Nancy Ruth Owens was 17 years old in 1979.
Posted on 12/26/2013 10:12:33 AM PST by Fawn
It is important to note that the only person to “see” and authenticate the long form birth certificate of one President Barrack H. Obama is now dead in a plane crash. Even more controversial is the one that they submitted as truth on the Whitehouse.gov website is 10 layered in Photo Shop and thought to be fake. The conspiracy never seems to die.
Now a whistle blower comes forward and claims she forged Obama’s birth certificate in 1985. She doesn’t just claim that she did the long form, but the short form as well. Both those claims if proven are enough to make people worry about who really is our President.
Funny how this person is not only a family member but also insists she did it for the drug cartels in Mexico. Fast and Furious and the Federal Court ruling to include drugs and child smuggling make more sense now.
Yamamoto told the priest that he held Fuddy’s hand to calm her, until she just let go and became unresponsive. How do you tread water while somebody is holding your hand? Do you think she allowed herself to drown without sputtering at all? And if she sputtered why did Yamamoto only say that she let go his hand, and not that she was sputtering and inhaling water? Furthermore, if she drowned why don’t they have a cause of death?
See, the witnesses and doctors do have access to know the story. But the rest of us can hold them accountable to what they said so they can’t just change the story whenever and however they want. It’s a form of cross-examination.
“Mr. Yamamoto, you told the priest that Fuddy let go your hand. You didn’t mention any sputtering. Was she sputtering and if so, why didn’t you mention it?”
“Mr. Coroner, you say that she drowned. Did you discover the evidence of that during the examination? Why then did you not have a cause of death for the NTSB even a week later?”
I do this - make inferences based upon what the eyewitnesses and reports say - because I do NOT want to be a sheep who unquestioningly accepts whatever I’m told last, even if it contradicts all the shifting stories along the way. Your argument to me is that I wasn’t there and I’m not the coroner so my input is worthless, which translates to “Just lay back and unquestioningly accept whatever you’re told last - by the coroner.”
I have a hard time doing that, and I question why anybody would ever want to tell me to do that.
It will be revealed on Judgment Day, if not before. What the people involved better hope and pray is that the truth is revealed BEFORE Judgment Day, so they can have their actions and motives dealt with in the temporal world, before the eternal verdict is due. Fuddy met her Maker that day in the water, and every one of the people involved will also one day meet their Maker. They don’t know the minute or the hour, and that Judge knows all and will not take bribes. It’s a whole different playing field, and the defense of hiding the truth would be laughable if it wasn’t so deadly.
There’s a difference between “couldn’t” and “wasn’t”.
Your statement has nothing to do with the discussion I was having, where the assertion was made that, if a cause of death is undetermined after an autopsy, it must be poisoning.
So you have a fact free theory based on negative evidence. ‘The autopsy didn’t detect cardiac arrest so it’s “likely” she died of cardiac arrest’.
Weird.
“So what are the circumstances of these ppl who are dying while wearing life vests?”
The circumstances are pretty irrelevant, when all I am refuting is the claim that nobody can drown while wearing them. People do drown, so that claim is refuted. Whether or not it happened in this case is a whole other matter. All I am saying is, it wouldn’t be impossible.
The circumstances are fundamentally relevant. If the majority of life-jacket-wearing deaths occur in frigid water, then it has little or no application to this case. If most occur after six or more hrs in the water, your stat is irrelevant. If most occur in heavy seas of 15’+ waves your stat has no bearing. If most occur w’in some variable of the above, your stats are all but useless in Fuddy’s case.
How is it that you can’t figure something this obvious out for yourself?
I never said it must be poisoning. I said it could be poisoning, just like you said it could be drowning. And both are possible. I strongly doubt it was drowning because of the way Yamamoto described her death - that she let go his hand, became unresponsive, and floated off. And if it was drowning they would easily have identified the cause of death as drowning.
What causes of sudden death would not show up in a physical examination of the body, other than poison? You tell me.
Logging off for a while. I’ll plan to check in on the thread later.
Medical Examiners/Coroners don’t usually release final Cause of Death Reports until they have the toxicology report and that has not yet been completed.
From the Honolulu Star Advertiser of 12/20/13:
“It could take some time before officials determine exactly how Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy died, said the lead investigator for the Molokai plane crash.
It’s common for a cause of death not to be immediately known in these types of investigations, Hawaii-based National Transportation Safety Board investigator Jim Struhsaker said [last] Friday.”
“It’s been a week [now two weeks] since an autopsy was conducted. Fuddy’s funeral is scheduled today [last Saturday] in Honolulu.”
“’Most people think cause of death is really simple ... and usually it’s not quite that simple,’ Struhsaker said.
Maui police Lt. William Juan has said the NTSB is involved in determining a cause of death. However, the NTSB says that’s up to Maui County.
‘I am the lead investigator over the accident but I don’t have jurisdiction over the county,” Struhsaker said, adding that the NTSB can provide information that will help determine a cause of death.’”
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20131220_NTSB_Officials_still_trying_to_determine_Fuddys_cause_of_death.html
I don’t have any theory at all. Someone else posted their theory, and I said:
“Probably a lot more likely scenario than that she was targeted by a joint aerial-naval hit squad, but what do I know?”
Which I still stand by, since it does seem like a more likely scenario than the alternatives that conspiracy theorists seem to believe happened.
“The NTSB said the coroner had not determined a cause of death yet. If injuries from the landing had killed her those would have been identifiable upon examination.”
Someone can die in the water even if they had no injuries from the crash, and it doesn’t have to be an assassination.
“It’s not a website management issue. Within the past year they have updated their pilot list at least twice (and possibly more) because archive.org took screenshots of their page listing the pilots and there were different pilots listed at 3 different times within the past year or so. They changed their pilot list 3 times while Kawasaki was supposedly flying for them and all 3 times they forgot to put him on? Once is a mistake, twice is a coincidence, and 3 times is enemy action, they say. “Missing” Kawasaki on the list at least 3 times is not a matter of “website management”.”
3 time enemy action for an airline website? It isn’t rational to jump to these conclusions, rather than the more likely case that they just had a lazy or neglectful person updating the website, or some other run of the mill explanation. What it really looks like is the pilot said a few things that are incompatible with the conspiracy theory you want to build, so you just want to find a way to make him “in on it”, so you can dismiss him.
“They had no trouble finding Fuddy. According to the reports of what the rescuers said, Fuddy was the first one they came to.”
When I said “they couldn’t find her”, I was speaking of her fellow survivors in the water, not the rescuers.
“She was not treading water or swimming during the 30 minutes before help arrived; she was holding the hand of her deputy director (which would have been a crazy thing for him to do if she needed her hands to tread water and keep from drowning as everybody suggests) until she let go and went unresponsive.”
It can be more important to use your hands to stay together with a group of people in the ocean, rather than to have your hand free to help you tread water.
“In the time after she passed out or died, she drifted 200 yards from the nearest other person. She was mostly submerged except for what was held out of the water by the life vest, which means the wind would not have carried her like it carried the cushions, and the motion of waves is bobbing in a circle except where the waves break, where there is forward motion.”
Well, as I said before, we know something moved her fast enough to take her out of reach of her fellow survivors. If they (her fellow survivors), could not find her almost immediately, then I see no need for a twenty minute time lapse for her to drift 200 yards.
““Natural causes” is the MODE of death. There are 3 modes: natural, suicide, and homicide.”
Yes, and sometimes there is only a mode of death, with no cause listed. Do you think all of those cases must be poisoning?
“The autopsy examination should be able to find out where the final demise stemmed from - heart, brain, or lungs.”
In a perfect world, yes. However, the world isn’t perfect. The world not being perfect is not evidence of a conspiracy.
As for your list of 10 things I should be aware of, they are just typical conflated conspiracy theory hyperbole. Not even worth the time arguing over, since none of them amount to a shred of evidence or testimony backing what you want to contend happened. Get back to me when you have one of those two things.
“The circumstances are fundamentally relevant.”
No they are not. When a blanket statement is made, it only takes one counter example to refute it, and there are far more than one counter example to the assertion that people can’t drown while wearing buoyancy vests.
I’m not trying to assert that Fuddy drowned. If I was, you might have a point about relevancy. I’m not, though, so whatever point you are trying to make is misplaced. That’s the second time I’ve explained it to you, so maybe it will sink in now. If not, go tell it to someone who cares.
Here’s what you said:
“The kind of murder that wouldn’t show up in an autopsy examination is a poisoning.”
Not “a kind of murder”, but “the kind of murder”, which sounded like you thought it was the only alternative. I’m glad you admit that there are other possible causes of death which might not have been apparent on the first examination, besides the seemlingly far-fetched possibility of poisoning.
“What causes of sudden death would not show up in a physical examination of the body, other than poison? You tell me.”
I already told you that the medical examiners are in a much better position to answer that than me. Why don’t you go ask them?
The federal agency legally required to treat the investigation like a crime scene instead allowed the critical evidence to be dismantled by potential suspects before the agency took that evidence into their own custody.
If you’ve got no problem with that, there’s no point in further discussion.
Of course you would know...
Boogie is a low level shill, don’t waste too much time there.
Well, it’s pretty self-evident when she has to lie and post a photo of a different person with Obama, and claim it is herself. If she was really Obama’s sister, she would have pictures of her own and would have to steal them and lie about them.
Don’t you think?
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.