u/thescariestghost

The 1997 leaked autopsy image was hotly debated over the past 29 years. Tupac's apparently missing Makaveli neck Tattoo was a smoking gun for some who said "this isn't real".

The new images recently released prove the fact that the 1997 image is genuinely Tupac on the coroners table ...at least partially. The suturing on the chest, the plastic tubing across his collarbone match between the photos perfectly. There is no doubt the official coroners photos and the "unofficial" leak are both of Tupac.

However, as some others have pointed out, an anomaly exists. In the official photos, he has hair. In the 1997 leak, he's bald.

Either, the coroner shaved his head (which according to all sources I can find isn't something normally done) or the 1997 photo was partially edited by persons unknown.

Why would it be edited? Looking at the new photos, that becomes clearer now. Tupac didn't look like Tupac anymore. He was swollen and had grew (a reasonably significant amount of) hair. Other than the tattoos, you could say that was anyone. A hypothesis recently floated is that someone in the chain of custody of that photo chose to edit the 1997 image to increase the saleability of the image.

It also gives a clue as to who actually took this image. Only a certain amount of people had access to Tupac, some policemen did and they even took photographs to be used in a training book (which was promptly destroyed). I find this so disgusting that I can barely stay within the rules of the sub when discussing this.

Somehow, the mystery photographer managed to come prepared with a camera (not small in 1997) and happened to be left alone between stages of Tupac's autopsy happening. All very convenient for someone willing to sink so low as to take an image like this and pass it on for publishing.

What do you think, is the 1997 image entirely authentic or retouched? How did the grim photographer get so lucky?

It was now confirmed under oath that Tupac's last words (that we currently know of) was something to the effect that "we'll take care of it". This is somewhat in conflict with Chris Carroll's account that he could barely speak and mustered just enough strength to utter "fuck you". It makes me wonder why Tupac told Chris Carroll "fuck you" yet wasnt combative with the other officer who travelled in the ambulance with Tupac and Suge. Nevertheless, I see a lot of comments arising that "it's sad that they never did take care of it", is that really true?

Well ...someone sure tried a bunch of times to "take care of it".

What a lot of people don't know is that Orlando Anderson was ambushed with an AK47, shot multiple times and barely escaped with his life. Even being confined to a wheelchair for some time.

In the immediate aftermath of Tupac's killing, Police described the volume of violence in Compton as "10 Days of Hell" with multiple people shot and killed. Within 12 hours of the initial attack five people were shot in Compton with investigators linking it as directly related to the Vegas shooting.

This isn't to glorify the violence in any way, it's very sad and has destroyed thousands of lives. However it is important to separate fact from fiction and to say that nobody attempted retaliation is simply wrong.

An image of Tupac Shakur dead was released as far back as 1998. With more images due to be released and the public appetite for images like this at an all time high - I think it's important to really remember who Tupac was in life.

He was different things to different people. Some love him, some hate him. Some chose to take pieces of his story and weave him a particular way but I thought I'd take a minute to reflect on who he was to me.

Tupac is every bit as iconic as James Dean, Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe. In my opinion he was the last true superstar of that calibre. He was entirely unique in that his story is undeniable, he rose from the womb of a Black Panther fighting for her freedom and burst into the world stage in arguably the best time period for rap music. The competition was huge at that time. He was a Hollywood Movie star, dated Madonna, modelled for Versace and survived multiple attempts on his life. He shot two off duty police in defence of a motorist. He was sued by politicians. Incarcerated for a crime that under scrutiny doesn't seem to hold up. He was beaten by police and successfully won a case against them. Behind the scenes he took actions that showed just how kind hearted he was - once hearing about a young girl that had been attacked by a Pitbull and needed surgery, he instructed his driver to go to the hospital, paid her bills and stayed in contact with her until his death.

To me, death haunted Tupac. He knew. He faced it like nobody I've ever seen before. His music touched souls across the planet and in his lifetime he went 4 times platinum. He died 30 years ago. He was only 25 years old. His debut album was released in 1991, he died in 1996 and spent 11 months in prison. The body of work he created in that time is unsurpassable. His music is deep and spiritual. He's the blueprint for most of what came after, from the chains and tattoos to the attitude and fashions.

The word Legend is banded about far too often but Tupac Amaru Shakur was a legend. He will always be. His place is cemented in history and it's likely he will never really be forgotten 👑

What does he mean to you?

So these are just my thoughts, not saying anyone's opinion is wrong. I just read a few comments about Andrew "staging" his return home possibly to "buy more time" and I was thinking about it for a while and the more I thought of it, the less sense it seemed to make. The general thought seems to be that he posed his clothes in the wash etc to make it look like he had returned home from school.

The reasons I think that doesn't translate to reality are:

1. Before Andrew was even on the train, the school made an attempt to call his parents (that sadly didn't go to the right number). Andrew would have had to consider this was a possibility. The first place the parents would check would be at home, finding his clothes and know he returned and most likely changed.

2. Andrew was already in London by midday. His parents weren't home for hours after this. What time did this actually "buy" him?

3. Why would Andrew have assumed they would check the washing machine for his blazer before they checked the house for him? It seems difficult to imagine he done this for any other reason than simple routine.

4. The day he left must have had some sort of significance for him. If he just wanted a random adventure or to even disappear forever, he could have constructed a story and left at the weekend that would have given him a lot more freedom to carry out his plans. I think the fact he did return to change his clothes gives more weight to that. Why give himself the extra burden of returning to change if it wasn't necessary that particular day?

What are your thoughts on that?

For me, there's a few ones.

1. His return home. Why walk to the park then home again. Why not just pack the clothes he wore to London to begin with, why risk being seen by neighbours not in the uniform leaving the house again? What really motivated his return and set this all off? What was he going to were the uniform was unsuitable to even bring?

2. The money withdrawal. That's another really odd one for me. Why withdraw all the money in the bank but leave cash at home? Was the money in the bank "enough" for whatever his plan was?

3. The PSP charger. People seem to use this as an indicator that he took his own life, as he "didn't need to play the PSP anymore". Apparently PSP's could hold 4 to 6 hours charge in them. The trip to London took a little under 2 hours. Which makes me believe that if he intended only to use the PSP on the trains, then he wouldn't have needed a charger as the battery would have lasted the entire round journey. So I think that's a bit of a red herring.

4. He stopped going to church and stopped going to scouts. He's described again and again as a "homebody" and someone quiet who liked his own company. These are the reasons often given for why he stopped attending the church and scouts. Yet, of all places he decided to travel to London. He did have family there. It's a big city with multiple things on some people believe he attended. Those things seem to contradict themselves though, at least partially.

5. The missing phones. In 2007 I think phones were very much a novelty, especially maybe for someone who wasn't incredibly social. Yet, Andrew seemed to "lose" multiple without explanation. He never lost his PSP. To me that's a massive piece of the puzzle, Im not sure if the police ever managed to recover any logs from those phones. If I was 14 and didn't want parents checking my phone then I would simply claim I didn't have it. You could easily buy a phone top up for about £10 and be in communication with people. Those walks home rather than bus journeys could have offset the price of top ups that his parents would have no clue about. What really happened to those phones? Was that the reason he really had to go home, to get a hidden phone? It seems a big risk to change clothes at all.

6. His tiredness and mood on the morning of his disappearance. It was described was "out of the ordinary", from what I understand. What would cause him to be so tired that it's noticeably out of the ordinary. I guess being up late, but with what? People might say "planning" but it doesn't seem to have come with much of a plan. I think something happened that kept him awake. Whatever that "thing" is, it's also part of the reason he disappeared.

What things do you think that hold the key to this whole sad event?

Firstly, this isn't about politics or migration or anything like this. It's just purely about the state of the city.

I live in the city centre. Have done for many years.

Glasgow has always had its ups and downs. The decay I've witnessed in the past 12 months being on the frontline is absolutely appalling. Covid obviously has sped things along a bit but I've travelled to a few UK cities and don't see things quite as bad as they are here.

I could dive into a huge list of stuff but why bother. If you visit for a few hours then I'm sure it might be fine but living here, is a different story.

What's actually in town anymore for people?

I tried to question this before and got called racist. Not sure how it's racist to not want heavy silent bikes racing through pedestrianised pavements weaving through children.

Why do you think we just accept this? To say there's no problem is pretty crazy as it's obviously a massive problem for anyone to try and navigate the pavements at this point.

Yes yes I know we all have "bigger problems" but when you see a pregnant woman come inches of being hit it makes you wonder why we've just accepted it as normal

I've spent 20+ years following UFO/UAP stories. Ive trawled through hundreds of documents. I've watched just about every single documentary I could find on the subject.

The more time goes on, the more I can't help but think that no evidence has ever been presented that actually makes me think "Okay, this is it".

Footage is always blurry, "mistakes" (at best) are regularly made by experts. The stories from "officials" always seem to be padded with caveats like "I was informed by a high ranking insider..." or the new one is "If people knew the truth nobody would sleep at night".

People are entitled to believe what they want but at some point, they either have to display something that explains all of this noise about "UAPs" or not. To me, I think I can finally take a deep breath and accept this for what it is, nothing.

World governments aren't exactly the most competent of organisations. How could they collectively work at hiding the biggest secret mankind has ever known? They can't. They don't. They perpetuate the narrative of it existing.

No I'm not a bot, CIA or bad actor. I think the real conspiracy is why do they want us to believe this stuff? What's the plan here?

I was a fan for a long time, I went to his "cut and run" thing multiple times and kind of fell for the whole shtick for years.

However, in recent times I can't help but acknowledge an apparent hypocrisy that exists in the sphere of "Banksy":

1. The message is often anti-establishment/anti-police state

Yet, apparently a sizeable profit is made by authenticating his artwork. Essentially taking a policing/authoritarian stance on work that is by default supposed to be for the public. Some people have pointed out that this is so others can't profit from counterfeit work, rightly so but why would someone so anti-capitalist choose to make a profit from authentication ...why not do it free?

2. Consumerism

A few of his art pieces decry the consumerist nature of society (Exit through the gift shop is another narrative against consumerism). Yet, merchandise was available at Cut And Run and not particularly cheap. To me that's contradictory.

3. The Anti-Capitalist rhetoric doesn't actually hold up

The biggest stunt I remember was the shredding of the artwork in the auction house. Touted as being a genius rejection of the auction and the profit from his work. Yet, it actually increased in value and drew huge attention to the auction making the piece worth even more.

I could go on and on. These points are based on my own personal opinion and formed due to the information available. It could be the entire thing is misunderstood but I can't help but feel a shadowy, middle aged multi-millionaire from an affluent background masquerading as a political and societal commentator through graffiti ...doesn't quite hold up to the aura that was constructed around him.