Replies

Yep, they had a rough ride & were lucky to survive
That's a pretty campy, false comment you got there, WH57.

See how the conditions really were?

That unusualy-designed black and yellow bag sat at roughly that location for multiple minutes without moving more than a few inches.
People floated around in various orientations that belie they were not facing any strong wind or water current that would (as claimed by FP) have whisked them from the plane area "within a minute" if they didn't hang onto the airplane. Those were just part of the lies that were uniformly on passengers' and others' (to include WH57) lips.

Flip Hollstein described how the was water was at his deplaning, by saying it was, "like going into a swimming pool. A USCG rescuer would an hour later describe the conditions saying the water, "wasn't rough."

The following frame from the video, spanning a couple hundred yards of distance, horizontal to the water, (look really closely now):

generally shows a very placid scene, notwithstanding the videographer's obvious efforts elsewhere and throughout to make his scenes appear to be rough and tumbling. (He's a very experienced videographer, having videoed his snorkeling dives a lot. He certainly spent lots of good money on his equipment.) By that experience, he would very well know how the camera must be treated to get good video. His camera-wielding behavior shows he was trying to make it appear as if the "conditions were..." as the pilot was later recorded to have said, "It was horrible." (Cough, choke.)

The pilot said it was so bad, "Once out of the plane ... he could not locate any of the cushions he had removed.”

These people were telling falsehoods left and right.

Contradicting the USCG, Rosa Key said afterward, "The water was rough. … The pilot was trying to get everybody together, but that’s kind of impossible because of the waves."

Yet, the reality was that several times over the course of almost an hour, the passengers somehow were able to get together, not merely loosely together, but even into a single frame of the videographers' lenses field of view (approximately 60 degrees), just as in posts #394, #253, and #247. This, ladies and germs is what is called a videographer's scripted choreography.

In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Hawaii Official Who Died After Crash Wore Infant Life Vest, rx wrote

“...People floated around in various orientations that belie they were not facing any strong wind or water current that would (as claimed by FP) have whisked them from the plane area “within a minute” if they didn’t hang onto the airplane. Those were just part of the lies that were uniformly on passengers’ and others’ (to include WH57) lips. ...”

In this post #352:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3428362/posts?page=352#352

I was referring to 4zoltans comment in #350about the turbulence in the cabin, not in the water after the landing:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3428362/posts?page=350#350

From rx’s post:

“...Those were just part of the lies that were uniformly on passengers’ and others’ (to include WH57) lips. ...,”

What the pax said in their statements about the water and what I said about the cabin turbulence are two entirely different things.

Strong words, to call me a liar.

Not. Good.

One thing is certain. Namely, that there are enough misstatements, contradictions, anomalies and outright falsehoods connected with this incident to choke a T-Rex. I can’t list them all bc I’ve only followed the case casually since the first mo or so. It seems that every time I glance at a thread, three or four new, verifiable contradictions and falsehoods are listed. It’s been that way from day one.

Unfortunately, it’s unlikely anyone will ever get to the bottom of the issue. That is bc highly improbable theories keep overshadowing the facts. I am 99.9 percent convinced there was malfeasance involved, but as long as the focus remains on long-shot theories, it will never be uncovered. That is just a shame.

Here is my theory. Fuddy is dead. She was meant to die. She needed to be dead bc she was the weak link in Obama’s BC scam. Had she been questioned, she would not have outright lied. [I covered earlier that she was not in on the cut and paste concoction. She was simply given the finished product and told it was real.] In giving truthful testimony, she’d have let the cat out of the bag. [I.e.: she’d have unwittingly fingered the perps.] So she had to go.

Further elements of my theory. Neither the pilot nor any passenger was in on it. Whoever planned it(I.e.: tampered with the plane’s engine) didn’t care if they were all injured or even killed. As long as Fuddy died, mission accomplished.

The hardest part would have been insuring that even if the others lived, Fuddy wouldn’t. How was that accomplished? The simplest solution in such a case is often the truth.

For example, was Fuddy on blood pressure medication? If so, substituting placebos for the real thing even for two or three days ahead if the incident would have done the trick. If an obese, out of condition person misses their bp meds for even 48 hrs, their blood pressure spikes. No way Fuddy was going to survive the stress of a crash-water-landing if her bp was already stratospheric.

If she wasn’t on bp meds, something similar could have been arranged. It wouldn’t be hard for a person or persons with sufficient resources and motivation.

I wish someone more familiar with this incident could list ALL the misstatements, contradictions, lies and anomalies. It would be helpful to see them all in one format.

Anyway, list or no list, that’s my theory. It’s relatively simple, and certainly does explain why the lies and contradictions have multiplied from the beginning. Something is being hidden; it’s just not as elaborate and complicated a something as some have conjectured.

My schedule is such that, should anyone comment on the theory, I can’t guarantee a timely reply. We’ll just have to see how it goes.