Posted on 02/23/2014 3:09:07 PM PST by butterdezillion
The photos of the Loretta Fuddy Cessna crash that Josh Lang provided to the media? They weren't of the same plane. The plane that crashed with Fuddy in it had a window between the door and the tail; Lang's photos don't. (I've got photos at my blog and in the first post I'll post them so you can compare the 2 planes)
Lang apparently had photos of a DIFFERENT plane ditching in the water and gave them to the media, claiming they were of this crash, and apparently the media didn't check out the genuineness of the photos...
Now why would Lang do that? Why would he post images of the area with no passengers or anything else in the water ANYWHERE, rather than taking photos of what was actually there and giving those to the media?
lol.
I gotta try that excuse on my husband. lol
I should be losing lots of weight today. I’ve been freezing all day.
I don’t know how those GoPro cameras work, but I imagine the images are stored digitally, there would be enough space on the chip to record for a very long time. He could have had that camera on for an hour or more couldn’t he?
And I notice that recent comments on the thread about the wreckage say nothing about the engine having been salvaged a week before the rest - am I remembering that correctly?
No, I’m concerned about Lang’s photo of the downed plane at a point in the shoreline that doesn’t look like ANY of the shoreline there on his other photo. The place where the rock is thinnest is still a wider band of rock than he shows on the image in question, AND has a sandy spot, not grass. After looking at the area around the airport and runway and seeing the rock and the sand that forces there to be rocks to reinforce the shoreline, that grass reached out and smacked me in the nose. Where on that shoreline could that even be?
Then I must be looking at the wrong picture. Can you please post the specific picture(s)?
Some have said they believe that Lang’s image shows a tail number with MA at the end. If you measure in the below photo you find that the letters are almost exactly as tall as the aft side of the back window, whereas the shadow in that area of the Lang photo is about half as tall as that end of the aft window. So if there were letters there that belonged to N687MA, the letters would have to be half in the shadow and half above the shadow. 
The sandy area to the left in the photo could be the end of the sandy area to the far right in his other photo, but that would still put the plane at a totally different location:
I think it's in the angles, at that distance and altitude in the top image, the grass just appears to be closer to the shore. Is that what you mean?
On the image that shows more of the shoreline, put a ruler perpendicular to the plane’s wings so you can see what would be in direct line of view for the plane. Take note of that terrain.
Then do the same thing with the other photo. Take note of that terrain.
Maybe the plane rotated in the ocean. Take your ruler and try a different angle on the photo with more shoreline showing. What angle could the plane be at and still have, in front of it, the particular terrain shown in the grassy photo?
I doubt if using a ruler would end up being conclusive, it looks to me like the aircraft isn’t facing in exactly the same direction in both images.
The plane has drifted.
Standby for picture.
The land features are matched by the red lines.
In that top picture in 327 you can see the beginning of the airstrip at 11 o’clock relative to the plane.
#627?
Yes, and I can see the sandy strip, only at an angle it appears to be longer. Not allowing for altitude and the fact that the aircraft has drifted somewhat does make the shoreline appear different. I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder. If you are a photographer or even an artist, what perspective does is more obvious.
Both images I posted show the airpstrip closest to the shore (beginning or end?)quite clearly.
627 yes. How’d that 3 sneak in there?
The water is moving, the waves are moving, the wind is pressing on the plane pushing it around, all of which can change, the tide goes up and down, the sun moves across the sky, the point of view of the photographer is different...things are going to look different - but it’s the same locale off Kalaupapa.
“an agency that is slow as molasses”
They exist.
Such as the VA.
Does the location of the Lang photos get a check-off so we can move on to other aspects of the incident?
You are using the term incorrectly. Posting on a blog is hardly evidence of a putsch.
putsch
noun
a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.
Origin:
1915–20; < German Putsch, orig. Swiss German: literally, violent blow, clash, shock; introduced in sense “coup” in standard German through Swiss popular uprisings of the 1830s, especially the Zurich revolt of Sept. 1839—dictionary.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.