All you wanted to know ABOUT IT but were afraid to ask. Part 1. Circumcison or erection?



  by Helena on vindicatemj.wordpress.com



Americans seem to be grossly underestimating the importance of Jordan Chandler´s big mistake — he described Michael as circumcised while in reality he was NOT. I racked my brains about “Why they don´t understand the crucial importance of it?” until I came across a medical site which explained that the overwhelming majority of American men were circumcised.

So this is the answer… Males (and females) in the US have practically never seen what non-circumcision is like and don´t know the difference. And probably think that the matter is as minor as the eyelashes just being longer than usual. No, dear me, it is MUCH MORE than that…

Let me explain.

Is it possible to mistake someone with a scarf on the head for a person whose head is bare?

Will you be able to still see the difference if the scarf is the same color as the hair?

Well, if you can´t see it — will you still feel it if your hand touches it?

See what I mean?


The medical site I visited explains the difference in the following way (I KNOW it is no pleasure to read it, but just imagine that Michael had to go through this for some 15 years of his life and it will make things easier for you):

“The fold of skin (the ´foreskin´) covers the head (glans) of the penis. The amount of it may be so considerable that it may droop down from the end of an un-erect penis. Thus in some men, during erection, the head of the penis peeks out from the loose foreskin that surrounds it. But in men with a lot of foreskin the head of the penis remains covered, either partially or completely.

A questionnaire-based survey conducted in Sydney, Australia found that among men with a foreskin, in 67% the extra foreskin was hanging off the end, in 15% it just covered the glans, in another 15% it half covered the gland and in 4% of the glans was bare.

In the erect sate these numbers were 15% extra skin, 22% still covered, 32% half covered and 41% glans bare.

Racial differences exist. For example, in Malaysia, New Guinea, Sri Lanka and southern India the foreskin is very long and ends in a narrow extension that acts like a muzzle. A shorter foreskin is seen in Whites of the northern Mediterranean and many Asians (Chinese and Japanese).

In uncircumcised males the head of the penis is pink. This becomes more apparent when the head of the penis emerges during an erection, giving the overall penis a “two-toned” look”.
What is Circumcision?

Further detail is provided by a professional in medicine:

“In Black males the color of the glans penis is lighter but more of a brown not pink color. [With both White and Black males] the glans becomes darker following circumcision due to the keratization of the skin. The glans penis loses its natural lubrication and the skin becomes “toughened” because of this. When erect the foreskin does slide back to make the glans penis more visible. The foreskin slides back unwrinkled to approximately midshaft so it moves during intercourse to help stimulate the male and the female”.

So non-circumcision is something definitely different in color and texture, and in movement of the skin too? IMPRESSIVE PICTURE, isn´t it? Something which is impossible NOT TO NOTICE once you see it? Something to be NEVER FORGOTTEN after you see it? Especially by a boy who is probably circumcised himself and who is not used to seeing things like that with his father being Jewish?

Well, a woman who saw the non-circumcised state for the first time described her impressions this way: “The first time I ever touched an uncircumcised man I nearly jumped out of my skin. The only possible way you can mistake an uncircumcised erect penis for a circumcised one would be if you never saw it and never touched it… In other words if you´re lying!”

Yes, JORDAN CHANDLER WAS LYING. He never saw the ´real thing´ and made a GUESS about Michael Jackson´s private parts which turned out to be WRONG. This settles the matter once and for all, making all those Jordan´s horror stories about Michael an invention of someone´s perverse mind or the result of the schooling the boy got from some ´adult´ books, magazines or films.

CASE CLOSED.

´Wait, but can erection be taken for circumcision?´
, some haters still doubt. The answer is NO, unless the man has an erection 24 hours a day, has virtually no foreskin (which doesn´t move though it should) and the color of his glans is no lighter and the surface of it is no more tender than the rest of the skin. You don´t know what the surface of the glans is like? Same as the inside of your mouth — this is what it´s like. Is the feel of it the same as that of the outside of your cheek? NOW you see?

´But could Michael have an operation to restore his foreskin when he was treated in Europe sometime between November 11 and December 20, 1993?´ the haters insist. Tom Sneddon, the Santa Barabara District Attorney, also thought along the same lines and confiscated Michael´s medical records soon after Jordan spoke to the police. This is how Lisa D.Campbell describes it in her book “Michael Jackson: The King of Pop´s Darkest Hour, 1994: Michael Jackson: The King of Pop´s Darkest Hour

“On November 26, the Los Angeles Police Department raided the offices of Michael Jackson´s dermatologist, Dr. Klein, and his plastic surgeon, Dr. Steve Hoefflin. They hoped to compare information, or photos, contained in the files with the description of Michael´s body Jordan had given to police. They confiscated Michael´s medical records but did not reveal what they contained. But apparently they did not contain the information they were looking for as a warrant for a body search was obtained for Michael Jackson” (which took place on Dec.20, 1993).

In March 1994 (2 months after the financial settlement was reached) the criminal investigation was still going on. “Katherine Jackson having been subpoenaed two days earlier, testified before the grand jury in Los Angeles on March 17. She was reportedly questioned about Michael´s appearance in an attempt to determine if Michael had altered his appearance so it wouldn´t match the description his accuser had given to police”.

Tom Sneddon evidently suspected that Michael had undergone cosmetic surgery while he was out of the country for four weeks in late November-December 1993 and that is why he later raised the question again by filing a motion in court to obtain Michael´s medical records — evidently the very latest ones. This was denied following the request of Michael´s lawyers who wanted to save him from further humiliation.

Well, today we can pass the final judgment on this issue — the CORONER´S REPORT not only confirmed that Michael Jackson was not circumcised, but it said that the 13 various scars found on his body did not include any scar on his foreskin or whatever… He was just the way mother nature made him and that´s that.

Oh, one more important point.

District Attorney Tom Sneddon KNEW that the match was NOT ACCURATE — otherwise he wouldn´t have looked into the medical records to check whether Michael had undergone any surgical or bleaching changes, wouldn´t he?



Thank you Helena for your generosity sharing your investigation!








TOP