Latest on MJJC

Michael's physique.

Ana_is_applehead said:
Yes, I think these photos have been here a million times and I'm ready to look at them as many more.
Click to expand...
Mm, I think ITC photos need to be enjoyed on a regular basis! I don't know how many times I've posted this one but I need to see it again, lol.

ITC photos are perfect for this thread. :)

In-the-closet-michael-jackson-7143442-477-986.jpg
 
Lucilla said:
It seems like he’s a little taller than Naomi. I thought they would have been the same height.
Click to expand...
Michael had on either shoes or boots, while filming his short film (as he was either 5'9" or 5'10," but his thinness and long legs —— long legs, in proportion to the rest of his body —— made him appear “taller” than what he really was), while Naomi was barefoot, I think. If he were barefoot, too (or, if she had on shoes of some kind), they both would have been the same height. Also, if Naomi were standing straight up, instead of having had her body or knees bent* (*and maybe, her head tilted to either one side or the other, or lowered down) when she was behind Michael, they probably both would have appeared to be either the same height, or she would have seemed a little slight bit taller than him.
 
Last edited:
Sophia2023 said:
His chest was 38 inches, his waist was 28, and his hips was probably 35.
Click to expand...
Hmm. . . . @Sophia2023, from where did you get Michael’s (supposed, alleged) measurements (A.K.A., “vital statistics”)? I would like to know. Also, I thought I may have seen something posted online a while back —— maybe, a picture taken from a book, or something, I really don’t know and can’t say from what or where the picture came —— that showed a pattern-drawing/figure of his measurements that kind of reminded me of the drawings and pictures in mail-order shopping catalogues (the ones that show how to measure what size to order, along with the measurements for each size from the smallest to the largest) and those old sewing/pattern books from several decades ago. That drawing showed his chest area and waist to have been a number of inches smaller/narrower than what you say they were, but I believe that the hip measurement may have been the same, no narrower or wider than that.
 
Last edited:
GGVVGGCC22331122 said:
Hmm. . . . @Sophia2023, from where did you get Michael’s (supposed, alleged) measurements (A.K.A., “vital statistics”)? I would like to know. Also, I thought I may have seen something posted online a while back —— maybe, a picture taken from a book, or something, I really don’t know and can’t say from what or where the picture came —— that showed a pattern-drawing/figure of his measurements that kind of reminded me of the drawings and pictures in mail-order shopping catalogues (the ones that show how to measure what size to order, along with the measurements for each size from the smallest to the largest) and those old sewing/pattern books from several decades ago. That drawing showed his chest area and waist to have been a number of inches smaller/narrower than what you say they were, but I believe that the hip measurement may have been the same, no narrower or wider than that.
Click to expand...
Maybe his hips were more like 33.
 
Sophia2023 said:
Maybe, his hips were more like 33.
Click to expand...
@Sophia2023, You have to remember that, with Michael having been as small-built and skinny as he was (naturally, even for his height of 5'9" to 5'10," which is considered “average” for adult men in some parts of the world, even “tall”), a 38-inch chest area would have been thought of as rather too wide/big for him, though the waist probably was not much wider than 28 inches, even when he gained some weight and looked his “heaviest.” He also had very long legs in proportion to his torso already, and he often wore shoes/boots with heels, which made him appear “taller” than what he really was.

With that being said, a hip measurement of 33 inches is extremely tiny and narrow even for a small, petite woman, let alone for a grown MAN. However, it may have been possible that he really was that small at his thinnest, since his weight tended to have fluctuated up and down from time to time. We’ll never know.
 
Last edited:
GGVVGGCC22331122 said:
@Sophia2023, You have to remember that, with Michael having been as small-built and skinny as he was (naturally, even for his height of 5'9" to 5'10," which is considered “average” for adult men in some parts of the world, even “tall”), a 38-inch chest area would have been thought of as rather too wide/big for him, though the waist probably was not much wider than 28 inches, even when he gained some weight and looked his “heaviest.” He also had very long legs in proportion to his torso already, and he often wore shoes/boots with heels, which made him appear “taller” than what he really was.

With that being said, a hip measurement of 33 inches is extremely tiny and narrow even for a small, petite woman, let alone for a grown MAN. However, it may have been possible that he really was that small at his thinnest, since his weight tended to have fluctuated up and down from time to time. We’ll never know.
Click to expand...
Maybe his hips grew as he aged, but remained narrower, for sure.
 
Sophia2023 said:
Maybe his hips grew as he aged, but remained narrower, for sure.
Click to expand...
I would say, @Sophia2023, that this was more likely due to occasional weight fluctuations than aging, as he was generally a small, slight and thin man for his height. Most people who are thin and small like Michael was would appear even thinner as they age, not wider nor heavier.
 
Last edited:
GGVVGGCC22331122 said:
I would say, @Sophia2023, that this was more likely due to occasional weight fluctuations than aging, as he was generally a small, slight and thin man for his height. Most people who are thin and small like Michael was would appear even thinner as they age, not wider nor heavier.
Click to expand...
I think his hips were 33-to-34, but they grew to 35 as he was in his heaviest.
 
Sophia2023 said:
I think his hips were 33-to-34, but they grew to 35 as he was in his heaviest.
Click to expand...
He was at his heaviest, probably, going into the Early-2000’s, when in his Early- to Mid-40’s. By the time of the 2005 criminal trial —— in fact, all throughout the course of the proceedings, partly due to the loss of his appetite as a result of the great deal of stress he was under at the time —— he had actually lost quite a bit of weight from the beginning to the end, as we saw from the very first day on up to the last one after the jury’s verdict was announced and he was acquitted on ALL counts. (Even though he was, basically, a naturally small, skinny man for his 5'9" to 5'10" height anyway, an intensely physically active person as a dancer throughout his entire life, and he was never a really big eater to begin with, as he so much as admitted to such people as Geraldo Rivera and Jesse Jackson, to whom we very well KNOW he gave interviews.

I take “YouTube”® posts of a fake, phony impostor’s voice —— in telephone conversations supposedly in the Early-1990’s with someone basically unknown, a woman who never was a journalist nor in the media —— with an enormous grain of salt, as a fake impostor whom many fans claim was “Michael” has absolutely ZERO credibility, in my view.)

By the time he started rehearsing for “This Is It,” he looked even “thinner” at almost 51 than what he was at the peak of his “Thriller” success in the Early- to Mid-1980’s, when still in his Early-20’s,* though he was a slight bit heavier than what he was back then. (*He was a little heavier in 2009, about four years after his acquittal and having been found NOT GUILTY in a court of law. . . .“NOT GUILTY” meaning “INNOCENT” to everyone but those ignorant fools who still want to believe, in their delusional mind-set, that: ‘Michael MUST have been guilty of something or other.’ Sorry, if I’m going just a little bit off-topic, here. . . .)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top