WoodchuckRN
Posted March 12, 2014 at 2:46 am
In images N° 25 and N° 26, Assuming the fuzzy dark Patch in the lower right Hand Corner of N° 26 represents Fuddy’s hair, contraction and outward rotation of her right hip flexor; contraction of her right hamstring; and doroflexion of her right foot easily explain the foot’s angle. Otherwise, I can’t make out anything EXCEPT a shoe sole & the rest of pic is way too blurry. I don’t see “knobs,” “socks” or anything else distinct. There just aren’t sufficient pixels to reveal the necessary details.

EC
Posted April 9, 2014 at 7:51 am
Regarding the mysterious cylinders: Life jackets are normally kept in plastic, semi rigid cylinders under the aircraft seats. They are usually bright yellow and tend to close again and float once the jacket is removed. Why they are bright yellow, I got no idea, but it holds true for both commercial, private and military craft.
Having had the somewhat dubious pleasure of ditching once, may I make a small suggestion? It is pretty customary to skin out of your trousers and shoes to lose a bit of weight and float more easily. Is it possible that the shadow you say is a diver is in fact someone’s trousers, or maybe a jacket? I am certain there are pictures of the people recovered, so it should be an easy check. Were Fuddy’s shoes still on her feet when she was recovered, or had she kicked them off?
Not saying you are wrong – something about this really stinks – but it behooves you to remove all logical explanations first.
Good luck.

butterdezillion
osted April 9, 2014 at 1:46 PM
This is where it really hurts to not have people seeing the whole video. Puentes videotaped himself getting his life jacket out of a packet in the pocket on the back of the seat in front of him. It wasn’t a cylinder, it was a paper packet that had the life jacket inside.
The only photo I’ve seen of a person after they were rescued is the photo of someone who, by the process of elimination, must be Yamamoto. His shoes were off, and that blew away some suggestions that the yellow was his shoe – which was initially proposed because the angle isn’t right for it to be Fuddy’s shoe. Puentes had heavy work boots on and said that they weighed him down (to the extent that one life jacket couldn’t hold him up) but he didn’t want to take them off because he was going to swim ashore and he was afraid of the rocks. They must have been really heavy shoes because according to the flight manifest and COG balance sheet Puentes weighed 60 pounds less than Rosa, who managed just fine with one life jacket.
But then, Puentes’ “selfie”, that he managed after swimming toward the shore while holding onto his GoPro on a stick, was taken while he had not only the 2 life jackets on but was also holding onto a black seat cushion that either miraculously floated to the same place as he swam or else he was able to swim while holding onto the cushion and GoPro. And either his tummy was really round and capable of weird things, like traveling to different sides of his body, or else there was somebody else in the water right in front of him when he took that selfie.
But you have to see the actual video at slow speed to see that stuff. Which is why it’s so critical that ABC pixelated the video. And why it doesn’t work to have people come up with quick fix answers to what is in the water unless they’ve actually looked at the whole video at slow speed. ABC won’t let me post this stuff; they can sue me if I do. But this is the kind of stuff people have to see in order to know the due diligence that I really have done. This is one of the reasons I gave people the instructions to do the same thing that I’ve done – because when you see all this stuff in context it is clearer than when you look at still images without full context.
I knew that people might not be willing or able to look at the whole video at reduced speed, and I also knew that the video available to them has been deliberately pixelated so they won’t see as much as I can see. And even when I posted my “What Do You See?” videos on youtube the quality was reduced drastically enough that the narrative words are somewhat unclear. So there are two layers of blurring between what people see in the YouTube videos and what I can see on my screen. And I can see the whole thing in that clarity. So anyway, I posted the still images because I knew that people were being blocked from being able to see the whole video like I can see. I did that so people would know that I’m not just talking about one floating thing that could be speculated as this or that. So far I’ve posted 5 images of what appear to be persons who could not have been any of the nine people we know were on board. Three are obviously black, and two seem to have water equipment. I could show you a bunch more, but what’s the point if people won’t even address what I’ve posted so far?
I’m glad you survived the ditching. Were there many people there, and did everybody get out safely?

EC
Posted April 10, 2014 at 6:43 AM
We lost three, that time. Two hurt too bad in the crash, it wasn’t exactly gentle and you get no details, and one just quit. Perfect health, had just had his physical. His heart just stopped. No reason, no priors, he just stopped. It is what it is though, right?
I watched the video all the way through, several times. Figure I owe you that, at least! It doesn’t help that the quality is horrible, not your fault, but I am mostly seeing the sort of stuff I’d expect in a ditching at the moment. All the loose crap in the cabin floating about and getting in peoples way. Shed clothing. I’m more used to heavy boots that have the decency to sink and get out of the way, but running shoes do float.
I’d suggest another avenue for you to look at. The plane ditched with both wings intact – that’s a damned good pilot. They are mostly hollow, and the wing tanks are filled with avgas which is significantly lighter than water. How fast did the plane sink? If it sank rapidly, with no slick on the surface, the wings cracked and it was seriously under fueled. Like I say – you may be on to nothing. God has a perverse sense of humor and co-incidence happens some times. Or you may be on to something rather large. I don’t know.

butterdezillion
Posted April 10, 2014 at 12:24 PM
That’s sad about the three.
The video is probably too pixelated now to be much help, and a person has to see it drastically slowed down in order to be able to catch anything. I didn’t see any floating shoes or cast off clothing. Those who said the yellow and black right by Fuddy was a shoe and black pants said those things were thrashing about, which wouldn’t make sense for a floating shoe. I did see the cylindrical stuff and tubes/pipes that I pointed out, as well as the five persons I showed screenshots of and a bunch more other people – none of which were supposed to be there.
The plane did not sink quickly, and that’s another thing that is problematic to the official story. Flip Hollstein said they put on their life jackets and waited in the cabin until the plane began to sink. According to the COG balance sheet there was not much fuel in the tanks and it would have taken some time for the air to be displaced by water, enabling the plane to sink. Until then, the plane would have been like a pontoon. So what Holstein said is how it should have gone – and did go, according to him. But the announcer in one of those videos noted that it was less than two minutes from when they hit the water that everybody was out of the plane, according to the clock on Puentes’ video. The video itself shows the water at the floor level of the plane when they got the door open and started going out. There seems to be some cabin time edited out of Puentes’ video. He apparently put his hand over the lens making a dark screen, and my guess is that the time edited out was from around that time. Edited out of the video BEFORE the video was given to ABC. Why?
The governmental entities have all played major shenanigans to try to keep from responding quickly to FOIA requests, but even what I’ve got so far shows major, serious discrepancies in nearly every detail regarding this crash. From the USCG reports it is clear that they were claiming that Fuddy was in critical condition as of 5:17 PM, which doesn’t jive with what the rescue swimmers said. And one death was reported in the media 37 minutes earlier than that. There were reports of extra people swimming to shore, and one comment in the CAD transcript where somebody said they didn’t think the people who had swum to shore were those on the flight (the numbers weren’t adding up). According to the USCG report, it was medics on shore who reported multiple people having swum to shore. Later somebody in Honolulu said that “on-scene assets” later said there was only one who had swum to shore. But the MCFD personnel doing look-out on Molokai had ALSO reported multiple people had swum to shore. So the extra people I’m seeing in the water fit what was reported at the time by on-scene medics and MCFD lookout personnel alike. It just doesn’t fit with the official narrative.
How the crash was even reported and by whom is totally up in the air because there are conflicting reports. The Honolulu Control Facility had called both the USCG and the Molokai Tower at the very moment that the crash happened (according to the FAA’s report on the time of the crash) claiming to have received multiple calls from aircraft in the area saying there was a crash. But the FAA later in the day confirmed that there had been no ELT emitting and no mayday call. Lang wasn’t supposed to be around there yet, since he wasn’t even supposed to know about the crash until the Molokai tower asked him if there was an ELT transmitting and he spent five or so minutes looking for the crash. So what multiple aircraft were right there at the time of the crash to see it happen and report it immediately to the HCF? The Hawaii DOT | Airports Division is illegally refusing to release any records from the HCF or any of the other airports. The guy I spoke to did a 180-degree turnaround in a week’s time – from saying that the refusals because of an investigation was wrong and that I was just being given a runaround and he was going to put a stop to it, to saying they can’t ever release anything if there’s any kind of investigation going on. If that’s the case in the State of Hawaii, then how could the MCFD release their (truncated, cut & pasted) incident report?
The USCG report references 3 different Navy planes (by their specific callsigns) that were on-scene but the navy only claims one. The USCG report also says it was their PLANE (not helicopter) (and the plane was supposed to be flying at a high altitude to do on-scene commanding and communications) which actually was the second USCG aircraft to pick somebody out of the water. The seconnd USCG helicopter didn’t arrive until later and never was reported as lifting anybody out of the water. Which aircraft were PJ Ornott and Mark Peer in, then? Did they send their rescue swimmer in the plane that was supposed to be on-scene commander at high altitude, rather than in their helicopter?
The stories make absolutely no sense in the official reports thus far. HDOT is refusing disclosure. The USCG request sat in the office of some Obot in DC for 2 months without being passed on for processing, and that particular Obot falsely told me she had sent it on for processing without actually doing so AGAIN – and would have kept me waiting another two months if I hadn’t called somebody else in the office and found out that she lied to me and responded by contacting her supervisors. FAA played a dirty trick on me in order to delete my request for recordings and transcripts
Something REALLY, REALLY stinks about this whole thing.

butterdezillion
Posted April 9, 2014 at 2:03 PM
Another thing, too. One of the reasons to ask the question “What Do You See?” was so that people could give their alternate theories of what is in the water and they could be tested for credibility. To do that, though, you have to have a platform that allows discussion. And right now there is no good platform because I can’t even figure out how to get this page to the front of my blog so we can start over on discussion of just this topic, much less moderate all the comments there could/should be. And I don’t have a lot of people looking at my blog. And the place that has a FANTASTIC platform for discussion, where I tried to discuss (Free Republic) won’t allow me to discuss the evidence because they consider the evidence “batshit crazy” (to quote the owner of the forum).
This is why ABC can do this kind of crap and get away with it. Not just on this issue, but on EVERY issue. And as long as those are the practical mechanics of our nation’s thought processes, we could literally have video of Obama killing handicapped children and their puppies on the front lawn of The White House and nobody would do anything about it. The system is absolutely broken. Absolutely. And the places like Free Republic that some people think are the watchdogs…. are not watchdogs at this point. We have no watchdogs.
There are a bunch of more serious issues to be addressed. Benghazi, for instance. But what this issue does – that the others don’t do as clearly – is to show just how badly our entire system of accountability is broken, including the “conservative” places that we have trusted in the past. Every avenue of accountability is truly shut down because people are afraid of “losing credibility” when the same people who have perpetrated these crimes and covered them up call names on those who point out the evidence. Why should ABC’s claims of “crazy conspiracy theorists” have any power over a site that shows evidence from ABC’s own videos showing that the official story is a lie, and that ABC was part of the active coverup of the lie? But that’s where we’re at. Nothing done on a political level will make ANY difference when the whole system is this screwed up. The only way forward in a political sense is when the broken system itself is first confronted. And that’s why this issue is important. In effect, we DO have video of (you name it).and nobody will do a thing about it because they’re all afraid of being called non credible. Evidence is evidence, and until a LOT of people get the balls to have an evidence based epistemology rather than an “I want to be voted homecoming king or queen” epistemology, this country has no hope of survival.

WRawle
Posted April 12, 2014 at 4:57 PM
In the top image, I see Yamamoto clasping hands with Director Fuddy (just above the last “E” in “Exclusive). To the extreme right I see Director Fuddy’s left hand clasping the strap attached to the underside of her floatation device. Same thing at the bottom of the page where you draw squares and ask “what is this?”
Are you sure Hollstein didn’t mean they stayed with the plane until it started to sink? It makes no sense to stay in the cabin of the plane until it starts to sink. That would be absolutely the wrong thing to do.

butterdezillion
Posted April 12, 2014 at 5:30 PM
Kawasaki told them not to hold onto the plane as it sank. Probably because they could get pulled under.
As long as you already had the doors open, why would it be wrong to stay inside the plane while it was basically a pontoon?

https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/some-more-images/