Re-UPDATE: Nope, the shadow on the roof doesn’t work in real life, as far as I can tell, based on experiments I did with a model door cut to match the dimensions on the computer image of the door from the Puentes image. More on that at https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/skip/
So it very much appears that Lang’s images of the plane are photoshopped.
The KHON2 News image of a bent propeller and damaged cowling around the engine appears to be from a different plane. See https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/private/
And from the Google earth and bing images of Queens Hospital, there is question (still being sorted out) as to the genuineness of one news image claiming to be the USCG helicopter dropping off Kalaupapa victims directly on the Queens landing pad (Honolulu EMS said they picked up 2 in stable condition from the Honolulu airport; USCG told the media that they transported one directly to Queens). The link copying is a bit different so I hope I don’t mess this up too badly but I think the posts with the images and analysis start with Mikeultra’s post at http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread999641/pg19#pid17638877 and the next few posts after that, and combatmaster’s post at http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread999641/pg20#pid17647254 and the posts after that.
UPDATE: Scrutiny has served its purpose; the shadow of the open door on the roof of the plane shows that the door was upright to the extent that it only appears as a dark line. So there is a back window on this plane. I was mistaken, and I appreciate those who pointed out the mistake. Especially those who did so in a classy way. =)
I still do not believe this is the same plane for several reasons. Let me repost the contrast-added close-up of Lang’s image, with annotations for comparative purposes:
Now let me post some annotated Puentes images (you’ll probably have to click on these to see very clearly) The front bump I have circled is a little fuzzy and may be something from the left wing but the other 2 are clear:
Here’s an annotated version of Lang’s close-up showing the placement of the windows on that plane, based on the distances on the above image. When I created these jpegs to post I sized them so that the size of the windows on the Lang plane matched the size of the windows on the Puentes plane, for comparative purposes. That’s how it was on my computer when I looked; I’m not sure what size images show up when stuff gets posted. I lined up a ruler with the right sides of the windows so I could see where the bumps fall relative to the windows. Then I put an index card right below the two bumps and marked where each one began and ended. I made marks on the below image showing the length and placement of the bumps. The bump on the Lang image appears to be too large and placed wrongly. If the perspective makes that big a difference in size, then the perspective would also throw off the window sizes and 2 windows would likely not fit in the space between the wing and the door. And if my placement is off on the big bump and it really began where it does on Lang’s image then the front bump would be moved out of the shadow of the open door and should show up on the image.
I posted some of the anomalies on Free Republic:
The bump on top isn’t square with the rest of the plane, its shadow is at a different angle than either the open door or the registration letters (so we’ve got at least 3 different shadow angles that I can see), and it is in the wrong place for how the 2 bumps are supposed to fall. So it’s not even just a matter of the 2nd bump not showing – not only does the 2nd bump not show, the bump that does show is in the wrong place.
The bump where the tail attaches is not centered.
The “turbulence” spills over onto parts of the plane that aren’t supposed to be in the water: on the plane’s left side where the tail attaches, there is what is supposed to be shadow but as it approaches the horizontal part of the tail (which is supposed to be sticking up out of the water) the shadow gradually evolves into “turbulence like somebody C&P’ed a patch of “turbulence” there and wasn’t sure when to have the shadow end and the “turbulence” begin. On the plane’s right tailpiece, where the cylindrical shape at the end is (strobe light?), the “turbulence” creeps into the cylindrical shape there.
There is a very square patch of turbulence that aligns with the dark strip on the vertical part of the tailpiece, even though there would be nothing there to cause that turbulence. I printed this photo out so I could do some measuring and it immediately leaped out at me how square the “turbulence” is there.
On the left side of the fuselage, to the aft of the wing, there is a rounded lip as if to make a contour around the window frame, but on Puentes’ photos it is perfectly smooth – no lip at all. And a rounded line in the equivalent place on the right side is also there.
The cabin of the plane just disappears suddenly after the wings which are clear as can be. There’s a blur after a bit but if you trace the body of the plane there is a place where there is the very clear wing, followed by nothing, followed by haze that is supposed to be the submerged nose. There’s not a gradual fading of the clarity because of the water’s depth; there is a sudden spot where there’s nothing.
The 3 black dots between the window and the door are odd, and the front one of those actually falls where the frame of the window should be.
There is shadow on the sun side of where the tailpiece attaches to the body of the plane, on the plane’s right side. The only thing that could possibly make that shadow is the plane’s right side of the horizontal tailpiece but in order for that to make that shadow the sun would have to be lower on the horizon than that horizontal tailpiece – a very difficult thing to do given that the “turbulence” reaches into the end piece of that horizontal tailpiece. And according to the NTSB the plane sank after 25 minutes, so before 4pm. The Puentes video shows a sun high in the sky rather than low on the horizon.
It’s harder to see with the granularity of the computer image, but when I printed out the image it was really easy to see how the “turbulence” sneaks into the plane’s right tailpiece (shows on our left). I don’t know how to make the image bigger in WordPress. You’ll probably have to click on the image to see it enlarged. Or just look closely at the original Lang photo enlarged (click on the photo of it on this post). Look very, very closely at the turbulence – in all areas – on this image (click to enlarge, I think):
Some have said they believe that Lang’s image shows a tail number with MA at the end. If you measure in the below photo you find that the letters are almost exactly as tall as the aft side of the back window, whereas the shadow in that area of the Lang photo is about half as tall as that end of the aft window. So if there were letters there that belonged to N687MA, the letters would have to be half in the shadow and half above the shadow.
A Freeper was kind enough to post an aerial view of the airport and shoreline where the crash took place. (Thanks, Ray76!) I’ve annotated some images so you can see that – in spite of the difference in perspective – yes, one of Lang’s photos is of the area where the crash occurred:
I spent some time analyzing the images because most of the time it seems that the plane’s wings were perpendicular to the shore, not parallel as shown in Lang’s images. But there were a few of Puentes’ images that contradicted the rest. Some images of him on the wing showed the lighthouse far off to the side of the wing, and some showed the lighthouse showing right over the top of the wing. The only way I can reconcile those images is if the plane itself was rotating in the water. So there are just too many variables to be able to say anything with certainty regarding the position of the plane itself.
That being said, there is one image of Lang’s that I cannot reconcile with his other images. The Kalaupapa Airport has been upgraded over the years to lengthen the runway and to deal with the erosion that was jeopardizing the integrity of the runway. Eventually rocks were added to try to prevent erosion. The dark border around the shoreline is where the rocks were added to reinforce the shoreline. Inside that border there are some sandy patches. There is the runway and the airport, and after that there is grass. At least that’s how it looks to me. And you see that Lang’s image has the plane down in the water between points B and C.
Well, here is the image that I can’t reconcile with all that:
It’s taken at a distance similar to his other photo (based on the size of the plane) so the land features should be similar in size, but I do not see how that could be the same place as he had the plane in the other photo. There’s a very thin line of rocks and then grass. No sandy area, no runway.
UPDATE: A freeper has reconciled the images. The airport and runway are there, at the far left in the image. You just have to zoom in a lot to see them. His analysis shows that the plane in these images drifted between the time the images were taken. So that question is answered.
So. These are some of the things that don’t smell right. There are also discrepancies with Puentes’ and Lang’s accounts – such as Jacob Key pointing at what is claimed to be Lang’s plane while Jacob was still sitting on the wing but Puentes in his narrative describes Lang’s plane as appearing about 10 minutes after the landing when Puentes had already drifted so far away from the plane that the plane can’t even be discerned as a plane in the selfie he took withthe plane behind him. He said that was the drifting after 3 minutes.
And there is the problem of the navy plane that DOH’s Kalaupapa administrator, Mark Miller, claimed was doing touch-and-goes in the area – that is claimed to have put down smoke flares to show rescuers where the victims were. Lang said he left the area when a navy helicopter arrived at around 4:30, and there is a later image of one being there, but helicopters don’t do touch-and-goes. Miller could have mistaken Lang’s continuous swooping close to the water for touch-and-goes. If so, it is odd that Puentes’ video didn’t catch any of that activity going on around them. The video is very, very highly edited, and if a plane continuously swooping low enough to be mistaken for touch-and-goes didn’t appear on the video it makes a person wonder what else might not have made it onto that video – especially given that extra things/people are showing up in the water in the video footage we are able to see.
And a person wonders why a navy helicopter had come there. The USCG was already sending 2 helicopters, a plane, a cutter, and a boat. One of the USCG personnel told the media that the hardest part of the rescue was keeping the rescuers from hitting each other, with at least 6 planes in the air at a time during the rescue. Maui County Fire Dept had one helicopter that rescued 5 people. USCG had 2 helicopters that pulled 3 out of the water: the 73-year-old woman, Kawasaki, the 70-yr-old man, and Fuddy ….(according to the media reports) (Yes, I know that’s 4…) USCG also had a bigger plane that wasn’t involved in rescuing anybody but we’ll count them anyway. We know there was a navy helicopter that also didn’t rescue anybody, according to the numbers given by the NTSB and MCFD. Lang said he was already gone by then. So we’ve got 3 helicopters doing rescue, one helicopter not doing rescue, and one plane not doing rescue. What other planes were there, to get to “at least 6”?
The discrepancies, together with what is showing up in the water, raise serious questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>BEGINNING OF ORIGINAL POST>>>>>>>>>>
Josh Lang provided photos to the media that he said he took when he saw the Cessna in the water off Kalaupapa on Dec 11, 2013. His photos can be seen at http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/slideshow?widgetid=99139 Here are a couple of the photos he posted:
I got to thinking how there aren’t any life jackets showing in the water anywhere. I wondered how these could be the same plane – especially since in the “Nightline” clip Jacob Key was sitting on the wing pointing to all the other passengers at Lang’s plane coming in the distance. Yet in Lang’s photos nobody is to be seen anywhere for quite some distance.
So I looked a little closer at Lang’s last, closer photo of the plane:
And then I compared it to the images from the ABC video:
Here’s a larger photo so you can look closely but you’ll have to right-click on it to see the whole thing, I bet:
The Cessna that crashed with Fuddy on board had a window between the door and the tail. Lang’s photo doesn’t have a window. It appears that Lang provided photos of a different plane and claimed it was of this plane. No wonder Puentes’ video didn’t match Lang’s photos!
Why would Josh Lang do that?