Ok we all know that he was told to lie about his age and he did. But that was when he was little. When he was actually 11 and he was told to say 9. What I am trying to point out, is that in this interview he is much older and there is no need to lie anymore. And when asked at an older age 17 or 18 he was either still lying or he told the truth. Either is fascinating to me. That he would still be being told to lie at 17 is just crazy and if it`s true and he was actually 9 then that`s crazy too.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I understand what you are saying regarding the passport. This argument is a strong one. But then, coulnd't it be that it was necessary to lie about the age for the opposite reason, to make Michael OLDER, not younger, at a certain early point of the career, because of legal restrictions for younger children (employment law, travelling, performing at certain locations and times like in Night clubs)? And that for this reason there was a huge pressure for the family to change the birth date (for getting a passport, perhaps)?
Regarding the appearance of growing boys, you are right, children develop very differently, but 13 year old boys look more like a teen, not this childlike IMO. I am a teacher who was working with that age class for the last three years (aged 10/11 and today 12/13), so that's only my impression. But it's nothing to argue about, because we cannot know, so the visual proof is not significant enough.
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!!
I think if the date of birth was indeed changed, it was done during the early days of the career, see reasons 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.
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.
I agree with you, and I really don't understand why this is even as issue. Michael says his birthdate is August 29, 1958 and his government documents support that. Until Michael claims otherwise, I will continue to assume that he does in fact know his own birthdate. This is the last I am saying in this thread.
Comments
Yes she was....in the movie. <!-- s
Don't you love that magazine cover above!!
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?
I understand what you are saying regarding the passport. This argument is a strong one. But then, coulnd't it be that it was necessary to lie about the age for the opposite reason, to make Michael OLDER, not younger, at a certain early point of the career, because of legal restrictions for younger children (employment law, travelling, performing at certain locations and times like in Night clubs)? And that for this reason there was a huge pressure for the family to change the birth date (for getting a passport, perhaps)?
Regarding the appearance of growing boys, you are right, children develop very differently, but 13 year old boys look more like a teen, not this childlike IMO. I am a teacher who was working with that age class for the last three years (aged 10/11 and today 12/13), so that's only my impression. But it's nothing to argue about, because we cannot know, so the visual proof is not significant enough.
I think if the date of birth was indeed changed, it was done during the early days of the career, see reasons above.
I agree with you, and I really don't understand why this is even as issue. Michael says his birthdate is August 29, 1958 and his government documents support that. Until Michael claims otherwise, I will continue to assume that he does in fact know his own birthdate. This is the last I am saying in this thread.