and yes even their conceptions are discussed in the book, I don't think Michael's paternity is brought up. There's no mention of sperm donors or stuff like Klein and others do (such as saying they donated sperm, the kid looks like this and that). In Frank's book Michael is always said to be the father. That's just my feeling.

edited to add: In my work place there's an openly lesbian couple that has a daughter. I haven't seen anyone go and ask them is she adopted, is this your biological child, which one of you gave birth to her, who gave the sperm, who is the father, did you have heterosexual sex or was it artificial insemination and such. Those are improper questions to ask in real life.

 

[missred07]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

I just really can not understand how people can say that a radio host should not talk about the children's parentage when Frank is the one who brought it up in his book. People were saying the children might be listening. Well, the children might read Frank's book. In fact, it is more likely that they would read a book from a person who is a family friend that they are familiar with than listen to a radio broadcasting while they are in class.

Why is it ok for Frank to divulge info about Blanket's mother, and Debbie's relationship with Michael and Frank saying things like MJ played him a tape where Debbie said he could tell the children she died in a car crash when Frank is the one with a personal relationship with these people (the children/Michael) and should be more protective of their feelings? And it is not ok for a third party person who does not care about them to ask if MJ was the biological father, when as a media personality he knows this is on the mind of many of his listeners?

I think it was crass on both their parts to mention something like this about the children. I also don't think he believes they are his biological children and just didn't want to say that. But that is just my assessment of the situation.

There was a doctor on one of those tabloid type shows who said that Michael told him the circumstances surrounding Blanket's birth. When the host pushed him for this information, he said out of respect, he would tell Blanket and then it would be up to Blanket to decide if he wanted to let the world know.

This man who spent a fraction of the time with MJ that Frank did was in this regard so respectful. when you show yourself willing to talk about anything, no one should be surprised when Frank is asked any and everything.

This is just my opinion.

Thank you.

To me, the problem is how can Frank know whether they were MJ's bio kids for sure? Yes, he wrote what he know, what MJ told him, what Debbie said in the tape. But how can he know the answer for sure to that question???? He is not MJ, not Debbie, not the medical staff who were involved. Unless he did the DNA test or saw the DNA test then he can know the answer for sure. The only thing he can said is I believe they were his bio kids or MJ told me they were his bio- kids. Then the media can intepretate in any way like he is hinting they were not MJ's bio kids etc. The ridiculous part for me is why the media asked this question to Frank when he can't know the answer for sure? What's the point to ask a person who didn't know the answer for sure? same goes Klein and many others. I don't even know why they always wanted to question MJ being the kids' bio father. and why it's so important to ask this kind of question is really beyond me.

 

[KOPV]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

OF COURSE an interviewer is going to ask the questions that the public wonders about when they have someone that was raised around Michael his whole life.. There is no "breaking news" with cute fun stories.. its the NEWS.. they want stories that shock, stories that reveal.. We can't blame an interviewer with questions like that..

Whatever you think about Frank, the fact that he was a 'young boy' around Michael and he speaks highly of Michael and talks about a friendship that was innocent.. Does more good than any story that has been thrown around..


He's subliminatly waving a flag stating.. MICHAEL JACKSON WAS INNOCENT.. MICHAEL JACKSON WAS A GOOD MAN!! That is what is really going on.. but some people get stuck on the minor details that people are going to forget in a few months..


Do you think people really care if Michaels kids are his biological kids?? HELL no they don't, they just have a case of choriosity.. Now do people care if Michael Jackson guilty of a crime like he was accused of.. OF COURSE they do, that LIE has haunted his career and life til the end..

If they found out they are not biological, it will reach the paper one day and off the next.. If the public truely KNEW that he was innocent (which sadly the court case still kept many people wondering) that would hit the front page and stay there (figuritivally) forever..

 

[marebear]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

I don't know why people have to ask if Michael is the biological father. He is their father. It is insulting. But if people are too ignorant to accept that then do they know that Prince has vitiligo too? Blanket is the spitting image of Michael. All the kids have features of Michael. Michael is never treated like a human being. It's like impossible for him to have kids. It's ridiculous. Michael can't have a girlfriend, get married, have kids, have a drink etc. It is really annoying these type of questions.

 

[Ashtanga]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

I don't know why people have to ask if Michael is the biological father. He is their father. It is insulting. But if people are too ignorant to accept that then do they know that Prince has vitiligo too? Blanket is the spitting image of Michael. All the kids have features of Michael. Michael is never treated like a human being. It's like impossible for him to have kids. It's ridiculous. Michael can't have a girlfriend, get married, have kids, have a drink etc. It is really annoying these type of questions.

:agree:

 

[KOPV]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

I think people should not let it matter to them but I understand why they would wonder... I'd be lying if I stated that most people never ask me about Michaels kids being his.. People are interested because of the way they look!! Why do we play dumb sometimes just to prove a point? If I have to say it blunt, people wonder because the first two at least do not look like they are half black.

I mean really? do we not know this? Of course!!

I think people should not put so much thought into it, but we would be blind to say "I have no idea why they wonder." I am not saying at all that I don't believe that they are Mikes biological children.. I lean more to YES they are!! But I do understand and so do many others on why people would wonder

 

[MsCassieMollie]

http://www.bookperk.com/offer/my-friend-michael-frank-cascio?subscribe=0

SIGNED Copy of My Friend Michael by Frank Cascio

Everyone knows Michael Jackson - the myth.
This is the revealing true story of Michael Jackson - the man.

• Signed hardcover edition of My Friend Michael by Frank Cascio.
• Free shipping. Offer available in the US only. Please allow two weeks for delivery


$20.00
Deal expires on Tuesday
20th December at 12 pm EST

Only 21 left!

 

[Resa]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

I think people should not let it matter to them but I understand why they would wonder... I'd be lying if I stated that most people never ask me about Michaels kids being his.. People are interested because of the way they look!! Why do we play dumb sometimes just to prove a point? If I have to say it blunt, people wonder because the first two at least do not look like they are half black.
I mean really? do we not know this? Of course!!

I think people should not put so much thought into it, but we would be blind to say "I have no idea why they wonder." I am not saying at all that I don't believe that they are Mikes biological children.. I lean more to YES they are!! But I do understand and so do many others on why people would wonder

I didn't know that there is a certain way that biracial kids are supposed to look. I have seen biracial kids in a wide range of skin colors with different hair texures.

 

[ginvid]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

To me, the problem is how can Frank know whether they were MJ's bio kids for sure? Yes, he wrote what he know, what MJ told him, what Debbie said in the tape. But how can he know the answer for sure to that question???? He is not MJ, not Debbie, not the medical staff who were involved. Unless he did the DNA test or saw the DNA test then he can know the answer for sure.

Do you know how Frank handles this? He simply says, "You know, Michael told me different things about the birth of his children. But we never explicitly discussed that question. So, I really don't know." Case closed. It is not an ambigous answer. If Frank really doesn't know, it would be the appropriate answer for him to give.

Just a little thing from me : Although children, their birth and yes even their conceptions are discussed in the book, I don't think Michael's paternity is brought up. There's no mention of sperm donors or stuff like Klein and others do (such as saying they donated sperm, the kid looks like this and that). In Frank's book Michael is always said to be the father. That's just my feeling.

edited to add: In my work place there's an openly lesbian couple that has a daughter. I haven't seen anyone go and ask them is she adopted, is this your biological child, which one of you gave birth to her, who gave the sperm, who is the father, did you have heterosexual sex or was it artificial insemination and such. Those are improper questions to ask in real life.

I bet if that lesbian couple started speaking about other aspects of their child's paternity, you would feel more comfortable asking. If they started talking about the father, and the means in which the father was chosen, and different things like that, a progression of thought for some would be to then ask about who actually gave birth and other aspects of their relationship with this child. Once a person begins speaking on a subject they establish a level of comfort with a person to discussother aspects of the same subject. And a person can't just claim that is too personal when they initiated the topic.

The point is, even if Frank in his book does not question paternity of MJ, by bringing up different aspects of the children's paternity and how they were conceived, he has now opened the door to ever more progressive questions about paternity. Quite naturally, whether or not the children are biologically MJ's should be expected to be asked. It is a VERY hot topic with a lot of speculation. In my post, as I wrote, I am not saying this is ok. But rather, we cannot excuse Frank for bringing up paternity issues, and the condemn a radio host, who is a part of the media and would naturally ask such a question. They are both wrong.

Anyway, I think I am done with this until the book comes online for free. If people have some great stories that give more insight into Michael, I would like for them to post more of them. Have at it!

 

[missred07]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

Do you know how Frank handles this? He simply says, "You know, Michael told me different things about the birth of his children. But we never explicitly discussed that question. So, I really don't know." Case closed. It is not an ambigous answer. If Frank really doesn't know, it would be the appropriate answer for him to give.

I think the effect of this answer is basically the same like what he gave: they were MJ's kids and MJ always talked about how happy to being a father etc. The reporter would still just jumped and assumed that Frank implied they were not MJ's bio-kids, like why MJ gave him different things about the birth of his children (Honestly MJ didn't give him different things if I remember correctly)? anything to hide? How come MJ's 25 years friend don't know the answer? (The funny part is how come anyone know the answer beside MJ, Debbie and the involved medical staffs?) Did MJ have something to hide? etc Basically the end result is the same. They would just jump to the conclusion and assume Frank implying they weren't his bio-kids. The problem is how can Frank know the answer? The only thing he knew is what MJ told him. To me, it's always quite a stupid question to ask because how come any of them to know the answer? Why bother to ask when you know they can't give you the answer?

Basically Frank just gave the same answer that almost everybody gave including the Jacksons: they were MJ's kids and honestly, it's the most important thing. This is a reasonable answer he can give.

PS not direct to your post:
Why is it so important for the reporter to know whether they were bio related or not? To me, it really obvious they are. To people who don't believe, no matter how you said it they won't believe. They would keep saying MJ's friend/family/doctor were all implying they weren't. However, I just don't know why they kept asking this question to people who clearly don't know the answer for sure? I really think it's an insult that people keep treating MJ differently. Why can't MJ be the bio father of his three kids? Blanket just looked like split image of MJ. Some people were just too blind to see.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

I would never in a million expect anyone to speak about MY children as "they are the bio kids". It is absolute not weird to not sing the word "biological" nonstop. People constantly feel entitled to ask stupid questions in that regard, MJ isn't the only person encountering that. I've had people ask me the weirdest questions in all seriousness, and the only thing that keeps me from hitting them upside down the head is a certain belief in non-violence and being uncomfortable at telling people that they are utter jerks for asking a,b,c.
Do you know how many people ask an immigrant if they married for a greencard and how many people get asked completely inappropriate questions about their children, if their child was planned, if they plan on having more and when that's gonna happen. (As in "are you trying for a sibling?")

^^^The last thing you do with people like that is actually indulging that nonsense with a factual answer. I have once said to a neighbor who pestered me about "trying for sibling" that I really love children and enjoyed the look on her face. You start answering like a polite robot without sounding like a nasty person- while the person even contemplating asking that is the actual jerk. People react like that in real life and they sure as heck will try to contain themselves on live TV.

When Oprah asked Michael in '93 if he was a virgin, Michael answered as best as he could without discussing either his sex life, nor did he tell her to go to hell. Quite the contrary- by calling himself a gentleman, he (man, he knows a thing or to about passive-aggressive word mincing!) made clear Oprah was not a Lady for asking that. Bit around the corner, but effective nonetheless. Last I checked fans celebrated Michael for that- yet they attack Cascio for applying a similar strategy? Has it dawned on anyone that by insisting on the use "bio kids"- they feelings of countless other people might get hurt? Michael mentored countless people- that contribution is very valid- I don't ask myself if those were his nephews or biologically unrelated people.
Lastly people constantly imply that Blanket for sure must be hurt- has it dawned on anyone that many children are the "result" of IVF treatment, surrogacy, (I am NOT putting that into any bio context) adoption, foster care, patchwork families etc- you name it. Just because people are reducing Michael's children to a question of "bio kids", doesn't make it okay for fans to reduce his children to "bio kids" either- I guess the irony is lost here? They are children. Neither fan, nor TV interviewer has ANY right to demand for any child to be stuck into ANY category.

Also, just because the author may have written about Blanket and surrogacy- doesn't give any anyone else the right to speculate about things he didn't write.

I think most of us have dealt with people that violate boundaries- most of us are not going to turn that into a scene. We'll say something and don't deal with that person again.

Try being a pregnant woman and see how you become public property- the absolute last thing you will do is have an ACTUAL conversation with someone like that.

That is exactly why "they are his children" is the completely understandable answer, unless people want Frank Cascio to throw a fit on live TV so that in addition to calling him 'inarticulate', they can call him an embarrassment.
Some people are not brilliant show people- and last I looked around on MJJC- fans are the last ones that should call anyone inarticulate. In 50% of the time one has to guess what thread titles are even supposed to mean.

Thank God life in itself requires a little bit more diplomacy than depicted on online forums where people seem to celebrate extreme black or white mentality. I doubt that many people are as vocal with, say, their bosses- the way they conduct themselves online with their online personality.

 

[Ingelief]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

OF COURSE an interviewer is going to ask the questions that the public wonders about when they have someone that was raised around Michael his whole life.. There is no "breaking news" with cute fun stories.. its the NEWS.. they want stories that shock, stories that reveal.. We can't blame an interviewer with questions like that..

Whatever you think about Frank, the fact that he was a 'young boy' around Michael and he speaks highly of Michael and talks about a friendship that was innocent.. Does more good than any story that has been thrown around..


He's subliminatly waving a flag stating.. MICHAEL JACKSON WAS INNOCENT.. MICHAEL JACKSON WAS A GOOD MAN!! That is what is really going on.. but some people get stuck on the minor details that people are going to forget in a few months..


Do you think people really care if Michaels kids are his biological kids?? HELL no they don't, they just have a case of choriosity.. Now do people care if Michael Jackson guilty of a crime like he was accused of.. OF COURSE they do, that LIE has haunted his career and life til the end..

If they found out they are not biological, it will reach the paper one day and off the next.. If the public truely KNEW that he was innocent (which sadly the court case still kept many people wondering) that would hit the front page and stay there (figuritivally) forever..

I agree that Frank is waving a good flag of michael an innocent man. I never by books about Michael but this one i did because he not only talks about michael the popstar but michael the father the mentor and the teacher. The last 3 i found very interesting and i cant wait to start reading. I get why people get irritated by the issue of his children but i truly feel with maybe my naive hearth that his intentions were good. Also i trust Ivy in her review

Furthermore people will always gonna ask especially now the kids are in the spotlight like with xfactor this week. *paris is so beautifull* and even alot of us as fans look at the kids and see things from michael in them.. Indirectly that has also to do with is michael or isnt he the biological parent;. For me it doesnt matter at all, but i have to admit i hope they got there fathers genes and talent

 

[HumanNature2210]

suzynyc, I will discuss the positive stories in the book with you. Anyone interested, please jump in. What is your favourite part of the book? Mine is the part Michael mentoring Eddie and Frank, the trips they took and how Eddie and Frank was there for Michael during 1993 allegation. The other one is the part where Michael decided to do away with the nannies in New York and take care of Prince and Paris with the help of Frank.

what is the funniest prank you find? There is so many but I find the story about Frank pretending to be a religious person speaking a "pretend foreign language" loudly in the store and Michael explaining that his friend is a religious person and need to throw a chicken down the roof at a certain time everyday just hilarious.

My thoughts exactly.

Earlier I brought up that there is a cute, humorous ghost story in Frank's book. I have mentioned other positive tidbits as well. But what are people STILL talking about? Biological children, drug addiction and Frank being accused of feeding information to Friedman. Normally I'm a pretty gloomy person but in this case I have to ask where's the positivity people? This is just not like me lol.

Oops, I mean "I also have a son who is Paris's age". I am now starting to read Steve Jobs' biography which my son bought and finish and now I'm taking over to read. Jobs is his hero/idol. He is very sad when Jobs passed. So, he kinds of "get it" about my feelings about Michael.

Love is Magical, I might get shot for saying this but I don't really mind reading about that story. My guess is Frank is probably including that bit to show that Michael is a normal male who like woman (of course all the fans knew that) and that is to dispel the notion that Michael is gay, thanks to some extent the horrible Dr Klien and his friends. Furthermore, I feel he did not give to much details and keep it respectable. In mean, come on, I expect a lot of fans will be offended but when we read so many stuff about Michael, spending hours on the forum, reading articles about his relationship (one particular blog came to my mind), etc and of course some spend many hours on his sexy pictures, we are also to a certain extend invading his privacy. He did put on mask, etc for a reason.

Frank might not be doing the best job defending his friend but I am somehow glad we get to take a peek a "Michael the Man".
My comment of the part that Frank talked about Michael not trusting some stuff in Neverland and the song This Time Around is because of how much songs written by Michael truly reflect his life and how he feels. A lot of people say that History is an angry album but I feel that Michael expresses himself best when he is angry. My 9 years old daughter (I also have a song who is Paris's age) was asking me about the song DS and I tried to explain what the song was all about and she was "HUH? How do you write songs like that?"

Anyway, I wish more people here would discuss about the nice stories in the book instead of all this continuous hate (I rather read story from someone who knows Michael rather than Ian Halprin's, anytime). I find the story where Michael decided that he wants to care for Prince and Paris without the nannies in New York with the help of Frank hilarious.

 

[bluetopez]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

Originally Posted by KOPV
I think people should not let it matter to them but I understand why they would wonder... I'd be lying if I stated that most people never ask me about Michaels kids being his.. People are interested because of the way they look!! Why do we play dumb sometimes just to prove a point? If I have to say it blunt, people wonder because the first two at least do not look like they are half black.
I mean really? do we not know this? Of course!!

I think people should not put so much thought into it, but we would be blind to say "I have no idea why they wonder." I am not saying at all that I don't believe that they are Mikes biological children.. I lean more to YES they are!! But I do understand and so do many others on why people would wonder

Hmm that reminds me of a somewhat heated debate with Charles Thomson I had on FB the other day with other MJ fans because someone put a pic of MJ and Blanket up and ask "do they look alike?" and Charles replied "If MJ was hispanic." I already knew what he meant by that but, I wanted to see what he would say. So I ask him to explain and he said "It means Blanket is Hispanic. Quite clearly. Whereas MJ is African American. Isn't it weird how none of his three children look remotely like him or have any discernible African American features?"

Ofcourse I then jump on his ass as others did. Because I thought it was rude of him to sterotype the why he did. He even put up a pic of Prince when he was a child to make is point. I told him genetics don't work like that. He called fans are blind and saying MJ kids are his are the reason why some think we are crazy! I really hate this idiot.

He amdits to believing Klein and Lester stories instead and I laughed at him. I even called him by his old username name Twisted Vision where he use to spat his ish on how he felt MJ wasn't really innocent on MJstar .com. Ofcourse now he did the 180 after MJ died and writes how innocent MJ is but, to me this guy is pure ish. He is only good at rewritting what he took from Geradine Hughes and Mary A. Fischer and their investigation on 93 something they did long before he did anyways, not to mention what we all know about 03 too.

 

[la_cienega]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

Has it dawned on anyone that by insisting on the use "bio kids"- they feelings of countless other people might get hurt? Michael mentored countless people- that contribution is very valid- I don't ask myself if those were his nephews or biologically unrelated people.

That makes no sense. I can't imagine why anyone would have any valid reasons for being "hurt" at the idea that MJ had his own children. His children are the only ones hurt with being repeatedly told they are not his.

Lastly people constantly imply that Blanket for sure must be hurt- has it dawned on anyone that many children are the "result" of IVF treatment, surrogacy, (I am NOT putting that into any bio context) adoption, foster care, patchwork families etc- you name it. Just because people are reducing Michael's children to a question of "bio kids", doesn't make it okay for fans to reduce his children to "bio kids" either-.

The parents say they are his, the children say they are his, the son even has the same disfiguring disease as the parent.

Are they not entitled the rights to say they are his?

Fans are absolutely not entitled to define them in any way, neither is the media. Only they and their parents are, and they have all spoken about it.

Because the more people leave room for speculation the harder it is for the children to have to constantly deal with being asked offensive questions about it where none of their answers is ever more credible than the answers of random people who knew MJ.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Charles thomson aka twisted vison is nothing but a troll. anyone who saw his posts on kop board knows that. now hes jumped in the bandwaggon like many post 09.and act like he cares but hes nothing but a hater. its a really big coincidence that jr has vitiligo. And that blanket looks just lije mj. gotta laugh at the hispanic comment. cause hes got dark hair and eyes. could be italian or greek or spanish or any other med country u want to name. then again he could be mixed black white like mariah etc etc.then again u expect such comments from a troll like thomson after the things he posted on kop and other boards over the years

I don't know why people have to ask if Michael is the biological father. He is their father. It is insulting. But if people are too ignorant to accept that then do they know that Prince has vitiligo too? Blanket is the spitting image of Michael. All the kids have features of Michael. Michael is never treated like a human being. It's like impossible for him to have kids. It's ridiculous. Michael can't have a girlfriend, get married, have kids, have a drink etc. It is really annoying these type of questions.

its about the media keeping the subhuman negro image going. One where its ok to lynch mj cause hes not normal like us so its ok to accuse him of being a freak a pedo etc. when ever mj was ill the media said he faked it. when he broke his foot he faked it. he didnt have vitiligo etc.god forbid mj could ever be ill cause hes not normal or human. so dening that he could produce children is just another part of mj isnt normal or human agenda.its also apart of the mj hates himself and his race agenda that the media push cause of their hatred that mj isnt one of them and didnt play along

Anyway why is frank giving interviews to such haters in the first place. fans wouldnt piss on these ppl if they were on fire yet he sits down with them

 

[magichappens]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

That pic where Frank and Smuley together wasn't a coinsidence. Shmuley and Frank are friends for more then 10 years. Frank watched over the discussions between Shmuley and Michael were recorded regularly. That's what Shmuley said in his second book "Honoring the child spirit".

 

[ginvid]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

Mod Note: Hi guys!

Can we please not use this thread to discuss Charlers Thompson or what he says. Please stick to the topic about the book.
Please stop posting multiple times in a row. Please edit your last post if you have something to add. Thanks!

My opinion:

That is exactly why "they are his children" is the completely understandable answer, unless people want Frank Cascio to throw a fit on live TV so that in addition to calling him 'inarticulate', they can call him an embarrassment.
Some people are not brilliant show people- and last I looked around on MJJC- fans are the last ones that should call anyone inarticulate. In 50% of the time one has to guess what thread titles are even supposed to mean.

You act as if there is no inbetween for this situation. He either has to say, "Yes, they are his biologically" or he has to throw a fit and be inarticulate. Give me a break. Those are not the only two ways to communicate. If you think a question is inappropriate and does not garner an answer, then you tell your interviewer such and do not answer. There is no need to purposely skirt around the issue and think that is going to accurately portray how you feel.

Also, the reason why some thread titles are hard to understand is because you have many people posting threads here who are not native English speakers and so cannot as fully convey what a thread title is supposed to mean. Way to go about totally downing your fellow members to try to make a point. So appropriate! You have to excuse the common folks here without your superior education who spend all day spittin tobacco in their overalls and straw hats and who finish working on their farms in the evening to post on MJJC just to make nonsensical titles of threads to give you something to decipher.

 

[Rhilo]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

^Really he said that in the book? Hmm i need to read it again...

 

[magichappens]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

How come MJ's 25 years friend don't know the answer? (The funny part is how come anyone know the answer beside MJ, Debbie and the involved medical staffs?)

Exactly.

Did MJ have something to hide?

I am sure, he did, like anybody else has his own secrets.

Why is it so important for the reporter to know whether they were bio related or not?

Because it's his job to poke his nose where one shouldn't.

To me, it really obvious they are. To people who don't believe, no matter how you said it they won't believe.

I doubt about they are his bio, 50/50. But it doesnt't bother me. If it is so, that's MJ's decision anyway. And he could do whatever he wanted.

Why can't MJ be the bio father of his three kids? Blanket just looked like split image of MJ. Some people were just too blind to see.

He could be the bio father for 10 kids also, probably. The problem is that none of three kids take after his father. And I am not blind. It's just my opinion. I think the kids will be interested in their origin later on. Or maybe I am mistaken. Anyway, he was bringing them up like a father.

 

[magichappens]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

Originally Posted by xthunderx2

yes Michael himself said that the reason he married Debbie was because Katherine wanted him to so that his children wouldn't be born out of wedlock. So see we are given different stories about Michael's life ..the same way we were given different stories from Murray about Michael's death, It time people STOP trying to tell their version of Micheal Jackson's life..."the way the perceived it". Leave the man alone for God sake and let me rest in peace.

When did Michael say that?

It was written in R.Taraborelli's book.

 

[ginvid]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

Mod Note: Ok, please don't turn this thread into a paternity thread. It's not the purpose.

I just asked for people to stop double posting. Please don't do that. Edit your last post if you need to. Thank you. :flowers:


Suzynyc (or anyone), please tell a funny/interesting story for the sake of the thread.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

Michael said it himself .and then u say it was written in tablodarellis book. not quite the same thing is it?

 

[missred07]

Re: Frank Cascio "My Friend Michael" book release date Nov 15 ,2011 / Excerpt posted at @pg151

I am sure, he did, like anybody else has his own secrets.

Just for clarification. The reason I wrote that sentence is just saying is Frank answer in that way the reporter would still question whether MJ had anything to hide. and yes, of course MJ had secretes in general that he didn't want people to know.

I doubt about they are his bio, 50/50. But it doesnt't bother me. If it is so, that's MJ's decision anyway. And he could do whatever he wanted.

He could be the bio father for 10 kids also, probably. The problem is that none of three kids take after his father. And I am not blind. It's just my opinion. I think the kids will be interested in their origin later on. Or maybe I am mistaken. Anyway, he was bringing them up like a father.

Of course the only prove is the DNA test. However, my opinion is I do see MJ in all three of them. Blanket just looked so much like MJ. Prince had vitilligo and his eyes do look like MJ. Paris is the one who looked so much like Debbie but not so much MJ. However, her body shape (bone structure?) did look similar like MJ. Look Lionel Richie or Quency Jones' kids, do people question they were the father? This is just my point of view. People can think whatever they want though.

I am sorry maybe this post is off topic.