As if the Michael Jackson tale couldn't get any stranger, now we have this fairly questionable, definitely, shameful, headline in the New York Post and accompanying story which will be first reported in Rolling Stone: JACKO'S FAKE NOSE 'MISSING' Good Lord. Is this one of the signs of the apocalypse? It must
be. Are you kidding me? Nose? Fake? And missing?! Holy cats, that's a bad day right there. The reporting on this is not much better. Then again, we're talking about a dead guy with a fake nose that is currently AWOF (Absent With Out Face).From the NY Post: "Michael Jackson wore a prosthetic
nose...and it was missing from his surgically mangled face as he lay in an LA morgue." Now, as odd as that may seem, the guy was a HUGE fan of plastic surgery. If there was a Facebook Fan Page for 'Plastic Surgery' (and I have no reason to believe that there is not), he would have checked "Am A Fan" in a second. And while it says that the nose was "missing from his...face", that account appears to have been relayed to Rolling Stone (apparently) by "witnesses who saw the King of Pop's body on the autopsy table." Witnesses. Wait. Witnesses?You mean "those who are witnessing"? THOSE kind of witnesses? 
Um, would it be too much trouble for someone to explain WHY the LA morgue is allowing witnesses in it's, uh, um, cold rooms for dead people? I'm kind of under the impression that MOST morgues, aside from employees, tend to be witness-free. And if you could only pick ONE morgue in the entire country that would not be able to have witnesses roaming about, I'm thinking you'd pick the LA one! What with celebrities dropping dead all of the time? You don't need a bunch of witnesses coming in and out of the place, as they'd probably bring the paparazzi with them.
From the Rolling Stone via the NY Post: "Left behind was a small, dark hole surrounded by bits of cartilage." Wow. So descriptive. Those witnesses really must be telling the truth! They gave details and everything. Hey. Wait a minute. That's what MY face would look like if you removed MY nose! That's what EVERYONE'S face would look like if you removed their nose! There would be a hole! Most likely "small" and "dark"! Are you sure his HEAD wasn't a prosthetic as well? Maybe there's a description of him without his head that would solidify the credibility of such a claim. "We saw a neck. It was stump like without a noggin attached. It appeared to be made of human flesh." Sold!
Continuing with the theme of Bad Tabloid Reporting, "Jackson, who was notorious
ly shy about his appearance, wore the prosthetic to mask the effects of decades of plastic surgery, according to the magazine, due to hit newsstands today (July 24, 2009)." I'm not so sure that he wore the fake nose to "mask the effects of decades of plastic surgery", nor am I convinced it was because he was "notoriously shy". No, I'm thinking we wore the fake nose because, as the term "fake nose" would imply, he DIDN'T HAVE ONE! I'd be "notoriously shy" about MY noseless appearance ALSO!
I'd never even heard of the possibility that one could have a fake nose until I
read this highly questionable account of Jacko's nose. We've all seen pictures of Jackson de-masked, sans mask, without a mask. While odd looking, I don't detect that his nose is fake. You'd be doing nothing other than applying make-up to keep it concealed. Your face moves around A LOT during the day. You'd have to glue on an entire face shield that was one solid piece so that there wouldn't be any detectable lines indicating where you screwed your schnozz on that morning. How long would that take? To glue on a new face every day? I'm thinking a while. How many of those glue sticks would that require? I guess cost wasn't really an issue for Jacko, but these are the sorts of things I think about. And then I write them here.
But really, if you were going to have a prosthetic nose, would you seriously choose any of the ones that he HAS had?! I don't think you would! Choose. You're telling me you'd CHOOSE that? You'd OPT for a nose that looked like a ski jump? No you wouldn't! And you wouldn't choose this one either! Behold!
Um, would it be too much trouble for someone to explain WHY the LA morgue is allowing witnesses in it's, uh, um, cold rooms for dead people? I'm kind of under the impression that MOST morgues, aside from employees, tend to be witness-free. And if you could only pick ONE morgue in the entire country that would not be able to have witnesses roaming about, I'm thinking you'd pick the LA one! What with celebrities dropping dead all of the time? You don't need a bunch of witnesses coming in and out of the place, as they'd probably bring the paparazzi with them.
From the Rolling Stone via the NY Post: "Left behind was a small, dark hole surrounded by bits of cartilage." Wow. So descriptive. Those witnesses really must be telling the truth! They gave details and everything. Hey. Wait a minute. That's what MY face would look like if you removed MY nose! That's what EVERYONE'S face would look like if you removed their nose! There would be a hole! Most likely "small" and "dark"! Are you sure his HEAD wasn't a prosthetic as well? Maybe there's a description of him without his head that would solidify the credibility of such a claim. "We saw a neck. It was stump like without a noggin attached. It appeared to be made of human flesh." Sold!Continuing with the theme of Bad Tabloid Reporting, "Jackson, who was notorious
ly shy about his appearance, wore the prosthetic to mask the effects of decades of plastic surgery, according to the magazine, due to hit newsstands today (July 24, 2009)." I'm not so sure that he wore the fake nose to "mask the effects of decades of plastic surgery", nor am I convinced it was because he was "notoriously shy". No, I'm thinking we wore the fake nose because, as the term "fake nose" would imply, he DIDN'T HAVE ONE! I'd be "notoriously shy" about MY noseless appearance ALSO!I'd never even heard of the possibility that one could have a fake nose until I
read this highly questionable account of Jacko's nose. We've all seen pictures of Jackson de-masked, sans mask, without a mask. While odd looking, I don't detect that his nose is fake. You'd be doing nothing other than applying make-up to keep it concealed. Your face moves around A LOT during the day. You'd have to glue on an entire face shield that was one solid piece so that there wouldn't be any detectable lines indicating where you screwed your schnozz on that morning. How long would that take? To glue on a new face every day? I'm thinking a while. How many of those glue sticks would that require? I guess cost wasn't really an issue for Jacko, but these are the sorts of things I think about. And then I write them here.But really, if you were going to have a prosthetic nose, would you seriously choose any of the ones that he HAS had?! I don't think you would! Choose. You're telling me you'd CHOOSE that? You'd OPT for a nose that looked like a ski jump? No you wouldn't! And you wouldn't choose this one either! Behold!
Or this!
Or this!
Certainly not this!
This guy is like Mr. Potato Head - The Olfactory Edition
Here's the main reason I'm not so sure that I buy this account from the alleged witnesses. The body would go to the morgue after it had
croaked at the hospital. If you're not just a witness, but also an employee of said morgue, and if you had perhaps overheard on that day that the rumor was that Michael Jackson had died, would you NOT be taking your cell phone camera to work with you? They don't allow cell phones in that area of the morgue? Wouldn't you take a minute to think about how much money a photo like that would be worth? And then wouldn't you immediately be online, scouring Google and trying to find out where is the closest place that you can buy the smallest hidden camera possible and then scurry off to work with it? I'm thinking, unless you're one of those folks who WANTS to work in a morgue for the rest of their life, there'd be no reason for you to not take that course of action. There certainly wouldn't be much of an explicable reason as to why you'd NOT take a picture of something like that, but you WOULD chat with Rolling Stone for a bit and have them just write it up in their magazine. Did I mention that US Magazine paid $500,000 for that picture of Jacko in the ambulance? The one that they had on their cover? Yep. $500k. See my point? Screw Rolling Stone. Exactly.
croaked at the hospital. If you're not just a witness, but also an employee of said morgue, and if you had perhaps overheard on that day that the rumor was that Michael Jackson had died, would you NOT be taking your cell phone camera to work with you? They don't allow cell phones in that area of the morgue? Wouldn't you take a minute to think about how much money a photo like that would be worth? And then wouldn't you immediately be online, scouring Google and trying to find out where is the closest place that you can buy the smallest hidden camera possible and then scurry off to work with it? I'm thinking, unless you're one of those folks who WANTS to work in a morgue for the rest of their life, there'd be no reason for you to not take that course of action. There certainly wouldn't be much of an explicable reason as to why you'd NOT take a picture of something like that, but you WOULD chat with Rolling Stone for a bit and have them just write it up in their magazine. Did I mention that US Magazine paid $500,000 for that picture of Jacko in the ambulance? The one that they had on their cover? Yep. $500k. See my point? Screw Rolling Stone. Exactly. I don't know that we'll ever really know the answer to this one, and I certainly don't think that we necessarily need to. But I'm betting at least a couple of noses that this is all a bunch of crap and isn't true. Fun to speculate, but likely untrue. We can only hopel.
No comments:
Post a Comment