Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
Hoax Investigation => June 25, 2009 => The Ambulance => Topic started by: LadyMedic on January 31, 2010, 02:46:53 PM
-
This is somewhat cross-posted from another MJ hoax forum (the topic on the other site was created by me). These are all pictures I have taken of one of the ambulances I work/volunteer on. This particular ambulance is the same model, the Ford E-450, as the ambulance Michael was in. Yes, tints on windows DO vary from ambulance to ambulance, as do the interiors. But because the other ambulances I run with are van ambulances, this ambulance is most similar to MJs.
Ok, now onto my pictures. I used a Canon PowerShot SD750. I can't tell you more about it because I do not know more about it. Sorry! I messed with settings (because I really am not great at figuring these things out), and I think you'll be very interested by the pictures I was able to take.
Outside the side window. Camera was set to Auto with flash:
(http://i49.tinypic.com/a3pfdi.jpg)
In the bottom right hand corner you can see the stretcher.
This next picture is also from the side window. Camera was set to Auto without flash:
(http://i45.tinypic.com/1zl7uck.jpg)
Again, outside the side window. The camera is set to Manual with flash.
(http://i48.tinypic.com/6rr5h1.jpg)
Again, outside the side window. Camera set to manual withOUT flash
(http://i49.tinypic.com/20z3f42.jpg)
Outside the side window, camera still on manual withOUT flash
(http://i50.tinypic.com/311ugiq.jpg)
And just as a refresher, you can see how incredibly similiar the angle is from Michael's ambulance picture:
(http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/218923/80678247.jpg)
-
eeekk!!
was the ambulance moving when you took these pictures?? :shock:
-
Yes the angle allright, but you did not use zoom then ?
-
eeekk!!
was the ambulance moving when you took these pictures?? :shock:
lol, no no no!! It was parked inside the bay. And that's not really a patient ;)
-
Yes the angle allright, but you did not use zoom then ?
No, I did not zoom. And the camera was held anywhere from 6-12 inches away from the window. I don't remember how far exactly.
-
ok, thanks
-
eeekk!!
was the ambulance moving when you took these pictures?? :shock:
lol, no no no!! It was parked inside the bay. And that's not really a patient ;)
oh no i didn't think it was a patient.. :lol: :lol: i just meant when the picture of Michael was taken the ambulance was moving!! so do you think this would have made a difference.. :shock:
-
i dont want to believe you, i want to resist - give me time
but the photo of him is old?
otherwise what your leading us to, is to a path i cant go down
-
why have you taken so long to come on this site?
-
your photos of a us ambulance look very roomy compared to the uk
-
well Ben was a fellow Medic he had access previously to ambulances and may do still.
mike has previously been rushed to hospital
the photo's you have posted i presume were taken whilst the ambulance was stationary?
the photo could be shopped both the background and the foreground
there are still doubts in my mind
-
well Ben was a fellow Medic he had access previously to ambulances and may do still.
mike has previously been rushed to hospital
the photo's you have posted i presume were taken whilst the ambulance was stationary?
the photo could be shopped both the background and the foreground
there are still doubts in my mind
Ben was an EMT, and a pretty poor one at that. And yes, the ambulance was stationary, but I do not have any reason to believe had I taken it while moving it would have yielded different results. And at the time the picture was taken, the ambulance was moving VERY slowly. The only difference between MJs picture and mine were that his ambulance was outside and mine was inside. Being outside, there was more reflection from the outside than my pictures.
And what do you mean the photo could have been photoshopped in the back and foreground?
The other thing I wanted to bring up is there is no way that photo is from 1985. Apart from my opinion that it all of a sudden appeared 25 years later, that tube holder wasn't around in 1985, and that's a fact.
-
well Ben was a fellow Medic he had access previously to ambulances and may do still.
mike has previously been rushed to hospital
the photo's you have posted i presume were taken whilst the ambulance was stationary?
the photo could be shopped both the background and the foreground
there are still doubts in my mind
Ben was an EMT, and a pretty poor one at that. And yes, the ambulance was stationary, but I do not have any reason to believe had I taken it while moving it would have yielded different results. And at the time the picture was taken, the ambulance was moving VERY slowly. The only difference between MJs picture and mine were that his ambulance was outside and mine was inside. Being outside, there was more reflection from the outside than my pictures.
And what do you mean the photo could have been photoshopped in the back and foreground?
The other thing I wanted to bring up is there is no way that photo is from 1985. Apart from my opinion that it all of a sudden appeared 25 years later, that tube holder wasn't around in 1985, and that's a fact.
how do you know so much about Ben?
why dont you just say what you think about mj?
what about 1995 - was the tube holder around then?
what is your experience with photography?
-
well Ben was a fellow Medic he had access previously to ambulances and may do still.
mike has previously been rushed to hospital
the photo's you have posted i presume were taken whilst the ambulance was stationary?
the photo could be shopped both the background and the foreground
there are still doubts in my mind
Ben was an EMT, and a pretty poor one at that. And yes, the ambulance was stationary, but I do not have any reason to believe had I taken it while moving it would have yielded different results. And at the time the picture was taken, the ambulance was moving VERY slowly. The only difference between MJs picture and mine were that his ambulance was outside and mine was inside. Being outside, there was more reflection from the outside than my pictures.
And what do you mean the photo could have been photoshopped in the back and foreground?
The other thing I wanted to bring up is there is no way that photo is from 1985. Apart from my opinion that it all of a sudden appeared 25 years later, that tube holder wasn't around in 1985, and that's a fact.
how do you know so much about Ben?
why dont you just say what you think about mj?
I know what everyone else knows about Ben. That he said something along the lines of in a cardiac arrest we spend 8-10 minutes on scene because it's a "load and go" situation. I know that is a false remark that one may think if they merely took an EMT course or worked very briefly as an EMT. Realistically, we spend as much time as we feel neccessary to work a patient on scene, and this usually lasts far longer than 8 minutes.
And it's not so much what I think of MJ as it is that I want people to really see the facts. I can't speak about what other videos show, what Dr. Murray has claimed since then. I actually have no idea what the O2 Conference is. All I know is what I see in the ambulance picture and what I hear in the 911 call. I just want to show people what, realistically, is happening in the ambulance picture and the 911 call, and any questions about EMS.
-
and your response to my last two q's
-
OMG ITS POSSIBLE THEN!!! my stomach is turning...there was no reflection of you in those pictures...i have to go :cry:
-
and your response to my last two q's
I hadn't seen those before :? But anyway, I'm not a photographer by any means. I don't know much about taking pictures.
And I'll have to find out if those tube holders were aorund in 1995. My guess is no. But regardless, the reason MJ was brought to the hospital in 1995 by no means warrented him being intubated. So for that reason alone the picture can't be from 1995. And I never saw any accounts of MJ going to the hospital in 1985.
-
what about mike and ben jointly faking this
-
what about mike and ben jointly faking this
That's what I thought about...or about using a dummy...But then this whole fire alarm thing at the UCLA would make no sense
-
what about mike and ben jointly faking this
That's what I thought about...or about using a dummy...But then this whole fire alarm thing at the UCLA would make no sense
i dont believe this photo, something is not right, the photo does not look mike as in the TII movie, which are the most recent pic prior to his "death".
Ben is a medic and a professional photographer, he is probably very good with graphics, but between then they could have the contacts to stage this photo.
-
wait the ONLY pic ladymedic was able to get out clear were the ones with NO falsh...the ambulance pic had a flash so idk what to think...i know MJs head looks awfully tiny compared to the medics forearms lol...he looks tiny compared to his surroundings
-
Well what we can see of the pictures is that the ones with the flash you cannot see anything inside the amb and the only visible are without a flash, but it would be very complicated because the amb was moving and the sun was very bright that day what would have caused equally the same effect that the flash in this pictures. And also in the MJ picture you can see a light in the corner that Ben said was the flash of the camera, but if he would have used the flash you wouldn't be able to see at all what's happening inside.
-
Well what we can see of the pictures is that the ones with the flash you cannot see anything inside the amb and the only visible are without a flash, but it would be very complicated because the amb was moving and the sun was very bright that day what would have caused equally the same effect that the flash in this pictures. And also in the MJ picture you can see a light in the corner that Ben said was the flash of the camera, but if he would have used the flash you wouldn't be able to see at all what's happening inside.
Your right ! :D
-
Well what we can see of the pictures is that the ones with the flash you cannot see anything inside the amb and the only visible are without a flash, but it would be very complicated because the amb was moving and the sun was very bright that day what would have caused equally the same effect that the flash in this pictures. And also in the MJ picture you can see a light in the corner that Ben said was the flash of the camera, but if he would have used the flash you wouldn't be able to see at all what's happening inside.
That's right and if you take a picture without flash you have to hold the camera VERY STILL and the motive should also STAND STILL.
So it's impossible to get such a clear shot without and, as you said, also with the flash!
-
thank you guys
-
Like I see it, how many shots did Ben Evenstad's friend take? And he USED flash..
-
Thank you for taking those photos...it's very helpful! I am wondering if it would be possible to take some outside in the sunlight to see if there is a difference? Seems like the tint would be stronger in daylight, which would make it more difficult to get a photo, but I could be wrong. Didn't the pap say he held the camera right against the window with a flash? Not sure if that would make a difference also rather than being 6-12 inches away.
Wait a minute, I thought it was Christopher Weiss who was the EMT, not Ben? :?
-
Yes, thankyou LadyMedic for the pics you took the time to take etc As much as we hate it, we need all the facts and everyone here can make that happen, between us! :)
BUT, THIS STILL DOESN'T EXPLAIN HIS FLAWLESS MAKEUP AND PERFECT WIG IN THE AMBULANCE. I CANNOT SEE HOW SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN WORKED ON SO HARD CAN STILL HAVE THEIR MAKEUP SO FLAWLESSLY IN PLACE!!
It was stated not long after he "died" that because of the damage done to his face during rescusitation attempts, his face caved in on one side and was too damaged for the public to see!
Soooooo, if his face was way too damaged to have his body on display for public viewing, why was his make up absolutely perfect??
That's one thing I can't get my head around.....
-
See everyone! You're coming up with plenty of other questions and that's awesome! I wanted to answer your questions about the picture and about why the medics did what they did and what is happening in the picture. And while I have seen dead people that look very much alive, that doesn't mean that your opinion of how MJ looks isn't true. I'm not trying to convince you he's dead, I'm really not. I'm just trying to explain, to the best of my ability, what you're truly seeing from an objective standpoint.
-
I have a question...when a person in intubated, and that person dies, isnt it a fact that that tube has to stay in the deceased persons mouth until the coroner takes it out? I'm asking this because I have read about this many times, which means the children were taken in to see their father with a big tube in his mouth. Also in one of Mauras videos, she is talking about a hand or something sticking up by the mouth and face area. As you can tell...I dont like where this is going. Sorry. :( BUT....what about the red car, and the 2 ambulances, and tour bus?? Seems like we can never get a straight answer and any truth we think we find gets debunked. :evil:
-
Wait a minute, I thought it was Christopher Weiss who was the EMT, not Ben? :?
That's what I thought too...
Ben/Christopher used the flashlight, you can see the reflection in the window. The clear shots that you took are WITHOUT flash.
So I'm still not convinced.
-
I have a question...when a person in intubated, and that person dies, isnt it a fact that that tube has to stay in the deceased persons mouth until the coroner takes it out? I'm asking this because I have read about this many times, which means the children were taken in to see their father with a big tube in his mouth. Also in one of Mauras videos, she is talking about a hand or something sticking up by the mouth and face area. As you can tell...I dont like where this is going. Sorry. :( BUT....what about the red car, and the 2 ambulances, and tour bus?? Seems like we can never get a straight answer and any truth we think we find gets debunked. :evil:
"If" it's true that only the coroner can take out the tube, wouldn't the helicopter picture have looked less flat (If that picture is true, of course).
-
I have a question...when a person in intubated, and that person dies, isnt it a fact that that tube has to stay in the deceased persons mouth until the coroner takes it out? I'm asking this because I have read about this many times, which means the children were taken in to see their father with a big tube in his mouth. Also in one of Mauras videos, she is talking about a hand or something sticking up by the mouth and face area. As you can tell...I dont like where this is going. Sorry. :( BUT....what about the red car, and the 2 ambulances, and tour bus?? Seems like we can never get a straight answer and any truth we think we find gets debunked. :evil:
"If" it's true that only the coroner can take out the tube, wouldn't the helicopter picture have looked less flat (If that picture is true, of course).
As far as I know, that's not true. When someone dies here, you don't have to wait for the coroner to take the tube out.
-
Here is a little bit of info about leaving the device in for coroner. I have read alot more in different areas, but I have to leave right now. I'll try to find more later. They have all stated that any devices should be removed by the coroner. I've left a couple of paragraghs incase you dont want to read it all.
#############################################################################################
SC: As I mentioned before, we need to have as much information as possible, and that includes the use of those devices. Those devices can cause injuries and if they’re not present at autopsy we might be scratching around as to why the injury was caused. Then we’ll think that maybe it was caused at resuscitation and in that case why isn’t the device still there. It has to be said that on occasions the wrong positioning of an endotracheal tube might be a relevant factor although it would be rare for us to be able to say that it is in fact a relevant factor. In other words, was this person alive and talking when you put the tube down the wrong way, and if they were, that’s probably not good news, but if this person was moribund then probably this is not going to be of great significance. What we also have to be careful of is that just because we see a tube down the wrong way doesn’t necessarily mean that the ambulance paramedic put the tube down the wrong way. It is possible after death if the tube is half withdrawn and then somebody thinks, oh, I had better put it back in and they simply push it down not under direct vision and it could slip down the wrong way. All we can say is that at the autopsy it was down the wrong way and that things can happen sometimes between your environment and ours.
BW: Do you expect full compliance with the policy from paramedic staff?
SC: It is not for me to say that, I mean I’m not in a position where I can require that, but a Coroner might have a view. I don’t actually have any authority at all in relation to this, but I would think the starting point should be that the devices should be left insitu; that should be the starting point. Then it is a question of what could justify the removal of the device and that would then have to be a justification that the person removing the device would be prepared to account for. It does get very difficult because the need of families, and the desire of families to see the loved one in as normal a state as possible is clearly an important desire and need. On occasions that will conflict with what needs to be done in order for the death to be properly investigated. That’s the sort of judgement that professionals need to make, and on occasions they might have to account for that to a coroner. Having said that, I am not aware of any occasion where that has been an issue
http://www.jephc.com/full_article.cfm?content_id=318 (http://www.jephc.com/full_article.cfm?content_id=318)
-
I have a question...when a person in intubated, and that person dies, isnt it a fact that that tube has to stay in the deceased persons mouth until the coroner takes it out? I'm asking this because I have read about this many times, which means the children were taken in to see their father with a big tube in his mouth. Also in one of Mauras videos, she is talking about a hand or something sticking up by the mouth and face area. As you can tell...I dont like where this is going. Sorry. :( BUT....what about the red car, and the 2 ambulances, and tour bus?? Seems like we can never get a straight answer and any truth we think we find gets debunked. :evil:
"If" it's true that only the coroner can take out the tube, wouldn't the helicopter picture have looked less flat (If that picture is true, of course).
They leave all tubes and other equipment used in place if there is going to be an autopsy. In the case of the ET tube, they will cut the tube at the lip line and "hide" it in the mouth so it is not visible, but it is still in place.
-
Well what we can see of the pictures is that the ones with the flash you cannot see anything inside the amb and the only visible are without a flash, but it would be very complicated because the amb was moving and the sun was very bright that day what would have caused equally the same effect that the flash in this pictures. And also in the MJ picture you can see a light in the corner that Ben said was the flash of the camera, but if he would have used the flash you wouldn't be able to see at all what's happening inside.
On the otherhand the photos taken with flash by Ladymedic are from what I can tell taken indoors and that's why they come out so dark (reflexion of windows etc.) The photo of Michael was taken in daylight and that might make a difference in the outcome (even when using flash). However, I think someone who's a photographer should look at the photo and tell us what they think. I think I saw someone on this forum, who actually is a photographer, discuss the photo on some other thread. I didn't completely understand though so maybe they could explain again?
-
I have a question...when a person in intubated, and that person dies, isnt it a fact that that tube has to stay in the deceased persons mouth until the coroner takes it out? I'm asking this because I have read about this many times, which means the children were taken in to see their father with a big tube in his mouth. Also in one of Mauras videos, she is talking about a hand or something sticking up by the mouth and face area. As you can tell...I dont like where this is going. Sorry. :( BUT....what about the red car, and the 2 ambulances, and tour bus?? Seems like we can never get a straight answer and any truth we think we find gets debunked. :evil:
"If" it's true that only the coroner can take out the tube, wouldn't the helicopter picture have looked less flat (If that picture is true, of course).
They leave all tubes and other equipment used in place if there is going to be an autopsy. In the case of the ET tube, they will cut the tube at the lip line and "hide" it in the mouth so it is not visible, but it is still in place.
Thank you for clearing that up. :D So in Michaels case, we couldnt have seen anything?
-
I have a question...when a person in intubated, and that person dies, isnt it a fact that that tube has to stay in the deceased persons mouth until the coroner takes it out?
They leave all tubes and other equipment used in place if there is going to be an autopsy. In the case of the ET tube, they will cut the tube at the lip line and "hide" it in the mouth so it is not visible, but it is still in place.
You guys were right...I wondered why the tube was still in place when I read the autopsy.
-
I don't know what everyone else thinks but the photos that were taken by the person who posted them on here looks modern and updated. This ambulance looks way more modern inside compared to the inside of the ambulance with MJ. That pic of MJ just looks ancient to me like from the early 90's or something.
-
Photographer aside, can';t anyone find the paramedics who are in this pic with Michael? Can't they confirm or deny anything?