Josh Lang's Photos of the Fuddy Crash Are Not the Same Plane

Butterdezillion's Blog ^ | 2-23-14 | Butterdezillion

[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?

[little jeremiah]

LOL!

Resemblance:

Zero and Subuk both have 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 eyes, 1 nose, 1 mouth and 1 head.

And they’re both male and not very pale skinned

Resemblance over.

[Huskerfan44]

“What we need in this country is less turnout, not more.”
Does that include the dead, illegals, multiple voters, etc.?

[Nero Germanicus]

Barack Obama Senior acknowledged paternity via allowing his name to be on the birth certificate; through Senior’s student visa filings with the INS; in the Honolulu newspaper birth notices; via acknowledging paternity in the Dunham-Obama divorce decree; in having the child visit with Senior’s family in Kenya; and he is the only father seen in photographs hugging the son when the son was a child.

Both Barack Obama II and the media have plausible deniability based on years worth of self-acknowledged evidence of paternity by B.O. Senior.

[WhiskeyX]

“How can these be photos of the same event?”

You are mistaken in your assumption about when the Lang photographs were maade in relation to the ditching of the aircraft and the survivors evacuating into the sea, and you are mistaken in your conclusion that the survivors had to be within the area framed by the Lang photographs or video.

The Cessna takeoff occurred about 1520 Hours local time, and the aircraft ditched within a few minutes. It can be assumed the 8 passengers and 1 pilot had evacuated the aircraft into the sea sometime about 1525 Hours, give or take a couple of minutes.

The Lang aircraft was notified by the air traffic controller about the ELT emergency transmissions from the Cessna at about 1530 Hours. The lang aircraft overflew the ditched Cessna and then the survivors about five minutes after being alerted to the crash by the air trafic controllers. So, the Lang aircraft would have been overflying the Cessna and survivors in the sea sometime around the 1530 to 1535 timeframe.

The Lang aircraft left the crash scene to seek rescue assistance by landing at the nearby airport, but found no one around to help get assistance to the survivors. After takeoff the lang aircraft returned to the crash scene to maintain visual contact with the survivors.

At the moment I am not informed as to which of the two occasions the lang aircraft made the photographs of the Cessna in the sea, before or after going to the airport to seek assistance. If the photographs or video were made after the return to the crash scene, then the timeframe would have been long after 1535 Hours and before the arrival of the U.S. Coast Guard rescue helicopters at about 1630 Hours. For the sake of discussion, assume the Lang aircraft would not have returned to the crash scene and began photographing or video recording the scene any earlier than 15 minutes to a half hour after 1535 Hours, or 1550 to 1605 Hours.

Given the above assumptions, the first opportunity to produce the Lang imagery may have been sometime around 1530 to 1540 Hours. The second opportunity to produce the Lang imagery may have been about 1550 or 1605 Hours to about 1630 Hours.

Wind speed at the time of the crash was 14-17mph gusting to 27-30mph. Surface sea current speeds in the Pacific Ocean in the regions a few hundred miles around the Hawaiian Islands average over over long time scales at about one-third knot to one-hald knot. Surface sea current speeds in the channels between the Hawaiian Islands and near island shorelines often considerably exceed speeds farther out in the Pacific Ocean. If for the sake of computing convenience we assume the speed of a current is 1 knot or one nautical mile per hour, you take the 6,000 feet per nautical mile and divide the 6,000 feet by the 60 minutes in one hour to get a speed of 100 feet per minute. So, then it follows that a current speed of one-half knot is equal to a speed of 50 feet per minute, and a current speed of one-third knot is equal to a speed of 33.3 feet per minute.

So, how far could the current have caused the survivors in the sea to drift after evacuating the aircraft? According to the reports, the survivors were variously picked up at distances of about one-half mile (3,000 feet) to one mile westwards (6,000 feet) from the aircraft crash site at about 1630 Hours or later. This indicates the survivors drifted with the current for about one hour at speeds of about one-half knot to one knot or about 50 feet to 100 feet per minute.

The time that elapsed between the time the survivors evacuated the Cessna to when there was a first opportunity to produce the lang imagery would have been somewhere about 5 to 10 minutes at the very least. In the period of five minutes the survivors would then have drifted 5 times 50 feet per minute to 5 time 100 feet per minute, or 250 to 500 feet at the very least. If the Lang imagery was taken at 1545 hours, the survivors could have drifted 20 minutes or 20 times 50 feet per minute or 20 times 100 feet per minute, which is 1,000 to 2,000 feet from the aircraft crash site.

If the Lang imagery was taken on the second opportunity after returning to the scene of the mishap, then 30 to 70 minutes could have elapsed before the imagery was produced. That would indicate the survivors could have drifted with the current a distance of 1,500 to 7,000 feet from the crash site.

Absent from these calculations is the distance in which the partially submerged Cessna also drifted away from the crash site before being captured in the Lang imagery. In any event the evidence indicates the survivors had to have drifted well beyond the few hundred feet surrounding the Cessna within only 5 to 10 minutes after leaving the aircraft, which was before the Lang aircraft arrived on the scene and began producing the imagery.

[Fred Nerks]

Barack Obama Senior acknowledged paternity via allowing his name to be on the birth certificate; IT’S A FAKE through Senior’s student visa filings with the INS;WHAT’S WRITTEN THERE ISN’T IN HIS HANDWRITING in the Honolulu newspaper birth notices; WHICH STATE MRS AND MRS OBAMA AT AN ADDRESS WHERE NEITHER OF THEM LIVED via acknowledging paternity in the Dunham-Obama divorce decree; THAT’S HOW SHE GOT CUSTODY OF A CHILD THAT WAS NEITHER HIS NOR HERS in having the child visit with Senior’s family in Kenya; KENYA NEWSPAPERS OF THE PERIOD HAVE HIM THERE IN 1983 AFTER THE OLD MAN WAS ALREADY DEAD and he is the only father seen in photographs hugging the son when the son was a child. SHOW ME.

Both Barack Obama II and the media have plausible deniability based on years worth of self-acknowledged evidence of paternity by B.O. Senior. NO THEY DON’T.

[4Zoltan]

According to Lang the first rescue helicopter arrived about 15 minutes after the plane sank from view. The plane reportedly floated for 25 minutes after the crash. So the first recue copter arrived a little after 4:00 p.m. And Lang stayed around until the second rescue helicopter arrived at 4:30. According to the preliminary NTSB report the rescue operations were finished within 80 minutes.

“All the passengers put on their life preservers and exited the airplane. US Coast Guard and Maui Fire and Rescue personnel recovered the passengers approximately 80
minutes later.”

[butterdezillion]

YOu don’t get it. This has nothing to do with the time on the clock. The submersion of the plane had a specific order in which the various parts of the plane went under. As of when the Puentes photo was taken with Fuddy and Yamamoto close to the door, the 2 windows between the wing and the door were already submerged. Lang’s photo was taken before those were fully submerged.

Doesn’t matter what time on the clock; unless those windows came up out of the water again, Lang’s photos had to be before Puentes’. What would have lifted those windows out of the water? That is the question that only one person has tried to answer - by saying that people standing on the steps (after the Fuddy and Yamamoto photo was taken) were heavy enough to upend the whole rest of the plane so that it created a different fulcrum than the normal center of gravity which is right around the wings.

I don’t think so.... Contrary to what people would like to say about me, I don’t think that any of the passengers were large enough tip a waterlogged, half-submerged plane back up out of the water. Do you think they were?

[Fred Nerks]

The submersion of the plane had a specific order in which the various parts of the plane went under. As of when the Puentes photo was taken with Fuddy and Yamamoto close to the door, the 2 windows between the wing and the door were already submerged. Lang’s photo was taken before those were fully submerged.

The above image seems to be the first time we see the aircraft in the water. After this, the pilot Josh returned to the airfield to seek help, finding no one there, he returned to the scene and by the time he flew over the striken plane again, this is what he photographed:

Meanwhile, in the water, some of the survivors are making their way to the wing while the plane is slowly going down, nose first because that's where it's the heaviest:

In the above it looks like Fuddy isn't out of the aircraft yet, and Yamamoto is waiting for her on or near the steps.

Now she's out, the passengers have made their way to the wing, and the two windows near the wing are submerged.

The difficulty appears to be in trying to establish just where the passengers were when Josh took the second photograph. It looks like they had drifted a considerable distance before the aircraft actually sank.

And so they had, see how far Puentes is from the aircraft now? If that's about the amount of time it took for Josh to return to the airfield, find no one there, get back into his aircraft, taxi down the runway, take off, fly back to the scene, the passengers would have been that far from the sinking plane.

[WhiskeyX]

“YOu don’t get it.”

No, it is yourself who “don’t get it.”

“This has nothing to do with the time on the clock.”

Either it has everything to do with the “time on the clock,” of you live in a fantasyland where magic trumps physics.

“The submersion of the plane had a specific order in which the various parts of the plane went under.”

Which is a false assumption, because the aircraft does not settle evenly in just one direction as the seawater changes the balance of the aircraft with time.

“As of when the Puentes photo was taken with Fuddy and Yamamoto close to the door, the 2 windows between the wing and the door were already submerged.”

You fail to take into account how the aircraft sinks by wrongly assuming the aircraft sinks in only one direction and failing to take into account how the aircraft is bobbing around in the 6 foot to 13 foot waves knocking the aircraft around.

“Lang’s photo was taken before those were fully submerged.”

The different photos demonstrate the exact opposite of what you claim, Lang’s images were made after the Puente images, as demonstrated by the wings relative to the surface of the sea.

“Doesn’t matter what time on the clock; unless those windows came up out of the water again, Lang’s photos had to be before Puentes’.”

Again, you are making wrong assumptions about the sinking of the aircraft and then stubbornly asserting a wrong conclusion and a rather extremely bizarre conclusion about there being a fake aircrat in the sea based upon your wrong assumptions.

“What would have lifted those windows out of the water?”

The seawater filling the cabin pitched the aircraft towards the aft, which lowered the aircraft’s tail and the aft windows into the sea more and less between the 6 fott to 13 foot waves bobbing the aircraft around. The pitch aftwards raised the nose of the aircraft and its engine compartment higher in the water for awhile as the cabin filled. Then the engine compartment refilled and filled spaces not reached by the water before, and the wings had more time in which to fill with seawater. This changed the fore and aft balance of the aircraft to sink the nose farther down in the sea, submerge the wings as seen in the Lang images and not so much in the Puentes images, and pitched the tail upwards some more. Absent are images as the aircraft finished sinking out of sight, which should have had the nose taking a nearly vertical orientation with the tail rudder high in the air as it finished slipping beneath the waves.

The images and the positions of the windows, tail, wings, and engine compartment clearly indicate Lang’s images were made well after the Puentes images.

[butterdezillion]

The photo of the plane right before it was totally submerged showed the tail sticking practically straight up, meaning the nose was heading practically straight down. The bobbing of the water did NOT lift the nose OR those windows - which are very close to the center of gravity - up out of the water.

[WhiskeyX]

“The photo of the plane right before it was totally submerged showed the tail sticking practically straight up, meaning the nose was heading practically straight down. The bobbing of the water did NOT lift the nose OR those windows - which are very close to the center of gravity - up out of the water.”

It is very unfortunate that you are in such adamant denial of the evidence and so determined to insist upon inventing such an improbable conspiracy theory. There is conclusive video proof that the Lang aircraft first arrived on the scene after Puentes and the others had already been swept far away from the Cessna and those “submerged” windows you are talking about with the survivors in the same image frame. See the television news interview with Puentes, listen, and watch as he describes and shows the video of Lang’s aircraft arriving overhead.

KITV. Makani Kai plane crash survivor shares video of the watery landing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUxmrxwfz1Q

Conclusion:
Claims that “Josh Lang’s Photos of the Fuddy Crash Are Not the Same Plane” are utterly and wholly false as evidenced by the arrival recorded on the Puentes GoPro video recording..

[TomServo]

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3126226/posts?page=408#408

and the probable sequence of events as shown by the images I posted is totally ignored as the debate rages on. Count me out after this. It’s totally useless trying to make sense here.

[Boogieman]

It’s a perfect example of conspiratorial “logic”. If nobody on the plane had taken a video, they would say it was “convenient” that they had no video to analyze. Since they do have video, but it just doesn’t show what they want to see, then it’s “convenient” that this guy had video cameras with him.

Any way the wind blows...

[WhiskeyX]

Fred, run the video and freeze the frame at 3:31/5:12. All three elements are present in one image frame. Puentes and the survivors are behind the field of view of the camera, the Lang aircraft is the white object in the sky above the white tower ashore and slightly to the left as it first approaches the Cessna with its tail visible sticking out of the sea there on the left when you draw a vertical line from the 3:31/5:12 upwards to the aircraft in the sea. Puentes tells us this is the first aircraft just arriving on the scene. Note how the Puentes camera and the survivors are nowhere close to the Cessna as Lang’s aircraft approaches.

[Fred Nerks]

...Puentes tells us this is the first aircraft just arriving on the scene. Note how the Puentes camera and the survivors are nowhere close to the Cessna as Lang’s aircraft approaches.

I'll try to answer that but then I'm finished. If you check the sequence I posted you'll see that it is possible the passengers in the stricken aircraft never saw Josh in the air when Josh took the first photograph. After he took that photograph which shows the aircraft in the water possibly only seconds after the belly-landing, he flew to the island to look for help. It was after he returned, that he took the second photograph which shows the aircraft in the water, partially submerged.

By that time, the passengers had drifted well away.

[Fred Nerks]

So it would seem that the stills show the same sequence as the video? Now isn’t that a surprise...the only thing that the passengers wouldn’t have known is that Puentes had a photograph of the aircraft almost immediately after the plane belly-landed...before he flew to the island looking for help.

[butterdezillion]

You seriously say that somebody making a claim is “proof”?

Wow.

[Fred Nerks]

correction: I WROTE - ...the only thing that the passengers wouldn’t have known is that Puentes had a photograph of the aircraft almost immediately after the plane belly-landed...

I MEANT TO WRITE 'JOSH HAD A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AIRFCRAFT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT BELLY LANDED... Sorry, it's getting to me, three threads on the same subject all running at once.

[Fred Nerks]

Actually, it looks like Josh had TWO images of the downed aircraft, must have been seconds after it belly-landed, you can still see the path it took across the top of the water. The passengers would not have known Josh was flying in the vicinity, they didn't see his aircraft until he returned from the island, by which time the plane was partly submerged and the occupants had drifted a considerable distance.