Replies

Images with the “Ferdinand Puentes” label on them are ABC’s low-quality images. You should not base analysis on that, now that the NTSB has higher-quality footage that can be looked at. Unless you’ve looked at that higher-quality footage you really can’t say much.

At this point, the knowledge we have about what is in these images does not rest on anything I’ve said or thought. At this point WE HAVE INVOLVED PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONFIRMED WHAT THESE ITEMS ARE. If you’re still harping on what I did or didn’t see then you are (willfully?) lagging way behind the times. This isn’t about me, except to those who have the same philosophy of personal destruction as the deep state crooks have in their psy-ops. As of yet, nobody arguing with us has even ACKNOWLEDGED that important piece of information.

Do you think you have more knowledge about the exhaust extractor and luggage pod than the aviation personnel who put these things together, or the investigators who analyze safety issues and wreckage from crashes? Because that’s who you’re arguing with. Sure, call me a crazy loser if you want. I’m sure that would make you feel real good, and you might even think you are convincing on-lookers not to listen to me. But that doesn’t change what the experts have identified from these images.

It doesn’t change the noise analysis from the audio - audio which was provably altered by somebody at ABC in an effort to hide what is transparent from the NTSB’s audio. It doesn’t change the gauge showing fuel being fed to an engine that had supposedly died. It doesn’t change the pilot’s shifting that only makes sense if the engine was running, as the audio and gauges indicated was the case.

To have all that evidence and STILL choose to argue about what I did or didn’t think I saw way back when... is to make this all about me. Which is what the deep state always does. They make it about a person so they can destroy that person and think they’re done with it. If we as a society continue to let that tactic work, then we as a society deserve exactly what we get - and it ain’t gonna be pretty. Unless and until we become an EVIDENCE-BASED people, we are a post-modern wreck, where people decide their own “truth” and nobody can know anything.

For the last time. I am as entitled to comment on what I see as anyone else is. If you HAVE INVOLVED PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONFIRMED WHAT THESE ITEMS ARE then you need to include this information with your presentation on this forum, not just tell us we have to buy the book to find out.

To have all that evidence and STILL choose to argue about what I did or didn’t think I saw way back when...

What evidence? A lot of cobbled together images one isn't allowed to dispute? A load of contentions supposedly from a team of experts we do not know who they are, or what their conclusions are? Sorry, but I am missing something. I think it's simply called proof. But then of course all I need to do is buy the book!

I just re-read through the FR thread with the tile I Made a Mistake remember that?

I MADE A MISTAKE LINK

The entire kerfuffle about the body in the coffin not being Fuddy because the coffin was the wrong size...etc. And all those people filing past in mourning, all being in on it. So you just made a simple little mistake about measurements, did you? It really was Fuddy in the coffin after all?

Sorry, you really can't abrogate your past contentions and take a new direction. You might remember what happened to the girl who cried wolf once too often. Once Fuddy's coffin wasn't too big or too small, it was just the right size for a blow-up dummy, was it? And the mourners filing past the coffin didn't know?

ok, now who's nuts? And why oh why are you basing all your bona-fides on what a very small number of freepers might be thinking? It's such a small audience for a world shattering conspiracy that numbers many thousands in its cast. There's the emergency services, the medical crew, the funeral director, the employees of the HDOH, Fuddy's friends and relatives, the Navy...just to name a few.

Like I keep saying, you need a Sponsor. Someone who sees things through the same lens you and your associate does. Maybe you should try Joel Gilbert. He's very good at this sort of thing. I mean, Joel found a piece of wood that had been lying in a shed for 50 years and was able to match that up to some photographs of an exotic model who posed for images in 1958 and presented them as being of Stanley Ann Dunham, who was still in high school when those photographs were first published. Joel would probably love your scenario for a film. Then you could give FR a break.

No personal insult intended. I just think you are heading into a dead end.