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?
If you say so!
The more I have thought about the VA since your comment, the sadder I am about the treatment of our Veterans by the hacks in this agency.
I can see the static wicks in the Lang photo. And there appear to be two antennas with the second one obscured by the water turbulence.
The third bump in the Puentes photo appears to me to be the tip of the left wing. The second bump in the Lang photo is hidden in the shadow of the door.
The lettering on the Lang photo is impossible to judge as the bright sunlight reflecting off the plane surface has washed them out.
>> You haven’t addressed my photos.
You’ve done good work in the past. But now you’re being a lunatic.
Yes, I’m fully aware of it. Just try and get the conspiracy proponents to pay any attention to it and acknowledge it when it is read. Don’t forget the denial the Cessna in the image with Lan’gs aircraft and the survivors is even there, despite being right there in plain sight.
Is this one of them?
I posted photos of the wicks sticking out on top.
Where did you get that photo from?
I’m disappointed. I thought you knew me better than that. And I thought I knew you better than that.
It won’t let me log in with facebook. The progress wheel keeps spinning but the computer isn’t doing anything.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/video-final-moments-of-official-in-obama-birth-mystery/
Each wing has four wicks (Cessna parts manual).
If one got bent over (by passenger scrambling along the wing?) could others also have gotten bent? I think you can make out one possible two on the right wing in the Lang photo.
How flexible are they?
How many static wicks do you see in this picture?
there are some with and some without...they must be underwater where you can't see them in your image...
I don’t see any, but the passengers are in the way so it’s comparing apples and oranges.
Or the passengers pushed them down and out of the way. If you we’re holding onto a wing for dear life and a stick was poking you, would you move it out of the way?
I understand why it is important for you to discredit Mr. Lang. His timeline kills your conspiracy theory.
The more I look at Lang’s image, the more I think it’s a poorly-done photoshop. Way too much stuff that doesn’t add up.
For instance,
The bump on top isn’t square with the rest of the plane, its shadow is at a different angle than either the open door or the registration letters (so we’ve got at least 3 different shadow angles that I can see), and it is in the wrong place for how the 2 bumps are supposed to fall. So it’s not even just a matter of the 2nd bump not showing - not only does the 2nd bump not show, the bump that does show is in the wrong place.
The bump where the tail attaches is not centered.
The “turbulence” spills over onto parts of the plane that aren’t supposed to be in the water: on the plane’s left side where the tail attaches, there is what is supposed to be shadow but as it approaches the horizontal part of the tail (which is supposed to be sticking up out of the water) the shadow gradually evolves into “turbulence like somebody C&P’ed a patch of “turbulence” there and wasn’t sure when to have the shadow end and the “turbulence” begin. On the plane’s right tailpiece, where the cylindrical shape at the end is (strobe light?), the “turbulence” creeps into the cylindrical shape there.
There is a very square patch of turbulence that aligns with the dark strip on the vertical part of the tailpiece, even though there would be nothing there to cause that turbulence. I printed this photo out so I could do some measuring and it immediately leaped out at me how square the “turbulence” is there.
On the left side of the fuselage, to the aft of the wing, there is a rounded lip as if to make a contour around the window frame, but on Puentes’ photos it is perfectly smooth - no lip at all. And a rounded line in the equivalent place on the right side is also there.
The cabin of the plane just disappears suddenly after the wings which are clear as can be. There’s a blur after a bit but if you trace the body of the plane there is a place where there is the very clear wing, followed by nothing, followed by haze that is supposed to be the submerged nose. There’s not a gradual fading of the clarity because of the water’s depth; there is a sudden spot where there’s nothing.
The 3 black dots between the window and the door are odd, and the front one of those actually falls where the frame of the window should be.
There is shadow on the sun side of where the tailpiece attaches to the body of the plane, on the plane’s right side. The only thing that could possibly make that shadow is the plane’s right side of the horizontal tailpiece but in order for that to make that shadow the sun would have to be lower on the horizon than that horizontal tailpiece - a very difficult thing to do given that the “turbulence” reaches into the end piece of that horizontal tailpiece. And according to the NTSB the plane sank after 25 minutes, so before 4pm. The Puentes video shows a sun high in the sky rather than low on the horizon.
I’ll post the image here so everybody can look at what I’m talking about but it’s going to take a bit of maneuvering so it’ll have to wait until tomorrow. I’m tired and I don’t want to have to type this over again.
Truth does not disappoint.
I have no need to discredit Lang, and the discrepancies between his story, Mark Miller’s story, and Puentes’ story already raise questions.
Who was the 6th plane?
Were the victims on the plane’s wing when they spotted Lang, or were they 3 minutes’ drift away from the plane? When did the navy helicopter appear, why did it appear, and why do Lang’s and Miller’s stories differ on those points? Helicopters don’t do touch-and-goes; planes do, and the only plane there was Lang’s (as far as we know anyway...). If Lang was swooping up and down so low that Miller mistook it for a navy plane doing touch and goes, why didn’t it get on any of Puentes’ video?
How big are the navy planes that do touch and goes? The navy was trying to negotiate so that they could use the Kalaupapa runway more but was refused by the DOH. Still, Miller would have seen some of those planes - not helicopters - doing those drills and would have known what they looked like. Lang’s plane has a smiley face on the front of it; Miller would not have mistaken it for a navy plane. Was Lang flying a different plane - a bigger plane, or maybe even a navy plane?
Or was there a navy plane (not helicopter) that was swooping low to the water - maybe that being the 6th plane that the USCG included in the tally when they said that the rescue was made more difficult because there were at least 6 planes in the air at a time during the rescue? If there was a navy plane swooping up and down like that why was Miller the only one who mentioned it? Why did none of all this hubbub of activity make it into anybody’s accounts or Puentes’ video?
They could have had the Spanish Armada there without anybody telling about it, based on the stuff that somehow never made it onto Puentes’ video or into the survivors’ stories...
Why would a navy helicopter have been there? And we know it was because there’s a photo of it. Miller’s claim of “touch and goes” doesn’t work for a helicopter, so why WAS that helicopter there?
Helicopters are how the USCG drops divers into the water. If there was a helicopter there dropping low it could easily have been used to deliver “extra people” to the scene. But if it did so to rescue people, then why didn’t they rescue anybody, and why didn’t anybody say anything about it?
Other pilots who reported to the news media said that if Lang hadn’t been there when he was, that plane crash might not have been found until after dark. That seems like an incredible claim to me, given that the crash was in full view of the shore at a time when the airport was supposed to be open AND given that the custom is for people to see the flights of their loved ones off. In fact, they are arguing over how to house their fire truck without blocking the view of the planes taking off because that is the custom there. Yet 2 minutes after this Cessna took off it went down and nobody on Kalaupapa was there to see it? Yet somebody from Oahu just happened, by sheer luck, to be there, to call in for clearance they didn’t need from the tower, to hear a faint ELT, and locate the crash just like that.
Somebody very well-connected to the Obama political machine, I might add. But that’s another story.
No, I don’t need to make anything up for this story to smell to high heaven. It already does, no thanks to me.
Stop. Please.
Truth doesn’t stop just because it’s uncomfortable.
Look at the photo in Fred’s post (692) - how many bumps do you see on the plane?
One by the tail and one right of the door. Same as the Lang photo.
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.