Hawaii Official Who Died After Crash Wore Infant Life Vest

AssociatedPress ^ | May 5, 2016, 8:31 PM ET | Jennifer Sinco Kelleher

[LucyT]

Hawaii's former health director who died after a plane she was traveling in crashed into the ocean was wearing an infant life vest and the pilot didn't give a safety briefing before takeoff, according to details in a National Transportation Safety Board report.

An autopsy determined Loretta Fuddy died of an irregular heartbeat from hyperventilating after she exited the plane, which landed in choppy water off the island of Molokai. The pilot and seven other passengers on the 2013 Makani Kai Air flight survived.

Pilot Clyde Kawasaki reported to the NTSB that he heard a loud bang, followed by an immediate loss of engine power soon after the single-engine Cessna took off from Molokai, headed for Honolulu.

----------------------------------------------

[TheOldLady]

Mr. Nerks, WildHighlander57 is a lady,
and one I’d be delighted to meet one day.

[Fred Nerks]

... Show me the video footage where his arms reach up to tuck his hair in.

Maybe I'll do that after someone shows me the dummy sitting beside Keys and the body the hand belongs to.

I think we are even. You know I can't do that, he might have entered the aircraft that way, and you can't show me what I want to see.

I have a bad feeling you have fallen into bad company. But I do still wish you all the best. I just don't like to see you a party to calling FRiends participants in a criminal conspiracy. Your advocate is doing you no favour.

[Fred Nerks]

thanks, but as many of our screen names are not gender specific, what does it matter?

[butterdezillion]

Maybe the dummy didn’t “sleep with the fishes” but was actually in the infant lifejacket with an intact CO2 cartridge that the USCG claims was the Fuddy they picked out of the water. The video shows us Fuddy’s lifejacket’s CO2 cartridges were both punctured so it can’t have been her. So what was it? Why does the USCG’s description of the Fuddy they pulled out of the water not match what we see in the video of Fuddy in the water?

What DID match the description of what the USCG retrieved from the water? It had to be something that looked like Fuddy. What was it?

[WildHighlander57]

OK, I set the picture width very small. Here's the beginning of the hand sequence, to show the context of your picture #6, that has JK, RK, and FP labelled:

[rx]

If you are planning to make this stick, you'll have to convince.

No, it's not my job to convince you or anyone else on that point.

With all the outlandish focus you've collectively put on just this one detail, it's clear you don't wish to deal with the wider aspects, apparently because you have nothing substantive to say about them.

Since you say you don't see something, fine. Everyone is entitled to such an opinion. Let's move on to other things.

[rx]

I hadn't meant that one-trick pony to refer to you FN, but you're seemingly headed in the same direction as these other disrupters.

To have an opinion about what you see is your business and prerogative. To see such such a thing differently does not rightly make appropriate pulling out Elvis, Grassy Knoll references and wild conjectures about those who might differ with you. Neither does it justify putting words never said into others' mouths/keyboards.

Again, it's not my job to convince you on one point. The wider story has plenty of evidences and proof to carry the day.

[rx]

Don't bother trying [to make things up] to marginalize and attack things I have not said. The structure of such an argument as yours (if it could possibly be called that) is simply to set up a straw man out of your own references and knock him down.

We should all be open to following the evidence wherever it may lead. Trying to "pre-disaster" (an admittedly obscure "World According to Garp" reference) certain thoughts has no place where real evidence should be the order of the day.

From your list, I would certainly exonerate many--which is to say I know of no evidence to indict them--but again, let's simply let the evidence lead where it may.

As we've seen historically around here, pulling out the NFM is akin to slamming one's opposition with a Hitler analogy. It's not welcome or useful unless one is a devotee of Alinsky.

[rx]

"But I have never been guilty of creating graphics from bits and pieces of disjointed visuals and then badgering and harassing the audience by telling them they are blind idiots, or criminal conspirators."

Just wow. I hadn't pictured the great FN stooping to making things up out of whole cloth!   I certainly never called anyone around here an idiot or a criminal conspirator. Oops, maybe you're saying that a DU reference is tantamount to a "criminal conspirator" reference. You may know more about that than I. Thanks for letting us know!

Our erstwhile FRiends are going to have to do what we ask. It’s that simple.

Just wow!   I hope you can hear yourself. It seems you're into making demands. That's quite the Leftist way of behaving, isn't it?

[WildHighlander57]

Note that the view is looking in the same direction in the screengrabbed sequences
Pic #2: going from upper right corner to Rosa's left foot note the black pants, black shoe
Pics 7-8-9 note the hand flexing/grabbing
Pics 10-11-12 it is reaching and turning

NOTE PICS 20 & 21 They are the screengrab in your post #298

Pics 21-22-23-24 note waistband in extreme upper corner

A mannikin wouldn't move like this.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

[rx]

That's a pretty terse post you've got there, WH57.

As you have said yourself, the imagery I've collected is far better than what you have. And you want me to use look at your lower-resolution imagery to try to prove something?

You have an opinion about things you cannot see with your tools and resources, fine. You're entitled to it.

How 'bout say we just move onto the rest of the evidence that's heretofore been ignored?

[rx]

No, sorry, I see no flexing, grabbing, reaching. I do perhaps see turning, but a mannequin's hand might easily do that.

That's a relatively lot of work to have done that, WH57! Did you think I hadn't already done that with the better imagery I have?

[WildHighlander57]

can you post your corresponding screengrabs, for comparison?

[rx]

Most of us have probably been to visitations where the deceased didn't look very much as they had in real life. Whenever that seems the case, almost no one would ever stand up to suggest it wasn't the ostensible person it was supposed to be.

Thus to suggest that because no one overtly said such a thing (about which is publicly known, at least) and therefore that it must have been the real Fuddy, is out of place and without good support.

[rx]

I have better ways to spend my time, thanks.

[WildHighlander57]

“...Did you think I hadn’t already done that with the better imagery I have?...”

If it’s done then it can be posted.

[Fred Nerks]

It’s late, I’m tired - I’ll think about it. Something is wrong, but the dummy scenario doesn’t work for me.

[Fred Nerks]

You've lumped me in with 'those other disrupters' suggested I am an Alinsky follower (I'm an Australian, to whom he means NOTHING) and now you're saying That's quite the Leftist way of behaving, isn't it?

Are your trying to win me over?

[rodguy911]

rx doesn’t need to win anyone over.There is a source for rx’s claims and its impeccible.I’ve seen it.Arguing with rx is like arguing with a book author he usually wins.

[rodguy911]

In addition engine noise is apparent in at least one abc video from what should have been a dead engine.that pretty much says it all.