Wait, maybe I'm confused here, but aren't those windows between the door and the wing submerged in the Lang photo?
Posted on 02/23/2014 3:09:07 PM PST by butterdezillion
“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.”
You meant Lang and not Puentes, I assume.
“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.”
The part where you say, “shows the aircraft in the water possibly only seconds after the belly-landing,” is simply not possible, because of the timing of the events.
The Cessna 208B takeoff was about 1520 Hours, and the crash or ditching would have occurred a minute or two later. All of the passengers and the pilot were out of the aircraft and drifted away from the aircraft within the 3 minutes we see in the Puentes video. This puts the survivors in a position well away from the floating Cessna by about 1524 Hours. The ELT tranmitter notified the air traffic controllers of the emergency by about 1521 to 1523 Hours. The air traffic controllers then spent one or several minutes attempting to ascertain the emergency and to establish radio contact with the Makani Kai flight. When Lang called air traffic controllers at the Molokai tower to request clearance for his flight to Maui just before 1530 Hours, they asked Lang if he could hear the ELT signal of the Cessna. Lang spent more time, perhaps a minute, trying to tune-in the ELT signal with only small success, before he set out to locate the aircraft in distress by a visual search. It took another 5 minutes before they located the crashed cessna and the survivors in the water. So this timeline puts Lang on the crash scene no sooner than about 1535 to 1537 Hours. The survivors were already debarked from the Cessna 208B and floating well away from the Cessna by no later than 1524 Hours. So there had to be at least 11 to 13 minutes that the survivors had already been floating in the water before Lang’s aircraft could possibly have made its first appearance at the crash scene. Given the speed of their drift at 1/2 knot to 1 knot, the survivors would have drifted 550 to 1,300 feet from the crash site before Lang’s aircraft could have possibly arrived on the crash scene.
Using the Puentes GoPro video recording still frame you posted, we can see he was using the 170 degree wide angle lens (which works like a very wide angle fisheye lens). Dividing the camera’s 170 degree field of view into tens of degrees allows us some ability to roughly measure the distance to the tail of the Cessna. Using the Aircraft height of 14 feet and wingspan of 52 feet 1 inch, my calculations estimate the distance from the Puentes camera to the Cessna at about 700 to 900 feet. This distance concurs with the timeline distance of 550 to 1,300 feet before the earliest possible arrival of Lang’s aircraft on the crash scene.
In any case, it is simply not possible for Lang to arrive seconds after the Cessna ditched, because that would have Lang and his aircraft over the crash scene about 6 mintues before Lang even established radio contact with the Molokai tower to request clearance for his planned flight to Maui, much less had time to search the ELT radio distress band and then fly five minutes to the crash scene.
Ok, so you work it out how he managed to supply photographs of the downed aircraft so close in time to its landing on the water that the path it took still shows. And don’t say photoshop. I’m sick of playing. If I said the water was blue that day someone would say it couldn’t be.
WOW... You guys are STILL going on about all this?
I’ve posted my last comment. This is it. They don’t believe their own lying eyes.
“You seriously say that somebody making a claim is ‘proof’?”
No, I said no such thing. I said the video recording is the proof right before your very eyes. Captured in that one image frame is the Puentes GoPro camera where the survivors were located, the Cessna aircraft hundreds of feet away, and the aircraft Puentes says was Lang’s aircraft. So there is graphic proof the survivors were floating far away from the crashed aircraft by the time Lang’s aircraft began to approach the crash scene.
Fred, you have offered no explanation of how Lang and his aircraft could first arrive on the crash scene 6 minutes before the Molokai Tower told him to go look for the crashed aircraft.
“Ok, so you work it out how he managed to supply photographs of the downed aircraft so close in time to its landing on the water that the path it took still shows.”
What you are misinterpreting as the wake from the aircraft touching down on the sea isn’t what you think it is. The aircraft engine probably failed in whole or part due to a turbine blade separation and/or failure. This chewed up the engine big time, which accounts for the pilot commenting on his controls alerting him to multiple system failures and an engine fire warning. This kind of engine failure is inevitably going to result in copious amounts of engine oil and aviation fuel leakage from the damaged engine.
What you have misinterpreted as a water wake immediately after touchdown is instead the oil and aviation fuel spill from the wrecked engine being carried away from the floating airccraft by the sea currents for a good fraction of an hour. If you look carefully, you can see the spilled oil and aviation gas floating on the sea is roughly shaped like a large V. This would occur because the aircraft ditched over on the left branch of the V where there is a much larger patch of the spills. then the floating aircraft drifted and trailed behind it a smaller trail of spilled oil and aviation gas. so these spills provide further confirmation the aircraft had been drifting and trailing these spills behind it for quite some time before the image recorded it.
Suppose everything connected with Lang is untrue. Does it change anything vis-a-vis Fuddy?
This kind of engine failure is inevitably going to result in copious amounts of engine oil and aviation fuel leakage from the damaged engine.
What you have misinterpreted as a water wake immediately after touchdown is instead the oil and aviation fuel spill from the wrecked engine being carried away from the floating airccraft by the sea currents for a good fraction of an hour.
_______________________________________
Seems, then, that the passengers would have encountered this noxious stuff and at least mentioned it, or some rescuer would have. Wouldn’t all of them, having floated in inflammable and toxic substances, have to be taken to the hospital to be checked out? I’m just curious. Yamamoto was hanging out at the “care home” with the priest, where Fuddy’s body was taken.
I give you credit; my three year old would have comprehended your point a long time ago while this guy seems beyond hope. Yet you continue to put in an honest effort to show him the error of his ways. Your patience is admirable.
How do you know they didn’t mention it?
Have we seen everything the passengers have said about this?
What time did Yamamoto go to the care facility? Did he change his drenched clothing before going there?
Have we ever even heard from Yamamoto himself or just what the priest reported he said?
Wait, maybe I'm confused here, but aren't those windows between the door and the wing submerged in the Lang photo?
“Wait, maybe I’m confused here, but aren’t those windows between the door and the wing submerged in the Lang photo?”
The window aft of the opened passenger door has water only up to the bottom part of the window in that image. Previously in the Puentes video the same window went from high in the air to mostly submerged, but it was raised more out of the water again than in the water as the sinking nose of the aircraft pitched the aircraft more forwards in this image.
“Seems, then, that the passengers would have encountered this noxious stuff and at least mentioned it, or some rescuer would have.”
From the first day of the crash I’ve been wondering about that. Since I had seen no comments from the survivors or others about swimming in a fuel and oil spill, I had to assume the pollutants weren’t significant enough to cause them any distress. After noticing the spills Fred Nerks brought to my attention just now, it does raise some question about the absence of complaints from the survivors, but it isn’t necessarily a problem. Based upon my experience, we have observed spills of fuel and lubricants at sea that stood out like a sore thumb from overhead in an aircraft, yet the seawater scooped out of the sea later looked and felt not too different from the regular seawater unless you were specifically looking for it. In other words, the seawater doesn’t have to be thick enough to cause a swimmer distress in order to be very visible from an aerial point of view.
When Lang began to approach the aircraft Jacob was sitting on the wing of the plane pointing out Lang’s plane to the others who were all right around there. I didn’t see Lang’s plane itself anywhere in the video. There is no proof on the video that it was ever there. Nor is there any proof on the video that it circled overhead or that a navy plane was doing touch-and-goes and laid down smoke flares. So what you are citing as proof is basically somebody claiming that it happened.
And the photos that Lang says he took are not compatible with the sequence of how Puentes’ video shows the plane submerging. There are some other discrepancies as well that show that Lang’s photos are not of this plane or this crash, which is why I’m not retracting my original statement even though I was mistaken about there being a rear window.
The turbulence depicted in Lang’s photos doesn’t make sense - especially if the wings are supposed to already be submerged but the tail fairly high in the air as portrayed in Puentes’ video. Particularly curious is the turbulent water covering up the aircraft starting at the point where the tailpiece is first attached to the fuselage when that part of the plane would only have been underwater if the plane was tipped on its side and back.
The waters around the plane are pretty much calm except where the right wing is presumed to be causing turbulence - turbulence seemingly caused by forward motion even though by that time (if this was taken after the passengers had all floated off) there wasn’t any forward motion left from the ditching, but in Puentes’ video the sea is more choppy all over. It’s almost like Lang’s photo was taken a different day.
The turbulence caused by the right wing is totally different than the turbulence caused by the left wing in Lang’s photo, suggesting that the plane was unbalanced with the right side of the plane turned upward, which would be especially strange since there had previously (supposedly) been people holding onto the right wing pulling it down.
This looks to me like a different plane on a different day, landed a bit differently.
"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."
In the Lang photo both of those windows are fully submerged.
The right side has an open door. Waves entering the plane’s door, bounce off the opposite wall and exit back through the door.
In that second photo what is causing the heavy turbulence that hides the window(s?) between the wing and the door? Are the wings submerged at that point? Are the windows?
Did we see that kind of wild turbulence when Fuddy and Yamamoto were there in that corner - when the windows were totally submerged, the waves were lapping over the top of the wing, and Rosa was holding onto the wing? Compare the turbulence in those 2 images. How does the picture compare? Would all those people have been able to look the way they did in the “on the wing” Puentes photos if the turbulence was how the Lang photo portrays it?
thanks, that photo was apparently taken when the kenyan student visited Hawaii in 1970/71 - one image at an airport taken when the boy was ten or so years of age, doesn't make that Luo native his father. But you knew I would say that...poor 'Barry' one day he thinks he's an Indonesian Prince, and then suddenly they tell him he's half-african. When Frank Marshall Davis told him who he really was, he must have been furious...
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.