Hi everybody,
Sorry I haven't responded sooner. As many of you know working for Brennan can keep us very busy. I don't have time to respond to all of the stupidity in rx's post in #130 but wanted to start here.
In #130, rx posted this image with colored arrows pointing to all the "saw cuts" on the Fuddy PT6A-114 engine:
https://postimg.org/image/kky7lptcd/
Now please consider the following images:
This first one is of the twin engine mounts for a PT6A-140 engine.
As most of you can tell there is a squared off stub to which two diagonal mounting arms are welded.
This next image is of a PT6A-114 engine from a Cessna 208 Caravan that crashed in Canada. The most in the group will see that there is a squared off center stub to which two diagonal mounting arms are welded.
This last image is of the same PT6A-114 engine but from a different angle. You can see the mounting stub clearly. I include it because you can also see how the tubular mounting frame fractures under stress. But I'm sure certain folks will look at that fracture and explain how it is proof that someone started to saw cut the tube but stopped for some unknown reason.
Took me about ten minutes of searching for "PT6A-114 engine mounting assembly" to find these images.
rx - you need to read up on Mixed Raster Content compression. It explains most of what you wrote about the LFBC PDF and is why Zullo said they could never get a conviction on a forgery charge with the computer stuff.
Enough for now, got to go destabilize some governments and of course there are always politicians to corrupt.
It may well have taken you only 10 minutes to come up with these pictures. Maybe that's why (OK, there may be other reasons) these are not pictures of the same type of plane or same type of mount, or same engine variant as the
Cessna Grand Caravan (CGC) that was involved in the Fuddy incident.
A Cessna 208 is a Caravan and a Cessna 208B is a Grand Caravan. The latter is the type in the Fuddy crash. If such details are of too little importance for you to assure the accuracy of your comments, I suggest you just move along, because otherwise you seem to think we should be satisfied with your half-fast, slap-dash job when others have spent years looking at these issues and vetting their results with other experts to assure what they conclude is accurate and correct.
Similarly to this treatment, we saw in your earlier post #67 that you would attempt to use the crash of a different Caravan for which also happened to be video to draw conclusions about the Fuddy hoaxed crash. The parallel you attempted there was roughly, "See, that craft lost power, yet isn't that a smoothly running engine sound that could be heard?"
As in that example, which you apparently thought to be sufficiently analogous to the Fuddy case at hand as to be instructive and overpower our argument of a hoaxed failure, you implicitly claimed that video portrayed a Caravan with a smoothly running engine, therefore, it would not be unreasonable to hear a normal sounding engine on the Fuddy ditching segment video. That is not a reasonable extrapolation for many reasons.
In your example, the propeller's noise was much louder than any engine noise. Because of the existence of the loud propeller sound, I don't think I could hear an actual engine noise on that recording. The propeller normally operates in the 1600-1900 RPM range, where the engine operates at much higher frequencies (15k-37.5k) RPM. When the video camera's volume auto-limiter comes into play, it suppresses the entire amplitude spectrum, making the quieter sounds seem to have even less sound energy. Only the loudest sounds can be heard. One sees this in the NTSB-distributed Fuddy take-off portion as well. Only in a limited number of places can one hear the engine. Most often, one hears only the propeller's turning. Also, since the engine frequency is generally at a high frequency, the full sound with its overtones will not register easily on a video recorder as the the microphone's audio pick-up response is not good at all above 16kHz, let alone when such frequencies have been brought down by an auto-limiter.
But the basic, overriding misconceptions you manifest in your attempt to use that other Caravan crash example are three-fold: 1) the Fuddy ditching segment had no propeller sound, 2) the pilot (and the Fuddy Estate lawyer on his behalf) repeated to the media that the engine had stopped, and 3) to the USCG Commander the pilot represented that he had attempted two engine restarts, both of which failed, which that USCG Commander of course put in his official report. So A) there was no smoothly-running (or otherwise, sputtering) engine noise to be heard in the skydiver example, and B) since the Fuddy pilot represented that the engine stopped with the "bang" and there was no sound in the 1600-1900 RPM range for the ditching segment, the 15k+ sound one hears smoothly running in the Fuddy ditching segment is the smoothly-running engine." Now, why do you suppose someone put two propeller-like noises onto their broadcast of the ditching segment? Certainly someone in that loop would know that if the propeller is turning on a CGC, one often can't hear the engine sound. Thus, if one hears a propeller sound inside a CGC cabin, an uninitiate may think he hears an engine sound, but it just wouldn't be true.
Given the Fuddy pilot's misrepresentations, one is forced to understand for a number of reasons, all that reinforce one another, that if he had merely unfeathered the propeller, he likely could have made the runway safely, if that was the conclusion he sought. At the end of the take-off video, he astonishingly and deliberately chose to 1) turn away from the airport, 2) fly 3/4 mile away from the airport, and 3) lose over 750' of altitude. Each of those--if he hadn't done them--could have independently helped him land safely at the airport.
This time around, you're apparently proposing that looking at wreckage of another plane's (and type/engine/mount) wreckage should be more persuasive regarding the Fuddy Crash than NSTB and media pictures of the actual craft and crash itself. Such a premise is laughable. What's wrong with letting your esteemed drive-by commentary refer to the Fuddy craft pictures? Do they not obviously show what it is you wish they would say?
Mixed raster compression could no more have generated the many, unique anomalies on BHO's LFBC that are indicative of forgery than a magical layer creation theory (asserted and roundly debunked, but only after so many trolls, shills and online sycophants "just couldn't let go," constantly making up further-afield stuff) that Fuddy's HDOH copier supposedly wrought.
The difficulty with getting a conviction owes directly to the fact that no document examiner has yet had the opportunity to examine the original--and whom does the world have to thank for keeping everyone from seeing that (claimed) original? Yet, here, at their TheF***ow.com nest, they regularly put this forth as if it we must believe it, for they think it implies that rafts of examiners that have seen copious elements of forgery actually "got bupkis."
You may be clever, but by these indications so far, it would appear to be "only by half." We'll breathlessly await your next drive-by, strafing-run analysis, this time using actual Fuddy crash pictures and NTSB conclusions and commentary from the Fuddy crash report.
