0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In the authorized Visual Documentary of Adrian Grant this cover pic from 1971 is printed without even a comment concerning the age issue. I don't know what to think, but Michael really looks more like a 11-year old boy than a 13-year old boy here.[attachment=0:pmq7v3zw]michael_jackson-on-the-magazine-cover-of_rollingstone_1971.jpg[/attachment:pmq7v3zw]
Quote from: "friendlikeme81"In the authorized Visual Documentary of Adrian Grant this cover pic from 1971 is printed without even a comment concerning the age issue. I don't know what to think, but Michael really looks more like a 11-year old boy than a 13-year old boy here.[attachment=0:1r1120up]michael_jackson-on-the-magazine-cover-of_rollingstone_1971.jpg[/attachment:1r1120up]I can easily see how he could have been 13 here, but since the magazine came out on his birthday, the photo would have been taken sometime when he was 12 anyway. It seems to me that Michael had a growth spurt around 14. I personally know a 12 year old boy, who seriously looks like he is about 8! I also know a guy who is over 6 feet tall, but when he was a freshman is high school (ie. 14 years old), he was one of the shortest boys in his class. The tween and early teen years are a time of major physical changes, but no one knows exactly when they will occur during that time period. Again, Michael was just a kid (and not an international superstar) when he got his first passport, and you need to show your birth certificate to get a passport. There is no way he could have gotten one without it, and there was no reason to produce a fake birth certificate just to get a passport. Why would Joe and Katherine have risked getting in trouble with the law by producing fake documents for their son?
In the authorized Visual Documentary of Adrian Grant this cover pic from 1971 is printed without even a comment concerning the age issue. I don't know what to think, but Michael really looks more like a 11-year old boy than a 13-year old boy here.[attachment=0:1r1120up]michael_jackson-on-the-magazine-cover-of_rollingstone_1971.jpg[/attachment:1r1120up]
I just bought a book off ebay all about Michael from '84 and it also says Aug. 29, 1958. Don't you love that magazine cover above!!
Why does anyone WANT Michael to be born at a different date, other than to make it fit with the numerology theory? Maybe it is simply showing us that numerology is NOT the theory to pursue. Maybe he simply LEFT when the time was right...when the pieces simply fell into place.