It was said that they did not recognized Michael Jackson, which I highly doubt. Maybe it was near the bedroom or in Michaels house somewhere, maybe a family member brought this licence. It does not make any sence they would just need a family member or his security to know that it was MJ. So does again not make sense at all...
Just because we never have seen MJ smoking does not mean that he did not do it. Usually I do not smoke and I hate it and always said that I will never do it, but finaly I sometimes did smoke and people looked very "stupid" at me bacause they would never expect that I would ever smoke...so...why not MJ...he was a human being. It just shows that we did not knew him!!!
It is strange nevertheless. I have a question what exactly is written in the AR concerning MJ and smoking. Is it clearly written there or is it a conclusion which was drawn here?
I don't think that any of us can know for sure 100% whether he smoked or not.
There was nothing in the autopsy report that said that he was a smoker.
The only thing that I think we need to keep in mind is that these illnesses can be present even without smoking.
People die of lung cancer never having smoked in their lives, but the MAJORITY of lung cancer sufferers are smokers.
Considering he had other health problems, it's possible this included his lungs.
I am comletely aware of those facts that is why I wanted to know why people draw their own conclusions so fast or if it was written in the AR. That shows again how fast people tend to draw conclusions which just mislead people! Thank you for reply
My first post so excuse me for jumping in here. I skimmed the report ~ didn't want to read any graphic details ~ and didn't catch anything else mentioning identification other that the visual comparison. Was there no other method used? You know... something slightly more reliable like DNA!! I'm guessing that's a big NO!! Things that make you go hmmmmm....
Well I believe that MJ is alive, therefore, in my opinion, it isn't his autopsy. But in the worst of cases, if that is his autopsy ...Have you not thought of fog or smoke machines? Take a look at this...
Theatrical Fog and Artificial Mists
A number of studies have been published on the potential health effects presented by exposure to theatrical fogs and artificial mists.
The first study that was completed was done by Consultech Engineering, Co. under contract to Actor's Equity. The findings of the Consultech study were confirmed by two additional studies -- a Health Hazard Evaluation completed in 1994 by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and another one in 2000 by the Department of Community and Preventative Medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and ENVIRON ; both prepared for Actors Equity and the League of American Theatres and Producers, focused on the effects on actors and performers in Broadway musicals. The conclusion of all three studies was that there was irritation of mucous membranes such as the eyes and the respiratory tract associated with extended peak exposure to theatrical fog.
Another study focused on the use of theatrical fog in the commercial aviation industry for emergency training of staff in stimulated fire conditions. This study also found eye and respiratory tract irritation.
In May 2005, a study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, conducted by the School of Environment and Health at the University of British Columbia, looked at adverse respiratory effects in crew members on a wide variety of entertainment venues ranging from live theatres, concerts, television and film productions to a video arcade. This study determined that cumulative exposure to mineral oil and glycol-based fogs were associated with acute and chronic adverse effects on respiratory health. This study found that short-term exposure to glycol fog was associated with coughing, dry throat, headaches, dizziness, drowsiness, and tiredness. This study also found long-term exposure to smoke and fog was associated with both short-term and long-term respiratory problems such as chest tightness and wheezing. Personnel working closest to the fog machines had reduced lung function results.
The Entertainment Services and Technology Association (ESTA) has compiled a standard for theatrical fogs or artificial mists compositions for use in entertainment venues that "are not likely to be harmful to otherwise healthy performers, technicians, or audience members of normal working age, which is 18 to 64 years of age, inclusive." This standard was based primarily (though not exclusively), upon the findings of a report commissioned for ESTA by the Cohen Group and applies only those fog fluid compositions that consist of a mixture of water and glycol (so called "water based" fog fluid).
Short term exposure to glycol fog can be associated with headaches, dizziness, drowsiness and tiredness. Long term exposure to smoke and fog can be related to upper airway and voice symptoms. Extended (multi-year) exposure to smoke and fog has been associated with both short-term and long-term respiratory health problems. Efforts should be made to reduce exposure to theatrical smoke to as low a level as possible. The use of digital effects in post production on film and television sets can be considered a safer practice than using theatrical smoke and fog during filming, although this is not always practical.
Who cares what the "autopsy" says- this a hoax death forum, he's alive and doing this for a reson, remember?
Sorry for the big words, but I think everyone needs to snap out of it, becausehether he smoked or not is totally irrelevant to why he hoaxed his death!
I'm sorry to say this, but it needs to be said. I'm not directing this directly at you, so don't take any offense or take it personally.
Yes, this is a hoax death forum, but are we a bunch of loons doing anything in our power, including discarding all reason and logic, to make the facts fit our pre-drawn conclusions, or are we individuals who do not like to just take things at face value and are searching logically for clues?
If we are the former, then we can't blame people for looking at us much like how one would look at someone parading around their house with nothing but pink underwear with bunnies on. If we are the latter, then let's be reasonable and not keep finding random details just so we can live another day without crying.
Besides, Michael wouldn't want us, i'm fairly certain, to be so dependent upon his existence. I mean, can you imagine? People are crying and killing themselves over you, literally!
If he's alive, he's got enough problems of his own and doesn't need to be worrying about our well-being too. Some might say he faked his death because he needed to get away; he was giving too much of himself. He's already given us 40, give or take, years of entertainment. What more do we want from him?
sorry for the rant, but this needs to be addressed if we're gonna have any kind of credibility with anybody.
But doesn´t the men (forgott the name I think it was Craig Harvey) mentioned in his emails that a license was enough to prove the identity of somebody. I remember that it was allready discussed here. It makes me wonder if they did not supposedly recognized him...I would prefer a DNA test but I am not aware of those things. So cannot say much about it
I don't want to get personal but we had a "extended" family member pass. He had all of his info with him but still a family member had to id the body. Due to the circumstances no one wanted to but it had to be done.....I don't think a DL would have been enough....just my opinion
Who cares what the "autopsy" says- this a hoax death forum, he's alive and doing this for a reason, remember?
Sorry for the big words, but I think everyone needs to snap out of it, because whether he smoked or not is totally irrelevant to why he hoaxed his death!
I'm sorry to say this, but it needs to be said. I'm not directing this directly at you, so don't take any offense or take it personally.
Yes, this is a hoax death forum, but are we a bunch of loons doing anything in our power, including discarding all reason and logic, to make the facts fit our pre-drawn conclusions, or are we individuals who do not like to just take things at face value and are searching logically for clues?
If we are the former, then we can't blame people for looking at us much like how one would look at someone parading around their house with nothing but pink underwear with bunnies on. If we are the latter, then let's be reasonable and not keep finding random details just so we can live another day without crying.
Besides, Michael wouldn't want us, i'm fairly certain, to be so dependent upon his existence. I mean, can you imagine? People are crying and killing themselves over you, literally!
If he's alive, he's got enough problems of his own and doesn't need to be worrying about our well-being too. Some might say he faked his death because he needed to get away; he was giving too much of himself. He's already given us 40, give or take, years of entertainment. What more do we want from him?
sorry for the rant, but this needs to be addressed if we're gonna have any kind of credibility with anybody.
Of course we are the former- and we are being reasonable. The inconsistencies of people's stories about the 25th, the obviously Photosopped ambulance photo (I noticed it looked fake the minute I saw it, even though I was pouring like a leaky faucet), and the fact that his so-called death certificate says Joseph even though the FBI files proved it was Joe, along with many other reasonable, plausible things we have worked our butts off to find are enough for me.
I would know people are going to cry over me (how do we know people actually killed themselves?)therefore I would only do this for a very important reason, to expose something big and wrong that shouldn't exist- this isn't about us wanting stuff from him, this about him on a mission- Remember in TII, he's wearing a shirt that says Mission, and he himself added a 7 7 7 to it- Good luck on the mission.. There have been way too many coincidences such as that, and I think MJ said it himself that there's no such thing as coincidences..
For a DNA test to take place, they would've need a reliable sample of MJ's known DNA, i.e. a fingerprint left on an item that only he would touch, hairs from his pillow, etc. Plus, those take time, too.
OK, this is my last post on the subject 'cause I don't want ot hijack this thread.
yes, those are strange coincidnences, but what if htey are just that? I'm of the opinion that especially with something as emotional as this, we need to kind of step back and almost, I repeat, almost not care about the outcome either way.
In the end he is his own person.
BTW, how can you see a picture clearly if your eyes are swollen and teary and your judgment's all clouded by grief? I'm not asking you specifically, but it's a rhetorical question and something to think about.
P.S. In a list of two things, the former is the first, and the latter is the second. Just thought I'd let you know because i think you meant that you were being reasonable. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
OK, this is my last post on the subject 'cause I don't want ot hijack this thread.
yes, those are strange coincidnences, but what if htey are just that? I'm of the opinion that especially with something as emotional as this, we need to kind of step back and almost, I repeat, almost not care about the outcome either way.
In the end he is his own person.
BTW, how can you see a picture clearly if your eyes are swollen and teary and your judgment's all clouded by grief? I'm not asking you specifically, but it's a rhetorical question and something to think about.
P.S. In a list of two things, the former is the first, and the latter is the second. Just thought I'd let you know because i think you meant that you were being reasonable. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
ACH, I knew I'd make some kind of mistake in there.. And oh, come on, they repeated that stupid pic a thousand times that day AND my eyes don't swelll when I cry. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> And no, there are too many to be coincidences, and I've been at this too long to just take my belief back just like that.
So in TII he had inflamed lungs? didnt sound like it and regarding him being a smoker I dont think he was but if it turns out he was one hey so be it he is a human and I still love Michael
We definitely don't have to take our beliefs back. In fact, we can still keep on looking for clues, but let's look at both sides of the story before we cling to our side 'cause we feel it's the only right side. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
Well, guys, have a great evening. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
We definitely don't have to take our beliefs back. In fact, we can still keep on looking for clues, but let's look at both sides of the story before we cling to our side 'cause we feel it's the only right side. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
Well, guys, have a great evening. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
Nyeh, but isn't that what you're supposed to do when you think something's right?
Look I really dont thnk he smoked. That would have caused accumulation between his teeth and also would have affected his lips.Although MJ used lipstick on most of the occasions, there are a lot of photos where he isnt wearing lipstick and the natural colour of lips is not like that of a smoker.
Plus if he had damaged lungs he wouldnt have danced the way he was dancing in TII....plus he sang very well too.
So, I read thru the autopsy report and wrote down all the terms I didn't understand. I knew I would be looking at lung problems, rumors of o2 tanks and alpha 1....I saw he had RESPIRATORY BRONCHIOLITIS! I started looking up all the terms and this one floored me! It is caused by smoking! MJ hid it well! I have seen many pictures with a square shaped box in his pocket and always wondered (after seeing three pictures, one of MJ holding an unlit cigarette and one of MJ on a phone in a hotel room with a box of cigarettes on the table by the phone, and another picture I posted of him eating his dinner and an ashtray with a butt was in it between his plate of food) since seeing those I'm always looking at shapes in his pockets. I guess my question is now answered. Oh MJ!
I'm sorry but you are wrong mj wasnt a smoker, my grandfather smoked and when you smoke your fingers become yellow and your teeth become discolored, Michael had perfect teeth and you can clearly tell he was not a smoker, just because he was beside an ash tray doesnt mean it was his, ever heard of being around people who are smokers, i used to walk out the house smelling like cigarettes thats doesnt mean i am the smoker, and it doesnt matter how much spray or cologne you put on that cigarette stench will always be there, and my grandpa took good are of his teeth but they still get discolored from the cigarettes and from the nicotine, if mj was a smoker we would clearly be able to notice it, and mj has said himself that he was never the type to drink or smoke, and while he started drinking a bit once he got older, i highly doubt he smoked, you would clearly have been able to notice it.
LOL you didn't read the report did you? If you did you would have seen that most of MJ's teeth were restorative vaneers. How could you tell if his nails were yellow or not, because they were brown?
hey guys, you need to read the report and form your own oppinion. Here is what formed mine
-resperatory bronchiolitis
-chronic interstitial pneumonitis
-aggregates of hevily pigmented macrophages (the cells that eat up the smoke and discolor the lungs)
-thickening of brochioloalviolar walls
-aggregates of pigmented histiocytes
-patchy histiocytic desquamation
-squamous metaplasia (unique to smokers)
-birefringent
-histiocytes contained birefringent particulates in association with anthracotic pigment
-fibrocolleginous scars
here is one of the pictures. Notice the ashtray?
Wait...we saw a supposed picture of MJ in the ambulance on the way to the hospital where they said he was unrecognizable? Huh?! How is that possible? He looked EXACTALLY like MJ in that ambulance picture!
Wait...we saw a supposed picture of MJ in the ambulance on the way to the hospital where they said he was unrecognizable? Huh?! How is that possible? He looked EXACTALLY like MJ in that ambulance picture!
Comments
I am comletely aware of those facts that is why I wanted to know why people draw their own conclusions so fast or if it was written in the AR. That shows again how fast people tend to draw conclusions which just mislead people! Thank you for reply
Theatrical Fog and Artificial Mists
A number of studies have been published on the potential health effects presented by exposure to theatrical fogs and artificial mists.
The first study that was completed was done by Consultech Engineering, Co. under contract to Actor's Equity. The findings of the Consultech study were confirmed by two additional studies -- a Health Hazard Evaluation completed in 1994 by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and another one in 2000 by the Department of Community and Preventative Medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and ENVIRON ; both prepared for Actors Equity and the League of American Theatres and Producers, focused on the effects on actors and performers in Broadway musicals. The conclusion of all three studies was that there was irritation of mucous membranes such as the eyes and the respiratory tract associated with extended peak exposure to theatrical fog.
Another study focused on the use of theatrical fog in the commercial aviation industry for emergency training of staff in stimulated fire conditions. This study also found eye and respiratory tract irritation.
In May 2005, a study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, conducted by the School of Environment and Health at the University of British Columbia, looked at adverse respiratory effects in crew members on a wide variety of entertainment venues ranging from live theatres, concerts, television and film productions to a video arcade. This study determined that cumulative exposure to mineral oil and glycol-based fogs were associated with acute and chronic adverse effects on respiratory health. This study found that short-term exposure to glycol fog was associated with coughing, dry throat, headaches, dizziness, drowsiness, and tiredness. This study also found long-term exposure to smoke and fog was associated with both short-term and long-term respiratory problems such as chest tightness and wheezing. Personnel working closest to the fog machines had reduced lung function results.
The Entertainment Services and Technology Association (ESTA) has compiled a standard for theatrical fogs or artificial mists compositions for use in entertainment venues that "are not likely to be harmful to otherwise healthy performers, technicians, or audience members of normal working age, which is 18 to 64 years of age, inclusive." This standard was based primarily (though not exclusively), upon the findings of a report commissioned for ESTA by the Cohen Group and applies only those fog fluid compositions that consist of a mixture of water and glycol (so called "water based" fog fluid).
Short term exposure to glycol fog can be associated with headaches, dizziness, drowsiness and tiredness. Long term exposure to smoke and fog can be related to upper airway and voice symptoms. Extended (multi-year) exposure to smoke and fog has been associated with both short-term and long-term respiratory health problems. Efforts should be made to reduce exposure to theatrical smoke to as low a level as possible. The use of digital effects in post production on film and television sets can be considered a safer practice than using theatrical smoke and fog during filming, although this is not always practical.
<!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatrical_smoke_and_fog<!-- m -->
And I agree with the poster above, bronchiolitis is very common, and can be acquired by aspiration of food particles or liquids into the lungs.
Amen sister!
Yes, this is a hoax death forum, but are we a bunch of loons doing anything in our power, including discarding all reason and logic, to make the facts fit our pre-drawn conclusions, or are we individuals who do not like to just take things at face value and are searching logically for clues?
If we are the former, then we can't blame people for looking at us much like how one would look at someone parading around their house with nothing but pink underwear with bunnies on. If we are the latter, then let's be reasonable and not keep finding random details just so we can live another day without crying.
Besides, Michael wouldn't want us, i'm fairly certain, to be so dependent upon his existence. I mean, can you imagine? People are crying and killing themselves over you, literally!
If he's alive, he's got enough problems of his own and doesn't need to be worrying about our well-being too. Some might say he faked his death because he needed to get away; he was giving too much of himself. He's already given us 40, give or take, years of entertainment. What more do we want from him?
sorry for the rant, but this needs to be addressed if we're gonna have any kind of credibility with anybody.
I would know people are going to cry over me (how do we know people actually killed themselves?)therefore I would only do this for a very important reason, to expose something big and wrong that shouldn't exist- this isn't about us wanting stuff from him, this about him on a mission- Remember in TII, he's wearing a shirt that says Mission, and he himself added a 7 7 7 to it- Good luck on the mission.. There have been way too many coincidences such as that, and I think MJ said it himself that there's no such thing as coincidences..
yes, those are strange coincidnences, but what if htey are just that? I'm of the opinion that especially with something as emotional as this, we need to kind of step back and almost, I repeat, almost not care about the outcome either way.
In the end he is his own person.
BTW, how can you see a picture clearly if your eyes are swollen and teary and your judgment's all clouded by grief? I'm not asking you specifically, but it's a rhetorical question and something to think about.
P.S. In a list of two things, the former is the first, and the latter is the second. Just thought I'd let you know because i think you meant that you were being reasonable. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
I'm with you! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
Well, guys, have a great evening. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
You, too!
Plus if he had damaged lungs he wouldnt have danced the way he was dancing in TII....plus he sang very well too.
-resperatory bronchiolitis
-chronic interstitial pneumonitis
-aggregates of hevily pigmented macrophages (the cells that eat up the smoke and discolor the lungs)
-thickening of brochioloalviolar walls
-aggregates of pigmented histiocytes
-patchy histiocytic desquamation
-squamous metaplasia (unique to smokers)
-birefringent
-histiocytes contained birefringent particulates in association with anthracotic pigment
-fibrocolleginous scars
here is one of the pictures. Notice the ashtray?
No doubt.. he looked just like MJ always looked.