Michael the Archangel is described in Daniel 10:13 as "Mi´cha·el, one of the foremost princes" and at Revelation 12:7 it says " Mi´cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled." In the fifty years between 1880 and 1930 there were five changes as to who Michael was.

1. An Angel that worships Jesus

"Hence it is said, "Let all the angels of God worship him;" [that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God] and the reason is, because He has "by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they.""
Zion's Watch Tower 1879 Nov p.4

2. The Pope and Antichrist

"Michael and his angels"--the papacy and its supporters--fought against the dragon--pagan rulers, etc.,-- and the great dragon was cast out of heaven. Zion's Watch Tower 1879 December p.6

3. Michael was the pre-human Jesus Christ

"Can it be that he who was called Michael--Jehovah's chief-messenger--was none other than our Lord in his pre-human condition? we conclude that HE must have been "chief messenger." " Zion's Watch Tower 1883 June p.3

4. The Pope again- *reverting back to it's earlier abandoned stance, can a brighter light revert back to what it believes to be now apostacy?*

"Michael.--- "Who as God," the Pope." The Finished Mystery 1917 p.188

5. Jesus in heaven

Since the 1930's Michael is explained to be the heavenly name for Jesus.

"For many years Jehovah's Witnesses have taught that Michael is a heavenly name for the only-begotten Son of God, who was named Jesus while on earth." Watchtower 1984 December 15 p.26

Source: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/revelation-daniel-prophetic-interpretation.php

Words in asterisks are mine.

So JW's make up your mind, is the light getting brighter or dimmer or brighting and diming?

No secular or christain scholar takes the Jehovah withnesses seriously because of their terrible misinterpretations of the scriptures, even their bible does not stay true to the original Greek manuscripts in many instances.
They have also not been consistent with their stories case in point was Christ crucified on a stake or cross. All studies of ancient roman empire crucifixion methods is clearly indicative of a cross being used. If they can't get this simple fact right then how can their theology be right??
The Jehovah withness came to deny the fact of christ's divinity just like Islam, Mormons, the word of faith movement etc. However a lot of Jehovah withnesses don't know the history of their church and when they see the errors they are afraid to leave because of the loss of community.
A lot of them are Good people but they deny the work and suffering of Jesus on the cross and think they can earn salvation by their works.
I just pray that more of them turn to the early Christians and see how they worshipped God and how the Jehovah witness doctrine differs from true christanity.

Ifeann:
No secular or christain scholar takes the Jehovah withnesses seriously because of their terrible misinterpretations of the scriptures, even their bible does not stay true to the original Greek manuscripts in many instances.
They have also not been consistent with their stories case in point was Christ crucified on a stake or cross. All studies of ancient roman empire crucifixion methods is clearly indicative of a cross being used. If they can't get this simple fact right then how can their theology be right??
The Jehovah withness came to deny the fact of christ's divinity just like Islam, Mormons, the word of faith movement etc. However a lot of Jehovah withnesses don't know the history of their church and when they see the errors they are afraid to leave because of the loss of community.
A lot of them are Good people but they deny the work and suffering of Jesus on the cross and think they can earn salvation by their works.
I just pray that more of them turn to the early Christians and see how they worshipped God and how the Jehovah witness doctrine differs from true christanity.

You are very on point!