Posted on 03/31/2014 10:55:40 AM PDT by ethical
Please see my post #26. I inadvertently used the pilot’s name when I intended to use Fuddy’s assistant’s name.
And I’m not saying that’s what happened or anything, just positing that one could consider the possibility among other possibilities.
At some point, one has to be purposefully blind to what is going on around US and to US and what it all leads to.
Purposeful blindness seems/feels much "easier" than admitting what one sees and then having to do something about it. None so blind...
On the other side, the disinformation agents likely will "win" a few more worldly victories in their short run only to be rewarded with everlasting consequences for their efforts.
Bad trade. They have chosen...poorly.
And to all that I would say, why not pick her up from her house in the middle of the night like they do with everyone else? Why ever not? Why your mad scheme involving hundreds to kidnap someone who isn’t even the subject of a legal dispute. You really are insane.
bfl
You’ve asked a ton of people that question and they’ve all given you a good answer: IT WOULD BE TOO OBVIOUS.
Also that’s not an answer to anything I said. That is an attempt to sidestep everything I said.
Actors and actresses willingly go into much more dangerous water situations. Why? Because they have people there to make sure nothing bad happens.
Just like we see IN THE VIDEO FOOTAGE of that water off Kalaupapa.
Why were those extra people there? You’re calling me crazy, and I’m the one with video taken by Puentes and aired by ABC SHOWING THE EXTRA PEOPLE THERE. I’ve got explanations for why they were there, why nobody was surprised to see them, and why everybody tried to hide their presence there.
You? You’ve got nothing but Alinsky smoke.
Too obvious for what?
And if you are going to bribe everyone anyway to keep quiet - why the need for a crash? There just isn’t one.
How many of those underwater scenes are filmed by first crashing an airplane to get the actors into the water?
What I can tell you is that for every passenger there, there was at least one “extra” who was closeby in the Puentes video. And the role of the “extras” - based on where and how they appear - seems to be making sure that the passenger stays afloat and safe.
It's been explained to you on prior threads that, even with a crew of frogmen in the water, it would be impossible to put the plane down exactly where they were. If you responded to those posts, I don't recall seeing it.
Do you have an explanation for why you're the only person in the world who can see all those extra people in that video?
Too obvious to pass as anything but an assassination.
There are stunt pilots. Actually, Josh Lang is a stunt pilot...
I did respond to those questions that were brought up but I can understand how you missed it, because for a while the threads about the issue were being sabotaged so that even people who wanted to hear the content couldn’t stomach the garbage.
Extra people could have been in the cargo area of the plane, exiting while Puentes had his hand over the camera lens, with that time later edited out - which would also explain why Hollstein said they waited in the plane for the plane to start to sink, and why the water was level with the plane floor by the time any of the videotaped people exited the plane.
In addition, Josh Lang’s photo of the plane close-up shows multiple blatant signs of photoshopping, meaning that his images of waters totally desolate were most likely not taken that day but were passed off as if they were. You don’t bother photoshopping unless you have a reason. Somebody’s hiding something about what was in the water that day.
Still trying to pin down details because there are blatant contradictions between the official reports from everybody who was there. Practically every detail that’s ever been claimed about this crash and rescue is contradicted by at least one other official source/report and often several sources. But it’s looking like Lang’s story is total BS for reasons I can’t yet state because I don’t want to jeopardize further information requests.
It’s looking like there was at least one aircraft that was right there when the crash happened and reported it immediately to the Honolulu Control Facility, which passed on the report to the USCG before Lang claims to have known anything about the crash. Depending on what aircraft that was, it would have been VERY easy for that aircraft to drop people and equipment into the water as soon as the Cessna ditched.
Your comment reminds me of the media person who didn’t understand how Reagan could win an election, when he didn’t personally know ANYBODY who had voted for him.
Trust me, I am not the only person who sees the extra people there. If you don’t know anybody who sees them, then maybe you’re hanging around people whose vision is impaired.
If you don’t know anybody who sees them, then maybe you’re hanging around people whose vision is impaired.
Sez the woman who looked right at a standard casket and drew weird lines on it to convert it to the first in existence tiered casket. Hahahahaha!
Hello butter.
They didn’t have a body. That’s why the autopsy report reads like fiction.
No she wasn’t - it was proven to everyone’s saisfaction except butters that they were the same plane - she just keeps doing image analysis in programmes that are unsuitable and getting erroneous results. But that being pointed out to her never shakes her faith in her theory. Odd.
Orly Taitz asked to see the report for herself and they won’t give it to her.She should pay the $5 then, just like everyone else. Shall I order a copy and send it to her, if she's so cheapskate?
They DID give it to the media shills that have already committed ridiculous measures to cover on this - including highly editing the Puentes video to hide what happened, pixelating those videos as soon as they found out somebody was looking more closely at them, and photoshopping still photos to make a couple of 4 (IIRC) frame “videos” from the funeral.Citation needed. Documents, audio, or video of someone confessing this preferred. Make your sources good.
Does it bother you that they will only let their accomplices see the actual autopsy? $5 is below the amount that is routinely waived in UIPA requestsNo, because I don't believe fees should be waived for any reason. Everyone should pay. That's capitalism at it's finest. You want the info, you pay the 5 bucks. That's spit money. You spend more than that getting coffee.
If those are the ways to diagnost ventricular arrhythmia, then wouldn’t you expect the autopsy to talk about that rather than about Fuddy seeming afraid?I would expect the autopsy report itself to do so, yes.
Adrenaline levels. Enzymes. Yeah, that’s the kind of evidence a person would expect in an autopsy. Medical history. That’s what we need to see.Then order the autopsy report yourself. There's nothing stopping you.
The fact that the autopsy included all these apologetics to try to show that their finding was plausible - for the media to have anything to report like that - is problematic.Only if you assume that's not what they found and they're completely lying. I have no reason to do so.
This is the acting coroner - the guy who was supposed to have all the official reports and have the real scoop on what happened, as well as the medical records, etc. And he was claiming that the body had been trapped in the fuselage.You forget the "instant news" problem that exists today. You cannot trust any news you get in the first 48 hours. It's all hearsay, nothing will have been confirmed - mainly because there's no way to confirm it in that short of a time. And that's where all this conspiracy stuff comes in - trusting news soundbites that are done to earn a buck before confirmation has been done, instead of waiting for all the data to come in. Rushing to conclusions.
So within 4 minutes they went from one critical to one dead, and all 8 others were non-critical. Tell me who that “critical” person was....etc, etc, etc.What does Occam's Razor tell you? What happens when you apply the principle of parsinomy. Occam's Razor says they were in the midst of things, they were operating without a view of the whole situation. Occam's Razor says that medically a person, even one who has just died, is considered in "critical condition" if they are possibly able to be revived and that you only call dead when you're sure revivification is impossible.
Add to all that the fact that during the time that the Maui County police chief was trying to come up with a cause of death for Fuddy, Michelle Obama suddenly decided she was going to hang out in Maui with Oprah - together with some newsbabe, Valerie “our enemies will pay” Jarrett, and Mrs. Eric “I will protect MY people” HolderAs much as I hate the current administration, correlation is not causation. You need some proof to make that stick. Speculation don't cut the mustard.
WAY, WAY more to this autopsy than meets the eye.Then indict. That will convince me. Especially when I get a chance to peruse the evidentiary record myself.
"Impossible"? As a student pilot in high school, I won a medal in the school's annual spot landing contest, where the goal is to land the plane as close to a designated spot as possible with the power cut, simulating your losing your engine.
We've been at war for a very long time and there are all sorts of very well trained ex-military with very specialized skills and all sorts of specialized equipment.
It's very hard to say with certainty what is impossible within the circumstances you cite.
The door shadow is fabricated.
There is “turbulence” that seeps into the strobe light on the right tailpiece that isn’t even in the water.
There is a lip that protrudes above the windows, when Puentes’ video shows no lip.
The bump on top of the plane is crooked with the rest of the plane.
The water is lighter around the contours of Lang’s plane - not something you’d see in the real water but something you WOULD see if the water was photoshopped into a photo with Lang’s wing showing.
Those are all phenomena that don’t depend on a person using anything but open eyes.
If the plane was sabotaged, "they" could bring the plane down to them, wherever "they" were along its known flight path.
The pilot wouldn't have to be involved in that sort of conspiracy at all, but just simply fly the suddenly crippled airplane to a slow, safe water landing, (an airplane designed to fly and land slowly safely, btw), which he did.
All were relatively unscathed in the ditching and didn't one swim to shore?
It's funny. People believe in "man caused global climate change" but won't accept the possibility this could have been a very timely hit to remove a potentially compromising individual whose knowledge could threaten the POTUS and his/their plans for US?
Yeah, sure, okay, that sounds right, makes sense to me.
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.