Show Posts


Messages - mjj29081958

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29
Quote from: "Serenitys_Dream"
Quote from: "Sinderella"
Brian Oxman is outside the court saying Michael is a drug addict and claiming Michael's brain had swelling which was not in the autopsy

The AR on TMZ does report brain swelling on pages 26 - 28
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So unless this isn't the AR then there was brain swelling but I researched that too and could find no link to brain swelling and drug addiction. It's all in the videos I made about the AR when it originally came out. Unless someone with a medical degree can clear that up, I never understood what Oxman was on about.

He complained of dehydration, and (one of the things) Dr. Murray did was rehydrate him. It's just an idea, but what do you think about the link Dehydration/Rehydration and Cerebral Edema (Brain swelling)?

Michael Jackson News / Re: new album cover
« on: November 06, 2010, 04:36:21 PM »
Quote from: "GirlSaturday"
There are nine pages to this thread (that I haven't read )so bare with me if the point has been raised already.  What's up with the old photos for the cover? We just saw TII and the O2 press conference last year. Why  not use the most recent images that the public has seen of MJ instead of these? These  photos of MJ are decades old. Does anyone have any guesses or speculation on why this was done?

It's a folded leaflet. We haven't seen the whole cover yet.

Quote from: "2good2btrue"
This all depends on what type of addiction we are talking about.......

Michael denied his addictions........There are many forms of addictions.

One example is not being able to control the urge to shop.....shopaholic

Another is eating disorders....anorexia..bulimea etc

Another .....compulsive obsessive disorder..

And there is body dysmorphia........

So who is to say that the family are not talking about one of these things.???

Isn't it the media who are saying MJ was addicted to Pain Meds

But as far as I know, these are not addictions...

General Hoax Talk / Re: SPANISH HELP: TII
« on: October 17, 2010, 08:00:10 PM »
Quote from: "eviltwin"
How in the HECK did this kid get his hands on still shots of the actual footage used in THIS IS IT for his BLOG posts Pre-June 25, 2009? Look at these pictures of the dancers in his May-June 2009 posts about the auditions and being selected. IT IS ODD. May thru June 22, 2009.

That footage of the Dancers Auditions, etc was released Pre-June 25, 2009. They used it in the movie also.

Can anyone remind me where did we read that he was addict to any of these medications please? I mean official documents, not tabloid press? Thanks!

Anyway, my grandma's drawer has way more meds than this, and she's not an addict.

The number of drugs one person takes doesn't make them addicts, in fact doesn't tell you anything. If someone has 10 diseases, may need 10 meds in a daily basis and won't be an addict coz he/she takes 10 pills.

If you make the maths: Number of days from prescription to death- Number issued (e.g "x pill")- Number remaining (There are some blogs on that, like AnnieIsOkey) you'll have an idea of how he was taken them.

There were more than one medicament of the same group, let's say BDZ's: what if the first one prescripted wasn't working and the Dr. decided to change it for other? We don't know enough to assume things, IMO.

I often read members saying "I don't think he would take the risk of take drugs, he has kids and he loves them so much" and things along these lines. If I remember well, we have here a member who said she's addict and that she has a little boy. Does it mean that she doesn't love him? No. That's why it's called addiction, you can't control it.

SPAM that went wrong and their codes didn't work.

The Coroner and Autopsy Report / Re: The Official Autopsy Report Thread
« on: September 26, 2010, 03:58:31 PM »
Quote from: "loyalfan"
can i ask another question please...??? as i have just read a post on the other forum,re the ntwo week timeline of micheal leading up to 25th june...................he had a lot of injections from arnie klien.botox etc................

my question is.

would these show in the autopsy report...??

the answer could be important to the hoax...imho

Hi Loyalfan, do you know were did they get that detailed info on the treatments Michael received at Dr. Klein's office? I mean the original source? Thank you :)

Other Odd Things / Re: Mr Michael Jackson NOT mr. nice guy?
« on: September 21, 2010, 04:32:08 PM »
Quote from: "Its her"

Ok. I am going to post a couple of thoughts over on the Official Autopsy Thread,  because I see that I never did share what debunks the PDF I read, for ME. But I can quickly tell you here, what it is that makes it bogus. It may save you some time investigating, needlessly...

And, I  don't need to debunk EVERYthing to discredit ALL of it. It only takes one fly(knowing what :roll:  :oops:  they have  :? on their feets :shock: ) in my drink to throw the entire drink out.  :o  :mrgreen:

1] :o  In the year 2009, I am confident that NO government agency uses a typewriter  :lol: to produce autopsy forms.

2] :o  Equally convinced that not even a COUNTY government agency would still be using official forms which were last revised in 1995. :lol:

3] :o  The amount of pages (over 50) is suspect. Most ARs are no more than 6 pages---including Tox report and brain pathology report. The individual is dead--they list a couple of main contributing illnesses or injuries, and it really doesn't matter that they had evidences of 40 other illnesses or diseases.:?

4] :o On that subject, just ONE lung disease would have prevented MJ from raising three young children, performing grueling rehearsals for a concert tour, or making the movie, TII, which we all investigated---unless someone doesn't think the star of TII was MJ.  :? A hoaxed death requires a hoaxed report to give people something to do. MOST  :mrgreen:   of the given hoax clues are  ;)  ;) obvious OVERKILL.  8-)  8-)

FIFTY pages of an AR is classic :D  :lol:  :lol:  :P  :P  :P  :P  MJ OVERKILL. As MJ would say, "Is THAT scary for ya, Baby :?: " :P  :P  :lol:

5] :o There is information in the autopsy report which is NOT autopsy (findings from a dead body)report, and, at times,  :lol:  reads more like all of these, mixed in: a legal brief, a police report, a coroner's report, and specialist consults which are done on living hospital guests, UPSTAIRS---not in the morgue. Nothing which does not pertain to the dissected body ever appears in, or under the heading, "AR". NOTHING about what was found at the scene, or the condition of the scene would ever be in the AUTOPSY report :!:   :roll:

6] :o ALL catheters, tubes, pic lines, appliances, eyeglasses, hearing aids, dressings, etc., etc., are always removed prior to the trip to the morgue or mortuary. According to the story, MJ's body was "worked on" at the hospital, and proably intubated at one point, while they tried all chemical things to reverse the guy's problems. (Even after a routine surgery which goes amok,  :arrow: someone is assigned the task of removing all possible evidence of hospital :x  liability; drainage hoses, breathing tubes, introvenous lines and even fresh--clean-- catheters.) So, the mere mention of finding these things in a body which had been treated at the hospital makes this report a lie. :roll:

7] I'll combine these two things, for the sake of time: there was NO mention at all of any plastic surgeries or any injuries to his nose---which he reportedly BROKE prior to his very first nose job, and NO mention of --I can't remember---either a broken leg or broken foot, he experienced in the late 90s, I believe (not certain of the year, just certain of the broken bones).

There is more, but...this is QUITE enough, to establish that something is very wrong about this report, and that it is not even from this decade, let alone, in particular, our dear 50 year old Michael Jackson, K.O.P... :D

You know what? I wanna thank you because you didn't debunk the report to me at all, but you did help me understand how come that some folks are so sure about things.

It's about how deep we look into things, about what things we choose to "look too much into" and what "too little", as if they weren't here.

Look at this: it's very easy, plausible and legal to get a dead body or that a lot of people are in on the hoax, but too weird and crazy that an Autopsy Report has 50 pages, or that has been typed up in a typewriter. Know what I mean?

I hope it doesn't sound sarcastic, because it's no at all. Thanks a lot!

« on: September 20, 2010, 02:04:09 PM »
Quote from: "Its her"
A final thought, for you to sleep on: if the autopsy IS, in fact, ANY which way Michael Jackson's body, he did not survive it, and we are all wasting time, investigating ANY thing, but his murder. I don't waste time easily. And God knows the police need all the help they can get. And, say...who is driving this "Hoaxed Hoax", and for what purpose?  :|  :o  Later. :)

Yeah, sure. But we will not know if we are wasting time or not, unless we debunk, and I mean REALLY debunk everything (not just the AR, of course), and I think we are still far away of this… but I guess what is enough/trustful/proof/evidence/fact/plausible/far fetched for some, is not for everyone, right?.

Quote from: "Its her"
No I don't mind helping  a confused soul out, at all :D . Except, right now it is three hours past my bedtime here and I can barely keep my eyes open :cry: .  It's been so long since I read that thing...I will take another look at the AR tomorrow, and get back with you, OK? I don't know if the Forum came to the same conclusion collectively---and I don't remember if I posted my opinion.

[ If the thread gets very cylindrically argumentative, I exit, and I certainly don't mean to start something feisty, just to create more circular controversy...]

I seem to remember that most folk on the thread ONLY wanted to dissect the juicy details of the AR (the mention of MJ's sexual apparatus being fully functional ---omg :o !!!!!) and not the facts that discredited it  (such as that sex organ functionality or fertility would not usually even BE itemized in an autopsy !!!!!!!! The AR usually simply states "normal, 50 yr old, black male", with various remarkable measurements and weights of internal organs, and notations of unusual marks or scars or tattoos, and evidence of disease or injuries past or pertinent to the death. There would also be mention of drugs---but it would be in a separate report, from Toxicology...) As I also recall, we got into a 5 page :roll:  loop about whether or not MJ smoked. :roll:  :lol:  :lol:  . And nothing I said mattered, so...sometimes it is better to post another day...I will take a look tomorrow. :)

Oh no It's okay, you don't have to do so, I really mean it. I thought it was some kind of analysis you already posted somewhere else, that's why I was interested on take a look. Thanks anyway, you’re very kind! :D

« on: September 19, 2010, 09:56:27 PM »
Quote from: "Its her"
I can't speak for anyone else here, but, even though we have other evidence that MJ lives still, the autopsy was investigated at length, when it was first published,  and I, for myself, dismissed all of it as having nothing to do with MJ at all. It doesn't look like or contain the information of any autopsy report I've ever seen, but even state to state couldn't be that different. I don't believe it is a real one of anyone. I just thought I would explain (not explaining this before). Sorry :oops: . I forget, after all this time, that everyone couldn't know we did do this already.

Since then, I meant, I always discount "evidence " gleaned from that report. :)

Well, I'm pretty sure I've read the complete PDF, all the threads on the AR here, the ones on .net, & some YouTube vids and I haven't seen anything like a complete debunk. You're not talkin' about this one You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login, right?

Would you mind helping a confused soul that has a lot of questions by pointing me in the right direction, I mean where "you by yourself dismissed all of it as having nothing to do with MJ at all"? It's a honest request, I'm very, very interested! Thanks in advance Its her! :D

« on: September 19, 2010, 03:17:45 PM »
Quote from: "Bee Bee"

I seriously can't remember ever reading what that person claims can be found in the report, and I just skimmed through it again, and if you ask me, it clearly states the decedent had vitiligo. I found nothing à la "a lack of melanocytes in areas of the skin that presented CONSISTENT with Vitiligo", it's not there.

I can't find it, anyway "Consistent with" is just wording, and it's used (where I do live at least) to report the findings at the Complementary Exams (Images, Biopsies, etc) since they, by themselves, don't make a diagnose but suggest, discard, guide. The physician's criteria after examining the patient does make it.

"Consistent with" is like they're suggesting something based in their findings, and the diagnose is left to the physician's criteria... Did I make sense?

« on: September 19, 2010, 10:32:22 AM »
These are not  "different/multiple personalities", he adapted his behaviour according to the situation he was in: feeding Blanket, surrounded/among little kids, answering annoying questions, excited about his fans' reaction, etc.

They edited the documental, cut and put togheter the "controversial" moments of the interview, with the only purpose of make him look exactly in the way you percieve it, it's been taken out of context (plus Bashirs' comments) wants you to think he's unstable or something.

If you read how Personality is defined by Psychiatry, you'll agree that you can't even get close to diagnose which kind of personality he (nor anyone) has, by watching 8 months of recording compressed & edited in an inteview of 2 hours.

I wont even comment on Vitiligo *sigh*

I've seen people dismissing the AR because he's not dead. If it's an "investigation" it should be the other way around, right?

Other Odd Things / Re: Michael and Marijuana
« on: September 15, 2010, 09:17:48 AM »
Quote from: "suspicious mind"
Quote from: "RK"
I think people are forgetting that this is a legitimate hoax topic as it was found at the holmbey hills address in that room.

yes . and that along with the peach fuzz reference to the hair makes me think of someone who has been having cancer treatment. the family did say that it wasn't michael's

Neither it was the man who died. The AR doesn't show he had cancer nor that his samples were positive for Marijuana...

Quote from: "DancingTheDream"
Quote from: "wishingstar"
Quote from: "mjj29081958"
Didn't this news come out some time ago?

Yes, I think it did........ I was trying to find the posts about it.....I do remember this.

Exactly.. so why News of the World publish this now?   Think of the bigger picture here.

I don't know, but this happened before with that Jason guy, remember? I think we're not thinking the same, lol.

Other Odd Things / Re: Michael and Marijuana
« on: September 14, 2010, 09:58:15 PM »
@RK I know, but you can see that most of people didn't take this thread from the Hoax point of view, it'd have been interesting, though.

Well, I don't want to bother you with my nonsense about kids and drugs, so I'll shut up now. Thanks for your replies everyone :D

Quote from: "jacilovesmichael"
With all due respect, you're the one who used profanity. So probably not a good idea to tell someone else to be careful what words they use if you're concern is about children.
My apologies for the kids on this forum, I shouldn't have said the F word, and for all the adults I've offended. I'd like to edit my post but I can't.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal