DB COOPER
General Category => DB Cooper => Topic started by: Shutter on February 24, 2014, 08:35:17 AM
-
Lots of questions surround the flight path.
-
I am currently working on the flight path via simulator. this has been a challenge getting the right software for the best results. to date, I have settled with X-plane software. I also have a Galaxy 3 tablet running wireless to the system that has all the navigational charts needed plus other options to boot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z-zkCAmDyU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z-zkCAmDyU)
-
I hope Ron & Pat decide to join us here and discuss further about the person training jumpers. lots of question will come of this I'm sure.
-
I'm anxious to hear more about Georger's knowledge of the "missing minutes" from Flight 305. This could be the reason the FBI was looking in the wrong location. If pilot Rataczak said, "5 to 10 minutes later," maybe it could really be 10 to 15 minutes later. That would put flight #305 much further south; almost into Oregon. I think the "missing minutes" are the key to the real drop zone. What say Georger?
-
I posted this at the DZ hoping to get some skydiver answers. Gonna post it here too in case we have any skydiver, aeronautical, or time/space continuum experts here.. ;)
First, Not sure that this has been posted before, but here's an article talking about the Travel Channel's "America Declassified" Nice read. http://parachutistonline.com/...fied-at-the-dropzone (http://parachutistonline.com/...fied-at-the-dropzone)
Now....As we know there is a document out there signed by a NW official that possibly indicates how the probable landing zone was arrived at. I'm interested in trying to find out if there could be other factors that could influence the landing zone that are not specifically talked about in that document.
So if we have any skydivers/experts who'd care to opine...
How far have you been blown from your dropzone due to wind or other factors?
What's the greatest unintended distance from a planned landing that you know of?
What influenced the distance in those cases?
Would the type of parachute that Dan Cooper was using make him more or less likely to be blown "off-course" by wind/weather?
Is there anything that Cooper could do before or after opening his chute (under the conditions as we know them) that would have increased his horizontal distance from a flight path? And I have no idea if horizontal distance is the right terminology so hoping you know what I mean.
-
page 2. I couldn't send both together.
Also - I found two tips. One is a nice surprise. If you take too long to type your post, you get a soft warning that lets you know that the post you're replying to has changed or someone else has posted. That might be a cool feature sometimes.
The other - there is a check off in the "Attachments and other options that says "Return to this topic". I'm gonna check it and see if that will make me stay in this category. :)
Edited to say - it works. Edited to add check new forum category for instructions to set this as default.
-
I fished around trying to find a setting, or something that is causing the change problem after posting. let's see if the option you mentioned works.....
added....it works using that option. nice catch smokin.... 8)
-
If what Georger said is true, that pilot Andy Anderson didn't record the exact time of the "bump," then the case is totally reliant on the recollections of the pilots as to when they thought he bailed out. And with all the confusion going on in the cockpit, the exact time will never be known. The "missing minutes" are the key to Cooper's landing area.
-
If what Georger said is true, that pilot Andy Anderson didn't record the exact time of the "bump," then the case is totally reliant on the recollections of the pilots as to when they thought he bailed out. And with all the confusion going on in the cockpit, the exact time will never be known. The "missing minutes" are the key to Cooper's landing area.
I think it's all in the timing. I have flown the path from Seattle to Portland. it can be done in the time frame they give. other options are being looked at. the money location must be some sort of clue in the path of the plane, or the jump time. if they are off on the timing, lots of water is around the jump zone. Robert99 has a pretty good theory, but we need some more to go on. perhaps he will chime in and discuss it in his words.
-
If what Georger said is true, that pilot Andy Anderson didn't record the exact time of the "bump," then the case is totally reliant on the recollections of the pilots as to when they thought he bailed out. And with all the confusion going on in the cockpit, the exact time will never be known. The "missing minutes" are the key to Cooper's landing area.
Let me put something of a semi-formal nature together and post it, but I need to consult several files first ... tomorrow at the latest if everything cooperates. Its very busy here.
Meyer if you see this I havent forgotten you.
-
Basically, there are no "missing" minutes. I realize that one minute is not listed but it is not lost. Whoever worked up the flight path in the so-called "FBI map" apparently found a radar blip while his clock read a certain time. He then marked the blip on the estimated map location and attached a time to it. If he did this for exactly one minute intervals, the distance between those radar blips would be the same distance since the aircraft's ground speed was essentially constant from the Mayfield/Malay Intersection as the airliner headed to the southeast (and it wasn't necessarily going to the Battleground VORTAC).
But the individual apparently didn't find a radar blip for the time his clock was reading the "missing" minute. To put it even more plainly, the times and positions on that map are not believable.
Robert99
-
If what Georger said is true, that pilot Andy Anderson didn't record the exact time of the "bump," then the case is totally reliant on the recollections of the pilots as to when they thought he bailed out. And with all the confusion going on in the cockpit, the exact time will never be known. The "missing minutes" are the key to Cooper's landing area.
I think it's all in the timing. I have flown the path from Seattle to Portland. it can be done in the time frame they give. other options are being looked at. the money location must be some sort of clue in the path of the plane, or the jump time. if they are off on the timing, lots of water is around the jump zone. Robert99 has a pretty good theory, but we need some more to go on. perhaps he will chime in and discuss it in his words.
The money find at Tina Bar is the key to solving what happened to Cooper. If sufficiently accurate information on the flight path location becomes available, it will quite likely be possible to give a very small area for Cooper's landing (or impact). By small area, I mean quite a bit less than one-half of a square mile. It is also quite likely that a meaningful statement can be made on Cooper's condition immediately after he returns to earth (dead or alive?).
The unique geographical and topographical conditions that exist in the Tina Bar area are such that severe limitations exist on what the flight path had to be, and whether Cooper was a pull or no-pull, in order for the money to get to Tina Bar. And if accurate flight path information, such as that in the un-redacted Seattle ATC transcripts, becomes available, I will be delighted to go out on a limb and amplify on the above.
Shutter is absolute right about the further south the airliner got from the Woodland area, the more water it would be flying over. If the flight crew bypassed Portland on the west side, the airliner would essentially be almost directly over the Columbia River as it passed Tina Bar.
-
About four years ago, I ordered digital copies of the FAA's Low Altitude Enroute IFR maps L1 and L2 through the National Archives and a contractor who actually made the disks. The maps were in effect on November 24, 1971 and contained the navigational information that the NWA airliner would be using on it flight from Seattle to Reno.
When the contractor sent me the disks, they would not initially work on my computer. After quite a bit of work between the contractor and myself, we finally got the problem resolved. I made duplicate disks of both maps and sent them to Sluggo and he in turn posted them on his web page.
Recently, I tried to make duplicate copies of my "archive disks" in order to send the maps to the WSHM. But I have not been able to get any of the disks, which have worked in the past, to open. No reason for this can be determined. I am using the very same computer as before and only the normal upgrades to Windows 7 and to Internet Explorer 11 have been made.
I took the disks to one commercial shop and they told me the disks were corrupted. I have no idea how that could have happened and doubt if it did.
Do any of you computer wizards have a suggestion for correcting this problem?
-
About four years ago, I ordered digital copies of the FAA's Low Altitude Enroute IFR maps L1 and L2 through the National Archives and a contractor who actually made the disks. The maps were in effect on November 24, 1971 and contained the navigational information that the NWA airliner would be using on it flight from Seattle to Reno.
When the contractor sent me the disks, they would not initially work on my computer. After quite a bit of work between the contractor and myself, we finally got the problem resolved. I made duplicate disks of both maps and sent them to Sluggo and he in turn posted them on his web page.
Recently, I tried to make duplicate copies of my "archive disks" in order to send the maps to the WSHM. But I have not been able to get any of the disks, which have worked in the past, to open. No reason for this can be determined. I am using the very same computer as before and only the normal upgrades to Windows 7 and to Internet Explorer 11 have been made.
I took the disks to one commercial shop and they told me the disks were corrupted. I have no idea how that could have happened and doubt if it did.
Do any of you computer wizards have a suggestion for correcting this problem?
Can you get other copies of these disks to try, or share?
-
If what Georger said is true, that pilot Andy Anderson didn't record the exact time of the "bump," then the case is totally reliant on the recollections of the pilots as to when they thought he bailed out. And with all the confusion going on in the cockpit, the exact time will never be known. The "missing minutes" are the key to Cooper's landing area.
I think it's all in the timing. I have flown the path from Seattle to Portland. it can be done in the time frame they give. other options are being looked at. the money location must be some sort of clue in the path of the plane, or the jump time. if they are off on the timing, lots of water is around the jump zone. Robert99 has a pretty good theory, but we need some more to go on. perhaps he will chime in and discuss it in his words.
The money find at Tina Bar is the key to solving what happened to Cooper. If sufficiently accurate information on the flight path location becomes available, it will quite likely be possible to give a very small area for Cooper's landing (or impact). By small area, I mean quite a bit less than one-half of a square mile. It is also quite likely that a meaningful statement can be made on Cooper's condition immediately after he returns to earth (dead or alive?).
The unique geographical and topographical conditions that exist in the Tina Bar area are such that severe limitations exist on what the flight path had to be, and whether Cooper was a pull or no-pull, in order for the money to get to Tina Bar. And if accurate flight path information, such as that in the un-redacted Seattle ATC transcripts, becomes available, I will be delighted to go out on a limb and amplify on the above.
Shutter is absolute right about the further south the airliner got from the Woodland area, the more water it would be flying over. If the flight crew bypassed Portland on the west side, the airliner would essentially be almost directly over the Columbia River as it passed Tina Bar.
In addition, new tests on the money could be run to help verify a specific scenario. These are tests beyond the scope and capability of what Tom was able to do -
-
Robert, are you able to view the disk? if so you can put them on your desktop and try a fresh copy from that direction. If the disk is corrupt, it most likely done with, but if you can access the files you can go from there. I just got home, so let me think about the options.
-
About four years ago, I ordered digital copies of the FAA's Low Altitude Enroute IFR maps L1 and L2 through the National Archives and a contractor who actually made the disks. The maps were in effect on November 24, 1971 and contained the navigational information that the NWA airliner would be using on it flight from Seattle to Reno.
When the contractor sent me the disks, they would not initially work on my computer. After quite a bit of work between the contractor and myself, we finally got the problem resolved. I made duplicate disks of both maps and sent them to Sluggo and he in turn posted them on his web page.
Recently, I tried to make duplicate copies of my "archive disks" in order to send the maps to the WSHM. But I have not been able to get any of the disks, which have worked in the past, to open. No reason for this can be determined. I am using the very same computer as before and only the normal upgrades to Windows 7 and to Internet Explorer 11 have been made.
I took the disks to one commercial shop and they told me the disks were corrupted. I have no idea how that could have happened and doubt if it did.
Do any of you computer wizards have a suggestion for correcting this problem?
Robert if you can copy the disk(s) and get me a copy I can have our best IT people look at it -
likewise several at Rockwell, etc. I can try to go beyond that, if required. Is the disk encoded?
-
Robert99: I didn't mean "missing minutes" to be taken literally, but rather figuratively as an unaccounted for "time frame for jump exit." The exact exit time for Cooper will never be known. The pilots did not log the time of the bump, and the bump isn't an absolute indication of him leaving the aircraft. There is speculation in play on Cooper's time of probable departure. And the money find at Tina's Bar is important to the case, but limited in value if you believe that it is direct evidence of the flight path. It is not. There is a chance that the money find was a cunnard. This case carries no ablsolutes. Alignment of factual evidence does not produce a clear solution. And if you think you know the solution, you still have a problem, because the factual evidence does not fall into place to bare out a clear conclusion.
-
I would be interested in knowing your definition of "factual evidence". How did you arrive at the conclusion that the money at Tina Bar may have been planted? I believe that both the FBI, specifically Larry Carr, and lawyers on this thread are very skeptical about the money being planted based on their experience with criminals.
Have you read Tom Kaye's conclusions about the Washougal wash down theory? Based on some tests Kaye did with actual paper money, he essentially states that the wash down theory doesn't wash.
-
I would be interested in knowing your definition of "factual evidence". How did you arrive at the conclusion that the money at Tina Bar may have been planted? I believe that both the FBI, specifically Larry Carr, and lawyers on this thread are very skeptical about the money being planted based on their experience with criminals.
Have you read Tom Kaye's conclusions about the Washougal wash down theory? Based on some tests Kaye did with actual paper money, he essentially states that the wash down theory doesn't wash.
McCoy's jump was at a higher altitude. would the noise they heard be different from 10,000 vs McCoy's jump. I don't recall the altitude at this moment. this article was from the Parachutist Website. they describe it differently.
Added: I just realized that last two paragraphs are mine. I made this a while back, didn't notice until I posted it.
-
Robert99: I didn't mean "missing minutes" to be taken literally, but rather figuratively as an unaccounted for "time frame for jump exit." The exact exit time for Cooper will never be known. The pilots did not log the time of the bump, and the bump isn't an absolute indication of him leaving the aircraft. There is speculation in play on Cooper's time of probable departure. And the money find at Tina's Bar is important to the case, but limited in value if you believe that it is direct evidence of the flight path. It is not. There is a chance that the money find was a cunnard. This case carries no ablsolutes. Alignment of factual evidence does not produce a clear solution. And if you think you know the solution, you still have a problem, because the factual evidence does not fall into place to bare out a clear conclusion.
Coopsnoop, let me post the below to give some meat to the discussion. What follows includes
paraphrased testimony recently received from H. Anderson, received by myself and two others.
People can cherry pick what I am posting, agree, disagree, complain, ... whatever. But I believe
what follows is an accurate portrait and paraphrase of testimony recently received, juxtaposed
with the timeline in the Transcripts -
Intro: The period of the ‘oscillations & bump’ was used to set the time and location of Cooper’s
jump. These symptoms of a parachutist leaving the 727 via the rear door/stairs was
unanticipated by the flight crew at the time, therefore the crew was not sure what was going on
or it’s meaning. Tina had come forward and advised ‘it appears Cooper is getting ready to
jump’.
19:42 (07:42) Flt 305 reports “14 NM out of SEA on Victor-23. Cooper is trying to get the door
down, Stew is with us, he cannot get the stairs down. We now have an aft stair light on.
19:54 (07:54) Flt 305 reports: Miss Mucklow said he apparently has the knapsack around him
and [she] thinks he will jump.
19:54 (07:54) Flt Ops MSP advised that they have a direct phone patch hooked up on 131.8
MHz. [Phone patch to NWA … indicates crew thinks Cooper about to bail, communication restricted
to NWA?]
Time ?? Cooper calls on intercom requests “Slow down! Stabilize the plane…”. Unreported in
TR but verified in crew testimony. Scott responds by slowing and stabilizing the aircraft so Cooper
can bail. Rataczak communicating events to NWA as they happen. (source: Rataczak & Anderson)
20:05 (08:05) MSP-Flt Ops. Pilot reports that he has tried twice to contact Cooper unsuccessfully,
then he came on the PA system and said everything is OK. (Cooper still on the plane)
20:11 (08:11) Time generally attributed to Cooper’s jump. (FBI)
20:12 (08:12) Oscillations reported… Flt 305 advises they are getting some oscillations in the
cabin, Cooper must be doing something with the stairs. (Anderson & Rataczak later explain this
report did not include mention of a ‘bump’. Bump reported later to NWA by Rataczak “after we
discussed it for several minutes…”) (Cooper still on the plane or stairs)
20:15 (08:15) SEA CNTR advises Portland Altimeter (Corresponding Sea Level Barometric
Pressure) is 30.03 inches of Hg. [This is important because it shows that at 20:15:56 they were
very near Portland.]
Time ?? Rataczak reports Cooper may have bailed to NWA on 131.8 MHz . (‘The oscillations
had stopped and we hadn’t experienced any further bumps, so we discussed it among ourselves
and we decided the ‘bump’ was when Cooper bailed so Bill (Rataczak) called it in to NWA’ – exact
time and position uncertain. ‘Nobody was taking notes or noting times and positions of any of
these events. Bill (Rataczak) thought (later reported) the bump we felt was about 5-10 minutes
after our last contact with Cooper at 8:05. I agreed with that but it could have been later. We
weren’t sure what had happened or if he was gone at all. Scott wanted to go back and look but
that got vetoed. Bill estimated (recalling) that he could see the lights of Portland-Vancouver
coming up, but we hadn’t crossed the Columbia yet. Bill was looking ahead and out his right
window. The test flight we conducted verified the link between the ‘bump’ and the stairs slamming
back up when weight was taken off the stairs. The Air Force guys and one NWA tech made that
connection pretty quickly. We weren’t sure what the ‘bump’ meant at the time, we weren’t sure
Cooper was gone, but the test flight confirmed what the ‘bump’ was. No, we weren’t anywhere
near the Washougal when the bump happened. As I said, we could see the lights of Portland-
Vancouver coming up. ‘ (H. Anderson, paraphased)
20:20 (08:20) Flt Ops MSP request Go to 131.8 MHz. (NWA channel)
20:20 (08:20) Flt-Ops SEA advises Flt 305 is already on that frequency. Flt Ops MSP Advises we
are on the phone and will be talking with him shortly.
Note* Rataczak says the bump happened 5-10 mins after their last conversation with C at 8:05.
Rataczak’s bailout window is: 8:10-8:15. Anderson agrees but says it might have been slightly
later. What Anderson reveals is there was a delay in reporting, because they didn’t know what
had happened or what the bump meant for certain. They discussed the matter before reporting
the socalled ‘bump. But, this uncertainty as to precise time and location due to combined factors including delayed reporting, is reflected in the NWA-FBI search map. Indeed, including uncertainty in the NWA-FBI map confirms the fact there were "uncertainties" at play, in real time aboard flight 305 at the time. Otherwise, they could very easily have just issued a map of the primary search area and reduced the uncertainty the made-map conveys!
-
found this site through Bing. Took me a while but i figured out it must be only for talking about db cooper? I heard about that money they found on the river. I've always thought it meant he probably drowned or something.
welcome ... what are your interests in the DB Cooper case?
-
Robert99:
I didn't "conclude" that the money was planted. I'm using that as supposition, just as you may "conclude" that it wasn't planted. Who can prove what? If it was easy, the case have been solved long ago. You can examine anomalies in any criminal case, or scientific experiment, and use those anomolies to build your conclusion. But that would be flawed logic. As for FBI and lawyers using "their experience" to assume that the money couldn't be planted, well........maybe that's what Cooper wanted them to think. You have no idea what goes on in the mind of a clever criminal, Robert. Some of them may be smarter than the FBI or lawyers. As for Tom Kaye......I believe that he publicly rejected the washdown theory. That leaves two likely alternatives: a direct Cooper landing at Tina's Bar, or a plant. I think Tom Kaye is going with a "plant." Maybe Tom Kaye will post and expound.
Georger: I'll discuss your post tomorrow. I'm heading for bed.
-
Robert99:
I didn't "conclude" that the money was planted. I'm using that as supposition, just as you may "conclude" that it wasn't planted. Who can prove what? If it was easy, the case have been solved long ago. You can examine anomalies in any criminal case, or scientific experiment, and use those anomolies to build your conclusion. But that would be flawed logic. As for FBI and lawyers using "their experience" to assume that the money couldn't be planted, well........maybe that's what Cooper wanted them to think. You have no idea what goes on in the mind of a clever criminal, Robert. Some of them may be smarter than the FBI or lawyers. As for Tom Kaye......I believe that he publicly rejected the washdown theory. That leaves two likely alternatives: a direct Cooper landing at Tina's Bar, or a plant. I think Tom Kaye is going with a "plant." Maybe Tom Kaye will post and expound.
Georger: I'll discuss your post tomorrow. I'm heading for bed.
Coopsnoop said:
"I didn't "conclude" that the money was planted. I'm using that as supposition, just as you may "conclude" that it wasn't planted. Who can prove what? "
Well... I think the difference between planted vs. not-planted is testable and can be proved, if you
can show each condition has its own characteristic traits. It's a forensic matter. One set of traits
will indicate "planted". Another set of traits indicates "not planted".
For example, when things are exposed to the atmosphere they acquire particular isotopic traits,
due to the nature of the Earth's atmosphere (post atomic testing in the 1940s-50s). This is a
well documented universal fact used to date things. If a thing is buried it is not being exposed to
the atmosphere. Things buried vs things not buried have different isotopic exposure clocks. This
would apply to the Cooper money, as well any other physical object on Earth. (This was
mentioned years ago on DZ. back about 2008. People didn't pay much attention!) :)
BTW, such tests were available back in 1980 when the money was first discovered.
In a similar fashion, there are other criteria which imply "plant" vs. "non-plant" with different
clocks indicative of each - science is fun! :)
-
Robert99:
I didn't "conclude" that the money was planted. I'm using that as supposition, just as you may "conclude" that it wasn't planted. Who can prove what? If it was easy, the case have been solved long ago. You can examine anomalies in any criminal case, or scientific experiment, and use those anomolies to build your conclusion. But that would be flawed logic. As for FBI and lawyers using "their experience" to assume that the money couldn't be planted, well........maybe that's what Cooper wanted them to think. You have no idea what goes on in the mind of a clever criminal, Robert. Some of them may be smarter than the FBI or lawyers. As for Tom Kaye......I believe that he publicly rejected the washdown theory. That leaves two likely alternatives: a direct Cooper landing at Tina's Bar, or a plant. I think Tom Kaye is going with a "plant." Maybe Tom Kaye will post and expound.
Georger: I'll discuss your post tomorrow. I'm heading for bed.
Coopsnoop said:
"I didn't "conclude" that the money was planted. I'm using that as supposition, just as you may "conclude" that it wasn't planted. Who can prove what? "
Well... I think the difference between planted vs. not-planted is testable and can be proved, if you
can show each condition has its own characteristic traits. It's a forensic matter. One set of traits
will indicate "planted". Another set of traits indicates "not planted".
For example, when things are exposed to the atmosphere they acquire particular isotopic traits,
due to the nature of the Earth's atmosphere (post atomic testing in the 1940s-50s). This is a
well documented universal fact used to date things. If a thing is buried it is not being exposed to
the atmosphere. Things buried vs things not buried have different isotopic exposure clocks. This
would apply to the Cooper money, as well any other physical object on Earth. (This was
mentioned years ago on DZ. back about 2008. People didn't pay much attention!) :)
BTW, such tests were available back in 1980 when the money was first discovered.
In a similar fashion, there are other criteria which imply "plant" vs. "non-plant" with different
clocks indicative of each - science is fun! :)
Georger, is there a possibility for testing the money as you mention above and/or for further tests for river contamination?
-
Robert99:
I didn't "conclude" that the money was planted. I'm using that as supposition, just as you may "conclude" that it wasn't planted. Who can prove what? If it was easy, the case have been solved long ago. You can examine anomalies in any criminal case, or scientific experiment, and use those anomolies to build your conclusion. But that would be flawed logic. As for FBI and lawyers using "their experience" to assume that the money couldn't be planted, well........maybe that's what Cooper wanted them to think. You have no idea what goes on in the mind of a clever criminal, Robert. Some of them may be smarter than the FBI or lawyers. As for Tom Kaye......I believe that he publicly rejected the washdown theory. That leaves two likely alternatives: a direct Cooper landing at Tina's Bar, or a plant. I think Tom Kaye is going with a "plant." Maybe Tom Kaye will post and expound.
Georger: I'll discuss your post tomorrow. I'm heading for bed.
Coopsnoop said:
"I didn't "conclude" that the money was planted. I'm using that as supposition, just as you may "conclude" that it wasn't planted. Who can prove what? "
Well... I think the difference between planted vs. not-planted is testable and can be proved, if you
can show each condition has its own characteristic traits. It's a forensic matter. One set of traits
will indicate "planted". Another set of traits indicates "not planted".
For example, when things are exposed to the atmosphere they acquire particular isotopic traits,
due to the nature of the Earth's atmosphere (post atomic testing in the 1940s-50s). This is a
well documented universal fact used to date things. If a thing is buried it is not being exposed to
the atmosphere. Things buried vs things not buried have different isotopic exposure clocks. This
would apply to the Cooper money, as well any other physical object on Earth. (This was
mentioned years ago on DZ. back about 2008. People didn't pay much attention!) :)
BTW, such tests were available back in 1980 when the money was first discovered.
In a similar fashion, there are other criteria which imply "plant" vs. "non-plant" with different
clocks indicative of each - science is fun! :)
Georger, is there a possibility for testing the money as you mention above and/or for further tests for river contamination?
Sure, to some extent. At this point anyone running tests on this money, fragments, soil samples, band fragments (if they could be isolated)... etc. would want samples in as 'pristine' (uncontaminated) condition, as possible. And plenty of time to work with the samples and think things through (developing a schedule of applied tests). There is just a finite amount of this material left which would qualify as being 'uncontaminated'. The time for turning these precious
samples over to back yard mechanics, has ceased, imho! Professionals who know what they are doing will be required from this point on . . . that was always my first line of thought or I never would have made an overture to Larry, in the first place.
I feel the same about the rest of the Cooper evidence. The FBI needs to put somebody in charge of this evidence who really knows what he's doing. That means someone who is up to date and knowledgeable about the wide swath of forensic testing (including genetic testing) that could be applied to the physical evidence the FBI has, in this case.
If I were the FBI/Atty General, I would even go so far as to acquire the bills/fragments including the original evidence folders Ingram was given and has, to get those items of evidence back into government hands and secure them along with the rest of the Cooper physical evidence ... I feel very strongly about this because I think the original Court Judgement to split this evidence up, was wrong and very short-sighted.
As I told Eng once, I would NEVER! give up on this case. Time is a valuable ally in this matter
if used appropriately -
Yours is an important question and maybe the most important question of all, at this point -
-
Georger:
The different traits between "planted" and "non-planted" could possibly show up through some form of biological detection, I suppose. If the money was in a prior location for "x" number of years, its possible that there may be biological indicators that the money sat at another location besides Tina's Bar. We know that Tom Kaye tested for silver nitrate, which was determined, but that was indicative of the FBI using "sn" in their earlier test for fingerprints. So what other test exists? How about "anaerobic v. aerobic?" Would the bills go through accelerated degradation in one of those conditions? I guess the larger question would be: given the structural composition of the bills, what environmental factors would suggest the "rounded edges" and the "little holes" found on the bills? Remember, Dr. Palmer stated that the money packets were only at TB for 9 to 12 months prior.
-
Georger://
Nice summation of the communications between the crew and ATC/NWA. I think that you have opened the door to some further speculation. If Cooper is testing out the stairs, and that registers as "oscillations and bumps," then the "last" bump would arguably be the "bump that sent him out the door." Or would it? I propose a couple of other possibilities. What if the crew was also experiencing turbulance and relied on their "feel" of the airflow as the "last bump." Couldn't turbulance be confused with oscillations? Are their other indicators on board that can register air pressure differentials, and thus, oscillations? And another possibility. If Cooper is the deceptive genious that some believe, what would prevent him from producing oscillations by plunging the airstairs a few times to create backpressure and a false positive to the crew? If he has pilot training and knows aircraft, which he must to some degree, he might know how to create the impressions that will allow him to escape.
-
Georger:
The different traits between "planted" and "non-planted" could possibly show up through some form of biological detection, I suppose. If the money was in a prior location for "x" number of years, its possible that there may be biological indicators that the money sat at another location besides Tina's Bar. We know that Tom Kaye tested for silver nitrate, which was determined, but that was indicative of the FBI using "sn" in their earlier test for fingerprints. So what other test exists? How about "anaerobic v. aerobic?" Would the bills go through accelerated degradation in one of those conditions? I guess the larger question would be: given the structural composition of the bills, what environmental factors would suggest the "rounded edges" and the "little holes" found on the bills? Remember, Dr. Palmer stated that the money packets were only at TB for 9 to 12 months prior.
Coopsnoop, There is one additional peculiarity with the bills that should be considered. Tom Kaye has photographs on his web page that indicates one packet of the bills had been "torqued", presumably by water. Looking at those photographs is the best way to understand what I am talking about. There is a very remote possibility that this torqueing could have been done by airflow over a relatively long period (weeks or a few months) of time.
If the packet was torqued by water, then why wasn't evidence of river water contamination found on the bills? If it was done by airflow, the packet would have to be exposed to view for a lengthy period of time. Since Tina Bar is visited daily by fishermen and "sand trampers", why didn't they notice the money? The three packets of bills found at Tina Bar were very close to each other and did not appear to have been exposed to any great amount of violence (regardless of the torqueing).
-
Georger:
The different traits between "planted" and "non-planted" could possibly show up through some form of biological detection, I suppose. If the money was in a prior location for "x" number of years, its possible that there may be biological indicators that the money sat at another location besides Tina's Bar. We know that Tom Kaye tested for silver nitrate, which was determined, but that was indicative of the FBI using "sn" in their earlier test for fingerprints. So what other test exists? How about "anaerobic v. aerobic?" Would the bills go through accelerated degradation in one of those conditions? I guess the larger question would be: given the structural composition of the bills, what environmental factors would suggest the "rounded edges" and the "little holes" found on the bills? Remember, Dr. Palmer stated that the money packets were only at TB for 9 to 12 months prior.
Maybe we are 'sposed to be discussing the money in the Money Section? Realise things spill over
automatically. You mention "biological indicators" associated with different locations. That's a reasonable expectation one might test for. What "biological indicators" do you think would imply
plant vs. arrived by natural means? Can you be specific. Tom did not find any 'diatoms', I guess.
That is curious. Does that indicate "plant"?
There is this whole issue of degradation, and traits of degradation, which has yet to be nailed down. Rounded edges on bills. (Corners and edges tend to get rounded off in nature)?
Maybe we should take this to the Money section?
You ask good questions. Do you know Brian is here!? Hopefully we can bring Brian into this discussion. :)
-
Georger://
Nice summation of the communications between the crew and ATC/NWA. I think that you have opened the door to some further speculation. If Cooper is testing out the stairs, and that registers as "oscillations and bumps," then the "last" bump would arguably be the "bump that sent him out the door." Or would it? I propose a couple of other possibilities. What if the crew was also experiencing turbulance and relied on their "feel" of the airflow as the "last bump." Couldn't turbulance be confused with oscillations? Are their other indicators on board that can register air pressure differentials, and thus, oscillations? And another possibility. If Cooper is the deceptive genious that some believe, what would prevent him from producing oscillations by plunging the airstairs a few times to create backpressure and a false positive to the crew? If he has pilot training and knows aircraft, which he must to some degree, he might know how to create the impressions that will allow him to escape.
;) Hmmm, I dont think those 727 stairs were a "tuned harp" that Cooper played ... like Mozart
creating an effect ? ;) Very likely the stairs were vibrating in the airstream as a result of their own mechanical realities ... remember Cooper called forward and said: 'slow and stabilise the plane'. Doesn't sound to me like there was much opportunity there for independent orchestration or playing those stairs like a Xylophone, to fool everyone ?
-
Georger:
The different traits between "planted" and "non-planted" could possibly show up through some form of biological detection, I suppose. If the money was in a prior location for "x" number of years, its possible that there may be biological indicators that the money sat at another location besides Tina's Bar. We know that Tom Kaye tested for silver nitrate, which was determined, but that was indicative of the FBI using "sn" in their earlier test for fingerprints. So what other test exists? How about "anaerobic v. aerobic?" Would the bills go through accelerated degradation in one of those conditions? I guess the larger question would be: given the structural composition of the bills, what environmental factors would suggest the "rounded edges" and the "little holes" found on the bills? Remember, Dr. Palmer stated that the money packets were only at TB for 9 to 12 months prior.
Coopsnoop, There is one additional peculiarity with the bills that should be considered. Tom Kaye has photographs on his web page that indicates one packet of the bills had been "torqued", presumably by water. Looking at those photographs is the best way to understand what I am talking about. There is a very remote possibility that this torqueing could have been done by airflow over a relatively long period (weeks or a few months) of time.
If the packet was torqued by water, then why wasn't evidence of river water contamination found on the bills? If it was done by airflow, the packet would have to be exposed to view for a lengthy period of time. Since Tina Bar is visited daily by fishermen and "sand trampers", why didn't they notice the money? The three packets of bills found at Tina Bar were very close to each other and did not appear to have been exposed to any great amount of violence (regardless of the torqueing).
Yes, Tom's comments about torquing, are interesting. Maybe the whole group of bills was torqued,
from impact? If that is the case then it may be proof the bag and Cooper were separated and
the bag fell to the ground, on its own?
But we have had this conversation before, I think. If I recall, you are interested to know if some
'torquing' indicates direction of water flow .... indicative of direction the money traveled to its location at Tina Bar? Am I correct? :)
What evidence of "impact" would reveal itself in this money, as distinct from torquing or force on individual bills related to water pressure and direction of travel?
Can we be more specific in our requirements of traits and what different traits indicate, or rule out, in this money.
I wish Brian would join this conversation! :)
-
Georger:
The different traits between "planted" and "non-planted" could possibly show up through some form of biological detection, I suppose. If the money was in a prior location for "x" number of years, its possible that there may be biological indicators that the money sat at another location besides Tina's Bar. We know that Tom Kaye tested for silver nitrate, which was determined, but that was indicative of the FBI using "sn" in their earlier test for fingerprints. So what other test exists? How about "anaerobic v. aerobic?" Would the bills go through accelerated degradation in one of those conditions? I guess the larger question would be: given the structural composition of the bills, what environmental factors would suggest the "rounded edges" and the "little holes" found on the bills? Remember, Dr. Palmer stated that the money packets were only at TB for 9 to 12 months prior.
Coopsnoop, There is one additional peculiarity with the bills that should be considered. Tom Kaye has photographs on his web page that indicates one packet of the bills had been "torqued", presumably by water. Looking at those photographs is the best way to understand what I am talking about. There is a very remote possibility that this torqueing could have been done by airflow over a relatively long period (weeks or a few months) of time.
If the packet was torqued by water, then why wasn't evidence of river water contamination found on the bills? If it was done by airflow, the packet would have to be exposed to view for a lengthy period of time. Since Tina Bar is visited daily by fishermen and "sand trampers", why didn't they notice the money? The three packets of bills found at Tina Bar were very close to each other and did not appear to have been exposed to any great amount of violence (regardless of the torqueing).
Yes, Tom's comments about torquing, are interesting. Maybe the whole group of bills was torqued,
from impact? If that is the case then it may be proof the bag and Cooper were separated and
the bag fell to the ground, on its own?
But we have had this conversation before, I think. If I recall, you are interested to know if some
'torquing' indicates direction of water flow .... indicative of direction the money traveled to its location at Tina Bar? Am I correct? :)
What evidence of "impact" would reveal itself in this money, as distinct from torquing or force on individual bills related to water pressure and direction of travel?
Can we be more specific in our requirements of traits and what different traits indicate, or rule out, in this money.
I wish Brian would join this conversation! :)
I would also like to hear what Brian has to say about this.
The torqueing was counterclockwise as view from above. For the torqueing to take place, the bottom of the packet of bills would have to be firmly attached in some manner to the surface below it. If the torqueing was done at Tina Bar by the river water, the end of the packet with the rubber band still attached would be lower than the end without a rubber band and would be under an inch or two of water.
If the torqueing was done at Tina Bar and NOT by the river water, it would have to be done by water entering the river as drainage from the Fazio farm and sand operation. In this case, the end of the packet with the rubber band still attached would be pointed downstream (to the south at Tina Bar).
Brian, can you remember the orientation of the packets of bills you found at Tina Bar?
Robert99
-
Robert99 and Georger:
Good questions, both. Georger is right, we need to address this under the "money" subtopic. Torquing is an interesting angle of discussion, though. As for "playing with the airstairs," we'll never know for sure. The clever and deceptive mind can do such things when its crunch time. But if you put yourself in the place of Cooper, I doubt that you would heave yourself out the backend without some "thinking and figuring." This guy is out to save his skin and the booty. He's looking for a place to jump hoping that he can survive; and, he'd like to be able to getaway once on the ground too. Think about it. If you have a few extra minutes, which he did, he's going to process his "most likely odds" outcome.
Snoop.
-
Hey Brian. Welcome. A great team being assembled at your site, Shutter. Congratulations!!
-
Hey Brian. Welcome. A great team being assembled at your site, Shutter. Congratulations!!
Thanks, but I can't take all the credit. most of it belongs to all of us. if it wasn't for all of you guys, none of this would of happened. Bruce is also a key person, I'm sure he has a lot to do with many of the people that have joined. it's a team effort in order to make this all come together. it's getting there that's for sure. I asked Bruce earlier if he would like me to open a category for the mountain news. perhaps he missed it.
one of my main goals are being achieved. that is the ability to work together as a team, you just didn't see that on the other site (DZ). we tried, but was always distracted. I appreciate the credit, but must gracefully bow down to you guys. I simply turned the key. you guys give it the gas. 8)
Shutter
-
Georger:
The different traits between "planted" and "non-planted" could possibly show up through some form of biological detection, I suppose. If the money was in a prior location for "x" number of years, its possible that there may be biological indicators that the money sat at another location besides Tina's Bar. We know that Tom Kaye tested for silver nitrate, which was determined, but that was indicative of the FBI using "sn" in their earlier test for fingerprints. So what other test exists? How about "anaerobic v. aerobic?" Would the bills go through accelerated degradation in one of those conditions? I guess the larger question would be: given the structural composition of the bills, what environmental factors would suggest the "rounded edges" and the "little holes" found on the bills? Remember, Dr. Palmer stated that the money packets were only at TB for 9 to 12 months prior.
Coopsnoop, There is one additional peculiarity with the bills that should be considered. Tom Kaye has photographs on his web page that indicates one packet of the bills had been "torqued", presumably by water. Looking at those photographs is the best way to understand what I am talking about. There is a very remote possibility that this torqueing could have been done by airflow over a relatively long period (weeks or a few months) of time.
If the packet was torqued by water, then why wasn't evidence of river water contamination found on the bills? If it was done by airflow, the packet would have to be exposed to view for a lengthy period of time. Since Tina Bar is visited daily by fishermen and "sand trampers", why didn't they notice the money? The three packets of bills found at Tina Bar were very close to each other and did not appear to have been exposed to any great amount of violence (regardless of the torqueing).
Yes, Tom's comments about torquing, are interesting. Maybe the whole group of bills was torqued,
from impact? If that is the case then it may be proof the bag and Cooper were separated and
the bag fell to the ground, on its own?
But we have had this conversation before, I think. If I recall, you are interested to know if some
'torquing' indicates direction of water flow .... indicative of direction the money traveled to its location at Tina Bar? Am I correct? :)
What evidence of "impact" would reveal itself in this money, as distinct from torquing or force on individual bills related to water pressure and direction of travel?
Can we be more specific in our requirements of traits and what different traits indicate, or rule out, in this money.
I wish Brian would join this conversation! :)
I would also like to hear what Brian has to say about this.
The torqueing was counterclockwise as view from above. For the torqueing to take place, the bottom of the packet of bills would have to be firmly attached in some manner to the surface below it. If the torqueing was done at Tina Bar by the river water, the end of the packet with the rubber band still attached would be lower than the end without a rubber band and would be under an inch or two of water.
If the torqueing was done at Tina Bar and NOT by the river water, it would have to be done by water entering the river as drainage from the Fazio farm and sand operation. In this case, the end of the packet with the rubber band still attached would be pointed downstream (to the south at Tina Bar).
Brian, can you remember the orientation of the packets of bills you found at Tina Bar?
Robert99
Am I correct in assuming Tom saw this in only one bill. (He had a total of 3 bills not in consecutive
order). So how far can one extrapolate from one bill, even if there is torque in that one bill?
The torquing, if it is real, in one bill, may or may not represent torquing in adjacent bills which Tom did not have to examine. ???
;)
-
Georger:
The different traits between "planted" and "non-planted" could possibly show up through some form of biological detection, I suppose. If the money was in a prior location for "x" number of years, its possible that there may be biological indicators that the money sat at another location besides Tina's Bar. We know that Tom Kaye tested for silver nitrate, which was determined, but that was indicative of the FBI using "sn" in their earlier test for fingerprints. So what other test exists? How about "anaerobic v. aerobic?" Would the bills go through accelerated degradation in one of those conditions? I guess the larger question would be: given the structural composition of the bills, what environmental factors would suggest the "rounded edges" and the "little holes" found on the bills? Remember, Dr. Palmer stated that the money packets were only at TB for 9 to 12 months prior.
Coopsnoop, There is one additional peculiarity with the bills that should be considered. Tom Kaye has photographs on his web page that indicates one packet of the bills had been "torqued", presumably by water. Looking at those photographs is the best way to understand what I am talking about. There is a very remote possibility that this torqueing could have been done by airflow over a relatively long period (weeks or a few months) of time.
If the packet was torqued by water, then why wasn't evidence of river water contamination found on the bills? If it was done by airflow, the packet would have to be exposed to view for a lengthy period of time. Since Tina Bar is visited daily by fishermen and "sand trampers", why didn't they notice the money? The three packets of bills found at Tina Bar were very close to each other and did not appear to have been exposed to any great amount of violence (regardless of the torqueing).
Yes, Tom's comments about torquing, are interesting. Maybe the whole group of bills was torqued,
from impact? If that is the case then it may be proof the bag and Cooper were separated and
the bag fell to the ground, on its own?
But we have had this conversation before, I think. If I recall, you are interested to know if some
'torquing' indicates direction of water flow .... indicative of direction the money traveled to its location at Tina Bar? Am I correct? :)
What evidence of "impact" would reveal itself in this money, as distinct from torquing or force on individual bills related to water pressure and direction of travel?
Can we be more specific in our requirements of traits and what different traits indicate, or rule out, in this money.
I wish Brian would join this conversation! :)
I would also like to hear what Brian has to say about this.
The torqueing was counterclockwise as view from above. For the torqueing to take place, the bottom of the packet of bills would have to be firmly attached in some manner to the surface below it. If the torqueing was done at Tina Bar by the river water, the end of the packet with the rubber band still attached would be lower than the end without a rubber band and would be under an inch or two of water.
If the torqueing was done at Tina Bar and NOT by the river water, it would have to be done by water entering the river as drainage from the Fazio farm and sand operation. In this case, the end of the packet with the rubber band still attached would be pointed downstream (to the south at Tina Bar).
Brian, can you remember the orientation of the packets of bills you found at Tina Bar?
Robert99
Am I correct in assuming Tom saw this in only one bill. (He had a total of 3 bills not in consecutive
order). So how far can one extrapolate from one bill, even if there is torque in that one bill?
The torquing, if it is real, in one bill, may or may not represent torquing in adjacent bills which Tom did not have to examine. ???
;)
According to the website, he concluded this from one bill that he examined with multiple fragments adhered to the edge. Also - and I might be wrong about this, his web site wasn't real clear on it - some of his conclusions in general about the money came from pictures of the money.
An alternate theory, instead of torque with center alignment, is that the bills just came slightly askew within the rubber band from being fanned out in water, or being tossed around in water, or having water flow over them as flood waters rose and receded.
In other words, the bills might have been out of alignment but still within the band - so instead of the bills being exactly aligned one on top of the other forming a straight-edged rectangular bundle, you have a one on top of the other slightly diagonal bundle. And then one or two individual bills could have moved out of that alignment. I'm just not sure what the significance would be either way.
lol...another reason I don't like categories.... jk...this format is fine. ;D 8). ....Dang i just noticed there's not an angel icon.
-
Georger:
The different traits between "planted" and "non-planted" could possibly show up through some form of biological detection, I suppose. If the money was in a prior location for "x" number of years, its possible that there may be biological indicators that the money sat at another location besides Tina's Bar. We know that Tom Kaye tested for silver nitrate, which was determined, but that was indicative of the FBI using "sn" in their earlier test for fingerprints. So what other test exists? How about "anaerobic v. aerobic?" Would the bills go through accelerated degradation in one of those conditions? I guess the larger question would be: given the structural composition of the bills, what environmental factors would suggest the "rounded edges" and the "little holes" found on the bills? Remember, Dr. Palmer stated that the money packets were only at TB for 9 to 12 months prior.
Coopsnoop, There is one additional peculiarity with the bills that should be considered. Tom Kaye has photographs on his web page that indicates one packet of the bills had been "torqued", presumably by water. Looking at those photographs is the best way to understand what I am talking about. There is a very remote possibility that this torqueing could have been done by airflow over a relatively long period (weeks or a few months) of time.
If the packet was torqued by water, then why wasn't evidence of river water contamination found on the bills? If it was done by airflow, the packet would have to be exposed to view for a lengthy period of time. Since Tina Bar is visited daily by fishermen and "sand trampers", why didn't they notice the money? The three packets of bills found at Tina Bar were very close to each other and did not appear to have been exposed to any great amount of violence (regardless of the torqueing).
Yes, Tom's comments about torquing, are interesting. Maybe the whole group of bills was torqued,
from impact? If that is the case then it may be proof the bag and Cooper were separated and
the bag fell to the ground, on its own?
But we have had this conversation before, I think. If I recall, you are interested to know if some
'torquing' indicates direction of water flow .... indicative of direction the money traveled to its location at Tina Bar? Am I correct? :)
What evidence of "impact" would reveal itself in this money, as distinct from torquing or force on individual bills related to water pressure and direction of travel?
Can we be more specific in our requirements of traits and what different traits indicate, or rule out, in this money.
I wish Brian would join this conversation! :)
I would also like to hear what Brian has to say about this.
The torqueing was counterclockwise as view from above. For the torqueing to take place, the bottom of the packet of bills would have to be firmly attached in some manner to the surface below it. If the torqueing was done at Tina Bar by the river water, the end of the packet with the rubber band still attached would be lower than the end without a rubber band and would be under an inch or two of water.
If the torqueing was done at Tina Bar and NOT by the river water, it would have to be done by water entering the river as drainage from the Fazio farm and sand operation. In this case, the end of the packet with the rubber band still attached would be pointed upstream (to the south at Tina Bar).
Brian, can you remember the orientation of the packets of bills you found at Tina Bar?
Robert99
I have corrected the last few words in the next to last paragraph above to indicate that the end of the packet with the rubber band would be pointed "upstream" (rather than "downstream") which is to the south at Tina Bar.
Robert99
-
Georger:
The different traits between "planted" and "non-planted" could possibly show up through some form of biological detection, I suppose. If the money was in a prior location for "x" number of years, its possible that there may be biological indicators that the money sat at another location besides Tina's Bar. We know that Tom Kaye tested for silver nitrate, which was determined, but that was indicative of the FBI using "sn" in their earlier test for fingerprints. So what other test exists? How about "anaerobic v. aerobic?" Would the bills go through accelerated degradation in one of those conditions? I guess the larger question would be: given the structural composition of the bills, what environmental factors would suggest the "rounded edges" and the "little holes" found on the bills? Remember, Dr. Palmer stated that the money packets were only at TB for 9 to 12 months prior.
Coopsnoop, There is one additional peculiarity with the bills that should be considered. Tom Kaye has photographs on his web page that indicates one packet of the bills had been "torqued", presumably by water. Looking at those photographs is the best way to understand what I am talking about. There is a very remote possibility that this torqueing could have been done by airflow over a relatively long period (weeks or a few months) of time.
If the packet was torqued by water, then why wasn't evidence of river water contamination found on the bills? If it was done by airflow, the packet would have to be exposed to view for a lengthy period of time. Since Tina Bar is visited daily by fishermen and "sand trampers", why didn't they notice the money? The three packets of bills found at Tina Bar were very close to each other and did not appear to have been exposed to any great amount of violence (regardless of the torqueing).
Yes, Tom's comments about torquing, are interesting. Maybe the whole group of bills was torqued,
from impact? If that is the case then it may be proof the bag and Cooper were separated and
the bag fell to the ground, on its own?
But we have had this conversation before, I think. If I recall, you are interested to know if some
'torquing' indicates direction of water flow .... indicative of direction the money traveled to its location at Tina Bar? Am I correct? :)
What evidence of "impact" would reveal itself in this money, as distinct from torquing or force on individual bills related to water pressure and direction of travel?
Can we be more specific in our requirements of traits and what different traits indicate, or rule out, in this money.
I wish Brian would join this conversation! :)
I would also like to hear what Brian has to say about this.
The torqueing was counterclockwise as view from above. For the torqueing to take place, the bottom of the packet of bills would have to be firmly attached in some manner to the surface below it. If the torqueing was done at Tina Bar by the river water, the end of the packet with the rubber band still attached would be lower than the end without a rubber band and would be under an inch or two of water.
If the torqueing was done at Tina Bar and NOT by the river water, it would have to be done by water entering the river as drainage from the Fazio farm and sand operation. In this case, the end of the packet with the rubber band still attached would be pointed downstream (to the south at Tina Bar).
Brian, can you remember the orientation of the packets of bills you found at Tina Bar?
Robert99
Am I correct in assuming Tom saw this in only one bill. (He had a total of 3 bills not in consecutive
order). So how far can one extrapolate from one bill, even if there is torque in that one bill?
The torquing, if it is real, in one bill, may or may not represent torquing in adjacent bills which Tom did not have to examine. ???
;)
In Tom's illustration and photographs, there is evidence that fragment stubs from more bills were still attached to the left end of the packet and restrained by the rubber band which had moved to that end.
Robert99
-
R99:
Why do you suppose Flight #305 dog-legged around PDX from the East to the West and back to the East?
-
R99:
Why do you suppose Flight #305 dog-legged around PDX from the East to the West and back to the East?
I don't think they got the path right if you ask me. I don't know if it was intentional, or what. R99 has a pretty good theory. I even put it to the test on my sim. it's possible. mistakes happen all the time. I'm not so sure they got it right. I think figuring the path out will tell the story of the money. I believe they are linked. can't prove it, but working on it. I just don't know....
-
R99:
Why do you suppose Flight #305 dog-legged around PDX from the East to the West and back to the East?
That "dog-legged" or "segmented circle" around the west side of Portland from what is now the Battleground VORTAC is NOT something that would have been done on that flight by that flight crew.
While on the ground in Seattle, the flight crew mentioned some possible "alternatives" to flying down Victor 23. They had been informed that the Chief FAA Psychologist had predicted that Cooper would take a hostage with him and then blow up the airliner as they jumped. Consequently, the crew did not want to fly over a densely inhabited area if they could avoid it.
When the airliner reached the Mayfield (now Malay) Intersection near Toledo, the most logical thing for them to do would be to head almost straight south and rejoin Victor 23 at or near the Canby Intersection. If they did that, they would pass almost directly over Tina Bar.
If the precise flight path was available, and it should be in the un-redacted Seattle ATC transcripts, and if it supports the straight line bypass on the west side of Portland, then Cooper's jump point can easily be pinpointed. At the same time, as I have pointed out previously, the geographical and topographical characteristics of Tina Bar are so unique that they have a real story to tell. And that story may include evidence that Cooper died in the jump as a no-pull.
Just from a general inspection of Georger's photography of the Tina Bar area, plus topographical information, it is obvious to me that Cooper could not have jumped at a point north (or downstream) of Tina Bar or further south (upstream) than the Flushing Channel to Vancouver Lake. And he probably landed on solid ground but very close to the east Columbia River shoreline.
There is also evidence on the so-called FBI maps that support a straight line bypass of Portland on the west side. In addition, the National Guard T-33, the USAF F-106s, and Himmelsbach and his helicopter all headed to the southwest side of Portland.
If the un-redacted Seattle ATC transcripts aren't made available within a reasonable time, I will expand on the above as much as the available data permits.
Actually, at this point in time, there seems to be very little related to the redactions that is not known except for the exact times and aircraft locations that are necessary to determine an accurate flight path.
Did anyone ever ask Rataczak or Anderson about their flight path as they passed Portland?
Robert99
-
R99:
The dog-leg route flies over "populated space" regardless. If jet is at 10,000 feet and Bohan is flying into PDX from the west at 5000 feet, four minutes behind #305, what difference would it make whether #305 flew a straight line over Government Island, or even flew to the east? 5000 feet of vertical separation is plenty enough to cross over PDX at night. There must be a better reason to establish the dog-leg over downtown Vancouver. The route generated by ATC and ARTCC, and provided to the FBI, is the accurate route made on 11/24/71.
-
R99:
The dog-leg route flies over "populated space" regardless. If jet is at 10,000 feet and Bohan is flying into PDX from the west at 5000 feet, four minutes behind #305, what difference would it make whether #305 flew a straight line over Government Island, or even flew to the east? 5000 feet of vertical separation is plenty enough to cross over PDX at night. There must be a better reason to establish the dog-leg over downtown Vancouver. The route generated by ATC and ARTCC, and provided to the FBI, is the accurate route made on 11/24/71.
First, the Bohan aircraft was not a known factor in anything related to the NWA aircraft that night. Bohan's aircraft probably took Victor 23E straight from the Seattle VORTAC to the Battleground VORTAC (which was known as the Portland VORTAC in 1971) and did not use V-23 itself (except in the common areas near the mentioned VORTACs). Sluggo's web page has copies of the maps that includes information that both the NWA and Bohan's aircraft would be using that night. However, both the airliners would probably be using the Jeppesen versions of those maps. Same information but some differences in formats.
The reasons for not wanting to fly over Portland would include reducing the probability of wreckage landing in Portland if Cooper did actually blow up the airliner. Taking a bypass on the west side would also save a couple of minutes flying time. It should be remembered that the NWA aircraft was in the Portland area before the performance group in Minneapolis told them that they appeared to have enough fuel to make it to Reno.
Do you know the source of the so-called "FBI Map"? Who generated it and where did they get their information? I presume that you have looked at the times and distances on that map. How do you explain the three nautical miles in one minute and then six nautical miles in the next minute indications?
-
R99:
Why do you suppose Flight #305 dog-legged around PDX from the East to the West and back to the East?
That "dog-legged" or "segmented circle" around the west side of Portland from what is now the Battleground VORTAC is NOT something that would have been done on that flight by that flight crew.
While on the ground in Seattle, the flight crew mentioned some possible "alternatives" to flying down Victor 23. They had been informed that the Chief FAA Psychologist had predicted that Cooper would take a hostage with him and then blow up the airliner as they jumped. Consequently, the crew did not want to fly over a densely inhabited area if they could avoid it.
When the airliner reached the Mayfield (now Malay) Intersection near Toledo, the most logical thing for them to do would be to head almost straight south and rejoin Victor 23 at or near the Canby Intersection. If they did that, they would pass almost directly over Tina Bar.
If the precise flight path was available, and it should be in the un-redacted Seattle ATC transcripts, and if it supports the straight line bypass on the west side of Portland, then Cooper's jump point can easily be pinpointed. At the same time, as I have pointed out previously, the geographical and topographical characteristics of Tina Bar are so unique that they have a real story to tell. And that story may include evidence that Cooper died in the jump as a no-pull.
Just from a general inspection of Georger's photography of the Tina Bar area, plus topographical information, it is obvious to me that Cooper could not have jumped at a point north (or downstream) of Tina Bar or further south (upstream) than the Flushing Channel to Vancouver Lake. And he probably landed on solid ground but very close to the east Columbia River shoreline.
There is also evidence on the so-called FBI maps that support a straight line bypass of Portland on the west side. In addition, the National Guard T-33, the USAF F-106s, and Himmelsbach and his helicopter all headed to the southwest side of Portland.
If the un-redacted Seattle ATC transcripts aren't made available within a reasonable time, I will expand on the above as much as the available data permits.
Actually, at this point in time, there seems to be very little related to the redactions that is not known except for the exact times and aircraft locations that are necessary to determine an accurate flight path.
Did anyone ever ask Rataczak or Anderson about their flight path as they passed Portland?
Robert99
And a straight line from Toledo to the west side of Portland is exactly what Dawson (and others)
reported happened - specifically: straight line from Toledo to the west side of Portland, crossed
the Columbia across the tip of Hayden island, T33 intercept near Oswego south of Portland -
see attached. The problem is nobody accepts Dawson's account, and there is no logical reason
why the NWA search map and the Dawson account would diverge; money and time and
investigative man hours and finding Cooper were at stake! There has to be a compelling
reason why the two accounts would differ so much.
Shutter tried the Dawson fp in his simulator and I think he liked the Transcript time-match results?
Shutter can explain his thoughts -
Hominid thinks the Dawson fp was a "political" statement and not true.
Rataczak says 'I am the only living person who knows what the flight path was'! So why not just
say what it was?
The NWA/FBI fp does offer the option of Cooper bailing later in time, than reported. 8:11 can
rather easily be extended to 8:13 or even 8:15 (perhaps) by one excuse or another: even
Rataczak says the bump happened 5-10mins after our last contact with Cooper at 8:05. That
creates a window 8:10-8:15. We also know that Rat's reports about their last contact with
Cooper is not the whole truth! Both Rataczak and Anderson have privately said Cooper called
forward after 8:05 with an additional demand: "Slow the plane...". Does this added fact extend
the drop window further, to say 8:10-8:16/17/18? Now Anderson adds a new fact! After
the bump "we discussed it before reporting it - Rat then called it in to NWA". Does this extend the
window further to say 8:20? By the time you add these extensions in, after deciding which are
allowable and which are not based on some subjective process, now you are closer to the
Columbia River on the NWA/FBI flight path map, and Cooper and his money could conceivably wind
up in the water, with some remnant of money eventually winding up at _ Tina Bar.
Let me attach the Dawson article if I can _
*Please make note of the fact I am NOT discussing the money find here - that can be done in the
Money section, and I think that is what Shutter intends. The money find is a complex story which
deserves treatment on its own independent of flight path considerations, imho.
-
Thanks Georger, I ran several tests from Toledo to Hayden Island (west point). I used two different planes in the test. the first was a cirrus jet. it's small and easy to fly. not a lot of bells and whistles with it. the second plane was a 727-100 of course.
I started the flight several miles short of Toledo, once over that position, I started the clock. at approx. 8:10 I was over the Woodland area, and by 8:14 I was over Tena Bar. Now, does this really prove anything? not really. the problem is the plane was basically flying south during the hijacking, even with some turns in the dropzone area, it's hard to say this path is right. basically you could move the flight path east or west and come up with the same numbers, but when you have evidence of a certain point that calculates. it can leave unanswered questions. you have Robert99 giving logical calculations, we have documentation from a Major in the Air Force speaking, and we have mystery money lying in a strange place with different opinions like the flight path itself.
do I believe this could be true? perhaps, but the only way to find out is to investigate the theory. perhaps Hominid will key in. he always likes the topic of the flight path.
Added: one thing left out here is the placard location.
-
Placard found in 78 just south of Silver Lake, right on flight path. Georger, or an airline pilot, might be better qualified to answer the question about distance/times between points, R99. However, Bohan's flight approach into PDX is very important to case. It goes to question of wind patterns at time of Cooper's jump.
-
Placard found in 78 just south of Silver Lake, right on flight path. Georger, or an airline pilot, might be better qualified to answer the question about distance/times between points, R99. However, Bohan's flight approach into PDX is very important to case. It goes to question of wind patterns at time of Cooper's jump.
Understood snoop. I was adding the fact of the location of the placard to Dawson's story. they don't match if you shoot straight down from Toledo. you might be under estimating what my simulator can do. I have answered some question R99 has had in the past pertaining to distance. it's a valuable tool in our arsenal.
-
Placard found in 78 just south of Silver Lake, right on flight path. Georger, or an airline pilot, might be better qualified to answer the question about distance/times between points, R99. However, Bohan's flight approach into PDX is very important to case. It goes to question of wind patterns at time of Cooper's jump.
Actually, without beating my chest and letting out with my Tarzan yell and with all due respect to Georger and any airline or other pilots on this thread, I might suggest in all modesty that I am better qualified to answer the questions about the distances and times between the points and other navigational aspects of the Cooper flight.
I have an aeronautical engineering degree, specializing in flight dynamics (performance and stability and control), plus two additional college degrees. I learned to fly starting at the age of 15 and was rated in general aviation and sports type aircraft. I also had Advanced and Instrument Ground Instructor Ratings, which means that I was rated to teach people preparing for commercial flying ratings and instrument flying ratings. I also have a limited number of skydiver type parachute jumps which were made 50 years ago just as skydiving started to become a recognized sport. I am now retired from all of the above.
To put the Cooper matter in perspective, it is a two-bit crime that should have been solved by the end of 1971. If Cooper had survived the jump, he probably would have been caught easily within a week. But he disappeared by sheer chance and the "experts" pointed the search people to the wrong area.
Calculating the flight path of the hijacked airliner is not brain surgery. It is not even rocket science. Even a teenage pilot should be able to do a good job at figuring it out. But accurate data, such as the Seattle ATC transcripts with embedded time hacks and controller phone talk, are needed to produce meaningful results. Unfortunately, those things were redacted from the Seattle ATC transcripts.
But thanks to the efforts of Georger and others, the cockpit conversations and other related items are now known. Very little, if anything at all, other than the flight path information remains unknown from the redacted transcripts. So what is the point in not releasing the un-redacted transcripts if a resolution of the Cooper hijacking is actually desired?
Bohan's flight has no relevance to the Cooper flight. The winds that Bohan reported are not substantiated by the actual measured weather. For instance, Bohan reported he made a landing at Portland with about a 25 to 30 knot crosswind. The actual top wind speed measured at Portland International Airport that day was only about 10 knots.
The data and assumptions I used in calculating the point where the placard could have separated from the airliner are given in those calculations on Tom Kaye's web page. I made ever effort to be "conservative", that is, the placard had to have travelled at least the distance given, but may well have travelled further. Even the shortest distance it travelled was west of the centerline of Victor 23. Also, the actual wind speeds and directions for the descent of the placard are still not known.
That is one of the reasons why the actual flight path of the airliner is needed. Once the actual flight path is known, then the winds aloft speeds and directions can also be calculated. And the placard problem can be redone with more accurate data and results.
Robert99
-
Did anyone ever ask Rataczak or Anderson about their flight path as they passed Portland?
Robert99
I spoke with Rataczak for 70 minutes in 2009. It was my only correspondence with him. He told me various things about the flight path, including that it's an "enigma," but he also said that he was east of Victor 23, and blown there by the wind.
I never asked him about his location over Portland, specifically, though.
I recall him telling me that Cooper jumped at 8:13, and was adamant about it with me. However, I didn't write it down in my notes, as I didn't know the time was so controversial and critical.
Bill has declined all further communication with me.
-
Did anyone ever ask Rataczak or Anderson about their flight path as they passed Portland?
Robert99
I spoke with Rataczak for 70 minutes in 2009. It was my only correspondence with him. He told me various things about the flight path, including that it's an "enigma," but he also said that he was east of Victor 23, and blown there by the wind.
I never asked him about his location over Portland, specifically, though.
I recall him telling me that Cooper jumped at 8:13, and was adamant about it with me. However, I didn't write it down in my notes, as I didn't know the time was so controversial and critical.
Bill has declined all further communication with me.
Well, quite obviously the FBI's flight path map does not confirm an east route. And what wind
would have blown the plane off by a large amount? Moreover, he has not told others what you
say he told you ... and other important spokes-people who were involved flatly reject this east
route theory.
There is a million things I could say here. An east route does not conform with other documented
facts. I'll leave it at that.
-
Thanks Georger, I ran several tests from Toledo to Hayden Island (west point). I used two different planes in the test. the first was a cirrus jet. it's small and easy to fly. not a lot of bells and whistles with it. the second plane was a 727-100 of course.
I started the flight several miles short of Toledo, once over that position, I started the clock. at approx. 8:10 I was over the Woodland area, and by 8:14 I was over Tena Bar. Now, does this really prove anything? not really. the problem is the plane was basically flying south during the hijacking, even with some turns in the dropzone area, it's hard to say this path is right. basically you could move the flight path east or west and come up with the same numbers, but when you have evidence of a certain point that calculates. it can leave unanswered questions. you have Robert99 giving logical calculations, we have documentation from a Major in the Air Force speaking, and we have mystery money lying in a strange place with different opinions like the flight path itself.
do I believe this could be true? perhaps, but the only way to find out is to investigate the theory. perhaps Hominid will key in. he always likes the topic of the flight path.
Added: one thing left out here is the placard location.
Hominid and I have spoken at length about Dawson's theory and I feel very safe in saying
Hominid rejects it as political and not credible.
My bias has to be toward R99's calculations ... pending something stronger.
-
'Hominid and I have spoken at length about Dawson's theory and I feel very safe in saying
Hominid rejects it as political and not credible."
what would Dawson gain by saying this for political reasons, or why would he say this?
-
Re: the placard.
With the storms and flooding that would have occurred within the two time periods, why is it assumed that the placard was found in 1979 in the same place that it landed in 1971? Under the right circumstances, a lot of ground could be covered in that time period.
I understand that sometimes you just have to take things at face value in order to get things done, and we have some back up to make assumptions for the placard spot with the known flight path - is that it? or is there another reason why the location of the placard is considered to be a given?
-
Re: the placard.
With the storms and flooding that would have occurred within the two time periods, why is it assumed that the placard was found in 1979 in the same place that it landed in 1971? Under the right circumstances, a lot of ground could be covered in that time period.
I understand that sometimes you just have to take things at face value in order to get things done, and we have some back up to make assumptions for the placard spot with the known flight path - is that it? or is there another reason why the location of the placard is considered to be a given?
Good question, the whole placard thing bothers me from get go. how did it get out of the plane. did Cooper rip it off the wall while trying to operate the stairs, and once he was out on the stairs it came out? that's to early into the time of the jump 8:04-5 area I believe.
Is this area prone to flooding? will it float? did the wind carry it several miles over the years? just like everything else, lots of questions...... 8)
-
Re: the placard.
With the storms and flooding that would have occurred within the two time periods, why is it assumed that the placard was found in 1979 in the same place that it landed in 1971? Under the right circumstances, a lot of ground could be covered in that time period.
I understand that sometimes you just have to take things at face value in order to get things done, and we have some back up to make assumptions for the placard spot with the known flight path - is that it? or is there another reason why the location of the placard is considered to be a given?
Good question, the whole placard thing bothers me from get go. how did it get out of the plane. did Cooper rip it off the wall while trying to operate the stairs, and once he was out on the stairs it came out? that's to early into the time of the jump 8:04-5 area I believe.
Is this area prone to flooding? will it float? did the wind carry it several miles over the years? just like everything else, lots of questions...... 8)
I don't know about the specific area, but the general area had some flooding in that time frame.
just going from personal experience - things that might not ordinarily float can be moved along by the force of the water. We have had items that probably would not float under ordinary circumstances appear on our creek bank after a flood.
Yes, just like everything else. one more thing to wonder about.
-
Re: the placard.
With the storms and flooding that would have occurred within the two time periods, why is it assumed that the placard was found in 1979 in the same place that it landed in 1971? Under the right circumstances, a lot of ground could be covered in that time period.
I understand that sometimes you just have to take things at face value in order to get things done, and we have some back up to make assumptions for the placard spot with the known flight path - is that it? or is there another reason why the location of the placard is considered to be a given?
Good question, the whole placard thing bothers me from get go. how did it get out of the plane. did Cooper rip it off the wall while trying to operate the stairs, and once he was out on the stairs it came out? that's to early into the time of the jump 8:04-5 area I believe.
Is this area prone to flooding? will it float? did the wind carry it several miles over the years? just like everything else, lots of questions...... 8)
I don't know about the specific area, but the general area had some flooding in that time frame.
just going from personal experience - things that might not ordinarily float can be moved along by the force of the water. We have had items that probably would not float under ordinary circumstances appear on our creek bank after a flood.
Yes, just like everything else. one more thing to wonder about.
The family that found the placard took Tom Kaye to the find location and he recorded the GPS coordinates. I checked those coordinates on a topographical map for the area and it was approximately 1500 feet above sea level. For comparison, Tina Bar is less than 20 feet above sea level and the Portland Airport's elevation is listed on aeronautical charts as 30 feet above sea level.
I don't remember anything from Tom Kaye describing the find location. So based on no reporting, the site may not have been remarkable in any sense. And, of course, no one can guarantee if the placard moved after its initial ground landing.
There is a picture of the placard on Sluggo's web page, I think, and it appears to me that it separated from the structure after flapping around in the wind for some time. I doubt if Cooper would take the time to tear it off since there was no reason whatsoever for him to do so.
Robert99
-
Re: the placard.
With the storms and flooding that would have occurred within the two time periods, why is it assumed that the placard was found in 1979 in the same place that it landed in 1971? Under the right circumstances, a lot of ground could be covered in that time period.
I understand that sometimes you just have to take things at face value in order to get things done, and we have some back up to make assumptions for the placard spot with the known flight path - is that it? or is there another reason why the location of the placard is considered to be a given?
Good question, the whole placard thing bothers me from get go. how did it get out of the plane. did Cooper rip it off the wall while trying to operate the stairs, and once he was out on the stairs it came out? that's to early into the time of the jump 8:04-5 area I believe.
Is this area prone to flooding? will it float? did the wind carry it several miles over the years? just like everything else, lots of questions...... 8)
I don't know about the specific area, but the general area had some flooding in that time frame.
just going from personal experience - things that might not ordinarily float can be moved along by the force of the water. We have had items that probably would not float under ordinary circumstances appear on our creek bank after a flood.
Yes, just like everything else. one more thing to wonder about.
The family that found the placard took Tom Kaye to the find location and he recorded the GPS coordinates. I checked those coordinates on a topographical map for the area and it was approximately 1500 feet above sea level. For comparison, Tina Bar is less than 20 feet above sea level and the Portland Airport's elevation is listed on aeronautical charts as 30 feet above sea level.
I don't remember anything from Tom Kaye describing the find location. So based on no reporting, the site may not have been remarkable in any sense. And, of course, no one can guarantee if the placard moved after its initial ground landing.
There is a picture of the placard on Sluggo's web page, I think, and it appears to me that it separated from the structure after flapping around in the wind for some time. I doubt if Cooper would take the time to tear it off since there was no reason whatsoever for him to do so.
Robert99
Can you post those coordinates?
-
Re: the placard.
With the storms and flooding that would have occurred within the two time periods, why is it assumed that the placard was found in 1979 in the same place that it landed in 1971? Under the right circumstances, a lot of ground could be covered in that time period.
I understand that sometimes you just have to take things at face value in order to get things done, and we have some back up to make assumptions for the placard spot with the known flight path - is that it? or is there another reason why the location of the placard is considered to be a given?
Good question, the whole placard thing bothers me from get go. how did it get out of the plane. did Cooper rip it off the wall while trying to operate the stairs, and once he was out on the stairs it came out? that's to early into the time of the jump 8:04-5 area I believe.
Is this area prone to flooding? will it float? did the wind carry it several miles over the years? just like everything else, lots of questions...... 8)
I don't know about the specific area, but the general area had some flooding in that time frame.
just going from personal experience - things that might not ordinarily float can be moved along by the force of the water. We have had items that probably would not float under ordinary circumstances appear on our creek bank after a flood.
Yes, just like everything else. one more thing to wonder about.
The family that found the placard took Tom Kaye to the find location and he recorded the GPS coordinates. I checked those coordinates on a topographical map for the area and it was approximately 1500 feet above sea level. For comparison, Tina Bar is less than 20 feet above sea level and the Portland Airport's elevation is listed on aeronautical charts as 30 feet above sea level.
I don't remember anything from Tom Kaye describing the find location. So based on no reporting, the site may not have been remarkable in any sense. And, of course, no one can guarantee if the placard moved after its initial ground landing.
There is a picture of the placard on Sluggo's web page, I think, and it appears to me that it separated from the structure after flapping around in the wind for some time. I doubt if Cooper would take the time to tear it off since there was no reason whatsoever for him to do so.
Robert99
Can you post those coordinates?
46.243157 degrees North Latitude and 122.683612 degrees West Longitude.
-
If you post the coordinates in degrees, minutes, and seconds it's easier to locate on Google map
-
The handle for the stairs is located at the top of the stairs to the left. I would guess the placard would be near this location. I question the amount of wind that could enter this area to cause the card the to come off. that'a why I tossed the idea of Cooper ripping it down in frustration to get the stairs down.
I'm not sure how it was attached. looking at the photo it appears it might have been attached by screws/pop rivets etc. look at the upper right portion of the placard, it looks as if something was holding it in place in the corners.
-
If you post the coordinates in degrees, minutes, and seconds it's easier to locate on Google map
If you know what longitude and latitude are then you should be able to convert fractions of a degree into minutes (there are 60 minutes in a degree) and then fractions of a minute into seconds (there are 60 seconds in a minute).
Otherwise, PM Meyer Louie and ask him to explain it. He is a mathematics professor.
-
R99:
Appreciate you weighing in with your skills and abilities. Between you, Georger (the college physics professor) and Louie (the college math professor) something ought to get figured out. But I will challenge you on a couple things. You say Bohan's reporting is not relevant. And that the previously discussed weather reports over PDX contradicts extraneous factors. Have you interviewed anyone who knew Bohan or flew with Bohan as a Continental 727 pilot? And, which weather reports do you have direct knowledge of? If you are relying strictly on what has been discussed already, you may not have "all" the info. Georger might tend to agree with this. Georger's earlier discussion about 305 flying over Haydon Island is pretty much right on. But you can debate with Georger all you want.
-
R99:
You say Bohan's reporting is not relevant. And that the previously discussed weather reports over PDX contradicts extraneous factors. Have you interviewed anyone who knew Bohan or flew with Bohan as a Continental 727 pilot?
I spoke with Capt Bohan's widow several years ago. She lives in thier Aberdeen, WA home, and the good captain died about ten years ago. His widow was unable to give me any details on the cross wind issue, nor the important question of how and why Bohan's Continental flight was allowed to creep up on 305 and be only four minutes behind.
Other planes were kept on the ground for hours, according to one pilot Sail and I spoke with, Everett Johnson. Something seems fishy here.
The widow said that her husband kept great records and she remembers the Nov 24, 1971 incident very well, and she said her husband spoke of it often. She was going to send me a copy of her husband's log, but she never did and I let the matter drop. Snowmman also helped me immeasurably on this by getting me Bohan's contact info.
-
now yur talking, Uncle Brucie. there were three in that Continental 727 cockpit. maybe Snow knows the other two? widow was a Continental flight attendant.
-
R99:
Appreciate you weighing in with your skills and abilities. Between you, Georger (the college physics professor) and Louie (the college math professor) something ought to get figured out. But I will challenge you on a couple things. You say Bohan's reporting is not relevant. And that the previously discussed weather reports over PDX contradicts extraneous factors. Have you interviewed anyone who knew Bohan or flew with Bohan as a Continental 727 pilot? And, which weather reports do you have direct knowledge of? If you are relying strictly on what has been discussed already, you may not have "all" the info. Georger might tend to agree with this. Georger's earlier discussion about 305 flying over Haydon Island is pretty much right on. But you can debate with Georger all you want.
Hayden Island flyover - how so 'right on'? Specify how and why it is 'right on' .... Im not sure what
you're talking about, seriously.
Second, I'm going to toss this out: The T33 intercept neat Lake Oswego. We know the place, the
area. Don't we have a pretty good idea of the time this intercept had to occur, from several
different angles? Which flight path best favors that T33 intercept window? (a) Dawson fp, (b) FBI
fp , or (c) East route?
I think R99 probably has an opinion about this?
BTW, just for the sake of saying it, don't anyone get the idea that Galen and I are joined at the
hip on any of these issues ... in case I need to say this. I think Galen will agree -
-
R99:
Appreciate you weighing in with your skills and abilities. Between you, Georger (the college physics professor) and Louie (the college math professor) something ought to get figured out. But I will challenge you on a couple things. You say Bohan's reporting is not relevant. And that the previously discussed weather reports over PDX contradicts extraneous factors. Have you interviewed anyone who knew Bohan or flew with Bohan as a Continental 727 pilot? And, which weather reports do you have direct knowledge of? If you are relying strictly on what has been discussed already, you may not have "all" the info. Georger might tend to agree with this. Georger's earlier discussion about 305 flying over Haydon Island is pretty much right on. But you can debate with Georger all you want.
Coopsnoop and Bruce Smith:
The story about Captain Bohan's claiming an 80 knot head wind from the south at 14,000 feet and about a 25-30 knot direct crosswind on landing is only reported in Himmelsbach's book to the best of my knowledge.
Regardless of what the winds were for Bohan at 14,000 feet, they were much, much less than that at 10,000 feet where NWA 305 was flying. If NWA 305 had a headwind anywhere near 80 knots, it would not have been able to get to Reno that night.
I have not interviewed anyone who knew Bohan and that is not necessary. The FBI obtained copies of all available weather information for Portland for that evening and it included such things as the hourly sequence reports (actual measured weather information) for all stations in the Northwest part of the country, forecasts of clouds and winds for the entire region, etc.. That information was posted on the DZ Cooper thread that is now closed plus it was repeated on the current DZ Cooper thread. Hominid and Georger also have that information.
Since the Portland International Airport was the location of the local National Weather Service Station, the very same information that was recorded there for aviation was used by such outlets as the Weather Underground on their web page. You can check their web page for the information for November 24, 1971. You can also check the Portland newspapers weather reports for that date since they also used the same information.
There are statements in the Seattle ground transcripts from the tower just before NWA 305 took off that they were going to let other aircraft start taking off just as soon as NWA 305 got clear of the Seattle airport traffic. Bohan's statement about being four minutes behind the airliner means to me that he took off four minutes after the airliner.
In all probability, Bohan would head to Portland down Victor Airway 23E which is direct from the Seattle VORTAC to what is now the Battleground VORTAC. Consequently, Bohan would not be following NWA 305 down the same airway. And Bohan probably was travelling twice as fast as NWA 305 during their flights. That means that Bohan was probably already at the gate in Portland by the time NWA 305 was passing the area.
The actual measured weather in the Portland area trumps all other claimed sources. Bohan's story is just not supported by actual facts.
Robert99
-
Georger and I are definitely not joined at the hip. But we sure agree on "one thing." Sorry, R99. Who's "actual facts" r u talking about? Maybe you only have "some" of the actual facts. Or, maybe you have all of the speculated "actual facts," produced by others. The FBI had some pretty sharp cookies in 1971, with your degrees and more. They thought they had all the actual facts. They haven't solved the case yet.
-
Georger and I are definitely not joined at the hip. But we sure agree on "one thing." Sorry, R99. Who's "actual facts" r u talking about? Maybe you only have "some" of the actual facts. Or, maybe you have all of the speculated "actual facts," produced by others. The FBI had some pretty sharp cookies in 1971, with your degrees and more. They thought they had all the actual facts. They haven't solved the case yet.
I am talking about the actual weather facts measured at Portland International Airport on November 24, 1971 by the good old United States National Weather Service. Where do your "facts" come from?
I'll also bet that the FBI had personnel in their Seattle and Portland offices in 1971 that had law degrees equivalent to yours and more.
And, as you say, they haven't solved the case yet either.
Robert99
-
Thanks Georger, I ran several tests from Toledo to Hayden Island (west point). I used two different planes in the test. the first was a cirrus jet. it's small and easy to fly. not a lot of bells and whistles with it. the second plane was a 727-100 of course.
I started the flight several miles short of Toledo, once over that position, I started the clock. at approx. 8:10 I was over the Woodland area, and by 8:14 I was over Tena Bar. Now, does this really prove anything? not really. the problem is the plane was basically flying south during the hijacking, even with some turns in the dropzone area, it's hard to say this path is right. basically you could move the flight path east or west and come up with the same numbers, but when you have evidence of a certain point that calculates. it can leave unanswered questions. you have Robert99 giving logical calculations, we have documentation from a Major in the Air Force speaking, and we have mystery money lying in a strange place with different opinions like the flight path itself.
do I believe this could be true? perhaps, but the only way to find out is to investigate the theory. perhaps Hominid will key in. he always likes the topic of the flight path.
Added: one thing left out here is the placard location.
Hominid and I have spoken at length about Dawson's theory and I feel very safe in saying
Hominid rejects it as political and not credible.
My bias has to be toward R99's calculations ... pending something stronger.
Hominid has emailed and I seem to have mischaracterised his remarks concerning Dawson.
His reference to "politician" was a joke. I failed to know that.
Hominid emailed today saying, quote: "There is just no independent evidence to support the
idea. My comment about him being a politician was a joke."
I guess what Hominid is saying is 'there is no independent evidence to support Dawson's account.'
Thanks to Hominid. I hope I got that right! ??? :-X
This is the problem one sometimes runs into trying to speak for other people. Hominid is free to come speak for himself, of course. I invite him to.
Apologies to Hominid.
-
BTW, just for the sake of saying it, don't anyone get the idea that Galen and I are joined at the
hip on any of these issues ... in case I need to say this. I think Galen will agree -
G, I can't imagine you ever being joined at a hip with anyone, even after reconstructive surgery.
(smile).
-
BTW, just for the sake of saying it, don't anyone get the idea that Galen and I are joined at the
hip on any of these issues ... in case I need to say this. I think Galen will agree -
G, I can't imagine you ever being joined at a hip with anyone, even after reconstructive surgery.
(smile).
Some would question that ... ;)
-
National Weather Service is a good place to start. But there are other sources available. And the best source just might be the "pilots who were actually flying in the damn stuff." Isn't that what pilots do? Relay to each other and the tower what the current conditions are so that other pilots will get a heads up. Himmelsbach was a WW2 pilot and flew his own plane while serving as an FBI agent. Other agents up in Seattle are pilots. Seasoned commercial pilots fly in and out of PDX all the time, knowing what the conditions might be during certain months of the year. These are all good sources. And if you want to hear about "gorge effect" winds barreling out of the Cascades, Georger might elaborate. Or, not.
-
Georger, I'll send you an e-mail on Hayden Island flyover.
-
National Weather Service is a good place to start. But there are other sources available. And the best source just might be the "pilots who were actually flying in the damn stuff." Isn't that what pilots do? Relay to each other and the tower what the current conditions are so that other pilots will get a heads up. Himmelsbach was a WW2 pilot and flew his own plane while serving as an FBI agent. Other agents up in Seattle are pilots. Seasoned commercial pilots fly in and out of PDX all the time, knowing what the conditions might be during certain months of the year. These are all good sources. And if you want to hear about "gorge effect" winds barreling out of the Cascades, Georger might elaborate. Or, not.
As I stated previously, I am well aware that the FBI has lawyers working in the organization. I am also aware that they have pilots and a lot of people with other skills and talents. But I don't think you are their spokesman.
The one point where Bohan's weather claims can be directly compared with actual measured weather is his landing at Portland. Bohan claims about a 25-30 knot direct crosswind component. The highest ground wind speed measured at Portland that day/night was only about 10 knots. Can you explain where the rest of Bohan's wind came from?
I am well aware of what pilot's inflight weather reports consist of and their purpose. But I do not believe in "faith based" weather claims.
Nor do I believe that there is a Great Ascended Weather Master who passes all his/her wisdom to his/her disciples and other true believers who must accept his/her claims without question. And, of course, the claims of the GAWM cannot be measured by the National Weather Service. Just believe them!
I have previously made it a point to take a good look at the topography of the Columbia River gorge in person. I am not particularly impressed by its capability to channel high winds. On the night of the hijacking, the surface wind was from the west and southwest and reported at about 10 knots at the Portland Airport. It is at least 20 miles further east to the entrance to the Columbia River gorge. Pasco, on the east end of that gorge, was also reporting surface winds of about 10 knots that evening.
Basically, the weather in Seattle, Portland, and further south the evening of the hijacking was relatively stable and improving. There was a frontal passage earlier that day, but it was well past Seattle when the airliner left there. But the clouds, overcasts, some rain showers, etc., that evening is not something that would pose a problem to an aircraft such as a 727. So I would appreciate an explanation from Bohan about how he determined he had an 80 knot headwind from the south.
Robert99
-
National Weather Service is a good place to start. But there are other sources available. And the best source just might be the "pilots who were actually flying in the damn stuff." Isn't that what pilots do? Relay to each other and the tower what the current conditions are so that other pilots will get a heads up. Himmelsbach was a WW2 pilot and flew his own plane while serving as an FBI agent. Other agents up in Seattle are pilots. Seasoned commercial pilots fly in and out of PDX all the time, knowing what the conditions might be during certain months of the year. These are all good sources. And if you want to hear about "gorge effect" winds barreling out of the Cascades, Georger might elaborate. Or, not.
As I stated previously, I am well aware that the FBI has lawyers working in the organization. I am also aware that they have pilots and a lot of people with other skills and talents. But I don't think you are their spokesman.
The one point where Bohan's weather claims can be directly compared with actual measured weather is his landing at Portland. Bohan claims about a 25-30 knot direct crosswind component. The highest ground wind speed measured at Portland that day/night was only about 10 knots. Can you explain where the rest of Bohan's wind came from?
I am well aware of what pilot's inflight weather reports consist of and their purpose. But I do not believe in "faith based" weather claims.
Nor do I believe that there is a Great Ascended Weather Master who passes all his/her wisdom to his/her disciples and other true believers who must accept his/her claims without question. And, of course, the claims of the GAWM cannot be measured by the National Weather Service. Just believe them!
I have previously made it a point to take a good look at the topography of the Columbia River gorge in person. I am not particularly impressed by its capability to channel high winds. On the night of the hijacking, the surface wind was from the west and southwest and reported at about 10 knots at the Portland Airport. It is at least 20 miles further east to the entrance to the Columbia River gorge. Pasco, on the east end of that gorge, was also reporting surface winds of about 10 knots that evening.
Basically, the weather in Seattle, Portland, and further south the evening of the hijacking was relatively stable and improving. There was a frontal passage earlier that day, but it was well past Seattle when the airliner left there. But the clouds, overcasts, some rain showers, etc., that evening is not something that would pose a problem to an aircraft such as a 727. So I would appreciate an explanation from Bohan about how he determined he had an 80 knot headwind from the south.
Robert99
... and I havent seen anything in actual wx facts to warrant Bohan's report, either. I have
been very persistent about keeping the door open to anything that would ground Bohan's alleged
report ... but nothing has ever surfaced of a factual nature to lock down "Himmelsbach's"
comments regarding Bohan's remarks (in some meeting etc). Let's keep track of the fact where
this comes from - Himmelsbach! Not Bohan! It's Himmelsbach's claim(s). I even tried to talk to
people who knew Ken Hastings, Dir of the airport, supposedly Bohan's personal friend and thee
person to whom Bohan supposedly filed his report .... and nada. I got nowhere with nothing to
even document such a report was ever filed. And still I leave the door open ... but the door is
closing.
The irony of all of this to me is we don't even need some special 'winds' factor, if anything like
the Dawson FP is true, or if the jump time on the FBI/NWA map is extended (which at this point
isn't that difficult to do). Anything that brings Cooper closer to water, the drainage basin
feeding the Columbia, or the Columbia itself, increasing the chances (and helps explain) $money$
winding up at Tina Bar. Once anything gets within the hydrological zone that feeds Tina Bar,
finding money on Tina Bar is almost a slam-dunk.
It's facts we lack, not theories and scenarios.
Himmelsbach is the person who promulgated the story - not Bohan! Himmelsbach also said
"fragments at three feet". The fact a central figure like 'H' would even write a book about a
supposedly important case, supposedly still open and active - disturbs me! I guess some retired
guys are allowed to indulge?" The Portland office wasn't even in charge of the case!
:)
-
Hominid has emailed and I seem to have mischaracterised his remarks concerning Dawson.
His reference to "politician" was a joke. I failed to know that.
Hominid emailed today saying, quote: "There is just no independent evidence to support the
idea. My comment about him being a politician was a joke."
I guess what Hominid is saying is 'there is no independent evidence to support Dawson's account.'
Thanks to Hominid. I hope I got that right! ??? :-X
This is the problem one sometimes runs into trying to speak for other people. Hominid is free to come speak for himself, of course. I invite him to.
Apologies to Hominid.
Thank you sir. Apology accepted, but unnecessary.
-
About four years ago, I ordered digital copies of the FAA's Low Altitude Enroute IFR maps L1 and L2 through the National Archives and a contractor who actually made the disks. The maps were in effect on November 24, 1971 and contained the navigational information that the NWA airliner would be using on it flight from Seattle to Reno.
When the contractor sent me the disks, they would not initially work on my computer. After quite a bit of work between the contractor and myself, we finally got the problem resolved. I made duplicate disks of both maps and sent them to Sluggo and he in turn posted them on his web page.
Recently, I tried to make duplicate copies of my "archive disks" in order to send the maps to the WSHM. But I have not been able to get any of the disks, which have worked in the past, to open. No reason for this can be determined. I am using the very same computer as before and only the normal upgrades to Windows 7 and to Internet Explorer 11 have been made.
I took the disks to one commercial shop and they told me the disks were corrupted. I have no idea how that could have happened and doubt if it did.
Do any of you computer wizards have a suggestion for correcting this problem?
Robert,
Have you found a solution to the disk issues you are having?
-
About four years ago, I ordered digital copies of the FAA's Low Altitude Enroute IFR maps L1 and L2 through the National Archives and a contractor who actually made the disks. The maps were in effect on November 24, 1971 and contained the navigational information that the NWA airliner would be using on it flight from Seattle to Reno.
When the contractor sent me the disks, they would not initially work on my computer. After quite a bit of work between the contractor and myself, we finally got the problem resolved. I made duplicate disks of both maps and sent them to Sluggo and he in turn posted them on his web page.
Recently, I tried to make duplicate copies of my "archive disks" in order to send the maps to the WSHM. But I have not been able to get any of the disks, which have worked in the past, to open. No reason for this can be determined. I am using the very same computer as before and only the normal upgrades to Windows 7 and to Internet Explorer 11 have been made.
I took the disks to one commercial shop and they told me the disks were corrupted. I have no idea how that could have happened and doubt if it did.
Do any of you computer wizards have a suggestion for correcting this problem?
Robert,
Have you found a solution to the disk issues you are having?
Vicki,
I haven't resolved the issue yet but I think it is going to be me, or at least my computer. I have about 15 DVDs related to those maps and I cannot open a single one of them. So I think it is safe to say the problem is on my computer and got there sometime after I sent copies of the map DVDs to Sluggo. It you want to look at the maps, you can do so at Sluggo's web page.
In the meantime, as soon as I get a pile of paper in the mail headed east, I plan to visit the firm in Tucson that worked up the disks that I sent to Sluggo. I have copies of those disks and if my guess is correct, they will open when put back on that firm's computer system. If my guess is confirmed, I'll either have them make additional copies of the disks or send some people the actual disks that I now have.
Anyway, I have large print outs of the maps courtesy of the Tucson firm. Once I get some of the map disks to people as I have promised, I'll not even bother trying to put them back on my machine. Those disks were problems from the day they arrived from the National Archives contractor and I am fed up with the (bleep) things. I'll let you know what happens in Tucson.
Robert99
-
About four years ago, I ordered digital copies of the FAA's Low Altitude Enroute IFR maps L1 and L2 through the National Archives and a contractor who actually made the disks. The maps were in effect on November 24, 1971 and contained the navigational information that the NWA airliner would be using on it flight from Seattle to Reno.
When the contractor sent me the disks, they would not initially work on my computer. After quite a bit of work between the contractor and myself, we finally got the problem resolved. I made duplicate disks of both maps and sent them to Sluggo and he in turn posted them on his web page.
Recently, I tried to make duplicate copies of my "archive disks" in order to send the maps to the WSHM. But I have not been able to get any of the disks, which have worked in the past, to open. No reason for this can be determined. I am using the very same computer as before and only the normal upgrades to Windows 7 and to Internet Explorer 11 have been made.
I took the disks to one commercial shop and they told me the disks were corrupted. I have no idea how that could have happened and doubt if it did.
Do any of you computer wizards have a suggestion for correcting this problem?
Robert,
Have you found a solution to the disk issues you are having?
Vicki,
I haven't resolved the issue yet but I think it is going to be me, or at least my computer. I have about 15 DVDs related to those maps and I cannot open a single one of them. So I think it is safe to say the problem is on my computer and got there sometime after I sent copies of the map DVDs to Sluggo. It you want to look at the maps, you can do so at Sluggo's web page.
In the meantime, as soon as I get a pile of paper in the mail headed east, I plan to visit the firm in Tucson that worked up the disks that I sent to Sluggo. I have copies of those disks and if my guess is correct, they will open when put back on that firm's computer system. If my guess is confirmed, I'll either have them make additional copies of the disks or send some people the actual disks that I now have.
Anyway, I have large print outs of the maps courtesy of the Tucson firm. Once I get some of the map disks to people as I have promised, I'll not even bother trying to put them back on my machine. Those disks were problems from the day they arrived from the National Archives contractor and I am fed up with the (bleep) things. I'll let you know what happens in Tucson.
Robert99
Did Sluggo use all the images from the disks on his webpage? If so, copy the images from his site and put them into a folder on your desktop. Once in the folder you can write a new disc.
If that does not work, then good luck in Tuscon!
-
About four years ago, I ordered digital copies of the FAA's Low Altitude Enroute IFR maps L1 and L2 through the National Archives and a contractor who actually made the disks. The maps were in effect on November 24, 1971 and contained the navigational information that the NWA airliner would be using on it flight from Seattle to Reno.
When the contractor sent me the disks, they would not initially work on my computer. After quite a bit of work between the contractor and myself, we finally got the problem resolved. I made duplicate disks of both maps and sent them to Sluggo and he in turn posted them on his web page.
Recently, I tried to make duplicate copies of my "archive disks" in order to send the maps to the WSHM. But I have not been able to get any of the disks, which have worked in the past, to open. No reason for this can be determined. I am using the very same computer as before and only the normal upgrades to Windows 7 and to Internet Explorer 11 have been made.
I took the disks to one commercial shop and they told me the disks were corrupted. I have no idea how that could have happened and doubt if it did.
Do any of you computer wizards have a suggestion for correcting this problem?
Robert,
Have you found a solution to the disk issues you are having?
Vicki,
I haven't resolved the issue yet but I think it is going to be me, or at least my computer. I have about 15 DVDs related to those maps and I cannot open a single one of them. So I think it is safe to say the problem is on my computer and got there sometime after I sent copies of the map DVDs to Sluggo. It you want to look at the maps, you can do so at Sluggo's web page.
In the meantime, as soon as I get a pile of paper in the mail headed east, I plan to visit the firm in Tucson that worked up the disks that I sent to Sluggo. I have copies of those disks and if my guess is correct, they will open when put back on that firm's computer system. If my guess is confirmed, I'll either have them make additional copies of the disks or send some people the actual disks that I now have.
Anyway, I have large print outs of the maps courtesy of the Tucson firm. Once I get some of the map disks to people as I have promised, I'll not even bother trying to put them back on my machine. Those disks were problems from the day they arrived from the National Archives contractor and I am fed up with the (bleep) things. I'll let you know what happens in Tucson.
Robert99
Did Sluggo use all the images from the disks on his webpage? If so, copy the images from his site and put them into a folder on your desktop. Once in the folder you can write a new disc.
If that does not work, then good luck in Tuscon!
My understanding is that Sluggo did put online everything that was on the disks. However, he had to slice up the maps due to a size problem but everything is there.
-
About four years ago, I ordered digital copies of the FAA's Low Altitude Enroute IFR maps L1 and L2 through the National Archives and a contractor who actually made the disks. The maps were in effect on November 24, 1971 and contained the navigational information that the NWA airliner would be using on it flight from Seattle to Reno.
When the contractor sent me the disks, they would not initially work on my computer. After quite a bit of work between the contractor and myself, we finally got the problem resolved. I made duplicate disks of both maps and sent them to Sluggo and he in turn posted them on his web page.
Recently, I tried to make duplicate copies of my "archive disks" in order to send the maps to the WSHM. But I have not been able to get any of the disks, which have worked in the past, to open. No reason for this can be determined. I am using the very same computer as before and only the normal upgrades to Windows 7 and to Internet Explorer 11 have been made.
I took the disks to one commercial shop and they told me the disks were corrupted. I have no idea how that could have happened and doubt if it did.
Do any of you computer wizards have a suggestion for correcting this problem?
Robert,
Have you found a solution to the disk issues you are having?
Vicki,
I haven't resolved the issue yet but I think it is going to be me, or at least my computer. I have about 15 DVDs related to those maps and I cannot open a single one of them. So I think it is safe to say the problem is on my computer and got there sometime after I sent copies of the map DVDs to Sluggo. It you want to look at the maps, you can do so at Sluggo's web page.
In the meantime, as soon as I get a pile of paper in the mail headed east, I plan to visit the firm in Tucson that worked up the disks that I sent to Sluggo. I have copies of those disks and if my guess is correct, they will open when put back on that firm's computer system. If my guess is confirmed, I'll either have them make additional copies of the disks or send some people the actual disks that I now have.
Anyway, I have large print outs of the maps courtesy of the Tucson firm. Once I get some of the map disks to people as I have promised, I'll not even bother trying to put them back on my machine. Those disks were problems from the day they arrived from the National Archives contractor and I am fed up with the (bleep) things. I'll let you know what happens in Tucson.
Robert99
will they copy?
what is the file format? what software normally opens them?
-
Vicki & Georger,
The disks resulted from me contacting the National Archives in D.C. and asking if they had a very specific piece of paper. Each side of the paper had a map on it. After determining that they did have those maps in their files, the National Archives told me to contact one of their contractors (they supplied a list) and have the selected contractor make a digital copy of each map.
I elected to buy the digital map disks only, I passed on a printed copy, from the contractor. I could not open the first two copies of the map disks they sent me. After changing the file formats (to what I don't remember at this point), the third disk would open on my machine. After taking a look at the maps on the disk, I decided to have large paper copies (about 2/3 of the original size) made and that was done by a firm in Tucson.
The Tucson firm also gave me disks containing copies of their finished product. I reproduced copies of those disks on my machine using Roxio Easy CD & DVD Burning software and sent copies to Sluggo and he apparently did not have any problems with them except for their exceptionally large size. I have not done anything with those disks since Sluggo put them on his web page. It is possible that I also gave copies to another person but I don't specifically remember it.
So Sluggo's copies were reproduced on my machine about four years ago and I was probably running Windows Vista and the latest version of IE at that time. When Windows 7 came out, I immediately upgraded to the Ultimate version of it and at the present time have IE 11 on this machine.
My guess is that the Roxio software I have didn't get upgraded to Windows 7 and IE 11. Recently, the disks would not open or copy. So I removed the Roxio program a few days ago and don't plan to install it again. I'll let the people in Tucson figure it out.
-
I don't know if everyone seen the video I made of the first 4 minutes of flight 305. I was testing all my systems, fraps recorder, Sony Vegas Movie Maker, and obviously the simulator. the time was not set to nite time for visual purposes. the cloud coverage wasn't set either. the temps, and were set to what I believe to be correct. the other purpose was to show the impossibility to the travel time that is on the transcripts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBpKzJLVKa4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBpKzJLVKa4)
-
I watched the video with Clyde Lewis at the Ariel Tavern. Dona Elliot says she heard a plane, but didn't see it. she also claimed you couldn't see across the street. she is claiming the plane was miles off V23 flying east of Amboy. how many other planes were in this area. could she of heard a plane flying outside of 305's area for safety?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtBPKuprO7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtBPKuprO7A)
-
Within minutes after NWA 305 took off and headed south on V-23, the Seattle Tower released other aircraft for take off. Captain Bohan states that he took off for Portland four minutes after NWA 305 took off. However it is unlikely that Bohan was cleared down V-23. In all probability he took V-23E, which is now known as V-495, straight to the Battleground VORTAC (formerly known as the Portland VORTAC). Since Bohan was landing at Portland, he would be descending to a lower altitude as he approached the Battleground VORTAC. Consequently, the people living under the V-23E airway would probably have noticed some lower flying aircraft headed into Portland from a more easterly direction. But there is no reason to believe that she heard NWA 305.
-
I watched the video with Clyde Lewis at the Ariel Tavern. Dona Elliot says she heard a plane, but didn't see it. she also claimed you couldn't see across the street. she is claiming the plane was miles off V23 flying east of Amboy. how many other planes were in this area. could she of heard a plane flying outside of 305's area for safety?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtBPKuprO7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtBPKuprO7A)
I have no opinion yet on Elliot's story, but on the flight path -- isn't it interesting that with all of the fracas surrounding radar and satellites and the disappearance of a certain 777 in 2014 with all of our 21st century technology, why anyone would not entertain the notion that a radar flight path from 1971 might possibly, just possibly, be in error? 8)
-
I watched the video with Clyde Lewis at the Ariel Tavern. Dona Elliot says she heard a plane, but didn't see it. she also claimed you couldn't see across the street. she is claiming the plane was miles off V23 flying east of Amboy. how many other planes were in this area. could she of heard a plane flying outside of 305's area for safety?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtBPKuprO7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtBPKuprO7A)
I have no opinion yet on Elliot's story, but on the flight path -- isn't it interesting that with all of the fracas surrounding radar and satellites and the disappearance of a certain 777 in 2014 with all of our 21st century technology, why anyone would not entertain the notion that a radar flight path from 1971 might possibly, just possibly, be in error? 8)
the whole thing might be accurate, but human error seems to be the fault. when the FBI say the "supposed flight path" you have to wonder how they came to there conclusions. the easterly path doesn't seem to line up. they would waste fuel getting back to V23. anything is possible, but I believe a westerly path is more accurate than eastward.
-
Within minutes after NWA 305 took off and headed south on V-23, the Seattle Tower released other aircraft for take off. Captain Bohan states that he took off for Portland four minutes after NWA 305 took off. However it is unlikely that Bohan was cleared down V-23. In all probability he took V-23E, which is now known as V-495, straight to the Battleground VORTAC (formerly known as the Portland VORTAC). Since Bohan was landing at Portland, he would be descending to a lower altitude as he approached the Battleground VORTAC. Consequently, the people living under the V-23E airway would probably have noticed some lower flying aircraft headed into Portland from a more easterly direction. But there is no reason to believe that she heard NWA 305.
Do you think it's possible she heard Bohan's flight the evening? she also claims the weather was horrible which doesn't match either. I notice Clyde Lewis wasn't to familiar with the flight path, or failed to note the time the plane was at 7000.
-
Within minutes after NWA 305 took off and headed south on V-23, the Seattle Tower released other aircraft for take off. Captain Bohan states that he took off for Portland four minutes after NWA 305 took off. However it is unlikely that Bohan was cleared down V-23. In all probability he took V-23E, which is now known as V-495, straight to the Battleground VORTAC (formerly known as the Portland VORTAC). Since Bohan was landing at Portland, he would be descending to a lower altitude as he approached the Battleground VORTAC. Consequently, the people living under the V-23E airway would probably have noticed some lower flying aircraft headed into Portland from a more easterly direction. But there is no reason to believe that she heard NWA 305.
Do you think it's possible she heard Bohan's flight the evening? she also claims the weather was horrible which doesn't match either. I notice Clyde Lewis wasn't to familiar with the flight path, or failed to note the time the plane was at 7000.
It is possible that she heard Bohan's plane if the time was about 8:10PM. Bohan would beat NWA 305 to the Portland area and, since he has been quoted as saying that he landed on Runway 10 that evening, he would have to swing west a bit from the Battleground VORTAC to line up with that runway. Taking magnetic variation into account, Bohan was landing basically to the east-southeast that night.
I don't know the elevation of Ariel right off, but I'll bet it is quite a bit higher than Portland International Airport which is just 30 feet above sea level. So she could have been in a foggy area with 100 percent humidity.
-
Within minutes after NWA 305 took off and headed south on V-23, the Seattle Tower released other aircraft for take off. Captain Bohan states that he took off for Portland four minutes after NWA 305 took off. However it is unlikely that Bohan was cleared down V-23. In all probability he took V-23E, which is now known as V-495, straight to the Battleground VORTAC (formerly known as the Portland VORTAC). Since Bohan was landing at Portland, he would be descending to a lower altitude as he approached the Battleground VORTAC. Consequently, the people living under the V-23E airway would probably have noticed some lower flying aircraft headed into Portland from a more easterly direction. But there is no reason to believe that she heard NWA 305.
Do you think it's possible she heard Bohan's flight the evening? she also claims the weather was horrible which doesn't match either. I notice Clyde Lewis wasn't to familiar with the flight path, or failed to note the time the plane was at 7000.
It is possible that she heard Bohan's plane if the time was about 8:10PM. Bohan would beat NWA 305 to the Portland area and, since he has been quoted as saying that he landed on Runway 10 that evening, he would have to swing west a bit from the Battleground VORTAC to line up with that runway. Taking magnetic variation into account, Bohan was landing basically to the east-southeast that night.
I don't know the elevation of Ariel right off, but I'll bet it is quite a bit higher than Portland International Airport which is just 30 feet above sea level. So she could have been in a foggy area with 100 percent humidity.
she says she lived in Amboy during 1971. sea level is 410 feet. the fog could be a factor for sure. Ariel is at 455 according to weather underground.
-
I watched the video with Clyde Lewis at the Ariel Tavern. Dona Elliot says she heard a plane, but didn't see it. she also claimed you couldn't see across the street. she is claiming the plane was miles off V23 flying east of Amboy. how many other planes were in this area. could she of heard a plane flying outside of 305's area for safety?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtBPKuprO7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtBPKuprO7A)
I have no opinion yet on Elliot's story, but on the flight path -- isn't it interesting that with all of the fracas surrounding radar and satellites and the disappearance of a certain 777 in 2014 with all of our 21st century technology, why anyone would not entertain the notion that a radar flight path from 1971 might possibly, just possibly, be in error? 8)
Ive been thinking the exact same thing... so far as I can piece it together there was not one iota of thought about an east path Washougal route until the Ingram money find and the hydrologist Bradely's report, naming the Washougal River as a possible source/path for something, to the Columbia, then to Tina Bar. But so far as I know Bradley citing the Washougal was shere speculation; ie. nothing in flight path info itself to link the Washougal area to flight 305. Except for one thing! The persistent rumor from people like JT that the Washougal area already had been named and was in play before 1980! Named specifically by Scott and Rataczak in private conversions with guess who - Himmelsbach, of course. Then Rataczak saying publicly just a few years ago: "I'm the only living person who knows what the real flight path was". Surely 40 years later 'they' can't be holding back the true flight path just in case only Cooper (and Rataczak) would know! That limp excuse died years ago. The better excuse would be: 'nobody really knows'! Which could open the door to the Dawson account since if anyone was in a position to know, Dawson and his group surely knew! (Both NWA and the FBI were dependent on them, not the
other way around - that is a fact).
Tom still sticks to the Ariel FP because I guess, "smart guys had the info and knew". Thus no conceivable way for the money to get to Tina Bar by any natural means... and the money was never "in river water" (maybe exposed to water but not "in" it!), if you can buy that weak demonstration of science and never mind 3 or 4 FBI lab reports on the money that drew a different conclusion. And the worst of it all perhaps is the fact people won’t even discuss it openly! The Long Ears won't talk to the Short Ears. People have staked out their territory and won't budge. (Corinthians 333:945). A pox on all their houses!
:) :) :)
-
I think Tom missed my comment. perhaps you have an answer. how much evidence has been erased over time, and what happened when the money was first found? I still think the money and the path are extremely related to figuring this out. if in fact evidence is lost in the bills. you would not have a conclusion of it's arrival.
-
I think Tom missed my comment. perhaps you have an answer. how much evidence has been erased over time, and what happened when the money was first found? I still think the money and the path are extremely related to figuring this out. if in fact evidence is lost in the bills. you would not have a conclusion of it's arrival.
If you are asking me, Bruce's account given by Shrueder is the best account of what happened from the moment Ingram walked into the FBI with the money ... Shrueder (sp?) and other agents went out to the Faxio's almost immediately, after gathering up tools and twine (rakes, hoes, shovels etc) Dorwin threw into his car. Dorwin took charge while others posted at the road to keep people out. Bruce's account is spot-on with what Dorwin told me happened. Dorwin had the foresight due to his science background and interest in archaeology to grid the area off just as Bruce reports. All digging, raking etc commenced within those grid lines (seen on news ariel photos). Dorwin says they found-a this and-a that et cetera within the first afternoon. Bruce describes that exactly as Dorwin told me. Kaye also interviewed Dorwin and I assume Dorwin told Kaye the same story. Dorwin and his crew found exactly what Bruce reports Dorwin saying they found the first day, late into the first afternoon.
The second day the guy's and gal's from Seattle showed up and by afternoon several agents from the Portland office were pulled off due to the demands of other priorities surfacing. So by afternoon of the second day I seem to recall Dorwin was no longer at Tina Bar to personally witness anything. Dorwin was the lead 'negotiator' for the Portland office and was sent off to deal with some new situation that came up. Between Himmelsbach (Portland) and Pringle (Seattle office), the Tina Bar investigation moved very rapidly. Palmer was brought in, consultants were brought in, the Faxio's were enlisted with their tractor and backhoe at Palmer's request, and ground crews continued to dig holes and rake and explore (with hand screening of sand etc ...). With the exception of one fist-sized wad of what looked like decomposed money-matter, pulled from an area just east of the Ingram find location and lower than the Ingram closer to the water line, nothing more of a significant nature (ie actual bundles) was found. It's my understanding Seattle took charge of everything found and multiple samples were sent off for lab work (which fits with the reports Larry provided Tom and I). For some reason, Tom has never cited these lab reports - I don't know why. What Larry gave us were summary reports which include, mention, name, and give a brief summary of a series of lab reports) - referred to by Tom on his website as the "Transcript(s)" ?. This socalled "Transcript" included the Palmer Report.
Let me post this and we can go from there ...
-
Robert99, check this item out being testing by the guy who invented X-Plane.
VP-400
This is the VP-400 artificially-intellegent runway-seeker in test-flight.
If the engine quits, or the pilot passes out, the VP-400 chooses the airport and runway that are most likely to result in a successful power-off landing and brings the airplane in to the runway without further pilot intervention. See some of our test flying here from inside the cockpit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl_Vmypg76k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl_Vmypg76k)
-
I don't think it is that easy.
-
I don't think it is that easy.
In case you missed it: Sluggo has surfaced, is going to revamp is site, and will check in here from time to time!
:) :)
-
I don't think it is that easy.
In case you missed it: Sluggo has surfaced, is going to revamp is site, and will check in here from time to time!
:) :)
Thanks for the update G. I look forward to Sluggo stopping by.
-
I don't think it is that easy.
In case you missed it: Sluggo has surfaced, is going to revamp is site, and will check in here from time to time!
:) :)
Thanks for the update G. I look forward to Sluggo stopping by.
When Sluggo revamps his site,maybe he could add a link to this forum. I think he has a link to, or mentions, the DZ. :D
-
I don't think it is that easy.
In case you missed it: Sluggo has surfaced, is going to revamp is site, and will check in here from time to time!
:) :)
Thanks for the update G. I look forward to Sluggo stopping by.
When Sluggo revamps his site,maybe he could add a link to this forum. I think he has a link to, or mentions, the DZ. :D
yes, I think he does have a link section. it would be nice to be connected to his site. I have a lot of respect for the work he has done over the years. top notch.
-
If a person is interested in doing a real analysis of the "FBI" flightpath plot, he or she needs to analyze the actual thing from the FBI - not the "red ball, blue ball" file that totally obscures the red crosses that mark the positions on the actual FBI file. Also, a person needs to understand about how positions are plotted on such charts by people who know how to do it. (Another useful area of knowledge I'll address in a later post if anyone cares.)
The attached figure is a low quality copy of part of the "FBI" flightpath plot. Forget about the positions plotted on it (and the broad felt-tip line) for now, and just think of the figure as a chart on which you will plot positions. Refer to the actual "FBI" plot if necessary to see details referenced in the discussion.
In the figure, four scales are identified with distinctive labels. The two latitude scales are the same. The two longitude scales look similar but are not exactly the same. The short marks along each scale mark full minutes of latitude or longitude. Every fifth mark along each scale is longer than the others. Every tenth mark is longer and extends equally on both sides of the scale line.
Note that no numbers appear by the minute marks. When using such a chart it is wise to carefully annotate the number of minutes for at least every 10-minute mark. Otherwise, you are likely to make mistakes such as occurred in plotting points to the west of PDX on the "FBI" flightpath plot.
This is important partly because you will find that some of the minute marks have been overprinted by some map features, and there are some map features that look much like minute marks but are not in the right places to be minute marks.
Where such a situation occurs, it's a good idea to mark a minute in the right place on the scale if you might be plotting something around missing coordinate mark. The spacing of the ones you add can be determined by measuring the spacing between other nearby minute marks. [On the "FBI" plot, for example, 5' of latitude equals 136 pixels.] Take care not to use spacing from one longitude scale on another longitude scale. The distance corresponding to a minute of longitude varies with latitude. A minute of longitude is a smaller distance the higher you go on the map. (For example, a minute of longitude is a distance of zero at the north and south poles.)
The marks are more readily recognized on the original flightpath plots than on this low-res copy I made, but you need to be able to magnify areas somewhat to do so.
On a complete aero chart such as the "FBI" plot chart from which I cut the figure, a few latitudes and longitudes are pre-printed. These are the latitudes and longitudes on which the scales are drawn. The longitude scale at the bottom of the figure is on latitude 45°30'N. The one at the top is on latitude 46°N. The latitude scale on the right is on longitude 122°30'W, and the one on the left is on longitude 123°W. The values are outside the extents of the figure, but they're marked along the scale lines.
To plot a point on the chart, you need to know the latitude and longitude of the point. You will draw a left-right line at the latitude and an up-down (away and back, N-S) line at the longitude. These two lines will intersect to make a cross marking the point to be plotted.
You don't want these lines to extend all the way across the chart if you're going to want to also plot other points because doing so would result in an unintelligable grid rather than a group of separate plotted points. So, when you start to draw a line for a latitude, you want it to extend only a bit each side of the longitude where you will draw the intersecting line.
Since it will sometimes be a little hard to estimate where the intersecting (second) line will be, especially if the plot cross is going to be far from a scale, the first line of a cross will typically be a bit longer than the second one. Such crosses (one line considerably longer than the other) are an indicator that the plotting was done by someone with some experience or instruction. Lines with mis-aligned sections are an indicator of an amateur that didn't make the initial lines long enough.
On a printed version of a chart a person can position and orient the lines using a "drafting machine," or by using just a straight edge and the scales preprinted on the chart. If a drafting machine is used, the machine and chart must be aligned before drawing the lines.
We'll use just the straight edge. On a digital file, the equivalent method is to use a tool that draws a thin straight line between the desired latitude on the left and right scales and another between the desired longitude on the upper and lower scales.
Drawing the lines that will intersect at the desired latitude and longitude is not as simple as you might think. How it is done will depend upon the skill level of the plotter and upon the perceived need for precision and accuracy.
If you place that straight edge exactly on the desired coordinate and then draw a line along that straight edge, you will find that the line is offset from that exact coordinate. This is because the drawing tool, such as a pencil, doesn't put the line exactly on the edge. A tool with a sharp tip will help. But the tip will have to be run close up against the edge. With an ordinary pencil, for example, tilt the pencil so that the needle-sharp tip is right up against the edge while you draw the line. With such a sharp tip, the drawn line will be very thin. If the pencil has a lead soft enough to make the line dark, the tip won't remain so sharp through more than a few plotted points.
Drawing tools such as mechanical pencils require a different technique for precision and accuracy. Place the center of the lead on the scale at the desired coordinate. Move the straight edge up against the drawing tool tip. Look closely at the offset between the edge and the lead center. Hold the straight edge down tight where you have just positioned it while you slide/rotate the other end of the straight edge to place the other end on the desired coordinate while visually adding an offset equal to the one you noted at the first setting. Then hold the straight edge at the last position and place the pencil there to ensure that the offset you added is correct. Adjust the offset if needed. Then hold this position while you check, and reposition if needed, the alignment on the first position. What you have done is position and align the straight edge so that the line drawn will be closely on the desired coordinate.
Different methods can be used to locate the positions on the scales, depending upon the precision of the data and the desired precision/accuracy of the finished plot. Take a latitude of X°30.7' for example. You could look at the scale and visually estimate a position 7/10 of the way from the 30' mark to the 31' mark. This is an easy way that would give results about as precise/accurate as the chart itself in the case of the aero charts used for the "FBI" flightpath plot. Because it is easy, this method would be used by a knowledgeable plotter if the source data (latitude and longitude vs. time) has a precision of less than a minute of latitude and longitude.
Or, you could use a caliper, proportional divider, or scale and divider to accurately mark the 7/10 point with a "needle-point" hole in the paper. This tiny hole gives a precise way of positioning the drawing tool. The pencil lead (or whatever) sinks into the hole, so the hole centers the drawing tool tip. The hole will also help keep the tool tip from moving when you move the straight edge up against the tool tip.
Or, you could use a scale on the straight edge of a piece of paper or plastic showing tenths of minutes. If plotting on a digital copy of a chart, you can make digital versions of such scales.
Finally, if you're trying to plot precisely, use a thin lead or something even finer.
-
excellent post as usual. let me ask this. what is more crucial, flying exactly to the flight path, or is the speed, altitude and weather the key factors. what I'm saying is can you be a couple degree's off here and there and still have a good run as long as you have everything else lined up? or is it that crucial to fly the path like a carbon copy?
-
here is an interesting post from Galen on Sluggo's forum several years ago:
"Just remember that Rataczak said he thought the "lights of Portland were coming into view." Rataczak actually told me in one interview that he thought the plane was "west" of I-5. When examining the radar plots of the flight path after the dog-leg around PDX, they "were" west of I-5."
-
excellent post as usual. let me ask this. what is more crucial, flying exactly to the flight path, or is the speed, altitude and weather the key factors. what I'm saying is can you be a couple degree's off here and there and still have a good run as long as you have everything else lined up? or is it that crucial to fly the path like a carbon copy?
Depends on what you mean by "to fly the path like a carbon copy." You definitely should not go directly from one plotted point to the next, to the next, etc. The flight would not have done that and the plot does not indicate that they did. Take the plotted points. Mark a rectangular zone one minute in longitude (.7nm) wide and one minute of latitude (1nm) high centered on each plotted point. Then fly through the rectangular "hoops" using the largest possible turn radiuses. This makes it possible to be a few degrees off at places without getting outside the plot limits. Getting through all the hoops would mean your flightpath would have been plotted as in the "FBI" flightpath plot. If you can only get close to doing this while matching the reported speeds, altitudes, weights, fuel flow, flap/gear settings, temperatures and wind directions I think it would have to be considered a pretty good validation--especially if we can verify that your model has the right lift/drag/thrust characteristics. Simple ;)
-
here is an interesting post from Galen on Sluggo's forum several years ago:
"Just remember that Rataczak said he thought the "lights of Portland were coming into view." Rataczak actually told me in one interview that he thought the plane was "west" of I-5. When examining the radar plots of the flight path after the dog-leg around PDX, they "were" west of I-5."
Yes. Interesting. Wrong. The "FBI" flightpath doesn't go definitely west of I-5 until it gets down to about Wilsonville, OR and that only lasted about a minute. While over Portland, the path is pretty much right over I-5. A position, btw, that would minimize density of population below the flight.
-
excellent post as usual. let me ask this. what is more crucial, flying exactly to the flight path, or is the speed, altitude and weather the key factors. what I'm saying is can you be a couple degree's off here and there and still have a good run as long as you have everything else lined up? or is it that crucial to fly the path like a carbon copy?
Depends on what you mean by "to fly the path like a carbon copy." You definitely should not go directly from one plotted point to the next, to the next, etc. The flight would not have done that and the plot does not indicate that they did. Take the plotted points. Mark a rectangular zone one minute in longitude (.7nm) wide and one minute of latitude (1nm) high centered on each plotted point. Then fly through the rectangular "hoops" using the largest possible turn radiuses. This makes it possible to be a few degrees off at places without getting outside the plot limits. Getting through all the hoops would mean your flightpath would have been plotted as in the "FBI" flightpath plot. If you can only get close to doing this while matching the reported speeds, altitudes, weights, fuel flow, flap/gear settings, temperatures and wind directions I think it would have to be considered a pretty good validation--especially if we can verify that your model has the right lift/drag/thrust characteristics. Simple ;)
within the plot limits is what I was getting at.
The current system is Flyjsims 727
Flight model:
At FlyJSim we take pride in our flight model. With over 200 hours of internal testing, you can be sure that the 727 series is at least 95% accurate to the real aircraft. We benefited from having much more information available to us for the 727 than for the Q400 and that allowed us to get even the most subtle nuance of the handling of this aircraft into the sim. This will let you operate the 727 from startup to shutdown just like a real 727 captain.
here are some reviews.
http://xplanereviews.com/index.php?/topic/141-aircraft-profile-boeing-727-series-by-flyjsim-part-one/ (http://xplanereviews.com/index.php?/topic/141-aircraft-profile-boeing-727-series-by-flyjsim-part-one/)
Part two
http://xplanereviews.com/index.php?/topic/142-aircraft-profile-boeing-727-series-by-flyjsim-part-two-flying-the-boeing-727/ (http://xplanereviews.com/index.php?/topic/142-aircraft-profile-boeing-727-series-by-flyjsim-part-two-flying-the-boeing-727/)
Here is a video checking the frame rate with the clouds loaded. plus a little tour of the 727. it's an older video, but a good one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfaReARlBZA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfaReARlBZA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1T7WdXNiCo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1T7WdXNiCo)
Current system specs
New Acer Tower
New GEForce GTX770 Video Card
1 Terabyte Hard Drive
8 Gigs Memory.
-
Also, a person needs to understand about how positions are plotted on such charts by people who know how to do it. (Another useful area of knowledge I'll address in a later post if anyone cares.)
Hey, plotting points on charts is not brain surgery. So please address that topic as you offered to do. Also, please cite chapter and verse in a navigational publication of some kind. I have some 30+ books on land, air, and sea navigation and I don't remember any of them even remotely discussing the plotting of points in the detail that you suggest. But then, maybe I missed the "point" so to speak.
Also, maps and charts are not miniature scaled versions of the topography. Instead, they are just representations of the topography. If you remember, there was a discussion a few years ago on the other thread about a feature (a town, if I remember correctly) which was off an airway on a previous map but on the airway in a current version of the same map. Farflung solved the problem by showing that the city had been moved more than two nautical miles to the west on the present day charts. That was the largest plotting mistake that I have personally seen on an aeronautical chart in the continental USA.
-
here is an interesting post from Galen on Sluggo's forum several years ago:
"Just remember that Rataczak said he thought the "lights of Portland were coming into view." Rataczak actually told me in one interview that he thought the plane was "west" of I-5. When examining the radar plots of the flight path after the dog-leg around PDX, they "were" west of I-5."
Yes. Interesting. Wrong. The "FBI" flightpath doesn't go definitely west of I-5 until it gets down to about Wilsonville, OR and that only lasted about a minute. While over Portland, the path is pretty much right over I-5. A position, btw, that would minimize density of population below the flight.
The flight path you show on your chart for the Portland area is directly over the Portland high population density area and west of I-5 as they existed in 1971. The flight path shown really doesn't make any sense in the first place. Even if you favor the Ariel route, then just continuing straight south would have the airliner easily passing in the low density area west of Portland and well positioned to rejoin V-23 just past Portland.
-
Hey, plotting points on charts is not brain surgery. So please address that topic as you offered to do. Also, please cite chapter and verse in a navigational publication of some kind. I have some 30+ books on land, air, and sea navigation and I don't remember any of them even remotely discussing the plotting of points in the detail that you suggest. But then, maybe I missed the "point" so to speak.
Also, maps and charts are not miniature scaled versions of the topography. Instead, they are just representations of the topography. If you remember, there was a discussion a few years ago on the other thread about a feature (a town, if I remember correctly) which was off an airway on a previous map but on the airway in a current version of the same map. Farflung solved the problem by showing that the city had been moved more than two nautical miles to the west on the present day charts. That was the largest plotting mistake that I have personally seen on an aeronautical chart in the continental USA.
The post was not for an expert such as you. The hope was just that someone who hasn't done any hand plotting or been instructed on it could get an idea how it's done by people who know how and by people who may not know so well. Something to enable someone to understand rather than something to accept because some "expert" or publication says so. Nothing is complicated for someone who knows all about it. Please cite the authorative navigational publication that says plotting points on charts is not brain surgery. What is your authorative source for the statements that "maps and charts are not miniature scaled versions .....of the topography"? Those are sure gems of expert knowledge.
Yeah. I remember the "discussion." It took Farf and I both beating you for several posts before we could finally get it into your head. And there was no mistake on the old and new charts. The old chart showed the village location based on the location of its railroad station. When the settlement grew and got a city hall, the new chart showed the location based on the city hall. Apparently you never did really get it.
It'll take me a bit of time to address the other topic, especially if I have to spend time with posts such as this.
-
The flight path you show on your chart for the Portland area is directly over the Portland high population density area and west of I-5 as they existed in 1971. The flight path shown really doesn't make any sense in the first place. Even if you favor the Ariel route, then just continuing straight south would have the airliner easily passing in the low density area west of Portland and well positioned to rejoin V-23 just past Portland.
The "FBI" flightpath was on charts of about '71 vintage. The attached should help you understand.
Maybe the crew didn't have a lot of time to consult with you about which way they should go. Maybe they were just trying to get back on V23. And that area straight south passes east of Portland, not west. On charts and maps, when you're reading it right-side-up, the stuff to your right is east and the stuff to your left is west. Source: Me.
-
Hey, plotting points on charts is not brain surgery. So please address that topic as you offered to do. Also, please cite chapter and verse in a navigational publication of some kind. I have some 30+ books on land, air, and sea navigation and I don't remember any of them even remotely discussing the plotting of points in the detail that you suggest. But then, maybe I missed the "point" so to speak.
Also, maps and charts are not miniature scaled versions of the topography. Instead, they are just representations of the topography. If you remember, there was a discussion a few years ago on the other thread about a feature (a town, if I remember correctly) which was off an airway on a previous map but on the airway in a current version of the same map. Farflung solved the problem by showing that the city had been moved more than two nautical miles to the west on the present day charts. That was the largest plotting mistake that I have personally seen on an aeronautical chart in the continental USA.
The post was not for an expert such as you. The hope was just that someone who hasn't done any hand plotting or been instructed on it could get an idea how it's done by people who know how and by people who may not know so well. Something to enable someone to understand rather than something to accept because some "expert" or publication says so. Nothing is complicated for someone who knows all about it. Please cite the authorative navigational publication that says plotting points on charts is not brain surgery. What is your authorative source for the statements that "maps and charts are not miniature scaled versions .....of the topography"? Those are sure gems of expert knowledge.
Yeah. I remember the "discussion." It took Farf and I both beating you for several posts before we could finally get it into your head. And there was no mistake on the old and new charts. The old chart showed the village location based on the location of its railroad station. When the settlement grew and got a city hall, the new chart showed the location based on the city hall. Apparently you never did really get it.
It'll take me a bit of time to address the other topic, especially if I have to spend time with posts such as this.
I trust that the following will help to refresh your memory. The discussion of "Strange Maps & Wandering VORTACs" was started by me with post #32349 on February 25, 2012. There were a number of posts on the subject and Farflung basically solved the "problem" in posts #32349 and #32350. Farflung included a comparison of two maps in post #32349 that perfectly illustrated what I was talking about and I told him the same thing in post #32363.
A number of other posts were made on the subject including your own post #32375 to me which I copy completely below:
"You're right. I'm looking at an '08 sectional from Sluggo's (which is slightly tilted) and I'm looking at the original flight path plot from the FBI. Maybe your '09 sectional doesn't show rivers and highways? I've reproduced bits of the two charts below. In each, the little circle represents Toutle location."
You attached two small bits of maps with the above post. However, to get a better idea of what actually changed in the mapping, you need a larger map of the area. Something including everything within about 10 or 15 miles of Toutle would clearly illustrate that, as I suggested in one post, the whole area seems to have been "expanded". Perhaps you could see this better on topographical charts.
On another subject, I thought all the "experts" worked on the Cooper case in 1971 and 1972. And here we are 42 years later. At this point, maybe only people who actually know what they are doing should be permitted to work on this matter.
-
I trust that the following will help to refresh your memory. The discussion of "Strange Maps & Wandering VORTACs" was started by me with post #32349 on February 25, 2012. There were a number of posts on the subject and Farflung basically solved the "problem" in posts #32349 and #32350. Farflung included a comparison of two maps in post #32349 that perfectly illustrated what I was talking about and I told him the same thing in post #32363.
A number of other posts were made on the subject including your own post #32375 to me which I copy completely below:
"You're right. I'm looking at an '08 sectional from Sluggo's (which is slightly tilted) and I'm looking at the original flight path plot from the FBI. Maybe your '09 sectional doesn't show rivers and highways? I've reproduced bits of the two charts below. In each, the little circle represents Toutle location."
You attached two small bits of maps with the above post. However, to get a better idea of what actually changed in the mapping, you need a larger map of the area. Something including everything within about 10 or 15 miles of Toutle would clearly illustrate that, as I suggested in one post, the whole area seems to have been "expanded". Perhaps you could see this better on topographical charts.
On another subject, I thought all the "experts" worked on the Cooper case in 1971 and 1972. And here we are 42 years later. At this point, maybe only people who actually know what they are doing should be permitted to work on this matter.
Here's some more refresher:
The point of Farf's post 32349 was that the Toutle location was moved from point "d" which was the railroad station to point "c" which is the current location. He immediately added post 32350, the attachment of which made the same point. Nothing about map expansion in his post OR in the maps in his attachment. Unfortunately, he was not big on just getting to the point.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4279122#4279122 (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4279122#4279122)
The last of your rambling, long post 32363:
"So it looks like the symbol for Toutle was wandering around between the two charts and not the PDX VORTAC.
Apparently as the charts were updated for the WGS84 coordinate system, the area around Toutle was changed (expanded?) more than other areas on the FBI map and that gave the visual impression, when considering nearby landmarks, that things hadn't changed at all. But the longitude and latitude changes seems to be the source of the discrepancy."
From this it was obvious that you still didn't get it. So Farf tried yet again. The attachment to his whimsical post was:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=132974; (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=132974;)
Toutle moved. The maps in the figure showed no "expanded."
To this his last post on the topic you replied "Huh?" maybe because you didn't look at the illustration he attached to his post. You didn't even understand whose lack of reading comprehension he was referring to. He was good with those insults people didn't see. Farf posted no further on the topic, no doubt in realization that it was hopeless to try to explain it to you.
My post 32375 that you copied over was in response to your condescending post 32371.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4279355#4279355 (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4279355#4279355)
I attached only two small bits of maps because those were the only areas of anything changed having to do with Toutle. The point was to try to show YOU that "Toutle" had moved. The parts of maps that Farf and I posted had no indication of magically, mysteriously "expanded."
Georger and I each made another post and agreed on the idea that the solution was simply that the "Toutle" marker (circle) was moved because Toutle had grown and acquired a center of government. By this time you were hoping the topic would just go away.
I won't bother searching for your "expanded" because it's irrelevant.
No. If you have some thought to do what you might consider "work" on the matter, there's no reason you shouldn't go ahead and pursue it. Try to keep busy. Go searching for redacts.
You're on my ignore list. You have nothing worthwhile to say and I have better things to do.
-
That earlier post on Sluggo's site stands corrected. Hom is right, the flight path does not cross west of I-5, even after the dogleg north of PDX. Rather, it stays pretty much over I-5 after the dogleg and crosses almost directly over the I-5 bridge. However, that route was not chosen by the pilots because of population density below. And that comes straight from the mouth of the pilots themselves.
-
That earlier post on Sluggo's site stands corrected. Hom is right, the flight path does not cross west of I-5, even after the dogleg north of PDX. Rather, it stays pretty much over I-5 after the dogleg and crosses almost directly over the I-5 bridge. However, that route was not chosen by the pilots because of population density below. And that comes straight from the mouth of the pilots themselves.
Thanks. From my perspective, it's you saying Scott and Rataczak both said something like whatever "that" is. In the absense of any documentation, the claim could be a bit more credible if you would explain what the circumstances were when they made the statements. What did they say about why the route was chosen? Was it them what chose the route? Were these statements to the FBI?
-
Re Toutle,
I don't know the precise locations, and I'm not where I can look it up, but Mt St Helen's eruption caused a lot of topographical and property damage to that area including changing the flow of the Toutle River - maybe that's when the town proper moved.
-
Re Toutle,
I don't know the precise locations, and I'm not where I can look it up, but Mt St Helen's eruption caused a lot of topographical and property damage to that area including changing the flow of the Toutle River - maybe that's when the town proper moved.
Well here it is as best I know - I dont think R99 will mind my posting this:
Quote R99:
Here again are the coordinates:
46.243157 degrees North Latitude
122.683612 degrees West Longitude
Also, Tom sent me an e-mail several years ago which presumably included a picture of the placard find location. However, Tom's enclosure had a ".kmz" suffix which my computer could not open.
PS... I think this agree with Sluggo's coords.
-
That earlier post on Sluggo's site stands corrected. Hom is right, the flight path does not cross west of I-5, even after the dogleg north of PDX. Rather, it stays pretty much over I-5 after the dogleg and crosses almost directly over the I-5 bridge. However, that route was not chosen by the pilots because of population density below. And that comes straight from the mouth of the pilots themselves.
Why do you suppose they made the "dogleg" in the first place? It doesn't appear that the elevation or other flights were an issue so why not just stay on a straight path?
-
Wish I had all the answers, but I really don't. Rataczak wanted to "dump the pirate" out in the Pacific. Maybe Rat was steering and then Scott re-took control. Clouds were broken over Van/Port, and Rat saw the lights below from the starboard side. Anderson was on the interphone with the pirate. Lot's of scenarios here. Even Tosaw stated that Rat told him he was going to head straight out over the Pacific. Somewhere below them, RH onboard the Oregon NG Huey was trying to mount a chase. And to their west, out over Suavie Island, Bohan was making a final approach into PDX on 100. Lots going on.
-
Wish I had all the answers, but I really don't. Rataczak wanted to "dump the pirate" out in the Pacific. Maybe Rat was steering and then Scott re-took control. Clouds were broken over Van/Port, and Rat saw the lights below from the starboard side. Anderson was on the interphone with the pirate. Lot's of scenarios here. Even Tosaw stated that Rat told him he was going to head straight out over the Pacific. Somewhere below them, RH onboard the Oregon NG Huey was trying to mount a chase. And to their west, out over Suavie Island, Bohan was making a final approach into PDX on 100. Lots going on.
seems to me that we need to get one last interview with these guys before it's to late. really get into the path with Rat.
-
Re Toutle,
I don't know the precise locations, and I'm not where I can look it up, but Mt St Helen's eruption caused a lot of topographical and property damage to that area including changing the flow of the Toutle River - maybe that's when the town proper moved.
Satellite images in the last 2 of Farf's posts show that buildings that were at the "old" Toutle are still there. The white flows shown in the images (in the river beds) are probably from the eruption.
Part of Farf's post indicated that his point ‘c’ is the modern location of the unincorporated village of Toutle and that his point ‘d’ was the old rail stop named "Toutle." He didn't say where he got the correlation with the rail stop, and nobody asked. It is by a railroad. The current Toutle is unincorporated. The location where it's now shown on maps/charts is where there's a little post office. I think this is why the locations on the maps are where they are. A "town" such as it was (a few houses) in the seventies is still where it was.
-
Re Toutle,
I don't know the precise locations, and I'm not where I can look it up, but Mt St Helen's eruption caused a lot of topographical and property damage to that area including changing the flow of the Toutle River - maybe that's when the town proper moved.
Satellite images in the last 2 of Farf's posts show that buildings that were at the "old" Toutle are still there. The white flows shown in the images (in the river beds) are probably from the eruption.
Part of Farf's post indicated that his point ‘c’ is the modern location of the unincorporated village of Toutle and that his point ‘d’ was the old rail stop named "Toutle." He didn't say where he got the correlation with the rail stop, and nobody asked. It is by a railroad. The current Toutle is unincorporated. The location where it's now shown on maps/charts is where there's a little post office. I think this is why the locations on the maps are where they are. A "town" such as it was (a few houses) in the seventies is still where it was.
So my question is.. would the inaccurate alternate placement of Toutle on the FBI flight path map have made any difference in where / how the line is plotted?
And here's some more trivia about Toutle fwiw....
http://jtenlen.drizzlehosting.com/wacowlitz/townsmz.html (http://jtenlen.drizzlehosting.com/wacowlitz/townsmz.html)
Toutle
The current site of Toutle is located 4 miles east of Silverlake on State Route 504. The site of the original townsite is unknown, but was located near the south fork of the Toutle River. In 1841, Toutle's name was derived from Hullooetell, a local Indian tribe name. Napoleon Gardner established the post office in 1883. His sons William F. Garder (who married Eliza May Bemis) and Harry Gardner were also postmasters. The townsite was moved in Feb. 1950 (Ramsey, p. 180).
Toutle Links:
For more information,
see the listing for Toutle in Meany's "Origin of Washington Place Names".
See the entry for Toutle in the "Oregon, Washington and Alaska Gazetteer and Business Directory, 1901-1902"
Mt. St. Helens Communities - Toutle - by Cowlitz County Tourism
-
So my question is.. would the inaccurate alternate placement of Toutle on the FBI flight path map have made any difference in where / how the line is plotted?
No effect at all on the line or plotted points.
-
The attached part of the "FBI" flightpath plot covers the area around the path from north of the Portland (now Battleground) VORTAC to the south end of the plot to the extent that we have the plot. Just to the east of where the big black line reaches Portland I've circled "175°" in white. The original has a short arrow just below that "175" pointing directly away from the VORTAC. This 175° and short arrow are identifying the "175° radial" outbound from the VORTAC.
I've added a thin black line from the VORTAC, through the little arrow, and on to points south. This is V23. For some reason it does not have the faint grey stripe of a VOR airway, or the "V" annotation. Probably just because it was transiting a lot of other features, like the Portland and Vancouver light patterns. The same is apparent for V23E on the 160° radial until the grey stripe shows up south of the Portland light pattern.
Although the flightpath south of Portland tracks pretty close to I-5, it also follows V23 pretty closely.
Maybe after reaching the VORTAC, which is a V23 "waypoint," they were thinking they would head on to the east of Portland as shown with the heavy white line, then changed their collective mind for some reason and turned and raced across Vancouver and the PDX "control area" to where they turned south at about the I-5.
They may well have not been aiming for I-5. Note that where they turned was also at about the dashed line that is a circular arc at the area where they approached it. The area inside the dashed line was called a "control area" for the airport. Maybe the crew intended to turn when they got to the boundary. I don't see on the map any upper altitude limit for the control area. Maybe the crew just saw "control area" and tried to minimize time in it.
The plane would not have turned abruptly over Scholl airport, then made another abrupt turn at the next plotted point, as shown by the neaderthal black line. They would have turned like in the white arrow leaving the Scholl location and this would have put them heading a bit more westerly when they got to the next plotted point. Then an arc as shown by the next white arrow to the plotted point at the Columbia west of PDX.
-
The attached part of the "FBI" flightpath plot covers the area around the path from north of the Portland (now Battleground) VORTAC to the south end of the plot to the extent that we have the plot. Just to the east of where the big black line reaches Portland I've circled "175°" in white. The original has a short arrow just below that "175" pointing directly away from the VORTAC. This 175° and short arrow are identifying the "175° radial" outbound from the VORTAC.
I've added a thin black line from the VORTAC, through the little arrow, and on to points south. This is V23. For some reason it does not have the faint grey stripe of a VOR airway, or the "V" annotation. Probably just because it was transiting a lot of other features, like the Portland and Vancouver light patterns. The same is apparent for V23E on the 160° radial until the grey stripe shows up south of the Portland light pattern.
Although the flightpath south of Portland tracks pretty close to I-5, it also follows V23 pretty closely.
Maybe after reaching the VORTAC, which is a V23 "waypoint," they were thinking they would head on to the east of Portland as shown with the heavy white line, then changed their collective mind for some reason and turned and raced across Vancouver and the PDX "control area" to where they turned south at about the I-5.
They may well have not been aiming for I-5. Note that where they turned was also at about the dashed line that is a circular arc at the area where they approached it. The area inside the dashed line was called a "control area" for the airport. Maybe the crew intended to turn when they got to the boundary. I don't see on the map any upper altitude limit for the control area. Maybe the crew just saw "control area" and tried to minimize time in it.
The plane would not have turned abruptly over Scholl airport, then made another abrupt turn at the next plotted point, as shown by the neaderthal black line. They would have turned like in the white arrow leaving the Scholl location and this would have put them heading a bit more westerly when they got to the next plotted point. Then an arc as shown by the next white arrow to the plotted point at the Columbia west of PDX.
As a humble seeking of truth and never-an-expert, I ask that you kindly permit me to make a few comments for your consideration.
First, "degrees" and "radials" are two different things and the words are not used interchangeably. That is, the word degrees is not used in describing a radial.
In congested areas, such as Portland, some of the features of the topography and airways have to be omitted to make other things readable. So you are correct and the omitted information will appear as soon as there is free space for it to be printed in a readable manner. The 1971 Portland chart has been duplicated so much that it is difficult to read.
But in looking at the 1971 Portland chart, it appears that the only "control area" there is the "airport traffic control area", which was not printed on charts in that day, which has a specified diameter (I don't remember exactly but it was probably 10 statute miles) and a ceiling of 3000 feet above the airport elevation.
The magenta colored area is not a control area. Rather, it specifies a visibility (in miles) and altitude (above ground level) below which VFR flight is permitted.
The dashed line marking an area around the Portland airport also has a specific meaning. Fortunately, the FAA publishes an excellent booklet which describes the present day meaning of everything on their charts. Just go to the faa.gov web page and search the publications until you find it. You can download it free and it should answer all of your questions.
But the biggest question here is, why would the airliner fly such a convoluted path around Portland when a simple straight line on the west side of Portland would be the simplest and best? Keep in mind that the airliner did not know until it was in the Portland area that it would probably be able to make it non-stop to Reno. The NWA performance engineers in Minneapolis passed the crew that information through the ARINC system. Passing Portland on the east side would have added another 10 to 15 miles to their distance. Also, the aircraft was difficult to fly including turns and changes in altitude.
Robert99
A Humble-Seeker-After-Truth
Never-An-Expert
-
As a humble seeking of truth and never-an-expert, I ask that you kindly permit me to make a few comments for your consideration.
Robert,
You probably haven't had an occasion to put someone on your "ignore" list here. I've found that (since I don't stay constantly logged in) if I just select to go to the last post on a topic, a post by the person on my ignore list shows up just as though I had no ignore list. So I saw sort of a nice start to your post and read on. Thank you for your effort.
I assume it would be OK with you if I respond some for your consideration. I'll be back with that.
-
First, "degrees" and "radials" are two different things and the words are not used interchangeably. That is, the word degrees is not used in describing a radial.
I did not use "degrees" and "radials" interchangeably (that is, to mean the same thing). I didn't even use "degrees." And your "the word degrees is not used in describing a radial" is not even remotely the same as your "that" (saying the words aren't used interchangeably). Besides this, the statement is wrong. Watch this:
A "radial" (in the aeronautical sense) is a direction or "line of direction" from a radio navigational transmitter, with the direction specified in degrees of angle from the direction of the magnetic north pole from the same transmitter.
You see. The word "degrees" is used in describing a radial. I just did it. There is probably no way of describing a "radial" to someone not already steeped in aviation so that the person understands without using the word "degrees."
I think that your concern must be about my "175° radial," which when spelled out without a symbol would be "175-degree radial." I expect that flyers sitting in the cafe near the airport don't say the "degree" or "degrees" and that it's left out of aviation comms just to minimize words. All those av people understand without the "degree" or "degrees." But the intent of my post was to try to communicate to english-language-reading people with various backgrounds. I probably wouldn't be very good at writing in aviation jargon even if I wanted to. You'll have to do the translating for yourself.
The 1971 Portland chart has been duplicated so much that it is difficult to read.
I can't imagine which chart you mean, or what the point is. I don't have any difficulty reading the chart I posted. I assume you're referring to generations of copies. Copies of copies of copies, etc.
The dashed line marking an area around the Portland airport also has a specific meaning. Fortunately, the FAA publishes an excellent booklet which describes the present day meaning of everything on their charts. Just go to the faa.gov web page and search the publications until you find it. You can download it free and it should answer all of your questions.
Won't work, Robert. What we need is not "present day meaning." We're looking at older charts. All that matters is what the '71 sectional said. I have a fairly current 1 for IFR chart symbols and one for VFR. Thanks.
But in looking at the 1971 Portland chart, it appears that the only "control area" there is the "airport traffic control area", which was not printed on charts in that day, which has a specified diameter (I don't remember exactly but it was probably 10 statute miles) and a ceiling of 3000 feet above the airport elevation.
Yet, the area is on the piece of 1971 sectional I posted, marked with the long dashes, short spaces. It's not totally circular. I've attached a piece of a legend from a '71 L-1. It shows that symbology as meaning "control zone" in 1971. On the actual '71 L-1 chart the same outline as on the "FBI" plot is marked by the "T" fence for which the legend says "Control Zones within which fixed-wing special VFR flight is prohibited." (emphasis added)
From Wikipedia, not that they're experts:
"A control zone (CTR or Controlled Traffic Region) in aviation is a volume of controlled airspace, normally around an airport, which extends from the surface to a specified upper limit, established to protect air traffic operating to and from that airport. Because CTRs are, by definition, controlled airspace, aircraft can only fly in it after receiving a specific clearance from air traffic control. This means that ATC at the airport know exactly which aircraft are in that airspace, and can take steps to ensure aircraft are aware of each other, either using separation or by passing traffic information.
"In the USA the term control zone is no longer used and has been replaced by airspace class D. Typically it extends 5 miles in diameter with a height of 2500 ft AGL (above ground level) around small commercial airports. Aircraft are required to establish radio contact with the control tower before entering and to maintain in contact while in class D airspace. This implies that an aircraft must be equipped with at least a portable radio to fly in Class D airspace."
I have seen that the long dash, short space thing is identified as "class D" on newer charts (like wiki sorta says). The way they put it, there could be some deviations on the radius and height.
The magenta colored area is not a control area. Rather, it specifies a visibility (in miles) and altitude (above ground level) below which VFR flight is permitted.
I think you're referring to an area outlined with a magenta band on newer charts? On the one I attached, it looks like a dim red band inside a dim blue band. Apx 39nm dia on the chart? Extends down to apx Oregon City, Lenhardt & Newberg?
But the biggest question here is, why would the airliner fly such a convoluted path around Portland when a simple straight line on the west side of Portland would be the simplest and best? Keep in mind that the airliner did not know until it was in the Portland area that it would probably be able to make it non-stop to Reno. The NWA performance engineers in Minneapolis passed the crew that information through the ARINC system. Passing Portland on the east side would have added another 10 to 15 miles to their distance. Also, the aircraft was difficult to fly including turns and changes in altitude.
They were focused on getting the guy out without the guy exploding a bomb. I can imagine that they had to work at focusing hard just to function in the midst of the fear. Getting him to leave was probably all they cared about. It would be easy (mentally) just to fly where they had been cleared to fly. V23 Easy just to watch the deviation and the compass. If they had found that they wouldn't be able to make Reno because of 15 miles, they would have just had to try to convince the guy that they really did need to go to an alternate they had already established.
-
Hom, what do you suppose the purpose was for them to zig zag through the area between lake Merwin on down to the Columbia river? those are heavy rolls. I wonder why they didn't continue down the path from 8:12 instead of turning eastward. it seems they could of avoided getting near Vancouver, and Portland by continuing that course? what do you think the odds were of Cooper being at the bottom of the stairs during the roll at the 8:12 position?
-
Hom, what do you suppose the purpose was for them to zig zag through the area between lake Merwin on down to the Columbia river? those are heavy rolls. I wonder why they didn't continue down the path from 8:12 instead of turning eastward. it seems they could of avoided getting near Vancouver, and Portland by continuing that course? what do you think the odds were of Cooper being at the bottom of the stairs during the roll at the 8:12 position?
First, feel free to comment Robert.
Shutter,
I think you're seeing more zig-zag than the plot says in a technical sense. First, the neanderthal line is misleading at one of the places. It has a straightish section from the HEAVY black cross at the point annotated "2010" approximately through the plot point at 2011 and continuing down almost to the 2012 point. If you extend that line southward it looks like that path would pass to the west of Vancouver and most of Portland.
If you look closely at the 2012 plot point, however, you see that the end of the straightish section of neanderthal line doesn't go through the point.
The 2012 point is actually due south of the 2011 point. If you extend a line between the 2011 point and the 2012 point, the extended line will pass practically through the center of Vancouver and Portland.
Besides the misleading effect of the neanderthal line, the actual positions of the flight for points 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 might all have been within a foot (or a "skosh") of the exact same longitude (122°36.5'). That is, all could have been virtually on a line running due south. The plotted point's longitudes are within a range of 1', but the tolerance for each is +/-.5'
The plotted points definitely support the idea of a big "S" or dogleg from the 2012 point to the point at Scholl airport, then to about the I-5, then to V23. I doubt that they planned all that out ahead of time. I think they probably headed for the Portland VORTAC, got abeam of it or passed it a bit, then found themselves having to decide the next move. The only thing I see that correlates somewhat with the path after Scholl airport is the boundaries of that control zone outlined with the dashed lines. I don't know how it might relate.
I think the part of the path from 2010 to 2012 reflects them deciding to move straight toward the Portland VORTAC. It would make it easier for them to track where they were without plotting. I don't think they thought about where they were going to go on a minute by minute basis. Maybe they were thinking in this time frame that they would pass to the east of Portland.
Pull back and look at the path from up around Toutle all the way to the VORTAC. By the point annotated "2005" they were paralleling the V23 centerline about 1.75nm to 2.45nm to the east. The course would have put them this distance to the east of the VORTAC.
One easy way to go straight toward the VORTAC is to tune to the frequency, set the desired direction to 149°mag, turn a bit westward until the deviation meter starts giving a good indication, start turning into the 149° mag (by compass) until the deviation zeros out. You're on the V23 centerline moving toward the VORTAC. It's easy then to monitor the deviation to keep yourself moving toward the VORTAC.
As for the odds, I don't know. But the roll should be just a gradual turn to get on the V23 centerline going 149 deg magnetic. They knew at this point that they needed the turns to be gradual. They would have no reason to turn hard at this point. If they overshot the centerline a bit, they would just turn back the other direction and approach the centerline from the other side.
-
Hom, what do you suppose the purpose was for them to zig zag through the area between lake Merwin on down to the Columbia river? those are heavy rolls. I wonder why they didn't continue down the path from 8:12 instead of turning eastward. it seems they could of avoided getting near Vancouver, and Portland by continuing that course? what do you think the odds were of Cooper being at the bottom of the stairs during the roll at the 8:12 position?
First, feel free to comment Robert.
Shutter,
I think you're seeing more zig-zag than the plot says in a technical sense. First, the neanderthal line is misleading at one of the places. It has a straightish section from the HEAVY black cross at the point annotated "2010" approximately through the plot point at 2011 and continuing down almost to the 2012 point. If you extend that line southward it looks like that path would pass to the west of Vancouver and most of Portland.
If you look closely at the 2012 plot point, however, you see that the end of the straightish section of neanderthal line doesn't go through the point.
The 2012 point is actually due south of the 2011 point. If you extend a line between the 2011 point and the 2012 point, the extended line will pass practically through the center of Vancouver and Portland.
Besides the misleading effect of the neanderthal line, the actual positions of the flight for points 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 might all have been within a foot (or a "skosh") of the exact same longitude (122°36.5'). That is, all could have been virtually on a line running due south. The plotted point's longitudes are within a range of 1', but the tolerance for each is +/-.5'
The plotted points definitely support the idea of a big "S" or dogleg from the 2012 point to the point at Scholl airport, then to about the I-5, then to V23. I doubt that they planned all that out ahead of time. I think they probably headed for the Portland VORTAC, got abeam of it or passed it a bit, then found themselves having to decide the next move. The only thing I see that correlates somewhat with the path after Scholl airport is the boundaries of that control zone outlined with the dashed lines. I don't know how it might relate.
I think the part of the path from 2010 to 2012 reflects them deciding to move straight toward the Portland VORTAC. It would make it easier for them to track where they were without plotting. I don't think they thought about where they were going to go on a minute by minute basis. Maybe they were thinking in this time frame that they would pass to the east of Portland.
Pull back and look at the path from up around Toutle all the way to the VORTAC. By the point annotated "2005" they were paralleling the V23 centerline about 1.75nm to 2.45nm to the east. The course would have put them this distance to the east of the VORTAC.
One easy way to go straight toward the VORTAC is to tune to the frequency, set the desired direction to 149°mag, turn a bit westward until the deviation meter starts giving a good indication, start turning into the 149° mag (by compass) until the deviation zeros out. You're on the V23 centerline moving toward the VORTAC. It's easy then to monitor the deviation to keep yourself moving toward the VORTAC.
As for the odds, I don't know. But the roll should be just a gradual turn to get on the V23 centerline going 149 deg magnetic. They knew at this point that they needed the turns to be gradual. They would have no reason to turn hard at this point. If they overshot the centerline a bit, they would just turn back the other direction and approach the centerline from the other side.
As you know, I completely reject the idea of the airliner passing on the east side of Portland. It just doesn't make any sense for the aircraft to deviate so far from the route to Reno.
Also, the flight crew would NOT, repeat NOT, wait until they were past the Portland VORTAC to determine what they would do next. There were three pilots in the cockpit that evening. Anderson may have been acting as the Flight Engineer on that flight, but he was also a pilot. They probably would have been planning their route at least 30 minutes ahead. And simplicity itself would be to just fly a straight line from the area of the Mayfield/Malay Intersection to a point south of Portland where they would rejoin V-23. Pilots who are interested in staying alive plan ahead.
The only "clearance" given to the airliner that evening by ATC was to "do whatever you have to and we will keep people out of your way". Basically, the airliner had the right of way over all other aircraft that evening with the exception of aircraft experiencing real emergencies (such as fires, running out of fuel, etc.).
I will respond to your previous post in the near future as soon as I have some free time.
-
Hom, what do you suppose the purpose was for them to zig zag through the area between lake Merwin on down to the Columbia river? those are heavy rolls. I wonder why they didn't continue down the path from 8:12 instead of turning eastward. it seems they could of avoided getting near Vancouver, and Portland by continuing that course? what do you think the odds were of Cooper being at the bottom of the stairs during the roll at the 8:12 position?
First, feel free to comment Robert.
Shutter,
I think you're seeing more zig-zag than the plot says in a technical sense. First, the neanderthal line is misleading at one of the places. It has a straightish section from the HEAVY black cross at the point annotated "2010" approximately through the plot point at 2011 and continuing down almost to the 2012 point. If you extend that line southward it looks like that path would pass to the west of Vancouver and most of Portland.
If you look closely at the 2012 plot point, however, you see that the end of the straightish section of neanderthal line doesn't go through the point.
The 2012 point is actually due south of the 2011 point. If you extend a line between the 2011 point and the 2012 point, the extended line will pass practically through the center of Vancouver and Portland.
Besides the misleading effect of the neanderthal line, the actual positions of the flight for points 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 might all have been within a foot (or a "skosh") of the exact same longitude (122°36.5'). That is, all could have been virtually on a line running due south. The plotted point's longitudes are within a range of 1', but the tolerance for each is +/-.5'
The plotted points definitely support the idea of a big "S" or dogleg from the 2012 point to the point at Scholl airport, then to about the I-5, then to V23. I doubt that they planned all that out ahead of time. I think they probably headed for the Portland VORTAC, got abeam of it or passed it a bit, then found themselves having to decide the next move. The only thing I see that correlates somewhat with the path after Scholl airport is the boundaries of that control zone outlined with the dashed lines. I don't know how it might relate.
I think the part of the path from 2010 to 2012 reflects them deciding to move straight toward the Portland VORTAC. It would make it easier for them to track where they were without plotting. I don't think they thought about where they were going to go on a minute by minute basis. Maybe they were thinking in this time frame that they would pass to the east of Portland.
Pull back and look at the path from up around Toutle all the way to the VORTAC. By the point annotated "2005" they were paralleling the V23 centerline about 1.75nm to 2.45nm to the east. The course would have put them this distance to the east of the VORTAC.
One easy way to go straight toward the VORTAC is to tune to the frequency, set the desired direction to 149°mag, turn a bit westward until the deviation meter starts giving a good indication, start turning into the 149° mag (by compass) until the deviation zeros out. You're on the V23 centerline moving toward the VORTAC. It's easy then to monitor the deviation to keep yourself moving toward the VORTAC.
As for the odds, I don't know. But the roll should be just a gradual turn to get on the V23 centerline going 149 deg magnetic. They knew at this point that they needed the turns to be gradual. They would have no reason to turn hard at this point. If they overshot the centerline a bit, they would just turn back the other direction and approach the centerline from the other side.
As you know, I completely reject the idea of the airliner passing on the east side of Portland. It just doesn't make any sense for the aircraft to deviate so far from the route to Reno.
Also, the flight crew would NOT, repeat NOT, wait until they were past the Portland VORTAC to determine what they would do next. There were three pilots in the cockpit that evening. Anderson may have been acting as the Flight Engineer on that flight, but he was also a pilot. They probably would have been planning their route at least 30 minutes ahead. And simplicity itself would be to just fly a straight line from the area of the Mayfield/Malay Intersection to a point south of Portland where they would rejoin V-23. Pilots who are interested in staying alive plan ahead.
The only "clearance" given to the airliner that evening by ATC was to "do whatever you have to and we will keep people out of your way". Basically, the airliner had the right of way over all other aircraft that evening with the exception of aircraft experiencing real emergencies (such as fires, running out of fuel, etc.).
I will respond to your previous post in the near future as soon as I have some free time.
Ive been reading all of this ...
Trying to balance what they might have done or would do against what they did do to me is the central issue. There is the FBI map. Dawson says they basically flew a straight line from Toledo to the west side of Portland, as per a specific order Cooper gave once in the air out of Seatac, and crossed over the eastern tip of Hayden Island. Himmelsbach/JT say they flew some 14-20 miles East off V23 to the east crossing over the Troutdale airport. And Farflung mysteriously pulled a Dawson-like crossing over Hayden Island out of his hat, citing construction on Hayden Island after 1971. (Where did Farflung with obvious military flight experience get that!?)
So what s the route they actually flew?
We know that whatever route they flew they had a rendezvous with a T33 (being vectored with 305 by R2) in some rather narrow time period south of Portland near Lake Oswego - an undeniable fact. We also know that some 5-10 minutes after 8:05 they experienced a 'bump' which they discussed and then reported to NWA all of which very easily extends the time Cooper jumped to beyond the 8:11 time slot usually assigned to Cooper's bailout. The plane was somewhere during these times!
-
As you know, I completely reject the idea of the airliner passing on the east side of Portland. It just doesn't make any sense for the aircraft to deviate so far from the route to Reno.
Also, the flight crew would NOT, repeat NOT, wait until they were past the Portland VORTAC to determine what they would do next. There were three pilots in the cockpit that evening. Anderson may have been acting as the Flight Engineer on that flight, but he was also a pilot. They probably would have been planning their route at least 30 minutes ahead. And simplicity itself would be to just fly a straight line from the area of the Mayfield/Malay Intersection to a point south of Portland where they would rejoin V-23. Pilots who are interested in staying alive plan ahead.
The only "clearance" given to the airliner that evening by ATC was to "do whatever you have to and we will keep people out of your way". Basically, the airliner had the right of way over all other aircraft that evening with the exception of aircraft experiencing real emergencies (such as fires, running out of fuel, etc.).
Yes, as I expected. As usual, you give no consideration to the idea that they were placing great importance on getting the guy out of the plane. That's what he said he wanted. He was in charge. What we have available says they were preoccupied/focused on helping him get out. Had they been able to get him out and be sure of it, they might even have been able to land at PDX. They didn't want to go to Reno. Whatever they did near Portland may even have been so because of the possibility of landing there.
-
We know that whatever route they flew they had a rendezvous with a T33 (being vectored with 305 by R2) in some rather narrow time period south of Portland near Lake Oswego - an undeniable fact.
What airport was the T33 out of? Any info about what it was doing and where it was leading up to the rendezvous?
-
We know that whatever route they flew they had a rendezvous with a T33 (being vectored with 305 by R2) in some rather narrow time period south of Portland near Lake Oswego - an undeniable fact.
What airport was the T33 out of?
The National Guard base at PDX ... is my understanding.
-
Thanks. I just added a little to my question.
-
As you know, I completely reject the idea of the airliner passing on the east side of Portland. It just doesn't make any sense for the aircraft to deviate so far from the route to Reno.
Also, the flight crew would NOT, repeat NOT, wait until they were past the Portland VORTAC to determine what they would do next. There were three pilots in the cockpit that evening. Anderson may have been acting as the Flight Engineer on that flight, but he was also a pilot. They probably would have been planning their route at least 30 minutes ahead. And simplicity itself would be to just fly a straight line from the area of the Mayfield/Malay Intersection to a point south of Portland where they would rejoin V-23. Pilots who are interested in staying alive plan ahead.
The only "clearance" given to the airliner that evening by ATC was to "do whatever you have to and we will keep people out of your way". Basically, the airliner had the right of way over all other aircraft that evening with the exception of aircraft experiencing real emergencies (such as fires, running out of fuel, etc.).
Yes, as I expected. As usual, you give no consideration to the idea that they were placing great importance on getting the guy out of the plane. That's what he said he wanted. He was in charge. What we have available says they were preoccupied/focused on helping him get out. Had they been able to get him out and be sure of it, they might even have been able to land at PDX. They didn't want to go to Reno. Whatever they did near Portland may even have been so because of the possibility of landing there.
I happened to agree with this. Getting Cooper GONE was their top priority ~8:45 - 8:20. This is evidenced in crew interviews and the Transcripts we have...
After 8:20 things seem to have eased up, except they still weren't 100% sure he was gone, until finally near Reno Scott says: 'Im going back and look', and he comes back and reports: 'Apparently our friend has taken leave of us'.
And, he went back and looked in spite of being told not to!
-
We know that whatever route they flew they had a rendezvous with a T33 (being vectored with 305 by R2) in some rather narrow time period south of Portland near Lake Oswego - an undeniable fact.
What airport was the T33 out of? Any info about what it was doing and where it was leading up to the rendezvous?
R99 should have that. I would have to look it up, but the rendezvous was very near Lake Oswego, if not over it, south of Portland in the ___?___ time slot.
BTW! Talking to and instructing the T33 is the whole reason R2 said: "That is reason I wasn't watching 305 when it crossed the Columbia to know exactly where it was (east, over, or west of Portland) but my impression is it was right on the center-line of V23 when it crossed the Columbia at Portland". I think, am fairly sure, R99 got the same story from R2 when he talked to him...
-
R99 should have that. I would have to look it up, but the rendezvous was very near to Lake Oswego south of Portland in the ___?___ time slot.
It seems likely that 305 might have sped up a bit from Scholl to V23 in order to get in front of the T33, and maybe slowed down a bit near Oswego to facilitate a rendezvous. The "FBI" plot indicates both of these.
Really gotta go!
-
R99 should have that. I would have to look it up, but the rendezvous was very near to Lake Oswego south of Portland in the ___?___ time slot.
It seems likely that 305 might have sped up a bit from Scholl to V23 in order to get in front of the T33, and maybe slowed down a bit near Oswego to facilitate a rendezvous. The "FBI" plot indicates both of these.
Just edited mine above to include:
BTW! Talking to and instructing the T33 is the whole reason R2 said: "That is reason I wasn't watching 305 on my screen when it crossed the Columbia to know exactly where it was (east, over, or west of Portland) but my impression is it was right on the center-line of V23 when it crossed the Columbia at Portland". I think, am fairly sure, R99 got the same story from R2 when he talked to him...
I need to run here ... meeting.
-
Talking to and instructing the T33 is the whole reason R2 said: "That is reason I wasn't watching 305 on my screen when it crossed the Columbia to know exactly where it was (east, over, or west of Portland) but my impression is it was right on the center-line of V23 when it crossed the Columbia at Portland". I think, am fairly sure, R99 got the same story from R2 when he talked to him...
305 speeding up between Scholl and the I-5 bridge area could also have contributed to R2 missing that part. And account for 305 overshooting and having to turn back to V23, slowing down in the process. Nothing to do with the control zone.
-
We know that whatever route they flew they had a rendezvous with a T33 (being vectored with 305 by R2) in some rather narrow time period south of Portland near Lake Oswego - an undeniable fact.
What airport was the T33 out of? Any info about what it was doing and where it was leading up to the rendezvous?
R99 should have that. I would have to look it up, but the rendezvous was very near Lake Oswego, if not over it, south of Portland in the ___?___ time slot.
BTW! Talking to and instructing the T33 is the whole reason R2 said: "That is reason I wasn't watching 305 when it crossed the Columbia to know exactly where it was (east, over, or west of Portland) but my impression is it was right on the center-line of V23 when it crossed the Columbia at Portland". I think, am fairly sure, R99 got the same story from R2 when he talked to him...
First, let me point out that I agree that the crew was extremely interested in getting Cooper to jump. And they were also extremely interested in keeping him calmed down. So they were doing precisely as he told them to do. None of this would result in the aircraft making a detour to the east side of Portland.
Himmelsbach states that the T-33 took off to the west and this is supported by the fact that the relatively light ground wind was generally from the southwest. This means the T-33 would have used runway 28 for the takeoff. And the T-33 was probably heading to a military practice area which, in view of the terrain, would probably be somewhere west of Portland and maybe over the Pacific.
Refer to Hominid's map in his recent post. Take a look at the four red "x" marks on the west and southwest side of Portland. There may be more than four of these marks but it is difficult to identify them because of the magenta colors that are on that map. Someone was plotting points of interest over a distance of more than 10 miles. Note that there are two sets of two marks each that form a straight line with the Mayfield/Malay Intersection. Also note that Tina Bar is only about 1000 feet horizontally from these straight lines. Assuming that the airliner is represented by one of these straight lines, it would rejoin the centerline of V-23 at or very near to the Canby Intersection.
Further, there is a teletypewriter printout in the "FBI notes" that indicates the airliner reported it was "23 DME miles south of Portland", or something like that, and the teletypewriter printout was time stamped (which is the time someone pressed the send button) at 8:22 PM. While the airliner probably didn't have its tail pointed directly to the Portland VORTAC, it was still traveling away from there at the rate of about 3 DME miles per minute. This means that the DME counter would only display "23" for about a 20 to 25 second period.
Other information in the "George Harrison Papers" gives various times for that message. Those times range from 8:18 to 8:22. The 8:22 time was the time the message was sent by ARINC and it is not known if that was the initial time the message was sent or if this was a redirection of the message to NWA at Portland from somewhere else.
Based on recent discussions with highly knowledgeable people in the communications business, it would probably take some minutes for the people who received the airliner's message on the ground (ARINC) to formulate the message, type it, and then send it. By contrast, the 8:18 time could be the time someone heard the pilot's radio message on the phone patch from ARINC. Based on Shutter's simulations and my own analyses, the 8:18 time fits the situation much, much better.
-
R99 should have that. I would have to look it up, but the rendezvous was very near to Lake Oswego south of Portland in the ___?___ time slot.
It seems likely that 305 might have sped up a bit from Scholl to V23 in order to get in front of the T33, and maybe slowed down a bit near Oswego to facilitate a rendezvous. The "FBI" plot indicates both of these.
Really gotta go!
Keep in mind that if the airliner had speeded up, Cooper could have noticed. And he specifically told them to maintain a constant speed.
-
We know that whatever route they flew they had a rendezvous with a T33 (being vectored with 305 by R2) in some rather narrow time period south of Portland near Lake Oswego - an undeniable fact.
What airport was the T33 out of? Any info about what it was doing and where it was leading up to the rendezvous?
R99 should have that. I would have to look it up, but the rendezvous was very near Lake Oswego, if not over it, south of Portland in the ___?___ time slot.
BTW! Talking to and instructing the T33 is the whole reason R2 said: "That is reason I wasn't watching 305 when it crossed the Columbia to know exactly where it was (east, over, or west of Portland) but my impression is it was right on the center-line of V23 when it crossed the Columbia at Portland". I think, am fairly sure, R99 got the same story from R2 when he talked to him...
First, let me point out that I agree that the crew was extremely interested in getting Cooper to jump. And they were also extremely interested in keeping him calmed down. So they were doing precisely as he told them to do. None of this would result in the aircraft making a detour to the east side of Portland.
Himmelsbach states that the T-33 took off to the west and this is supported by the fact that the relatively light ground wind was generally from the southwest. This means the T-33 would have used runway 28 for the takeoff. And the T-33 was probably heading to a military practice area which, in view of the terrain, would probably be somewhere west of Portland and maybe over the Pacific.
Refer to Hominid's map in his recent post. Take a look at the four red "x" marks on the west and southwest side of Portland. There may be more than four of these marks but it is difficult to identify them because of the magenta colors that are on that map. Someone was plotting points of interest over a distance of more than 10 miles. Note that there are two sets of two marks each that form a straight line with the Mayfield/Malay Intersection. Also note that Tina Bar is only about 1000 feet horizontally from these straight lines. Assuming that the airliner is represented by one of these straight lines, it would rejoin the centerline of V-23 at or very near to the Canby Intersection.
Further, there is a teletypewriter printout in the "FBI notes" that indicates the airliner reported it was "23 DME miles south of Portland", or something like that, and the teletypewriter printout was time stamped (which is the time someone pressed the send button) at 8:22 PM. While the airliner probably didn't have its tail pointed directly to the Portland VORTAC, it was still traveling away from there at the rate of about 3 DME miles per minute. This means that the DME counter would only display "23" for about a 20 to 25 second period.
Other information in the "George Harrison Papers" gives various times for that message. Those times range from 8:18 to 8:22. The 8:22 time was the time the message was sent by ARINC and it is not known if that was the initial time the message was sent or if this was a redirection of the message to NWA at Portland from somewhere else.
Based on recent discussions with highly knowledgeable people in the communications business, it would probably take some minutes for the people who received the airliner's message on the ground (ARINC) to formulate the message, type it, and then send it. By contrast, the 8:18 time could be the time someone heard the pilot's radio message on the phone patch from ARINC. Based on Shutter's simulations and my own analyses, the 8:18 time fits the situation much, much better.
All of this is plausible to me, but I have no 'gut instincts' as an experienced commercial pilot from that period or any other. Whatever instincts I have tell me the time slot for the T33 rendezvous is not compatible with an east route,
just not enough time to be in two places at once within reach of each other time-wise. If it would turn out the East route is true that would trash much of the existing data (interview statements etc) that exist. I have pointed that out to JT/Himms a million times and they simply will not budge from their position.
That leaves the FBI or the Dawson flight path, or a merger (somehow) of the two, which preserves an encounter with the T33 near Oswego in the time period assigned that event.
The T33 rendezvous may turn out to be one crucial fact.
-
R99 should have that. I would have to look it up, but the rendezvous was very near to Lake Oswego south of Portland in the ___?___ time slot.
It seems likely that 305 might have sped up a bit from Scholl to V23 in order to get in front of the T33, and maybe slowed down a bit near Oswego to facilitate a rendezvous. The "FBI" plot indicates both of these.
Really gotta go!
Keep in mind that if the airliner had speeded up, Cooper could have noticed. And he specifically told them to maintain a constant speed.
Robt99, what time do you have for the T33 intercept? 8:22 time frame?
-
R99 should have that. I would have to look it up, but the rendezvous was very near to Lake Oswego south of Portland in the ___?___ time slot.
It seems likely that 305 might have sped up a bit from Scholl to V23 in order to get in front of the T33, and maybe slowed down a bit near Oswego to facilitate a rendezvous. The "FBI" plot indicates both of these.
Really gotta go!
Keep in mind that if the airliner had speeded up, Cooper could have noticed. And he specifically told them to maintain a constant speed.
Robt99, what time do you have for the T33 intercept? 8:22 time frame?
Looking at Hominid's map again, and assuming that the eastern two large red "x"s are points on the airliner's path, and that it flew directly from the Mayfield/Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection, then the western two large red "x"s are probably points on the T-33's flight path.
In addition to the two eastern red "x"s, there appears to be a third red "x" on that same line and just west of the words "Williamette" and "Caution". I think I can see both a vertical line and a horizontal line with both of them being partially obscured by the large black line that is supposed to be the airliner's flight path. Also, I think I can see a sixth red "x" which would be the third red "x" on the western lines and it is located just slightly below the east end of the word "Wilsonville".
If the "x" marks above are as assumed, or even if the airliner is the western set of marks and the T-33 the eastern set of marks, then both aircraft were headed directly for the Canby Intersection which is the intersection of that 085 radial and V-23.
Further, assuming that the above assumptions are correct and that the time at the "23 DME" location was 8:18, the airliner would have been about 1 or 2 nautical miles west of the V-23 center line at that point and about 4 nautical miles north of the Canby Intersection. So the airliner would arrive at the Canby Intersection no later than about 8:20.
It is not really possible to estimate the time the T-33 intercepted the airliner but their "flight paths" are reasonably close for all marked points. It should also be noted that the T-33 probably had a 50 to 100 MPH speed advantage over the airliner. So maybe the controller put the T-33 on a parallel track to the airliner and used his radar to estimate how far T-33 was behind the airliner.
-
First, let me point out that I agree that the crew was extremely interested in getting Cooper to jump. And they were also extremely interested in keeping him calmed down. So they were doing precisely as he told them to do. None of this would result in the aircraft making a detour to the east side of Portland.
I'm not supporting any detour to the east of Portland. The impacts of any demands he may have been making are uncertain.
Himmelsbach states that the T-33 took off to the west and this is supported by the fact that the relatively light ground wind was generally from the southwest. This means the T-33 would have used runway 28 for the takeoff. And the T-33 was probably heading to a military practice area which, in view of the terrain, would probably be somewhere west of Portland and maybe over the Pacific.
Why do you mention where it was probably heading? Was it already headed there and got called back to trail 305?
Refer to Hominid's map in his recent post. Take a look at the four red "x" marks on the west and southwest side of Portland. There may be more than four of these marks but it is difficult to identify them because of the magenta colors that are on that map. Someone was plotting points of interest over a distance of more than 10 miles. Note that there are two sets of two marks each that form a straight line with the Mayfield/Malay Intersection. Also note that Tina Bar is only about 1000 feet horizontally from these straight lines. Assuming that the airliner is represented by one of these straight lines, it would rejoin the centerline of V-23 at or very near to the Canby Intersection.
Those 4 "+" marks were mistakes. They're crossed out. Don't you use image editing software so you can magnify the images? There are only the four. They are each plotted exactly 5 minutes of longitude to the west of the correct positions. This was no doubt a result of the fact that the minute marks are not labelled. Just click or double click on the "ploterrors.bmp" and something on your computer should open it so you can magnify it.
Further, there is a teletypewriter printout in the "FBI notes" that indicates the airliner reported it was "23 DME miles south of Portland", or something like that, and the teletypewriter printout was time stamped (which is the time someone pressed the send button) at 8:22 PM. While the airliner probably didn't have its tail pointed directly to the Portland VORTAC, it was still traveling away from there at the rate of about 3 DME miles per minute. This means that the DME counter would only display "23" for about a 20 to 25 second period.
Other information in the "George Harrison Papers" gives various times for that message. Those times range from 8:18 to 8:22. The 8:22 time was the time the message was sent by ARINC and it is not known if that was the initial time the message was sent or if this was a redirection of the message to NWA at Portland from somewhere else.
Based on recent discussions with highly knowledgeable people in the communications business, it would probably take some minutes for the people who received the airliner's message on the ground (ARINC) to formulate the message, type it, and then send it. By contrast, the 8:18 time could be the time someone heard the pilot's radio message on the phone patch from ARINC. Based on Shutter's simulations and my own analyses, the 8:18 time fits the situation much, much better.
The Harrison papers have 2 people noting the event at 8:22 and one at 8:18. I believe they were all noting what they were all hearing on the phone patch circuit as it was happening. ARINC was relevant only in that NWA had arranged to get the ground radio support and phone patch from ARINC, because NWA didn't have its own ground radio network south of Portland. From 305 transmitting something, to NWA sites getting it, was practically instantaneous. Received by a radio, routed directly to telephone. NWA had essentially bought some hours of "company frequency" from ARINC. Not like the transmissions on standard regional frequencies that have a lot of traffic involving multiple airlines.
I think you're wrong about there being a TTY printout about the 23DME in the "FBI notes." There is a reference to it in the NWA incident report to the FBI. They wrote that up with the benefit of their people having heard the comms, just like noted in the Harrison papers.
Your next post:
Keep in mind that if the airliner had speeded up, Cooper could have noticed. And he specifically told them to maintain a constant speed.
Yes. Still, the plot indicates they sped up. Of course, the plot could have been displayed in an FBI office just to throw us all off.
-
Looking at Hominid's map again, and assuming that the eastern two large red "x"s are points on the airliner's path, and that it flew directly from the Mayfield/Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection, then the western two large red "x"s are probably points on the T-33's flight path.
In addition to the two eastern red "x"s, there appears to be a third red "x" on that same line and just west of the words "Williamette" and "Caution". I think I can see both a vertical line and a horizontal line with both of them being partially obscured by the large black line that is supposed to be the airliner's flight path. Also, I think I can see a sixth red "x" which would be the third red "x" on the western lines and it is located just slightly below the east end of the word "Wilsonville".
Indeed there is that 3rd red "+" on that same longitude. It's one of the larger ones of the plotted points. There's another almost as large down by the Willamette River just east of the Wilsonville circle. A small one mostly hidden by the dark line east of the word "Tualatin." Another mostly hidden by the dark line just west of where I added "V23" under the thin radial I added. Another just to the left of the "Control Area" I added in white. These are all plotted points. The four you are referencing are mistakes that were crossed out.
-
Looking at Hominid's map again, and assuming that the eastern two large red "x"s are points on the airliner's path, and that it flew directly from the Mayfield/Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection, then the western two large red "x"s are probably points on the T-33's flight path.
In addition to the two eastern red "x"s, there appears to be a third red "x" on that same line and just west of the words "Williamette" and "Caution". I think I can see both a vertical line and a horizontal line with both of them being partially obscured by the large black line that is supposed to be the airliner's flight path. Also, I think I can see a sixth red "x" which would be the third red "x" on the western lines and it is located just slightly below the east end of the word "Wilsonville".
Indeed there is that 3rd red "+" on that same longitude. It's one of the larger ones of the plotted points. There's another almost as large down by the Willamette River just east of the Wilsonville circle. A small one mostly hidden by the dark line east of the word "Tualatin." Another mostly hidden by the dark line just west of where I added "V23" under the thin radial I added. Another just to the left of the "Control Area" I added in white. These are all plotted points. The four you are referencing are mistakes that were crossed out.
The great circle course between the Mayfield/Malay Intersection and the Canby Intersection is 180.14 degrees True, which means with respect to the grid lines or, in this case, the longitude lines. I don't see anything relevant in your comments above.
-
Looking at Hominid's map again, and assuming that the eastern two large red "x"s are points on the airliner's path, and that it flew directly from the Mayfield/Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection, then the western two large red "x"s are probably points on the T-33's flight path.
In addition to the two eastern red "x"s, there appears to be a third red "x" on that same line and just west of the words "Williamette" and "Caution". I think I can see both a vertical line and a horizontal line with both of them being partially obscured by the large black line that is supposed to be the airliner's flight path. Also, I think I can see a sixth red "x" which would be the third red "x" on the western lines and it is located just slightly below the east end of the word "Wilsonville".
Indeed there is that 3rd red "+" on that same longitude. It's one of the larger ones of the plotted points. There's another almost as large down by the Willamette River just east of the Wilsonville circle. A small one mostly hidden by the dark line east of the word "Tualatin." Another mostly hidden by the dark line just west of where I added "V23" under the thin radial I added. Another just to the left of the "Control Area" I added in white. These are all plotted points. The four you are referencing are mistakes that were crossed out.
The great circle course between the Mayfield/Malay Intersection and the Canby Intersection is 180.14 degrees True, which means with respect to the grid lines or, in this case, the longitude lines. I don't see anything relevant in your comments above.
Try reading them. The 4 plot points you're trying to make into T33 flight path WERE PLOTTING MISTAKES that were crossed out. They were each crossed out with three to four slashes like "///" in the same color as the plot crosses, but lighter. It appears that there are numerous plot points you're unable to see. You need to use some kind of software that will enable you to see the detail.
-
Looking at Hominid's map again, and assuming that the eastern two large red "x"s are points on the airliner's path, and that it flew directly from the Mayfield/Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection, then the western two large red "x"s are probably points on the T-33's flight path.
In addition to the two eastern red "x"s, there appears to be a third red "x" on that same line and just west of the words "Williamette" and "Caution". I think I can see both a vertical line and a horizontal line with both of them being partially obscured by the large black line that is supposed to be the airliner's flight path. Also, I think I can see a sixth red "x" which would be the third red "x" on the western lines and it is located just slightly below the east end of the word "Wilsonville".
Indeed there is that 3rd red "+" on that same longitude. It's one of the larger ones of the plotted points. There's another almost as large down by the Willamette River just east of the Wilsonville circle. A small one mostly hidden by the dark line east of the word "Tualatin." Another mostly hidden by the dark line just west of where I added "V23" under the thin radial I added. Another just to the left of the "Control Area" I added in white. These are all plotted points. The four you are referencing are mistakes that were crossed out.
The great circle course between the Mayfield/Malay Intersection and the Canby Intersection is 180.14 degrees True, which means with respect to the grid lines or, in this case, the longitude lines. I don't see anything relevant in your comments above.
Try reading them. The 4 plot points you're trying to make into T33 flight path WERE PLOTTING MISTAKES that were crossed out. They were each crossed out with three to four slashes like "///" in the same color as the plot crosses, but lighter. It appears that there are numerous plot points you're unable to see. You need to use some kind of software that will enable you to see the detail.
I can only see the things I have previously described. But then, I am restricted to using my eyeballs since I don't have any sight enhancing software on my computer and don't know of any magic incantations that might be useful. What software or incantations would you recommend?
-
Looking at Hominid's map again, and assuming that the eastern two large red "x"s are points on the airliner's path, and that it flew directly from the Mayfield/Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection, then the western two large red "x"s are probably points on the T-33's flight path.
In addition to the two eastern red "x"s, there appears to be a third red "x" on that same line and just west of the words "Williamette" and "Caution". I think I can see both a vertical line and a horizontal line with both of them being partially obscured by the large black line that is supposed to be the airliner's flight path. Also, I think I can see a sixth red "x" which would be the third red "x" on the western lines and it is located just slightly below the east end of the word "Wilsonville".
Indeed there is that 3rd red "+" on that same longitude. It's one of the larger ones of the plotted points. There's another almost as large down by the Willamette River just east of the Wilsonville circle. A small one mostly hidden by the dark line east of the word "Tualatin." Another mostly hidden by the dark line just west of where I added "V23" under the thin radial I added. Another just to the left of the "Control Area" I added in white. These are all plotted points. The four you are referencing are mistakes that were crossed out.
The great circle course between the Mayfield/Malay Intersection and the Canby Intersection is 180.14 degrees True, which means with respect to the grid lines or, in this case, the longitude lines. I don't see anything relevant in your comments above.
Try reading them. The 4 plot points you're trying to make into T33 flight path WERE PLOTTING MISTAKES that were crossed out. They were each crossed out with three to four slashes like "///" in the same color as the plot crosses, but lighter. It appears that there are numerous plot points you're unable to see. You need to use some kind of software that will enable you to see the detail.
What copy of the map are you working with? I confess I can't see anything like the three '///'s on my copy of the map. Could you crop and post an example of what you are seeing?
-
I can only see the things I have previously described. But then, I am restricted to using my eyeballs since I don't have any sight enhancing software on my computer and don't know of any magic incantations that might be useful. What software or incantations would you recommend?
I'm sorry, but I am not aware of what is available now. I use a "lite" version of Paint Shop Pro that I got years ago as a freebie with something computerie I bought. I think I can help otherwise, however. I've been attaching the files in .bmp format and it appears that this doesn't just expand by clicking on the image the way the .jpg images do. I'll use .jpg instead.
I've attached an image with the four plot points on the left side. I also dragged part of the plot from further north down and put it on the right side to show examples of what the normal red crosses look like. The image is only one JPEG away from the original file from Sluggo's site, which is the same as what the museum has. And I have my software set to use minimal compression in creating the .jpg files, so very little degradation occurs with each serial save.
-
It looks like, other than the fantasy by Gunther, you guys (R99 and Georger) having heard something similar from R2 is the only reason to think there was a T33 involved. Is this right? So, was anything said that would place the T33 anywhere specific at a specific time?
-
It looks like, other than the fantasy by Gunther, you guys (R99 and Georger) having heard something similar from R2 is the only reason to think there was a T33 involved. Is this right? So, was anything said that would place the T33 anywhere specific at a specific time? I have seen something in the records about some flight making some kind of progress at PDX. I think some of it is in those Harrison notes.
Here is some of the information on the T-33, starting on page 46 of Himmelsbach's book. It was an Air National Guard T-33 on a night training mission from Portland International Airport. It took off to the west about 7:50PM PST and was directed to contact Seattle ATC soon thereafter. Seattle ATC told the T-33 that they wanted it to track the airliner.
The T-33 then turned south towards Lake Oswego and about three miles behind and about 1000 feet above the airliner. Near Eugene, the T-33 was told to land at Klamath Falls, it did, and was not involved further in the hijacking matter.
According to the "FBI notes" at 8:52PM PST, the airliner was over the Eugene VORTAC, at 10,000 feet, and doing 170 KIAS. It should be noted that this 8:52 time is NOT stated as being the "time over station" which is the time that the airliner would physically pass overhead the Eugene VORTAC with a resulting shift of "TO" to "FROM" on the airliner's VOR instrument. The 8:52 time is simply the time the agent wrote down the information.
-
I can only see the things I have previously described. But then, I am restricted to using my eyeballs since I don't have any sight enhancing software on my computer and don't know of any magic incantations that might be useful. What software or incantations would you recommend?
I'm sorry, but I am not aware of what is available now. I use a "lite" version of Paint Shop Pro that I got years ago as a freebie with something computerie I bought. I think I can help otherwise, however. I've been attaching the files in .bmp format and it appears that this doesn't just expand by clicking on the image the way the .jpg images do. I'll use .jpg instead.
I've attached an image with the four plot points on the left side. I also dragged part of the plot from further north down and put it on the right side to show examples of what the normal red crosses look like. The image is only one JPEG away from the original file from Sluggo's site, which is the same as what the museum has. And I have my software set to use minimal compression in creating the .jpg files, so very little degradation occurs with each serial save.
I got a fresh copy of the map and I see what you are talking about - attached. The 4-5 west crosses are blemished vs. other crisp cross marks. Blemished, crossed out, attempt to cross out, attempt to scratch out? I'm not sure what the cause or intent would be. (Is there anything straightforward in this case?).
Note also that each of these crosses is thicker, drawn twice?, overlapped, than any of the single line red pencil crosses which are sharp and distinct along the #2 penciled flight path line(s). It makes me wonder if the west crosses are an after-thought? Why should mistakes have been only in the Portland (west) area? This could be a copy of an original map which did not have the west cross marks, like an office copy, then was worked with and crosses added by people looking at, working with, or evaluating the map (maybe in an FBI office)?
Here are sharp cross marks from the penciled flight path, for comparison.
-
It looks like, other than the fantasy by Gunther, you guys (R99 and Georger) having heard something similar from R2 is the only reason to think there was a T33 involved. Is this right? So, was anything said that would place the T33 anywhere specific at a specific time? I have seen something in the records about some flight making some kind of progress at PDX. I think some of it is in those Harrison notes.
Here is some of the information on the T-33, starting on page 46 of Himmelsbach's book. It was an Air National Guard T-33 on a night training mission from Portland International Airport. It took off to the west about 7:50PM PST and was directed to contact Seattle ATC soon thereafter. Seattle ATC told the T-33 that they wanted it to track the airliner.
The T-33 then turned south towards Lake Oswego and about three miles behind and about 1000 feet above the airliner. Near Eugene, the T-33 was told to land at Klamath Falls, it did, and was not involved further in the hijacking matter.
According to the "FBI notes" at 8:52PM PST, the airliner was over the Eugene VORTAC, at 10,000 feet, and doing 170 KIAS. It should be noted that this 8:52 time is NOT stated as being the "time over station" which is the time that the airliner would physically pass overhead the Eugene VORTAC with a resulting shift of "TO" to "FROM" on the airliner's VOR instrument. The 8:52 time is simply the time the agent wrote down the information.
Thanks. Then the T-33 would have been out somewhere for about a half hour before getting to 305 at about Lake Oswego? Might have gone straight out "there" for fifteen minutes, then back almost directly to Oswego. Doesn't seem to me like enough info to figure out what, if anything, 305 may have done to facilitate the hook-up. Doesn't seem like they would need to do anything for that purpose. Does that seem right to you?
-
I got a fresh copy of the map and I see what you are talking about - attached. The 4-5 west crosses are blemished vs. other crisp cross marks. Blemished, crossed out, attempt to cross out, attempt to scratch out? I'm not sure what the cause or intent would be. (Is there anything straightforward in this case?).
Note also that each of these crosses is thicker, drawn twice?, overlapped, than any of the single line red pencil crosses which are sharp and distinct along the #2 penciled flight path line(s). It makes me wonder if the west crosses are an after-thought? Why should mistakes have been only in the Portland (west) area? This could be a copy of an original map which did not have the west cross marks, like an office copy, then was worked with and crosses added by people looking at, working with, or evaluating the map (maybe in an FBI office)?
Most of the other plotted points are on longitudes that are just one or two minutes of longitude different from the immediately preceding point. In the case of these four points, the first is several minutes to the west of the immediately preceding one. So, the plotter uses the longitude scale that is quite near. Problem is that the minute marks don't have the values annotated by them. Every group of ten looks just like the others. There's very little difference between the groups of five. The plotter picked the wrong longitude for the northernmost of the four points. Plotted the other 3 based on differences from that one.
Eventually the plotter discovered the mistake. That pencil doesn't erase very well from the chart paper. It takes an electric eraser, and it's easy to burn through the paper. Easier just to scratch through the mistakes with the pencil.
So the plotter puts red crosses at the correct locations. These are precisely, absolutely exactly 5.0 minutes latitude to the east. These positions support the proposition that the first four were just mistakes. Although someone might have been "doodling" about "what if the plane came down 5' to the west," I can't image that they would reproduce the 1' back-and-forth part of the pattern.
-
It looks like, other than the fantasy by Gunther, you guys (R99 and Georger) having heard something similar from R2 is the only reason to think there was a T33 involved. Is this right? So, was anything said that would place the T33 anywhere specific at a specific time? I have seen something in the records about some flight making some kind of progress at PDX. I think some of it is in those Harrison notes.
Here is some of the information on the T-33, starting on page 46 of Himmelsbach's book. It was an Air National Guard T-33 on a night training mission from Portland International Airport. It took off to the west about 7:50PM PST and was directed to contact Seattle ATC soon thereafter. Seattle ATC told the T-33 that they wanted it to track the airliner.
The T-33 then turned south towards Lake Oswego and about three miles behind and about 1000 feet above the airliner. Near Eugene, the T-33 was told to land at Klamath Falls, it did, and was not involved further in the hijacking matter.
According to the "FBI notes" at 8:52PM PST, the airliner was over the Eugene VORTAC, at 10,000 feet, and doing 170 KIAS. It should be noted that this 8:52 time is NOT stated as being the "time over station" which is the time that the airliner would physically pass overhead the Eugene VORTAC with a resulting shift of "TO" to "FROM" on the airliner's VOR instrument. The 8:52 time is simply the time the agent wrote down the information.
Thanks. Then the T-33 would have been out somewhere for about a half hour before getting to 305 at about Lake Oswego? Might have gone straight out "there" for fifteen minutes, then back almost directly to Oswego. Doesn't seem to me like enough info to figure out what, if anything, 305 may have done to facilitate the hook-up. Doesn't seem like they would need to do anything for that purpose. Does that seem right to you?
The airliner would stay on course and the T-33 would be vectored to join up with it. Don't forget the "turned south" statement for the T-33. As shown by the western marks, the T-33 flight path must have been almost parallel with the airliner's flight path when each crossed the Columbia River west of Portland. This doesn't mean that the T-33 had "joined up" with the airliner by the time they crossed the Columbia. The time(s) at Lake Oswego are not given but the aircraft had probably joined up by the time they reached that location. Remember that the T-33 had a substantial speed advantage over the airliner.
-
I got a fresh copy of the map and I see what you are talking about - attached. The 4-5 west crosses are blemished vs. other crisp cross marks. Blemished, crossed out, attempt to cross out, attempt to scratch out? I'm not sure what the cause or intent would be. (Is there anything straightforward in this case?).
Note also that each of these crosses is thicker, drawn twice?, overlapped, than any of the single line red pencil crosses which are sharp and distinct along the #2 penciled flight path line(s). It makes me wonder if the west crosses are an after-thought? Why should mistakes have been only in the Portland (west) area? This could be a copy of an original map which did not have the west cross marks, like an office copy, then was worked with and crosses added by people looking at, working with, or evaluating the map (maybe in an FBI office)?
Most of the other plotted points are on longitudes that are just one or two minutes of longitude different from the immediately preceding point. In the case of these four points, the first is several minutes to the west of the immediately preceding one. So, the plotter uses the longitude scale that is quite near. Problem is that the minute marks don't have the values annotated by them. Every group of ten looks just like the others. There's very little difference between the groups of five. The plotter picked the wrong longitude for the northernmost of the four points. Plotted the other 3 based on differences from that one.
Eventually the plotter discovered the mistake. That pencil doesn't erase very well from the chart paper. It takes an electric eraser, and it's easy to burn through the paper. Easier just to scratch through the mistakes with the pencil.
So the plotter puts red crosses at the correct locations. These are precisely, absolutely exactly 5.0 minutes latitude to the east. These positions support the proposition that the first four were just mistakes. Although someone might have been "doodling" about "what if the plane came down 5' to the west," I can't image that they would reproduce the 1' back-and-forth part of the pattern.
Remember that the western marks are going straight south and that means they would be on the same longitude line.
-
Remember that the western marks are going straight south and that means they would be on the same longitude line.
Yes. The two westermost points exactly on 122°41'W. The other two exactly on 122°40'W. Exactly 1' difference. With the ±0.5' tolerance, the actual positions for all four could have been essentially 122°40.5'W. That is, all on the same longitude.
-
Refer to the attached snip of the "FBI" flightpath plot. See the plot cross largely covered by the neanderthal line a little south of the PDX latitude. See that this cross lines up almost perfectly with the 45°34' scale mark on the latitude scale to the right (at the bottom of the "296"). Only problem is, that is not the 34' scale mark. The 34' mark is actually hiding behind the peak of the dark "teepee" obstruction symbol, and on the right side of the latitude scale. Why should anyone care?
For almost all of the plot points on the "FBI" thing, the lat and lon can be determined with sufficient precision from visible parts of the red "+"s. In the remaining cases the coordinates can be determined by the fact that the neanderthal line and big black "+" entirely obscure the red "+"s. Of all the coordinates (both lat and lon) for all the plot points, every one except for the one addressed in the preceding paragraph is measured to be within ±0.2' of being on an exact whole minute. Not one of them is measured to be within ±.2 of halfway between whole minutes. With this number of coordinates, there is no way this could be unless the data being plotted had a precision of 1' latitude and 1' longitude. The source data was rounded to whole minutes of latitude and longitude.
-
Refer to the attached snip of the "FBI" flightpath plot. See the plot cross largely covered by the neanderthal line a little south of the PDX latitude. See that this cross lines up almost perfectly with the 45°34' scale mark on the latitude scale to the right (at the bottom of the "296"). Only problem is, that is not the 34' scale mark. The 34' mark is actually hiding behind the peak of the dark "teepee" obstruction symbol, and on the right side of the latitude scale. Why should anyone care?
For almost all of the plot points on the "FBI" thing, the lat and lon can be determined with sufficient precision from visible parts of the red "+"s. In the remaining cases the coordinates can be determined by the fact that the neanderthal line and big black "+" entirely obscure the red "+"s. Of all the coordinates (both lat and lon) for all the plot points, every one except for the one addressed in the preceding paragraph is measured to be within ±0.2' of being on an exact whole minute. Not one of them is measured to be within ±.2 of halfway between whole minutes. With this number of coordinates, there is no way this could be unless the data being plotted had a precision of 1' latitude and 1' longitude. The source data was rounded to whole minutes of latitude and longitude.
which implies ... ? ??? (radar data?). Level of Resolution of what?
-
which implies ... ? ??? (radar data?). Level of Resolution of what?
I haven't thought much about "implications." Yeah, resolution of 1 minute of latitude by 1 minute of longitude. However, here's some facts.
Knowing that the precision (smallness of the differences between data points) is large in relation to the range of data values in which we're interested permits us to say that a plot of the data will look "jerky." That the plotted points will make it look like the speed would have had to vary wildly even though the actual speed didn't.
Knowing the basic fact about the data permits us to explore how such a plot would vary depending upon the true speed, and thereby draw some valid and useful (though limited) conclusions about the actual positions and groundspeeds from the seemingly fouled up position plot. See the attached pdf.
Sample of "jerky" at constant groundspeed:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4286403#4286403
-
which implies ... ? ??? (radar data?). Level of Resolution of what?
I haven't thought much about "implications." Yeah, resolution of 1 minute of latitude by 1 minute of longitude. However, here's some facts.
Knowing that the precision (smallness of the differences between data points) is large in relation to the range of data values in which we're interested permits us to say that a plot of the data will look "jerky." That the plotted points will make it look like the speed would have had to vary wildly even though the actual speed didn't.
Knowing the basic fact about the data permits us to explore how such a plot would vary depending upon the true speed, and thereby draw some valid and useful (though limited) conclusions about the actual positions and groundspeeds from the seemingly fouled up position plot. See the attached pdf.
Sample of "jerky" at constant groundspeed:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4286403#4286403
Let's consider some basic geometric values here. I trust you realize that 1' (one minute) as used in your attachment represents one Nautical Mile (about 6080 feet) of latitude which is measured along a line of longitude (north and south) and in the Portland area about 0.7 of one Nautical Mile of longitude which is measured along a line of latitude (east and west).
To "drift" sideways by one single foot while covering a 6080 foot long Nautical Mile (or even a 4256 foot distance) is not sufficiently great to show up in the data. And you certainly cannot measure something like that on the maps that are available in the Cooper matter.
Frankly, I don't understand the "rounding errors" that you mention. The map with the time hacks on the flight path show such things as 3 Nautical Miles being covered in one minute and then 6 Nautical Miles being covered in the very next minute. That is a 100 percent difference and is not going to be the result of any rounding errors.
You continue to see things in that map that completely escapes me. I simply don't see any logical basis in what you are doing.
Sorry.
-
I installed a "Highlighter" unfortunately it's not automatic. it's simple though. you do the following that you see on the pic. If I show you in the post, it will highlight it. just like this
UPDATE...you can now just paste the url link in the post. that's it.
test link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper
-
Refer to the attached snip of the "FBI" flightpath plot. The source data was rounded to whole minutes of latitude and longitude.
Both lines of the large red "x"s west of Portland line up perfectly starting at the Mayfield/Malay Intersection and with both southern ends being at or very near the Canby Intersection. The points plotted form two lines from the Mayfield/Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection with one line being slightly offset from that intersection. The points in question lie on one or the other of those two lines. If the plotted points had been truncated to eliminate fractions of nautical miles, then those lines would either be pointed straight south or they would not all lie on a single line as they do for each of the cases and some of the points would be substantially offset from any direct line between the two points.
From what I can see, the information shown on the maps does not support your idea of rounding to whole minutes of longitude and latitude. I do not see any evidence of rounding at all.
-
Refer to the attached snip of the "FBI" flightpath plot. The source data was rounded to whole minutes of latitude and longitude.
Both lines of the large red "x"s west of Portland line up perfectly starting at the Mayfield/Malay Intersection and with both southern ends being at or very near the Canby Intersection. The points plotted form two lines from the Mayfield/Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection with one line being slightly offset from that intersection. The points in question lie on one or the other of those two lines. If the plotted points had been truncated to eliminate fractions of nautical miles, then those lines would either be pointed straight south or they would not all lie on a single line as they do for each of the cases and some of the points would be substantially offset from any direct line between the two points.
From what I can see, the information shown on the maps does not support your idea of rounding to whole minutes of longitude and latitude. I do not see any evidence of rounding at all.
What radar data format would have most likely been used to plot the FBI flight path map? Visual tapes or numerical data in some multivariate format? What variables would have been used to assign a plot?
-
which implies ... ? ??? (radar data?). Level of Resolution of what?
I haven't thought much about "implications." Yeah, resolution of 1 minute of latitude by 1 minute of longitude. However, here's some facts.
Knowing that the precision (smallness of the differences between data points) is large in relation to the range of data values in which we're interested permits us to say that a plot of the data will look "jerky." That the plotted points will make it look like the speed would have had to vary wildly even though the actual speed didn't.
Knowing the basic fact about the data permits us to explore how such a plot would vary depending upon the true speed, and thereby draw some valid and useful (though limited) conclusions about the actual positions and groundspeeds from the seemingly fouled up position plot. See the attached pdf.
Sample of "jerky" at constant groundspeed:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4286403#4286403
I think I understand what you are saying here but what I don't understand is the data extraction process that would have resulted in a flight path map, be it FBI or anyone else's. What was the process and Im guessing there were choices in how data was extracted and applied to generate a plot map? But what's the process?
Would they have visual tapes of the screen with some kind of grid on the screen and try and extract timed plot points from that, or was there actual numeric data of some kind which would be converted to timed map plots ?
I dont think this question has ever been addressed thoroughly.. anywhere. Exactly what data needs rounding off and where does the data come from and I assume it's numeric data?
-
I'm sure most of you have seen this comment about the sage.....
The SAGE was a real-time, computer based command and control system designed in the late 1950's and fully functional and deployed by 1963 and used up though 1983. This automated control system was used by NORAD for tracking and intercepting enemy bomber aircraft. In the later versions the system could automatically direct aircraft to an interception by sending instructions directly to the aircraft's autopilot. The system consisted of 24 Directional Centers around the United States as well as 3 Combat Centers. Data was collected at each of the directional centers from over 100 different sources such as radar, human volunteers and aircraft sightings. This information was collated and forwarded via telephone communication lines to one of the three combat centers. The information was interpreted by the computer and displayed on something totally revolutionary for that time period: a cathode ray tube display screen. The display, while similar to a radar screen, was extremely versatile. The operator of the terminal could pull up past positions of aircraft or missiles, as well as project future locations. In addition, the system used another feature far in advance of its time: a light gun. The gun was used by the operators to point at an aircraft on the screen, and the computer would respond by displaying related identification information about that aircraft. The system has the dubious distinction of holding the record for the world's largest (physical size) computer ever created.
did the F-106's track the plane?
http://www.f-106deltadart.com/sage_system.htm
A comment about the sage I found interesting....
One of the earlier posts on the SAGE website used the SNOWTIME acronym incorrectly. The term stood for SAC-NORAD Operational Weapons Testing Involving Military Electronics. Its primary purpose was not to test SAGE, but rather to test ground-based Army air defense weapons in the US, which in the late 1960s were mostly Nike-Hercules missile units stationed around major population centers and military facilities. In the late 1960s there were roughly 15 defended areas around the country. I was most familiar with the ones on the west coast -- Seattle, San Francisco, and LA.
The exercise was conducted annually, against one defended area at a time. It was conducted late night-early morning to minimize interference with the FAA's air traffic control radars. In the exercise SAC aircraft would fly against the area using their maximum radar jamming capabilities. And the Nike units were allowed to use almost all of their full wartime countermeasures systems to counter the jamming. As someone who served in the San Francisco Nike brigade 1968-1970, I know that it was usually a humbling experience for the Army. I seem to recall that typical results were that Nike units would defeat at best one third of the attacking aircraft. Keep in mind that the Nike mission was to shoot down attacking Soviet bomber flights, each of which was carrying multiple thermonuclear bombs. If just one bomber in a flight completed its mission, the target city would likely have been destroyed. The sad reality was that Nike-Hercules radars were using technology from the 1950s and probably would have been no match for attacking enemy bombers in an actual wartime situation. Fortunately, we never found out for certain if this was the case.
http://ed-thelen.org/sage-1.html
-
I'm sure most of you have seen this comment about the sage.....
The SAGE was a real-time, computer based command and control system designed in the late 1950's and fully functional and deployed by 1963 and used up though 1983. This automated control system was used by NORAD for tracking and intercepting enemy bomber aircraft. In the later versions the system could automatically direct aircraft to an interception by sending instructions directly to the aircraft's autopilot. The system consisted of 24 Directional Centers around the United States as well as 3 Combat Centers. Data was collected at each of the directional centers from over 100 different sources such as radar, human volunteers and aircraft sightings. This information was collated and forwarded via telephone communication lines to one of the three combat centers. The information was interpreted by the computer and displayed on something totally revolutionary for that time period: a cathode ray tube display screen. The display, while similar to a radar screen, was extremely versatile. The operator of the terminal could pull up past positions of aircraft or missiles, as well as project future locations. In addition, the system used another feature far in advance of its time: a light gun. The gun was used by the operators to point at an aircraft on the screen, and the computer would respond by displaying related identification information about that aircraft. The system has the dubious distinction of holding the record for the world's largest (physical size) computer ever created.
did the F-106's track the plane?
http://www.f-106deltadart.com/sage_system.htm
A comment about the sage I found interesting....
One of the earlier posts on the SAGE website used the SNOWTIME acronym incorrectly. The term stood for SAC-NORAD Operational Weapons Testing Involving Military Electronics. Its primary purpose was not to test SAGE, but rather to test ground-based Army air defense weapons in the US, which in the late 1960s were mostly Nike-Hercules missile units stationed around major population centers and military facilities. In the late 1960s there were roughly 15 defended areas around the country. I was most familiar with the ones on the west coast -- Seattle, San Francisco, and LA.
The exercise was conducted annually, against one defended area at a time. It was conducted late night-early morning to minimize interference with the FAA's air traffic control radars. In the exercise SAC aircraft would fly against the area using their maximum radar jamming capabilities. And the Nike units were allowed to use almost all of their full wartime countermeasures systems to counter the jamming. As someone who served in the San Francisco Nike brigade 1968-1970, I know that it was usually a humbling experience for the Army. I seem to recall that typical results were that Nike units would defeat at best one third of the attacking aircraft. Keep in mind that the Nike mission was to shoot down attacking Soviet bomber flights, each of which was carrying multiple thermonuclear bombs. If just one bomber in a flight completed its mission, the target city would likely have been destroyed. The sad reality was that Nike-Hercules radars were using technology from the 1950s and probably would have been no match for attacking enemy bombers in an actual wartime situation. Fortunately, we never found out for certain if this was the case.
http://ed-thelen.org/sage-1.html
So again, what type of data (and data format) gets data onto a map? Is it a manual process, automated plotting process .... ? ... what "numbers" need rounding off? My feeling is there is some kind of automated plotter involved that makes a map, when and if someone desires or needs a map? Is the NWA search map Sluggo calls the FBI Map an instance of a computer plotted map which used McChord's radar data? What old computer language? SNOBOL? This is the same era we would have been using PL1 and other languages for computer plotted charts, (maps), etc... (The boxes of cards for a single run were prodigious!) I used PL1 and several other languages for data crunching here ... it was often so laborious it was almost defeating! MY guess is the military systems were more automated.
-
quick check says Sage used JOVIAL computer language.
see link. page 3 of the PDF speaks about the 35 mm high speed camera used with SAGE.
https://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol12_no2/12_2detectsatellitiesplanets.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/FPS-17
-
So again, what type of data (and data format) gets data onto a map? Is it a manual process, automated plotting process .... ? ... what "numbers" need rounding off? My feeling is there is some kind of automated plotter involved that makes a map, when and if someone desires or needs a map? Is the NWA search map Sluggo calls the FBI Map an instance of a computer plotted map which used McChord's radar data? What old computer language? SNOBOL? This is the same era we would have been using PL1 and other languages for computer plotted charts, (maps), etc... (The boxes of cards for a single run were prodigious!) I used PL1 and several other languages for data crunching here ... it was often so laborious it was almost defeating! MY guess is the military systems were more automated.
At the time, the country had an "air defense command" (at some point in time replaced by or absorbed into NORAD). Their job was to monitor the skies, especially around the periphery of the USA and Canada, for bombers from Russia or China, and to put fighters out to intercept bombers or anything that might be a bomber.
To do this, they could not just track enemy bombers. They had to track virtually everything in the air and check off all those planes that were confirmed to be "friendlies." Whatever was left, then, were the suspected "bogies."
So they constantly tracked everything out toward the horizon, everything that had a transponder in operation, everything with a return signal strong enough to be more than a low altitude "general aviation" private plane. everything They would have been tracking 305 to some degree even if 305 had not been hijacked.
To check off the "friendlies" the command's "direction centers" were in constant contact with FAA air traffic control centers. They constantly received flight plan data from the centers. They had hot lines so they could just pick up the phone and talk to flight controllers. They also had constant communication with direction centers (DCs) for adjacent regions so that known friendlies were passed from one region to another so that the second wouldn't have to go through the whole process of identifying the friendlies that came from the adjacent regions.
The command used "SAGE" to do this tracking. They got the source data principally from cutting edge radar sites. The data was processed, then the resulting data was displayed, at the regional DC. For our flightpath plot, the radar site involved before the flight got down a ways into Oregon was the site at Mt. Hebo, OR. The DC was DC-12 at McChord. So I'll refer to them in the following explanation of how the system worked.
If I remember correctly, the radar antenna went around 6 times per minute. Each time it went around, a computery thing analyzed the video output from the radar set along with precise data (from the antenna sytem) on where the antenna was pointing. From this analysis the device produced very accurate digital information on the range from the antenna to the "target," the target's azimuth with respect to "true" north, and the precise time at which the range and azimuth were measured. The device was constantly doing this for practically everything in the sky.
The device would load this location/time info into a magnetic storage drum rotating in sync with the antenna. The device was constantly loading such info for all the things the radar saw in the sky. Each turn of the antenna the device also loaded the same kind of data for at least one fixed target at a precisely surveyed location.
When the device put the info on the drum, it sent a message over two parallel telephone lines to the DC at McChord. The essence of the message was, "Hebo has just made available for you position data for target "x" squawking "y."
Depending upon the speed of a target and what priority the DC placed upon tracking that target, the DC might not immediately respond "send it on over." In this case, the data stored on the drum for that target would be replaced the next time the antenna swept past the target. The data was updated in each rotation of the antenna.
Eventually the DC would request the data for our flight 305. The data would be sent, again, over two parallel telephone circuits. The part of the device that did this was the world's first modem.
The McChord DC had two digital computers doing exactly the same thing most of the time. One was "active" and the other "standby." They did this so that the center wouldn't go dead if a computer failed. The computers were the world's first operational digital computers.
The computers took the position/time data from Hebo and combined this with data the computer already had on the surveyed location of the Hebo antenna, the error in Hebo's alignment with true north, the known location(s) of the fixed calibration target(s), and the digital model of the earth to calculate location of the target with respect to earth coordinates.
When the coordinates were calculated, they were made available for viewing at the monitors of the various kinds of staff at the DC. On the monitors, the people would generally see a track of a few past positions and something like the current or latest position. They could call up the data for whichever target(s) they were interested in.
After calculating positions for a few times for a given target, they would have been able to project position forward in time. I haven't seen any indication that they actually did this. They would also have been able to smooth out "jitter" from errors in the data from Hebo. Again, I don't know if they did.
The calculated coordinates were not recorded. But the data coming in from Hebo was routinely recorded. They were also able to record such data for specific targets. They normally just recorded over the tapes. But, if someone said "reserve that tape" they would hold it for later analysis.
One important thing about the normal use of the tracking data is that the DC did not need to calculate target positions down to the yard. All they needed to do is know closely enough where a bogie was that they could get an intercepter fighter close enough that the fighter could see the bogie on its radar or by eyeball. Getting within half a nautical mile was close enough.
So they had a tape about 305. The people at the DC had no idea what to do to get 305 position history out of that tape. They were users of SAGE, not "techies."
Also at McChord was a detachment of techies. They routinely evaluated proposed changes to the programming. They routinely did QA checks of SAGE at McChord. They routinely did analyses related to "incidents." They were a detachment of the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron ("RADES").
In much of the work they did, they would come into the McChord DC and take over the computer that was on standby. At times they'd run some evaluation version of the programming. They probably used the computer for running the analysis of the 305 data, because they were quite familiar with the computer. It is possible, however, that in 1971 they could have used a scientific calculator.
The analysis was calculation of 305 positions at exact minutes (no seconds). They certainly would have interpolated between positions at known times each side of the exact minutes. They calculated positions to a precision of 1 minute of latitude and longitude, probably because that's what the SAGE computer normally did because that's as close as the DC needed for its normal operation.
The coordinates were hand plotted on at least two paper charts. The red crosses do not have the uniformity that would come from a plotting machine.
-
page 3 of the PDF speaks about the 35 mm high speed camera used with SAGE.
At least during part of the life of SAGE some of the "control" centers had a "battle control" where the brass sat around and looked at a big, big screen where the bogies and interceptors were watched. They did this by taking pix of the monitor displays, very quickly processing the film, then projecting onto the rear of a projection screen. Didn't work very well and they eventually decided they didn't even need the CCs.
-
page 3 of the PDF speaks about the 35 mm high speed camera used with SAGE.
At least during part of the life of SAGE some of the "control" centers had a "battle control" where the brass sat around and looked at a big, big screen where the bogies and interceptors were watched. They did this by taking pix of the monitor displays, very quickly processing the film, then projecting onto the rear of a projection screen. Didn't work very well and they eventually decided they didn't even need the CCs.
I found some pics of the Sage from McChord a while back. here are the photo's.
-
I found some pics of the Sage from McChord a while back. here are the photo's.
I'd have to check to be sure, but I think the first one is the "Q7" computer. They had another long rack of equipment which was the interface to other sites, including the radar sites.
They had lots of something similar to the other pic. The monitor cabinet at least. Bunches of people doing each of several functions, and there were quite a few different functions. The data each operator saw was selected out of the huge quantity of overall data.
-
Here is a shot of the McChord Sage Installation.
here is the link with more photo's
http://www.smecc.org/sage_a_n_fsq-7.htm
-
So again, what type of data (and data format) gets data onto a map? Is it a manual process, automated plotting process .... ? ... what "numbers" need rounding off? My feeling is there is some kind of automated plotter involved that makes a map, when and if someone desires or needs a map? Is the NWA search map Sluggo calls the FBI Map an instance of a computer plotted map which used McChord's radar data? What old computer language? SNOBOL? This is the same era we would have been using PL1 and other languages for computer plotted charts, (maps), etc... (The boxes of cards for a single run were prodigious!) I used PL1 and several other languages for data crunching here ... it was often so laborious it was almost defeating! MY guess is the military systems were more automated.
The flightpath coordinates plotted on the searchzone map are minimal. Very easily done by hand. Location of the points onto the topo is very easy. The topo has two preprinted "+"s of specified lat and lon. The lat and lon are not on what we see because they are printed along the margins of the topo map. No need for automation or computers. The two points of known lat & lon:
1. westward in the center of sect 15: 45°55'N, 122°40'W
2. to the east by the quarry just right of center of sect 17: 45°55'N, 122°35'W
ie, both are on the same lat, 5' difference of longitude
-
So again, what type of data (and data format) gets data onto a map? Is it a manual process, automated plotting process .... ? ... what "numbers" need rounding off? My feeling is there is some kind of automated plotter involved that makes a map, when and if someone desires or needs a map? Is the NWA search map Sluggo calls the FBI Map an instance of a computer plotted map which used McChord's radar data? What old computer language? SNOBOL? This is the same era we would have been using PL1 and other languages for computer plotted charts, (maps), etc... (The boxes of cards for a single run were prodigious!) I used PL1 and several other languages for data crunching here ... it was often so laborious it was almost defeating! MY guess is the military systems were more automated.
The flightpath coordinates plotted on the searchzone map are minimal. Very easily done by hand. Location of the points onto the topo is very easy. The topo has two preprinted "+"s of specified lat and lon. The lat and lon are not on what we see because they are printed along the margins of the topo map. No need for automation or computers. The two points of known lat & lon:
1. westward in the center of sect 15: 45°55'N, 122°40'W
2. to the east by the quarry just right of center of sect 17: 45°55'N, 122°35'W
ie, both are on the same lat, 5' difference of longitude
What are the dates of the topographical maps that you mention? What are the lateral and vertical datums that are used in their plotting? Are you plotting 1971 longitude and latitude positions in WGS84 coordinates?
-
page 3 of the PDF speaks about the 35 mm high speed camera used with SAGE.
At least during part of the life of SAGE some of the "control" centers had a "battle control" where the brass sat around and looked at a big, big screen where the bogies and interceptors were watched. They did this by taking pix of the monitor displays, very quickly processing the film, then projecting onto the rear of a projection screen. Didn't work very well and they eventually decided they didn't even need the CCs.
is this what you are talking about with "battle control"
-
What are the dates of the topographical maps that you mention? What are the lateral and vertical datums that are used in their plotting? Are you plotting 1971 longitude and latitude positions in WGS84 coordinates?
1971 topo. NAD27 or 29, whatever it was for then. No.
-
is this what you are talking about with "battle control"
Yes. Note on the screen that the airborne things being tracked are represented by symbols. Not just "blips."
I don't recognize the shoreline it shows.
-
is this what you are talking about with "battle control"
Yes. Note on the screen that the airborne things being tracked are represented by symbols. Not just "blips."
I don't recognize the shoreline it shows.
yes, it's my understanding that what they see on the screen is what the computer is showing them.....
The first 30 seconds is choppy. I got hit with 3rd party copyright. they attempted to remove the music. didn't work very well. it will clear up after 30 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q4qz4_0vPQ
-
yes, it's my understanding that what they see on the screen is what the computer is showing them.....
The first 30 seconds is choppy. I got hit with 3rd party copyright. they attempted to remove the music. didn't work very well. it will clear up after 30 seconds.
Nice.
-
This is a video I made from an NPR interview with Geoffrey Gray. this could go into the flight path, as well as suspects. he describes the flight path being 15 miles wide?. he also tosses the thought out about KC being Cooper. one lone man desperately continues to push KC to the "public" because he can not be taken seriously with Cooper Sleuths and his conclusions. most are proven to be false due to improper, or sloppy work. "Rookie" written all over the investigation. (not speaking of Gray)
ENJOY....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qzYBXvH5WM
-
For anyone interested in getting the topo map used to make the copy on which the searchzone data was plotted, here's a website that has it. Just select "Washington" and type in "La Center." The file is a zipped "geo" pdf. It's a 15' map.
http://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=262:1:0 (http://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=262:1:0)
-
Thanks Bruce. I'll toss the link in the vault for future use.....
sorry, I mean Hominid. how did I mix that up????? anyway, I posted the link. 8)
-
Can anyone figure out how Gray came to the conclusion of the flight path being 15 miles wide? did he read this in the files. isn't a Vector 4 miles wide, with 2 miles on each side? he also gives a range up to 8:17 on the jump. plenty of water in this area.
-
In 1971, a Victor airway extended 5 statute miles on each side of the airway centerline. Today, a Victor airway extends 4 nautical miles (4.6 statute miles) on each side of the airway centerline. The overall controlled airspace has changed dramatically from 1971 both horizontally and vertically.
-
Can anyone figure out how Gray came to the conclusion of the flight path being 15 miles wide? did he read this in the files. isn't a Vector 4 miles wide, with 2 miles on each side? he also gives a range up to 8:17 on the jump. plenty of water in this area.
I can. He got it wrong. He got other technical info wrong. Geoff just doesn't have a technical background and he freely admits that. I kind of admire him for letting it all hang out .... including the bloopers. He would freely admit he got technical info wrong if it was explained to him. Unfortunately it does weaken his book. :)
-
Georger is correct on this matter. Flight path re-engages with I-5 corridor (V-23) prior to crossing the Columbia. (Anderson). Witnesses actually saw 305 cross over downtown Vancouver (Tosaw, Cook, Georger's grandmother, others). Cooper probably jumped just south of Battleground (Carr). We were probably looking in the wrong area in 1971 (Himmelsbach). Winds from 166, near my fudge factor (Bohan). Saw a red object falling from an aircraft near Vancouver (Janet). It makes sense that Cooper landed somewhere near where the money was found (Tosaw). An examination of alignment for witness accounts, discovery of evidence, comprehensive weather data, and pilot's statements are probably going to establish the most likely dropzone. (Cook).
-
Georger is correct on this matter. Flight path re-engages with I-5 corridor (V-23) prior to crossing the Columbia. (Anderson). Witnesses actually saw 305 cross over downtown Vancouver (Tosaw, Cook, Georger's grandmother, others). Cooper probably jumped just south of Battleground (Carr). We were probably looking in the wrong area in 1971 (Himmelsbach). Winds from 166, near my fudge factor (Bohan). Saw a red object falling from an aircraft near Vancouver (Janet). It makes sense that Cooper landed somewhere near where the money was found (Tosaw). An examination of alignment for witness accounts, discovery of evidence, comprehensive weather data, and pilot's statements are probably going to establish the most likely dropzone. (Cook).
what was considered downtown Vancouver in 1971. we have so many variations with the flight path. Janet lives further east, she also states the plane flew right over her location. we know Cooper had the money at 8:05. where did this rest gooooooo.
-
Janet never stated that the plane flew directly over her location. And it didn't. She saw it from her location, which was about five miles east of I-5. Plane flew over north edge of downtown Vancouver, about at Mill Plain Rd. Georger's grandmother lived near this area too and she knew something. But the good stuff is buried in the Tosaw files, which Richard left behind.
-
Janet never stated that the plane flew directly over her location. And it didn't. She saw it from her location, which was about five miles east of I-5. Plane flew over north edge of downtown Vancouver, about at Mill Plain Rd. Georger's grandmother lived near this area too and she knew something. But the good stuff is buried in the Tosaw files, which Richard left behind.
Have meetings today but will come back and post Emma and Vern's story which parallels Janet's.
Emma went public, with family and friends, and put her's into writing.
-
Good on ya, Georger. I located your grandmom's old Vancouver address and her story corresponds to other witness accounts, inclusive of Janet's. As you know, I triangulated the witness's accounts and they all added up to the inevitable (at least for myself and Tosaw) the plane took a corrective southerly course from the NE and ended up flying right over downtown Van. This seems to comport with Andy's version too. The red flame, which your grandmom addresses from her account, seems to be independently confirmed by other sources. Cooper used the lights of Van/PDX, and the dark outline of the Columbia, as reference points for departure.
-
Thank God! Now we can all stop worrying ourselves about the flightpath.
-
Coopsnoop
Posts: 45
Re: Flight Path And Related Issues
« Reply #193 on: April 05, 2014, 10:32:01 PM »
Quote
Good on ya, Georger. I located your grandmom's old Vancouver address and her story corresponds to other witness accounts, inclusive of Janet's. As you know, I triangulated the witness's accounts and they all added up to the inevitable (at least for myself and Tosaw) the plane took a corrective southerly course from the NE and ended up flying right over downtown Van. This seems to comport with Andy's version too. The red flame, which your grandmom addresses from her account, seems to be independently confirmed by other sources. Cooper used the lights of Van/PDX, and the dark outline of the Columbia, as reference points for departure.
Thank God! Now we can all stop worrying ourselves about the flightpath.
Funny :) The fact is we don't know where Emma got her account, if was something she witnessed, others witnessed, or what. What she said on 11-25-71 and later in December 71 (and put into writing), was consistent namely, "When the plane went over here it was on fire. It drifted to the west and faded from view". The report was so fantastical and out of synch with any news reports at the time, family members dismissed Emma's account as an aberration. Later however, Emma's (oldest son) and another family member at Vancouver corroborated Emma's account, but unfortunately nobody here dug deeper. We don't know who the witnesses were, whether they were these self-same family members or somebody else! Then, a possible link surfaced. I discovered that my grand mother's oldest son worked for the same company that Janet and her husband did - at least we think that was the case. So maybe the origin of the story is Janet herself? Apparently Janet say's 'no'. I don't know. But I do know my uncle, Janet, and Janet's husband all worked for Wilhelm Trucking of Portland. It is possible that is where my uncle got the story then conveyed it to Emma, then to others ... we just don't know what the basis for Emma's and her son's stories were. All of these people are long deceased now...
That hardly adds up to confirmation of a flight path -
Emma was 75 in 1971; she lived to 101 years at Vancouver. She was a very rational person, so far as I ever knew; she worked as a school teacher or an accountant during her working life and raised two families. She and grandpa owned and operated stock trading companies in addition to her school teaching. Her story saying the "plane was on fire" was so fantastical it was completely out of character with the rest of her personality. But she was insistent she was reporting the facts! I laughed and took her account as a sign of old age, but she was insistent for some reason that her account was true and accurate - I just dropped it and didn't pursue it out of politeness. Her account never changed over the years except she would always add: "I know nobody believes it but it's true". I could easily have gotten to the bottom on this then, but discounted it completely. I never imagined I would be writing this years later! It's just one of those blind allies that never got pursued ...
-
I still have problems with Cooper knowing all of the locations required to do an accurate spot jump. why do we automatically assume he knew where he was at any given time, especially if he didn't give any directions other than Mexico. what proof is there that the cloud coverage was open in the right area's? are we assuming he knows the area by the McChord statement? this could apply with him covering the area where he was going to jump as well.
Did the FBI take any of these statements into account? or is this after the fact. Dona from the Tavern claimed the plane was flying low, and to the east of Amboy. this would be way off V23. much like the other evidence. it's all over the board.
-
I still have problems with Cooper knowing all of the locations required to do an accurate spot jump. why do we automatically assume he knew where he was at any given time, especially if he didn't give any directions other than Mexico. what proof is there that the cloud coverage was open in the right area's? are we assuming he knows the area by the McChord statement? this could apply with him covering the area where he was going to jump as well.
Did the FBI take any of these statements into account? or is this after the fact. Dona from the Tavern claimed the plane was flying low, and to the east of Amboy. this would be way off V23. much like the other evidence. it's all over the board.
Rataczak said he could 'see the lights of Vancouver coming up'. If he could see them, Cooper could see them. That is all that's required on a normal day. If Rataczak is lying then all bets are off - but Rataczak is a personal witness who was there.
As for "the plane was on fire". The Eugene flare dropping incident from the weekend before is documented - filings made. Himmelsbach was convinced Cooper's bomb was nothing but road flares (color of). Official chatter following 305's hand-off by Eugene went straight to a possible connection between the Eugene Incident and Himmelsbach's flare assessment; that chatter is documented. Then Janet/Emma/etal surface with their story of 'fire in the sky' in the very time slot officials place 305 passing through the Vancouver-Portland area. 'Suits' then visit Janet's family and possibly Emma's family too - that is alleged. Witnesses on flight 305 are shown a healthy sample of photos of people allegedly from the Eugene area, as possible Cooper suspects. These leads were being actively pursued.
Let’s go one step further:
If the witnesses at Vancouver indeed saw Cooper bailing with flares, or dropping flares, in the time slot they say these events happened, is it even possible flight #305 could have ever been far east off V23 near or over the Washougal, and still be back over Vancouver in the time slot assigned to reports there? Moreover, the flare witness report times at Vancouver do fit the time slot of the T33 intercept of #305 south of Portland.
There is no way in hell, Janet or Emma or members of their family knew about the prior flare report at Eugene from the weekend before. Likewise Himmelsbach's assessment that Cooper's bomb was in fact 'flares'. These events/ are completely independent of each other, but may merge in a common nexus, ie. Cooper having and using flares. The FBI very clearly explored a possible connection in gathering and showing Eugene suspects to witnesses who had seen Cooper...
-
The fact is we don't know where Emma got her account, if was something she witnessed, others witnessed, or what. What she said on 11-25-71 and later in December 71 (and put into writing), was consistent namely, "When the plane went over here it was on fire. It drifted to the west and faded from view". ..... We don't know who the witnesses were, whether they were these self-same family members or somebody else! Then, a possible link surfaced. I discovered that my grand mother's oldest son worked for the same company that Janet and her husband did - at least we think that was the case. So maybe the origin of the story is Janet herself? Apparently Janet say's 'no'. I don't know. But I do know my uncle, Janet, and Janet's husband all worked for Wilhelm Trucking of Portland. It is possible that is where my uncle got the story then conveyed it to Emma, then to others ... we just don't know what the basis for Emma's and her son's stories were.......
Emma was 75 in 1971; she lived to 101 years at Vancouver. She was a very rational person, so far as I ever knew; she worked as a school teacher or an accountant during her working life and raised two families. She and grandpa owned and operated stock trading companies in addition to her school teaching. Her story saying the "plane was on fire" was so fantastical it was completely out of character with the rest of her personality. But she was insistent she was reporting the facts! I laughed and took her account as a sign of old age, but she was insistent for some reason that her account was true and accurate ..... Her account never changed over the years except she would always add: "I know nobody believes it but it's true". ..
It seems to me that she would have been so insistent only if she had seen it herself. There were things she could have mistakenly thought were "the plane on fire." But the info about where the plane was, and when, should at least be considered as possibly correct. Too bad we don't know where she was so we could plot it.
BTW Is Vern the oldest son, your uncle? And, do you have that written account?
-
I still have problems with Cooper knowing all of the locations required to do an accurate spot jump. why do we automatically assume he knew where he was at any given time, especially if he didn't give any directions other than Mexico. what proof is there that the cloud coverage was open in the right area's? are we assuming he knows the area by the McChord statement? this could apply with him covering the area where he was going to jump as well.
Did the FBI take any of these statements into account? or is this after the fact. Dona from the Tavern claimed the plane was flying low, and to the east of Amboy. this would be way off V23. much like the other evidence. it's all over the board.
He didn't have to know all the locations. He didn't necessarily do an accurate spot jump. Most probably didn't. If we assume he knew where he was at any given time, then we are wrong. The directions he gave virtually guaranteed the flight would go V23. If he found the crew was thinking otherwise, he could have intervened and insisted on it.
Did Dona make an entry to that effect in her diary for 11-24-71? Who says, "Yeah. She told me that the next day."? Evidence has different levels of quality. 40+-year-old memories are virtually useless. They justify something like, "there's a possibility."
-
At what point did the fighter jets break off? is it possible the afterburners where seen that nite? if Cooper was on the stairs for several minutes. you would think he could only see from behind. I think it would have to be pretty well timed to guess where you were 40 + minutes into the flight.
-
The story of the flares is very interesting. I can't seem to locate anything in the FAA files. I also had someone look up the incident. I would love to back this up with some sort of documentation. I'm just wondering why the flares would be used. Cooper had to have known he was being followed. if he was an experienced jumper, would he need flares for wind direction, or location?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rou9GT1HXQU
-
Georger, checked with Janet again and it appears that the Wilhelm Trucking connection is accurate. I've now found others who also witnessed a similar visual account, but never came forward to authorities. Interesting thing, Janet's former husband at the time worked with local county law enforcement. He was backed-off, and she was backed-off by the locals as well as the FBI. Tosaw's classified report in '85 and my follow-up confirms this. Andy's accounting is the best from the cock-pit. As FE with all-round skills to see what was going on, and in direct communication with the perp, he was in position to remember things. btw, tell your friend Hominid it was a pleasure to make some calls that he benefitted from. Nothing like sharing with cordial and thankful individuals. later, bud.
-
The fact is we don't know where Emma got her account, if was something she witnessed, others witnessed, or what. What she said on 11-25-71 and later in December 71 (and put into writing), was consistent namely, "When the plane went over here it was on fire. It drifted to the west and faded from view". ..... We don't know who the witnesses were, whether they were these self-same family members or somebody else! Then, a possible link surfaced. I discovered that my grand mother's oldest son worked for the same company that Janet and her husband did - at least we think that was the case. So maybe the origin of the story is Janet herself? Apparently Janet say's 'no'. I don't know. But I do know my uncle, Janet, and Janet's husband all worked for Wilhelm Trucking of Portland. It is possible that is where my uncle got the story then conveyed it to Emma, then to others ... we just don't know what the basis for Emma's and her son's stories were.......
Emma was 75 in 1971; she lived to 101 years at Vancouver. She was a very rational person, so far as I ever knew; she worked as a school teacher or an accountant during her working life and raised two families. She and grandpa owned and operated stock trading companies in addition to her school teaching. Her story saying the "plane was on fire" was so fantastical it was completely out of character with the rest of her personality. But she was insistent she was reporting the facts! I laughed and took her account as a sign of old age, but she was insistent for some reason that her account was true and accurate ..... Her account never changed over the years except she would always add: "I know nobody believes it but it's true". ..
It seems to me that she would have been so insistent only if she had seen it herself. There were things she could have mistakenly thought were "the plane on fire." But the info about where the plane was, and when, should at least be considered as possibly correct. Too bad we don't know where she was so we could plot it.
BTW Is Vern the oldest son, your uncle? And, do you have that written account?
Yes to all - Vern was her oldest son by her first marriage – let’s take family discussion off line.
I kick myself that I did not get the specifics of Grandma and Vern's stories, but the focus for us here changed from anything related to DB Cooper to grandma's welfare. From January of '72 on we took Emma's story as just a product of a fertile imagination and nothing more, related to her aging. She had a very active life in a church at Vancouver and we wondered if the Cooper story had originated there. It wasn't until years later that I even knew Vern had worked for Wilhelm Trucking... and I did not know or hear Janet's story until decades later after Emma and Vern were both gone.
I will send you an email with more later tonight and we can bring this back to this forum, as appropriate.
-
Shut: Flo was the one who saw the "bomb." "6 or 8 reddish sticks, bundled together that looked like dynamite, with a large battery and wires connected to them." Isn't it just possible that old Coop might have had another reason to carry these items in preparation for a solo night jump?
Seasoned jumpers from a military background know the reason. As for "fire in the sky," red flares falling from high altitude at night could present that impression to untrained observers from below and at a distance.
-
Georger, checked with Janet again and it appears that the Wilhelm Trucking connection is accurate. I've now found others who also witnessed a similar visual account, but never came forward to authorities. Interesting thing, Janet's former husband at the time worked with local county law enforcement. He was backed-off, and she was backed-off by the locals as well as the FBI. Tosaw's classified report in '85 and my follow-up confirms this. Andy's accounting is the best from the cock-pit. As FE with all-round skills to see what was going on, and in direct communication with the perp, he was in position to remember things. btw, tell your friend Hominid it was a pleasure to make some calls that he benefitted from. Nothing like sharing with cordial and thankful individuals. later, bud.
Vern said he had been "approached" and for me "not to come up here and get involved. We don't want you up here!". Vern's remark raised my hackles. I had no thought whatever of going to Vancouver or anywhere else at the time, especially for anything related to "that crazy hijacking in the State of Washington?!" It was crazy on it's face and lead to concern about Emma's situation, frankly.
But Vern said they had "been approached" presumably by authorities in relation to their story.
This actually caused me to call another family member who worked with the FBI and we discussed this.
The State of Washington was totally out of my cousin's jurisdiction but he called a few cousins to inquire about Emma's welfare and came back to me with the news that Emma and Vern and that whole side of my family were fine and doing well, Grandma active in her church, Vern and his family all fit and doing well ... the net effect for me was to place my Grandmother's story in the category of a myth of some kind ... and from then on when the subject would come up I just listened and laughed and stated: "Grandma, I have ever heard anything like this in the news" and we would move on to other family news ...
My ultimate concern was Emma .... not this "DB Cooper thing".
-
Shut: Flo was the one who saw the "bomb." "6 or 8 reddish sticks, bundled together that looked like dynamite, with a large battery and wires connected to them." Isn't it just possible that old Coop might have had another reason to carry these items in preparation for a solo night jump?
Seasoned jumpers from a military background know the reason. As for "fire in the sky," red flares falling from high altitude at night could present that impression to untrained observers from below and at a distance.
absolutely, I'm not trying to discount the fact. I think a lot of people also believe it was road flares vs dynamite. most dynamite is brown. I'm a skeptic at everything, because you could also claim he used the flares for the simple reason to fool them. anything is possible. I guess the question I would ask is how many jumpers use flares for the purpose of wind direction, or visual use in a night jump? shouldn't Cooper have known the wind direction that night?
added: I'm sure there is a difference between military flares, and road flares. how well would we see an actual road flare from 10k, unless of course the altitude was in question.
-
Shut:
From military jumpers, considered experts in their field....................ground orientation at night. Not so much for wind direction. They need orientation, so as to know their position after correcting from a night tumble, as well as being able to see the ground approach them. Don't forget, this was from 1960's military training. Nothing like a fabulous getaway from a 727 at night, only to end up broken on the ground with a bag of dough.
-
Shut:
From military jumpers, considered experts in their field....................ground orientation at night. Not so much for wind direction. They need orientation, so as to know their position after correcting from a night tumble, as well as being able to see the ground approach them. Don't forget, this was from 1960's military training. Nothing like a fabulous getaway from a 727 at night, only to end up broken on the ground with a bag of dough.
Sluggo's admonition still applies (must apply in matters of this kind).
Facts vs. Myth. It's only through facts any progress will be made.
:)
-
Shut: Flo was the one who saw the "bomb." "6 or 8 reddish sticks, bundled together that looked like dynamite, with a large battery and wires connected to them." Isn't it just possible that old Coop might have had another reason to carry these items in preparation for a solo night jump?
Seasoned jumpers from a military background know the reason. As for "fire in the sky," red flares falling from high altitude at night could present that impression to untrained observers from below and at a distance.
absolutely, I'm not trying to discount the fact. I think a lot of people also believe it was road flares vs dynamite. most dynamite is brown. I'm a skeptic at everything, because you could also claim he used the flares for the simple reason to fool them. anything is possible. I guess the question I would ask is how many jumpers use flares for the purpose of wind direction, or visual use in a night jump? shouldn't Cooper have known the wind direction that night?
added: I'm sure there is a difference between military flares, and road flares. how well would we see an actual road flare from 10k, unless of course the altitude was in question.
Just guessing but I don't think you would even see a flare until it was down at about 5000 feet and below that I have no doubt you would see it, especially if there was a cloud layer reflecting its light from above - it would glow red hot and bright. That's my supposition. And if that cloud above it contained ice crystals to disperse the light around, I am sure you would see it and could follow its course ...
-
"Just guessing but I don't think you would even see a flare until it was down at about 5000 feet and below that I have no doubt you would see it, especially if there was a cloud layer reflecting its light from above - it would glow red hot and bright. That's my supposition. And if that cloud above it contained ice crystals to disperse the light around, I am sure you would see it and could follow its course ..."
Sounds plausible. the problem I see know is Janet claiming they were being tossed from the back of the plane, or the stairs I believe it was said. should be a simple enough test. take a flare on a back road and light it up. drive away and see where you start to see it fade. one mile is a little over 5,000.
-
The story of the flares is very interesting. I can't seem to locate anything in the FAA files. I also had someone look up the incident. I would love to back this up with some sort of documentation. I'm just wondering why the flares would be used. Cooper had to have known he was being followed. if he was an experienced jumper, would he need flares for wind direction, or location?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rou9GT1HXQU
I'm not offering or hinting at any conclusions, but the only reference or documentation of lights in the sky / flares that I have been able to find, so far, is a record of a meteor shower around the time of November 16, 17.
There was supposed to be quite spectacular "Leonid" meteor showers at a rate of about 170 per hour in November, 1971.
Not saying that they would be mistaken as flares and someone might have been off on their timeline, but it has been documented that meteor showers have been mistaken for UFOs in the past, so there's that.
-
Thanks smokin, where was the location of the sighting?
-
"Just guessing but I don't think you would even see a flare until it was down at about 5000 feet and below that I have no doubt you would see it, especially if there was a cloud layer reflecting its light from above - it would glow red hot and bright. That's my supposition. And if that cloud above it contained ice crystals to disperse the light around, I am sure you would see it and could follow its course ..."
Sounds plausible. the problem I see know is Janet claiming they were being tossed from the back of the plane, or the stairs I believe it was said. should be a simple enough test. take a flare on a back road and light it up. drive away and see where you start to see it fade. one mile is a little over 5,000.
Farflung showed graphic representations of what one can see from distances once, and it was very helpful, but I would still think that what you can see on the flat horizon might be different than what you can see from above or below. Just an opinion.
-
was that in daylight, or night time? I think at nite you wouldn't have much to worry about testing that way?
-
Thanks smokin, where was the location of the sighting?
They didn't mention a location but it was in the Oregonian and Seattle newspapers. I don't think it was post-sighting though - just one of those articles letting people know that it was coming so they could watch.
I googled some sites on the Leonid meteor showers that mentioned 1971 as being one of the years with a higher rate than normal and looking like fireballs with dust trails.
-
was that in daylight, or night time? I think at nite you wouldn't have much to worry about testing that way?
I don't remember but seems like I wondered the same thing later so it might have been daylight representations. I will look for the posts he made about it.
-
was that in daylight, or night time? I think at nite you wouldn't have much to worry about testing that way?
I don't remember but seems like I wondered the same thing later so it might have been daylight representations. I will look for the posts he made about it.
It does seem like this would be a relatively easy thing to reproduce to see whether it's bs or not. Just need a plane and a flare and a spotter......anyone?? :)
-
was that in daylight, or night time? I think at nite you wouldn't have much to worry about testing that way?
I don't remember but seems like I wondered the same thing later so it might have been daylight representations. I will look for the posts he made about it.
It does seem like this would be a relatively easy thing to reproduce to see whether it's bs or not. Just need a plane and a flare and a spotter......anyone?? :)
Dropzone post 35603
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4361261;search_string=janet;#4361261
-
you can just drop the link right onto the post now...
-
Farf is a pisser......I see his point, but looking at a light source shouldn't be different on the ground. now the backdrop is different, and weather etc. I think a general idea could be used with this test? dropping it from a plane would be the ultimate, but who is ready to spark a flare up in a cabin of a small plane lol....
-
Farf is a pisser......I see his point, but looking at a light source shouldn't be different on the ground. now the backdrop is different, and weather etc. I think a general idea could be used with this test? dropping it from a plane would be the ultimate, but who is ready to spark a flare up in a cabin of a small plane lol....
He also posted this on the next page or two....... don't know that it would matter, but I don't see anything depicted from nighttime.
Hey - anything worth talking about is worth an experiment or two, right. I've often said if we had buried money on the Columbia when the dropzone thread first started we'd have some real data to look at. ;) :)
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/zones/thousand_feet.html
-
Farf is a pisser......I see his point, but looking at a light source shouldn't be different on the ground. now the backdrop is different, and weather etc. I think a general idea could be used with this test? dropping it from a plane would be the ultimate, but who is ready to spark a flare up in a cabin of a small plane lol....
He also posted this on the next page or two.......
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/zones/thousand_feet.html
I remember that post. 10,000 is a long way up. then you have some sort of weather nobody agree's on lol
-
Farf is a pisser......I see his point, but looking at a light source shouldn't be different on the ground. now the backdrop is different, and weather etc. I think a general idea could be used with this test? dropping it from a plane would be the ultimate, but who is ready to spark a flare up in a cabin of a small plane lol....
He also posted this on the next page or two.......
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/zones/thousand_feet.html
I remember that post. 10,000 is a long way up. then you have some sort of weather nobody agree's on lol
Hey - anything worth talking about is worth an experiment or two, right. I've often said if we had buried money on the Columbia when the dropzone thread first started we'd have some real data to look at. In that spirit, I'd still like to see a nighttime flare experiment -- just for grins...... ;) :)
-
Farf is a pisser......I see his point, but looking at a light source shouldn't be different on the ground. now the backdrop is different, and weather etc. I think a general idea could be used with this test? dropping it from a plane would be the ultimate, but who is ready to spark a flare up in a cabin of a small plane lol....
He also posted this on the next page or two.......
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/zones/thousand_feet.html
I remember that post. 10,000 is a long way up. then you have some sort of weather nobody agree's on lol
Hey - anything worth talking about is worth an experiment or two, right. I've often said if we had buried money on the Columbia when the dropzone thread first started we'd have some real data to look at. In that spirit, I'd still like to see a nighttime flare experiment -- just for grins...... ;) :)
Yes, it would have been long enough for real data. I got a camera. I got the area. I don't have any flares. I'll see where they can be bought. 8)
-
At what point did the fighter jets break off? is it possible the afterburners where seen that nite? if Cooper was on the stairs for several minutes. you would think he could only see from behind. I think it would have to be pretty well timed to guess where you were 40 + minutes into the flight.
He would be able to see forward, but not straight ahead. He should have been able to tell when the flight made the turns "at" the Mayfield intersection (more like Toledo) AND at the Portland VORTAC.
-
I'm just wondering why the flares would be used. Cooper had to have known he was being followed. if he was an experienced jumper, would he need flares for wind direction, or location?
I think there was pretty much concensus at DZ that an experienced jumper would have no use for them, particularly at night. If one is below you when you jump, the light from it would make it impossible to see anything below it. It would be pretty dumb to throw one out where you are jumping. Why tell the world where you are? If you're commited to a jump, knowing wind direction doesn't do anything for you. You're gonna go wherever the wind blows you regardless.
-
"Just guessing but I don't think you would even see a flare until it was down at about 5000 feet and below that I have no doubt you would see it, especially if there was a cloud layer reflecting its light from above - it would glow red hot and bright. That's my supposition. And if that cloud above it contained ice crystals to disperse the light around, I am sure you would see it and could follow its course ..."
Sounds plausible. the problem I see know is Janet claiming they were being tossed from the back of the plane, or the stairs I believe it was said. should be a simple enough test. take a flare on a back road and light it up. drive away and see where you start to see it fade. one mile is a little over 5,000.
tests like that under all kinds of conditions have been done - reports on the internet.
-
smokin said:
I'm not offering or hinting at any conclusions, but the only reference or documentation of lights in the sky / flares that I have been able to find, so far, is a record of a meteor shower around the time of November 16, 17.
There was supposed to be quite spectacular "Leonid" meteor showers at a rate of about 170 per hour in November, 1971.
Not saying that they would be mistaken as flares and someone might have been off on their timeline, but it has been documented that meteor showers have been mistaken for UFOs in the past, so there's that.
[/quote]
records for this region were searched with a number of people and nothing was found for this period -
likewise charts for civil twilight etc were posted at DZ years ago - Im not going through that again. Life is too short...
likewise there are ample photos of flares at 10k, 5k, 2500 ft shot from the ground, on the internet. I posted many of those years ago at DZ .... there were posts about optical physics .... this is all old hat, frankly. But I can see Smokin accepts nothing ever posted at DZ except by Farflung - fine. Play it again Sam.
-
a flare............not to reveal your location to the world, but to an individual for ground location and pick-up. Nothing like having a plan. Myth vs. Fact? Well, depends on who has the facts, G. Hey Bruce, you really turning down Blev? The Auburn cops were looking forward to meeting you. :). Maybe he'll invite Jo instead.
-
a flare............not to reveal your location to the world, but to an individual for ground location and pick-up. Nothing like having a plan. Myth vs. Fact? Well, depends on who has the facts, G. Hey Bruce, you really turning down Blev? The Auburn cops were looking forward to meeting you. :). Maybe he'll invite Jo instead.
I'm tired of rebuilding the wheel. Who knows. Maybe Smokin will come up with something brand new. Leonids? Janet saw a Leonid? Or Janet saw a Coopernid? Facts below and I am done with this. Good luck -
[/i]AMS notes for 1971: The 1971 Leonids were expected to peak during the daylight hours, and counts that were reported to S&T on the mornings of the 17th and 18th were low. "However, a number of bright fireballs were seen which is typical for this shower." The highest counts came from two observers watching from Newton, North Carolina on the morning of the 17th. Between 10:00 and 11:00 UT they made independent hourly counts, the average of which was listed at 27. Low by usual standards. Other observers from around the country generally saw 10 to 20 per hour on the morning of the 17th. Counts in the West to Northwest were low. In the US 1971 records basically ceased on the 18th.
What the Soviets reported, however, was a significantly stronger display about 10-11 hours earlier . . . and another strong surge of activity two mornings later. This unusual bevy of Leonids was also briefly cited in the IMOs "Handbook For Visual Meteor Observations" edited by Paul Roggemans (1989 Sky Publishing Corp.). On page 163, for 1971 November 17, an hourly rate of 90 is attributed to "USSR Smirnov but this rate was not recorded for anywhere in the United States"
-- joe rao
Good luck rebuilding the wheel.
-
a flare............not to reveal your location to the world, but to an individual for ground location and pick-up.
Problem is that, regardless of the intent of the person dropping the flare(s), they would very likely be seen by people (like LE) other than accomplices. There are other possibilities for flares, and there are other possibilities for the plane appearing to be on fire.
Did the plane itself have a flare? If Coop dropped a flare, maybe it would be for a signal to accomplices--but not to say, "I'm jumping here."
-
a flare............not to reveal your location to the world, but to an individual for ground location and pick-up.
Problem is that, regardless of the intent of the person dropping the flare(s), they would very likely be seen by people (like LE) other than accomplices. There are other possibilities for flares, and there are other possibilities for the plane appearing to be on fire.
Did the plane itself have a flare? If Coop dropped a flare, maybe it would be for a signal to accomplices--but not to say, "I'm jumping here."
Leonids radiate from the constellation of Leo. On 11-(17-18)-71 at 8:30pst at Portland, Leo would have been several degrees below the Northern horizon with Leonids radiating as shown in the photo attached. The Janet apparition roughly follows the trajectory shown in red, at a much lower altitude than any Leonids very far above the cloud cover at 5000 feet. The Janet apparition was very likely below 5000 feet drifting north-east to south-west, as I understand her story. If a flare was involved it would have been bright enough to be seen and followed below 5000ft on that night, but not overwhelmingly bright as for example a Leonid fireball would be, seen by everyone and probably recorded by someone in a multi-State area.
-
Wheel's turning perfectly, G.
-
"I'm LANDING here." Keep hypothesizing. It keeps the wrong people confused.
-
I don't think smokin gave any indication that was the reason for the sightings. it was all she found. I was curious to how much road flares would generate vs military, or flares used for the purpose of aviation, and not flares for road side assistance. If you don't ask, you don't get answers!!
-
The post that I responded to was in response to someone posting that there were filed reports (WHERE, WHEN , WHO remain unknown - the statement was not sourced) of flare sightings the week? before the hijacking. I merely posted all that I could find. I have found no reports in FAA files or newspaper accounts or even the blue book of any flares or lights in the sky in the week before the hijacking except, yes, except for the Leonid meteor showers. I even prefaced it by saying I was making no consensus or judgement that this had anything to do with anything - as I had read the same blurb that Georger referenced in his response. I'm sure all will agree that Google is a wonderful thing (except when they are trying to take over the world and reading your email). I also looked at this site before I posted. http://meteorshowersonline.com/leonids.html.
But again, the only reason I posted it at all was because the reference to the meteor shower was all that was all I was able to find relating to lights in the sky in that area in the weeks leading up to the hijacking. Take it as you will.
Wheels are constantly being rebuilt and every aspect of Dan Cooper minutiae is constantly being regurgitated and recompiled and rehashed by every poster here and yon. LOL....yes, there is very little that has not been discussed at length before -- however -- since I don't know of anyone who has solved the case so far -- I guess that will have to do.
And, my contributions, as insignificant as they are, will continue to be offered unless I get kicked out.
One can only hope this sandbox stays free of the cat dung that is so prevalent in other places.
-
Don't worry, your contributions are well respected here, by all. I think we all understood your post. I did. I also appreciate efforts to find anything that could help document the event. all we can do is continue to search as time goes by. perhaps some light will surface. lets just keep chugging along and seek out more answers. obviously nobody has all of them, or we wouldn't be here.
I realize things can get edgy to say the least. I hope we can continue the levels of sanity in the Cooper saga....
your post was a valid response. hopefully it will end here.... 8)
-
No worries. It's been one of those Mondays. Business trip last week and today was all about being cheek deep in alligators and putting out fires.
I have not been able to find any experiments with flares at the distances we are talking about on the internet. I have found you-tube videos but nothing that I can correlate to the criteria for that night.
I do think that no one's memory, especially from forty years ago, is immune to unconscious embellishment. However, far from discounting post-event eye-witness flare accounts out of hand, I would like to know from actual practice whether it is likely that Janet and others saw what they think they saw. An experiment would be a step in that direction.
On the subject of memory....
This is one of the best mini-essays I've seen on memory away from the statistics and neuroscience of it all.....
http://deadconfederates.com/2011/10/22/embellishment-of-memory-humans-as-consumate-bullshitters/
an excerpt......
.....Consider an investigation of flashbulb memories from September 11, 2001. A few days after the tragic attacks, a team of psychologists led by William Hirst and Elizabeth Phelps began interviewing people about their personal experiences. In the years since, the researchers have tracked the steady decay of these personal stories. They’ve shown, for instance, that subjects have dramatically changed their recollection of how they first learned about the attacks. After one year, 37 percent of the details in their original story had changed. By 2004, that number was approaching 50 percent. The scientists have just begun analyzing their ten year follow-up data, but it will almost certainly show that the majority of details from that day are now inventions. Our 9/11 tales are almost certainly better – more entertaining, more dramatic, more reflective of that awful day – but those improvements have come at the expense of the truth. Stories make sense. Life usually doesn’t.
This last part is really important, and bears as well on the limitations of eyewitness testimony. Whenever people witness an event — a fender-bender in the parking lot, an argument between co-workers, the assault on Little Round Top — their perspective is necessarily different from that of other witnesses, and usually incomplete. Human memory is not a simple video recorder that inscribes a fixed and unchanging record of what we see and do; it’s fluid and dynamic process that changes over time. Our brains are wired by evolution and experience to makes sense of all those sensory inputs, to help us understand and react to what we’ve seen. In the process, we fill in gaps and make assumptions that establish a more coherent narrative to ourselves. This is involuntary and mostly unconscious. Such embellishment is not lying or deception, but neither does it reflect actual reality.
-
No worries. It's been one of those Mondays. Business trip last week and today was all about being cheek deep in alligators and putting out fires.
I have not been able to find any experiments with flares at the distances we are talking about on the internet. I have found you-tube videos but nothing that I can correlate to the criteria for that night.
I do think that no one's memory, especially from forty years ago, is immune to unconscious embellishment. However, far from discounting post-event eye-witness flare accounts out of hand, I would like to know from actual practice whether it is likely that Janet and others saw what they think they saw. An experiment would be a step in that direction.
On the subject of memory....
This is one of the best mini-essays I've seen on memory away from the statistics and neuroscience of it all.....
http://deadconfederates.com/2011/10/22/embellishment-of-memory-humans-as-consumate-bullshitters/
an excerpt......
.....Consider an investigation of flashbulb memories from September 11, 2001. A few days after the tragic attacks, a team of psychologists led by William Hirst and Elizabeth Phelps began interviewing people about their personal experiences. In the years since, the researchers have tracked the steady decay of these personal stories. They’ve shown, for instance, that subjects have dramatically changed their recollection of how they first learned about the attacks. After one year, 37 percent of the details in their original story had changed. By 2004, that number was approaching 50 percent. The scientists have just begun analyzing their ten year follow-up data, but it will almost certainly show that the majority of details from that day are now inventions. Our 9/11 tales are almost certainly better – more entertaining, more dramatic, more reflective of that awful day – but those improvements have come at the expense of the truth. Stories make sense. Life usually doesn’t.
This last part is really important, and bears as well on the limitations of eyewitness testimony. Whenever people witness an event — a fender-bender in the parking lot, an argument between co-workers, the assault on Little Round Top — their perspective is necessarily different from that of other witnesses, and usually incomplete. Human memory is not a simple video recorder that inscribes a fixed and unchanging record of what we see and do; it’s fluid and dynamic process that changes over time. Our brains are wired by evolution and experience to makes sense of all those sensory inputs, to help us understand and react to what we’ve seen. In the process, we fill in gaps and make assumptions that establish a more coherent narrative to ourselves. This is involuntary and mostly unconscious. Such embellishment is not lying or deception, but neither does it reflect actual reality.
Ah yes the memory gambit, again.
Come to think of it, I cant seem to remember who I am! Much less what I did yesterday or the day before.
What is today? Why am I here? I feel the door closing. :o Sartre was right! Being and Nothingness - Phenomenology - Nausea - then Nothing. The tactics of everything.
-
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!
That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.
-
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!
That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.
Welcome Guru, that's what we try to keep out of this forum. you will see some bumps along the way, but I try and keep things on topic. plenty of different categories, links etc. I consider it still in the testing stage.... 8)
Shutter
-
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!
That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.
Funny@ ;)
-
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!
That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.
Welcome Guru, that's what we try to keep out of this forum. you will see some bumps along the way, but I try and keep things on topic. plenty of different categories, links etc. I consider it still in the testing stage.... 8)
Shutter
Please note! I did not bring Existentialism and Phenomenology to the forum. Smokin99 did! By questioning "memory", Smokin is questioning the reliability of all human knowledge and the human thought process itself.
Under that condition, not only are Janet and Emma wrong!, all human knowledge is unreliable, and no so-called facts can ever exist, not just in the Cooper case, but in the whole human enterprise! This is no trivial matter! This is the very tool many are using to question all facts in the Cooper case ... except their alleged facts of course! It is one of the reasons we are here at this website vs another ... in the first place!
-
By questioning "memory", Smokin is questioning the reliability of all human knowledge and the human thought process itself.
Under that condition, not only are Janet and Emma wrong!, all human knowledge is unreliable, and no so-called facts can ever exist, not just in the Cooper case, but in the whole human enterprise! This is no trivial matter! This is the very tool many are using to question all facts in the Cooper case ... except their alleged facts of course! It is one of the reasons we are here at this website vs another ... in the first place!
Some alleged facts:
If, by "memory", you mean recall of events, it is well established scientific fact that it is unreliable and imperfect. Taking this into account does not mean outright rejection or invalidation of all memories.
I did not see Smokin questioning the reliability of all human knowledge. If she did so in the sense of the totality of human "knowledge" rather than every individual bit of human knowledge, she would be correct. Look at everything everyone in the world "knows." Most of it is wrong. People "know" things regardless of whether or not the things are facts. Taken as a whole, human knowledge is unreliable (incorrect) in the extreme. The human thought process is unreliable in the extreme. Humans are imperfect. People come up with ways to rationalize things they don't nearly understand. Humans "think" at least as much with their feelings as we do with any logic.
Recognizing the limitations of memory does not mean Janet and Emma were totally wrong. But we are all wrong to different extents. Something happened that night, some of it somewhat "physics" in nature. They saw (perceived) something. What they saw was a product both of what really happened, the environment, and of their own natures. Then, it's all been modified by time and by other peoples' interpretations. Saying that much of what everyone remembers is not correct is not saying anyone is totally wrong, that all human knowledge is unreliable, or that no facts can exist.
Memories are not facts. What people say are not facts. What people say others say are not facts. They all typically have some elements of fact.
Can't we all just get along?
-
Can't we all just get along?
I don't think anyone meant any disrespect towards G's family involvement. I don't think anyone was implying they seen something different than what has been told over the years, but, as we all often do. we search out all avenues of possibilities. this doesn't mean it applies to every situation. we don't know if 305 was seen that night. based on Geroger's background I believe what he says. I believe Emma seen something that night. trying to resolve it with a couple posts won't do it either. that's why I brought up the afterburner thingy.... I don't think s99 meant any disrespect either. hopefully we can work this problem without a problem. I think the story is fascinating and needs to be looked over. I'm still trying to find out anything on the flare reports prior to the hijacking. this might take a little time to surface.
we can always change the subject until more light is shed. 8)
-
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!
That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.
Welcome Guru, that's what we try to keep out of this forum. you will see some bumps along the way, but I try and keep things on topic. plenty of different categories, links etc. I consider it still in the testing stage.... 8)
Shutter
Please note! I did not bring Existentialism and Phenomenology to the forum. Smokin99 did! By questioning "memory", Smokin is questioning the reliability of all human knowledge and the human thought process itself.
Under that condition, not only are Janet and Emma wrong!, all human knowledge is unreliable, and no so-called facts can ever exist, not just in the Cooper case, but in the whole human enterprise! This is no trivial matter! This is the very tool many are using to question all facts in the Cooper case ... except their alleged facts of course! It is one of the reasons we are here at this website vs another ... in the first place!
Actually you did bring up the psyche of it all. You did this by making correlations where there were none. Though I agree with the entirety of Hom's post, I can't take credit for weighing in on the totality of human consciousness. My eyes are beginning to glaze just thinking about it. ;)
Throughout my post it was pretty clear that I was referring to memory as the recall of specific events and not "the reliability of all human knowledge and the human thought process itself".
Just like I don't have to consciously remember the act of being born to have the knowledge that I was in fact born, I also don't have to have knowledge of aerodynamics to remember seeing a plane fly overhead. But accounts of both events - whether I'm recalling or retelling them - can be colored by my perceptions, my knowledge base, external stimuli (such as the passage of time and hearing other accounts), and societal norms -- and I might not even realize it. You know this as well so I'm not sure why my posts are causing you such angst of all sudden.
I am merely trying to be consistent in the desire to have the possibility/probability of events validated to know what weight to give someone's account of that event, thus my call for an experiment. -And what weight to give to the possibility of other explanations for those accounts. ---All of this without questioning the integrity of the person giving the account. Whether it's Janet or Emma or Margaret Geestman.
That said - I'm sorry if you took offense, I meant no slight or disrespect to anyone's family.
-
hopefully we can move on from this, and get back on topic.
I'm going to be posting some stall results from my simulator for Hominid to look at. I don't know if it's correct, but the 727 is hard to stall on the simulator. other aircraft in the sim react differently?. I'll post the info this weekend in the proper category.... 8)
-
hopefully we can move on from this, and get back on topic.
I'm going to be posting some stall results from my simulator for Hominid to look at. I don't know if it's correct, but the 727 is hard to stall on the simulator. other aircraft in the sim react differently?. I'll post the info this weekend in the proper category.... 8)
Sounds good to me.
-
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!
That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.
Welcome Guru, that's what we try to keep out of this forum. you will see some bumps along the way, but I try and keep things on topic. plenty of different categories, links etc. I consider it still in the testing stage.... 8)
Shutter
Please note! I did not bring Existentialism and Phenomenology to the forum. Smokin99 did! By questioning "memory", Smokin is questioning the reliability of all human knowledge and the human thought process itself.
Under that condition, not only are Janet and Emma wrong!, all human knowledge is unreliable, and no so-called facts can ever exist, not just in the Cooper case, but in the whole human enterprise! This is no trivial matter! This is the very tool many are using to question all facts in the Cooper case ... except their alleged facts of course! It is one of the reasons we are here at this website vs another ... in the first place!
Actually you did bring up the psyche of it all. You did this by making correlations where there were none. Though I agree with the entirety of Hom's post, I can't take credit for weighing in on the totality of human consciousness. My eyes are beginning to glaze just thinking about it. ;)
Throughout my post it was pretty clear that I was referring to memory as the recall of specific events and not "the reliability of all human knowledge and the human thought process itself".
Just like I don't have to consciously remember the act of being born to have the knowledge that I was in fact born, I also don't have to have knowledge of aerodynamics to remember seeing a plane fly overhead. But accounts of both events - whether I'm recalling or retelling them - can be colored by my perceptions, my knowledge base, external stimuli (such as the passage of time and hearing other accounts), and societal norms -- and I might not even realize it. You know this as well so I'm not sure why my posts are causing you such angst of all sudden.
I am merely trying to be consistent in the desire to have the possibility/probability of events validated to know what weight to give someone's account of that event, thus my call for an experiment. -And what weight to give to the possibility of other explanations for those accounts. ---All of this without questioning the integrity of the person giving the account. Whether it's Janet or Emma or Margaret Geestman.
That said - I'm sorry if you took offense, I meant no slight or disrespect to anyone's family.
For us its a subjective matter to debate; others at the time had a different 'take' and acted accordingly! Suits showed up at Janet's door. Janet's husband in law enforcement came home with 'some advice to give in the matter'. Vern was visited by someone and dispensed his own 'advice' to family members.
Strange results for merely seeing Leonids on the 17th and 18th, not seen at Portland-Vancouver due to conditions.
Thank God the camera was invented otherwise all of modern science would still be being debated as 'somebody's unverified account' and we would still have gas lamps in our homes, and out houses and stamps and the horse and mule instead of the internet!
:)
-
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!
That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.
Interesting link on the Bayesian analysis of flight 370.
Bayesian analysis of flight 370 (http://www.fastcolabs.com/3028265/how-i-narrowed-down-the-location-of-malaysia-air-using-monte-carlo-da)
Any application to flight 305 or aspects of it, or to the money flow analysis? A similar analysis was suggested over at DZ years ago but got no traction, until Shutter took up a flight simulation.
-
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!
That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.
Interesting link on the Bayesian analysis of flight 370.
Bayesian analysis of flight 370 (http://www.fastcolabs.com/3028265/how-i-narrowed-down-the-location-of-malaysia-air-using-monte-carlo-da)
Any application to flight 305 or aspects of it, or to the money flow analysis? A similar analysis was suggested over at DZ years ago but got no traction, until Shutter took up a flight simulation.
Thanks for the link Georger. I noticed some of the information he used is from X-Plane. http://data.x-plane.com/index.html
First, I followed the lead of WNYC’s 777 runway map by downloading the original XPlane dataset(1) and parsing through it to plot all of the runways longer than 5,000 ft, considered to be a minimum distance for a Boeing 777 to land (but not take off), as black dots. These do not factor in, in terms of where the airplane is located, but do show near where a 777 could land, if it’s in the area.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS1CMkS5EOY
-
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!
That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.
Interesting link on the Bayesian analysis of flight 370.
Bayesian analysis of flight 370 (http://www.fastcolabs.com/3028265/how-i-narrowed-down-the-location-of-malaysia-air-using-monte-carlo-da)
Any application to flight 305 or aspects of it, or to the money flow analysis? A similar analysis was suggested over at DZ years ago but got no traction, until Shutter took up a flight simulation.
Thanks for the link Georger. I noticed some of the information he used is from X-Plane. http://data.x-plane.com/index.html
First, I followed the lead of WNYC’s 777 runway map by downloading the original XPlane dataset(1) and parsing through it to plot all of the runways longer than 5,000 ft, considered to be a minimum distance for a Boeing 777 to land (but not take off), as black dots. These do not factor in, in terms of where the airplane is located, but do show near where a 777 could land, if it’s in the area.
Shutter and Georger, where is this link to the Bayesian analysis of MH flight 370 that you are talking about?
-
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!
That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.
Interesting link on the Bayesian analysis of flight 370.
Bayesian analysis of flight 370 (http://www.fastcolabs.com/3028265/how-i-narrowed-down-the-location-of-malaysia-air-using-monte-carlo-da)
Any application to flight 305 or aspects of it, or to the money flow analysis? A similar analysis was suggested over at DZ years ago but got no traction, until Shutter took up a flight simulation.
Thanks for the link Georger. I noticed some of the information he used is from X-Plane. http://data.x-plane.com/index.html
First, I followed the lead of WNYC’s 777 runway map by downloading the original XPlane dataset(1) and parsing through it to plot all of the runways longer than 5,000 ft, considered to be a minimum distance for a Boeing 777 to land (but not take off), as black dots. These do not factor in, in terms of where the airplane is located, but do show near where a 777 could land, if it’s in the area.
Shutter and Georger, where is this link to the Bayesian analysis of MH flight 370 that you are talking about?
You mean this? 370 analysis link (http://www.fastcolabs.com/3028265/how-i-narrowed-down-the-location-of-malaysia-air-using-monte-carlo-da)
http://www.fastcolabs.com/3028265/how-i-narrowed-down-the-location-of-malaysia-air-using-monte-carlo-da
See also: link1 (http://www.slideshare.net/misilamani/the-bayes-theory-autosaved-32357547)
and discussion at,
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/03/26/mh370-new-satellite-analysis-helps-define-flights-end-point/
-
Shutter and Georger, where is this link to the Bayesian analysis of MH flight 370 that you are talking about?
You mean this? 370 analysis link (http://www.fastcolabs.com/3028265/how-i-narrowed-down-the-location-of-malaysia-air-using-monte-carlo-da)
http://www.fastcolabs.com/3028265/how-i-narrowed-down-the-location-of-malaysia-air-using-monte-carlo-da
See also: link1 (http://www.slideshare.net/misilamani/the-bayes-theory-autosaved-32357547)
and discussion at,
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/03/26/mh370-new-satellite-analysis-helps-define-flights-end-point/
It was apparently Link 1. Thank you.
-
Here is a short video I made showing the view from the rear stairs on the simulator....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my4tox9Bn1I
-
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! I'm having flashbacks!
-
Don't worry, Shutter has erased your fingerprints. Go back to bed.
-
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! I'm having flashbacks!
Hmmm, flashbacks? I didn't see any inverted, nose diving, totally out of control roller coaster plummets to earth leaving no survivors? 8) ;D ;)
-
Here is a short video I made showing the view from the rear stairs on the simulator....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my4tox9Bn1I
very nice! Question: Is the time and lighting condition accurate? What time did you set to? 8:11pm pst or close
to that?
-
I didn't set anything to that evening, I can. I was just showing the view so to speak. I don't know how accurate it is from day/nite? it does have day/month that can be set.
I'll set it for Nov, 24 @ 8:10 and show the view.
-
Coop, I just listened to a radio program that aired a month after the chute find. is there any supporting evidence that Cooper left the third chute on the plane after he jumped? I understand the missing D rings, but would still like to have something concrete about 3 chutes left behind.
this topic could also go under the clues topic, but does pertain to the flight path & jump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPrVJMa4C9I
-
I know of no records or documentation that states three chutes found abroad 305. Only two. One was a reserve, opened and strewn over a few seats, now in Seattle evidence. The second was the Pioneer and went back to Hayden eventually - 1980-something.
-
I know of no records or documentation that states three chutes found abroad 305. Only two. One was a reserve, opened and strewn over a few seats, now in Seattle evidence. The second was the Pioneer and went back to Hayden eventually - 1980-something.
That's what Galen stated in the video.....
-
I know of no records or documentation that states three chutes found abroad 305. Only two. One was a reserve, opened and strewn over a few seats, now in Seattle evidence. The second was the Pioneer and went back to Hayden eventually - 1980-something.
That's what Galen stated in the video.....
Unless someone has documentation or a source, I go with Ckret's version which is 2 chutes found on the plane.
One intact. The other stripped for chord. (as Bruce says) 2 chutes gone one of which was the chute with missing panels (which 377 says might have still worked!) but marked with an X and used as a demonstration chute ...
-
I know of no records or documentation that states three chutes found abroad 305. Only two. One was a reserve, opened and strewn over a few seats, now in Seattle evidence. The second was the Pioneer and went back to Hayden eventually - 1980-something.
That's what Galen stated in the video.....
Unless someone has documentation or a source, I go with Ckret's version which is 2 chutes found on the plane.
One intact. The other stripped for chord. (as Bruce says) 2 chutes gone one of which was the chute with missing panels (which 377 says might have still worked!) but marked with an X and used as a demonstration chute ...
377 would have to clarify what he means...here is what Carr said. I'm sure you have seen this.
The agent who originally interviewed Cossey mistakenly reported it was sewn shut. it was not sewn shut, the canopy was cut in half and the panels then sewn together. This was done so that when students practiced deploying the emergency canopy they could easily gather it and quickly stuff it back in the container for another practice throw.
-
Did Cooper keep the lights off in the cabin? I've been reading about McCoy's jump. it's so much different than what Cooper did. after reading it, you have to wonder if Cooper even had a plan where he was going to jump. if you ask me, it points again that he was going to jump early?
"The hijacker opened his luggage and covered the peephole between the cockpit and cabin. Observed by Second Officer Floyd Smith (fictitious name) through a slight space under the cockpit door, the hijacker quickly put on a jumpsuit, helmet, and parachute. Once he had shut off the cabin lights to better view the ground, the gunman demanded to be kept abreast of wind, ground, and air speeds; altimeter settings; and sky conditions."
-
Did Cooper keep the lights off in the cabin?
I don't remember what, if anything, Ckret may have said. But there is some evidence in the "Harrison" papers and one bit in the comm transcripts. At the same time as the "oscillation" report, someone at SEATAC noted that the forward cabin lights were on. Then, at 0559Z, there was a notation that apparently 305 had confirmed that one of the aft entry lights was on and the airstair lights were on. This was reported again at 0641Z. Then, when the plane landed at Reno, the tower said stair lights were on.
The aft entry lights were selectable. Either a dim incandescent or a bright fluorescent. The stair lights were two spotlights shining down on the end of the stair plus small lights on either side of the steps, alternating from one step to the next, but with one on each side of the second step up from the bottom.
I don't remember if anything has been established about the aft cabin lights.
-
Did Cooper keep the lights off in the cabin?
I don't remember what, if anything, Ckret may have said. But there is some evidence in the "Harrison" papers and one bit in the comm transcripts. At the same time as the "oscillation" report, someone at SEATAC noted that the forward cabin lights were on. Then, at 0559Z, there was a notation that apparently 305 had confirmed that one of the aft entry lights was on and the airstair lights were on. This was reported again at 0641Z. Then, when the plane landed at Reno, the tower said stair lights were on.
The aft entry lights were selectable. Either a dim incandescent or a bright fluorescent. The stair lights were two spotlights shining down on the end of the stair plus small lights on either side of the steps, alternating from one step to the next, but with one on each side of the second step up from the bottom.
I don't remember if anything has been established about the aft cabin lights.
Looking out from the stairs shouldn't have any affect with lighting, but inside you would think a glare issue would occur? it seems to bring it back to wanting to jump earlier than later? McCoy covered every angle except his mouth, and leaving a note behind...
-
Our suspect told us she opened the stairs in Southwest Washington. She was sitting at the top of the staircase where she was shielded from the wind watching for the lights of the Portland. She knew they would be flying Victor 23 and she knew the approximate speed so she could use her watch to time her jump to her predetermined spot near Woodburn, Oregon. (The fact that she could see the lights that night was verified in the transcripts from the flight when the pilot mentioned seeing the lights when they passed over Vancouver.) She also used the angle of the search light from Aurora Airport (45 degrees) to narrow in on the site. She had chosen Woodburn because the area was so flat. She had used the cord from one of the chutes to tie the moneybag to her in a manner that she could use it as a depth finder when she got close to the ground. She timed her jump but also used the light from I5 to let her know when to pull her chute (at about 1000 feet above the ground).
-
I've ran two tests today from take off to a finish point of crossing the Lewis river. I'm getting a time of 34 minutes of flight time. that's what the clock reads. I'm starting the clock, and allowing a 30 second stall prior to take off, or a 7:36:30 second real time take off time.
Temp 42 degree's
wind 180 degrees at 21 knots
altitude 10,000
Fuel Flow 4500
Flaps 15 degrees
Gear down
TAT reads -9
speed 160-170 KIAS
Ground Speed 195-201
It appears to me after doing this dozens of times. the path can be flown in the manor it's shown on the map. I think it boils down to asking how accurate the path is from east to west in many locations.
we have people claiming the plane was west of the known flight path. this has some documentation attached with it. I believe others believe the path was east of the known flight path. how do we figure out where the hell the plane was on November 24, 1971 at 7:51 to about 8:22 that evening?
-
I've ran two tests today from take off to a finish point of crossing the Lewis river. I'm getting a time of 34 minutes of flight time. that's what the clock reads. I'm starting the clock, and allowing a 30 second stall prior to take off, or a 7:36:30 second real time take off time.
Temp 42 degree's
wind 180 degrees at 21 knots
altitude 10,000
Fuel Flow 4500
Flaps 15 degrees
Gear down
TAT reads -9
speed 160-170 KIAS
Ground Speed 195-201
It appears to me after doing this dozens of times. the path can be flown in the manor it's shown on the map. I think it boils down to asking how accurate the path is from east to west in many locations.
we have people claiming the plane was west of the known flight path. this has some documentation attached with it. I believe others believe the path was east of the known flight path. how do we figure out where the hell the plane was on November 24, 1971 at 7:51 to about 8:22 that evening?
It sure as XXXX didn't come in over the Troutdale airport as JT says. There is ample firsthand documentation to discount that completely. I wish Rataczak would talk with us seriously. Oh well ...
Good work. Thanks.
PS: The placard defines the northern segment of the FP. I guess you can't use the money at TBar in the same way -
even if you draw a reasonable arc (well defined) around the whole area of TBar and assume the plane had to cross somewhere within that radius. That would be the ordinary approach. If you back up toward Vancouver say 4 miles now I'm willing to bet the FBI would have accepted that as falling within 'defined limits', whatever those limits are?
Yes there is the matter of flow. Maybe the money washed in from Idaho! I think that's somewhere east of the Washougal. Maybe it washed in from ..... France where they had the Dan Cooper comic! France is east of the Washougal! Point is, in this whole discussion lasting years literally nobody (save for R99) has been willing to try and define a reasonable radius from Tina Bar ... which the people in France would accept! Funny.
So, here's a brand new theory: the dredging deposits at Tina Bar aren't the whole story! There were deposits put east of Tina Bar, on Fazio property, which we have not been told about! Those deposits came from ... dredging more near Portland! Viola! It is those deposits that moved the money to Tina Bar after a period of time? Some scenario like that. That compromise keeps the FBI flight path and moves money to Tina Bar. I like compromises with the Devil!
-
There has to be a simple solution to all of this. either the path is off, east, or west, or something is wrong with the timing, and how the transcripts are recorded? human error, along with calculation error's could hold the secret. If you go by Rats calculations of up to 15 minutes on the pressure bump. he is past the Columbia and plopped in the Willamette, or any of the surround waters? Smith lake, Byee lake.
Here is a short video I made showing roughly the 8:16 - 8:17 mark. the plane starts it's turn, but look at all the water!!!!!!! I'm not exactly on the path, but close enough for the video. the video is in slow motion so you can see better. the plane would wiz by to fast in regular speed :)
I just noticed I forgot to take the video out of my Tomcat breaking the sound barrier....a bonus I guess HaHa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koDzl-PF13Y
-
The placard really bugs me for some reason. looking at the photo it appears it was attached at the corners. Cooper possibly, in his frustration ripped it off the wall while trying to get the stairs down, or past the point where he thought they would go down. it could of landed on the stairs, but how did it get out if he ripped it off the wall miles back. he must of been on the stairs which would cause more airflow into the area?
The transcripts say the last contact was 55 minutes ago at the 8:52 mark. that's not 8:05. this would put Coopers last contact before Toledo. have I went too far off the deep end on this? it seemed precise by saying 55, not a half hour, or 45, but around 55 minutes?
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-4f696e1f/turbine/la-db-cooper7_lp9yabnc/620)
-
The placard really bugs me for some reason. looking at the photo it appears it was attached at the corners. Cooper possibly, in his frustration ripped it off the wall while trying to get the stairs down, or past the point where he thought they would go down. it could of landed on the stairs, but how did it get out if he ripped it off the wall miles back. he must of been on the stairs which would cause more airflow into the area?
The transcripts say the last contact was 55 minutes ago at the 8:52 mark. that's not 8:05. this would put Coopers last contact before Toledo. have I went too far off the deep end on this? it seemed precise by saying 55, not a half hour, or 45, but around 55 minutes?
where, what time, does the Transcript say this? ... Ok have it below:
"(8:52pm pst) NWA - Flight over EUC (EUG?) VOR, 100000’, 170KIAS, fuel aboard
33,5000lb, FP and configuration remained the same (on V23). Advised that they had had
no communications with the HJ for “about the last 55 minutes” despite several attempts on cockpit to cabin inter phone and PA system. Crew has assured that fuel was more than adequate to get to RNO, that RNO weather was good, etc. SEADD had also been actively following and participating in these events. "
The they is NWA or ATC ? Contradicts everything Ckret, Rataczak, Anderson, etal have ever said.
-
see photo...it's at the 8:52 mark.
-
see photo...it's at the 8:52 mark.
Yep, found it and revised mine above. Its stuff like this that drives me crazy. Maybe different clocks, different info, from different people.
-
see photo...it's at the 8:52 mark.
Yep, found it and revised mine above. Its stuff like this that drives me crazy. Maybe different clocks, different info, from different people.
Seems Anderson would be the key person to talk to about tracking....
-
see photo...it's at the 8:52 mark.
Yep, found it and revised mine above. Its stuff like this that drives me crazy. Maybe different clocks, different info, from different people.
Seems Anderson would be the key person to talk to about tracking....
Tracking? You mean the flight path? We already talked to him about times etc ... he confirms R's 8:05 but says there was one more communication (specific instruction) after 8:05, then added the part about them all 'discussing' the bump at length before Rat then reported it ...
-
see photo...it's at the 8:52 mark.
Yep, found it and revised mine above. Its stuff like this that drives me crazy. Maybe different clocks, different info, from different people.
Seems Anderson would be the key person to talk to about tracking....
Tracking? You mean the flight path? We already talked to him about times etc ... he confirms R's 8:05 but says there was one more communication (specific instruction) after 8:05, then added the part about them all 'discussing' the bump at length before Rat then reported it ...
was it a interview with him, or someone out of the media?
-
see photo...it's at the 8:52 mark.
Yep, found it and revised mine above. Its stuff like this that drives me crazy. Maybe different clocks, different info, from different people.
Seems Anderson would be the key person to talk to about tracking....
Tracking? You mean the flight path? We already talked to him about times etc ... he confirms R's 8:05 but says there was one more communication (specific instruction) after 8:05, then added the part about them all 'discussing' the bump at length before Rat then reported it ...
was it a interview with him, or someone out of the media?
Interview last year - Hom and I submitted rounds of questions over several weeks.
-
I've ran two tests today from take off to a finish point of crossing the Lewis river. I'm getting a time of 34 minutes of flight time. that's what the clock reads. I'm starting the clock, and allowing a 30 second stall prior to take off, or a 7:36:30 second real time take off time.
Temp 42 degree's
wind 180 degrees at 21 knots
altitude 10,000
Fuel Flow 4500
Flaps 15 degrees
Gear down
TAT reads -9
speed 160-170 KIAS
Ground Speed 195-201
It appears to me after doing this dozens of times. the path can be flown in the manor it's shown on the map. I think it boils down to asking how accurate the path is from east to west in many locations.
we have people claiming the plane was west of the known flight path. this has some documentation attached with it. I believe others believe the path was east of the known flight path. how do we figure out where the hell the plane was on November 24, 1971 at 7:51 to about 8:22 that evening?
It sure as XXXX didn't come in over the Troutdale airport as JT says. There is ample firsthand documentation to discount that completely. I wish Rataczak would talk with us seriously. Oh well ...
Good work. Thanks.
PS: The placard defines the northern segment of the FP. I guess you can't use the money at TBar in the same way -
even if you draw a reasonable arc (well defined) around the whole area of TBar and assume the plane had to cross somewhere within that radius. That would be the ordinary approach. If you back up toward Vancouver say 4 miles now I'm willing to bet the FBI would have accepted that as falling within 'defined limits', whatever those limits are?
Yes there is the matter of flow. Maybe the money washed in from Idaho! I think that's somewhere east of the Washougal. Maybe it washed in from ..... France where they had the Dan Cooper comic! France is east of the Washougal! Point is, in this whole discussion lasting years literally nobody (save for R99) has been willing to try and define a reasonable radius from Tina Bar ... which the people in France would accept! Funny.
So, here's a brand new theory: the dredging deposits at Tina Bar aren't the whole story! There were deposits put east of Tina Bar, on Fazio property, which we have not been told about! Those deposits came from ... dredging more near Portland! Viola! It is those deposits that moved the money to Tina Bar after a period of time? Some scenario like that. That compromise keeps the FBI flight path and moves money to Tina Bar. I like compromises with the Devil!
Georger and Shutter, let's discuss some limitations involving the Tina Bar area. At Tina Bar, the Columbia River runs almost straight north, or about 2 degrees east of true north to be exact. So the Fazio property is EAST of Tina Bar and about one-fourth of a mile wide (measured east to west). On the east side of the Fazio property, at least the sand and dairy operations part of it, is the North West Lower River Road which is built on top of a levee. So basically nothing is going to move across the Fazio property from the east except during extreme flooding which would have to top the North West Lower River Road and cover most of the Fazio property.
I believe some dredged material was placed between the river's edge and the sand operation which is on the south side of the dairy operation. But personally, I doubt that any dredged material included Cooper or the money. Since more than one packet of bills were found together, it suggests to me that they didn't move very far after getting out of the money bag and also suggests repeatability in that the packets may have arrived at the same location at slightly different times (maybe a handful of days).
The Columbia River's normal level is about 5 to 7 feet Above Sea Level with a daily tidal variation of less than 2 feet. Based on photographs of the FBI agents digging after the money find, I would estimate that the money was found at about 10 to 12 feet ASL. And the money would have to arrive at Tina Bar at that level or above it.
Further, Tom Kaye's money experiments indicated that the first thing that happens to a packet of bills (with one rubber band at the center) is that the bills fan out and then the packet sinks and stays on the bottom. This means to me that once on the bottom, the bills would never return to the surface. So to repeat, the money would have to arrive at Tina Bar at the level it was found or from above that level.
Tom used his experiments to discount the Washougal Wash Down theory. I completely agree with that and would go further by stating that the airliner was never over the Washougal watershed in the first place. So in my opinion, if the money was ever in the Columbia River its entrance into the river would have to be roughly somewhere between Tina Bar and the point where the airliner crossed back over solid ground several miles south of Tina Bar.
Remember that if the airliner was bypassing Portland on the west side, as suggested by some of the maps and book narratives, it would basically fly over the Columbia River for several miles and would not be further west than the west side of the river as it passed Tina Bar. This simple consideration suggests that Cooper would have to be a no-pull and died in the jump. It also suggest that Cooper landed on solid ground on the EAST side of the river in the Tina Bar area. The reasoning for this is quite simple and involves parachute operational considerations. The flushing channel between the Columbia River and Vancouver Lake is basically the southernmost point that Cooper could have landed.
So broadly speaking, in my opinion Cooper landed somewhere between Tina Bar and the flushing channel (north and south) and between the Columbia River and the North West Lower River Road (east and west). A study of contour maps reduces greatly the possible landing sites for Cooper. When all is said and done, a landing area for Cooper can probably be stated that is less than one-half square mile in size, and perhaps as little as one-eight of a square mile. Hopefully, more accurate data than is presently available will be released in due time. If that happens, then meaningful progress can be made in resolving the Cooper case.
Robert99
-
I've ran two tests today from take off to a finish point of crossing the Lewis river. I'm getting a time of 34 minutes of flight time. that's what the clock reads. I'm starting the clock, and allowing a 30 second stall prior to take off, or a 7:36:30 second real time take off time.
Temp 42 degree's
wind 180 degrees at 21 knots
altitude 10,000
Fuel Flow 4500
Flaps 15 degrees
Gear down
TAT reads -9
speed 160-170 KIAS
Ground Speed 195-201
It appears to me after doing this dozens of times. the path can be flown in the manor it's shown on the map. I think it boils down to asking how accurate the path is from east to west in many locations.
we have people claiming the plane was west of the known flight path. this has some documentation attached with it. I believe others believe the path was east of the known flight path. how do we figure out where the hell the plane was on November 24, 1971 at 7:51 to about 8:22 that evening?
It sure as XXXX didn't come in over the Troutdale airport as JT says. There is ample firsthand documentation to discount that completely. I wish Rataczak would talk with us seriously. Oh well ...
Good work. Thanks.
PS: The placard defines the northern segment of the FP. I guess you can't use the money at TBar in the same way -
even if you draw a reasonable arc (well defined) around the whole area of TBar and assume the plane had to cross somewhere within that radius. That would be the ordinary approach. If you back up toward Vancouver say 4 miles now I'm willing to bet the FBI would have accepted that as falling within 'defined limits', whatever those limits are?
Yes there is the matter of flow. Maybe the money washed in from Idaho! I think that's somewhere east of the Washougal. Maybe it washed in from ..... France where they had the Dan Cooper comic! France is east of the Washougal! Point is, in this whole discussion lasting years literally nobody (save for R99) has been willing to try and define a reasonable radius from Tina Bar ... which the people in France would accept! Funny.
So, here's a brand new theory: the dredging deposits at Tina Bar aren't the whole story! There were deposits put east of Tina Bar, on Fazio property, which we have not been told about! Those deposits came from ... dredging more near Portland! Viola! It is those deposits that moved the money to Tina Bar after a period of time? Some scenario like that. That compromise keeps the FBI flight path and moves money to Tina Bar. I like compromises with the Devil!
Georger and Shutter, let's discuss some limitations involving the Tina Bar area. At Tina Bar, the Columbia River runs almost straight north, or about 2 degrees east of true north to be exact. So the Fazio property is EAST of Tina Bar and about one-fourth of a mile wide (measured east to west). On the east side of the Fazio property, at least the sand and dairy operations part of it, is the North West Lower River Road which is built on top of a levee. So basically nothing is going to move across the Fazio property from the east except during extreme flooding which would have to top the North West Lower River Road and cover most of the Fazio property.
I believe some dredged material was placed between the river's edge and the sand operation which is on the south side of the dairy operation. But personally, I doubt that any dredged material included Cooper or the money. Since more than one packet of bills were found together, it suggests to me that they didn't move very far after getting out of the money bag and also suggests repeatability in that the packets may have arrived at the same location at slightly different times (maybe a handful of days).
The Columbia River's normal level is about 5 to 7 feet Above Sea Level with a daily tidal variation of less than 2 feet. Based on photographs of the FBI agents digging after the money find, I would estimate that the money was found at about 10 to 12 feet ASL. And the money would have to arrive at Tina Bar at that level or above it.
Further, Tom Kaye's money experiments indicated that the first thing that happens to a packet of bills (with one rubber band at the center) is that the bills fan out and then the packet sinks and stays on the bottom. This means to me that once on the bottom, the bills would never return to the surface. So to repeat, the money would have to arrive at Tina Bar at the level it was found or from above that level.
Tom used his experiments to discount the Washougal Wash Down theory. I completely agree with that and would go further by stating that the airliner was never over the Washougal watershed in the first place. So in my opinion, if the money was ever in the Columbia River its entrance into the river would have to be roughly somewhere between Tina Bar and the point where the airliner crossed back over solid ground several miles south of Tina Bar.
Remember that if the airliner was bypassing Portland on the west side, as suggested by some of the maps and book narratives, it would basically fly over the Columbia River for several miles and would not be further west than the west side of the river as it passed Tina Bar. This simple consideration suggests that Cooper would have to be a no-pull and died in the jump. It also suggest that Cooper landed on solid ground on the EAST side of the river in the Tina Bar area. The reasoning for this is quite simple and involves parachute operational considerations. The flushing channel between the Columbia River and Vancouver Lake is basically the southernmost point that Cooper could have landed.
So broadly speaking, in my opinion Cooper landed somewhere between Tina Bar and the flushing channel (north and south) and between the Columbia River and the North West Lower River Road (east and west). A study of contour maps reduces greatly the possible landing sites for Cooper. When all is said and done, a landing area for Cooper can probably be stated that is less than one-half square mile in size, and perhaps as little as one-eight of a square mile. Hopefully, more accurate data than is presently available will be released in due time. If that happens, then meaningful progress can be made in resolving the Cooper case.
Robert99
It is a viable theory. Im not sure I like packets arriving separately then stacking in the same location? I would prefer packets arriving in cemented blocks held together by sediment. Of course if Dorwin's 'part of a brief case was found' is ever confirmed, then its a new ball game.
By what date do you want the money in the Ingram location? Under how much sediment?
-
It is a viable theory. Im not sure I like packets arriving separately then stacking in the same location? I would prefer packets arriving in cemented blocks held together by sediment. Of course if Dorwin's 'part of a brief case was found' is ever confirmed, then its a new ball game.
By what date do you want the money in the Ingram location? Under how much sediment?
Last July, Meyer Louie and I talked to a fisherman named "Jon" (or maybe "John") who claimed that he had basically visited Tina Bar just about ever day since the date of the hijacking. And with the other fisherman who were at Tina Bar frequently, it is a bit of a surprise that the money was not found before it was covered by sand. I don't see any rational explanation for the non-discovery unless there was snow or other bad weather that keep people away for several days or longer.
I believe Brian Ingram stated that the packets were under about 1 to 3 inches of sand. And they were cemented together. Also, one of the packets had obviously been exposed to water before it was cemented since some of the bills had been rotated and portions of them torn off before being buried. You have stated elsewhere that the sand between the bills was "rounded" and that Palmer called it Columbia River "silt". Presumably, the "silt" in question also coated the land above the level where the bills were found. This last point could have been accomplished during earlier flooding, some of which got to 16 feet above sea level or just below the top of the "dam" for the dairy retention pond. Jon said that he had never seen the river water level high enough to actually flow into the retention pond.
Unless you and Tom Kaye are permitted to do some additional tests that finds evidence of Columbia River water contamination, such as those missing diatoms, there is no data to indicate that the money packets were ever in the river. This despite the obvious conclusion that the money may well have been buried in cemented form under several inches of sand, which in turn was under maybe up to 6 or 10 feet of river water. So the packets would have been exposed to the round sand or "silt" prior to arriving at the location of their discovery at Tina Bar.
To me, this suggests that the prior location(s) of the packets would have been exposed to moving water (other than river water) on at least some occasions and that was the water that cemented the packets and "torqued" one of them. Perhaps the cementing of the packets could occur while the bills were more or less protected to some extent by the money bag, or whatever, but the torqued packet would need direct contact without protection with moving water (perhaps rainwater) before being cemented. This suggests that the packets spent some significant time elsewhere before they arrived at Tina Bar. The fact that some of the bills were in quite good condition when cemented supports the idea that the cementing took place soon after the hijacking.
Do you know what the Columbia River water level at Vancouver was on the date of the hijacking? When did it reach 10 to 12 feet? Also, the construction of the flushing channel and the marina, just upstream of Tina Bar, may have figured into this one way or another. Does Amazon, who used to keep her boat there, know the date of the marina's construction?
Robert99
-
The transcripts say the last contact was 55 minutes ago at the 8:52 mark. that's not 8:05. this would put Coopers last contact before Toledo. have I went too far off the deep end on this? it seemed precise by saying 55, not a half hour, or 45, but around 55 minutes?
where, what time, does the Transcript say this? ... Ok have it below:
"(8:52pm pst) NWA - Flight over EUC (EUG?) VOR, 100000’, 170KIAS, fuel aboard
33,5000lb, FP and configuration remained the same (on V23). Advised that they had had
no communications with the HJ for “about the last 55 minutes” despite several attempts on cockpit to cabin inter phone and PA system. Crew has assured that fuel was more than adequate to get to RNO, that RNO weather was good, etc. SEADD had also been actively following and participating in these events. "
The they is NWA or ATC ? Contradicts everything Ckret, Rataczak, Anderson, etal have ever said.
This is not from a transcript. It is part of the incident report produced by NWA and provided to the FBI. The report is generally in chronological sequence, but has several cases of things being lumped together in a single paragraph and assigned one time although the different things were actually logged at separate times in the actual transcripts. Times in this incident report are therefore inprecise. The beginning of the report is a page that explains that the info was produced mostly from notes kept by multiple people. The page also cautions that times may not be precise.
Below are copies of parts of the notes made by two people (Immel & Lowenthal). (I'll put one in the following post.)These are from the George Harrison papers.
Note that the info about the last contact was actually logged at 0500Z, not 0452. Whoever did the incident report took things that happened at two different times and assigned them both a single time. From both of these note sources, the last contact was at about 0405Z (8:05).
The "they" is the 305 crew. "They" refers to "Flight" at the beginning.
-
2nd source of notes
Damn. Those turned out big.
-
Hmmm, why, or how would they leave out the 9:00 entry, and seemingly get the figures mixed up. TAT, FF (fuel flow) etc. wasn't the transcripts type in "play by play" action, or as they were being transmitted?
-
Perhaps I can help clarify these matters at least a bit. When in the Seattle and Portland areas, the Air Traffic Control transcript (which has been heavily redacted) contained only the information related to the air traffic control functions. These exchanges between the flight crew and various air traffic controllers were made on the standard ATC VHF radio frequencies. These exchanges could be heard by anyone who had a VHF receiver that could be tuned to the appropriate frequency and was within range of the transmissions by the airliner and the controllers. The controllers also had telephone conversations between each other while coordinating the controlling of the airliner. These telephone conversations would also be recorded but not necessarily embedded in the same tape as the radio transmissions.
The aircraft performance information, plus other things, was being transmitted on an ARINC VHF radio frequency, "formatted" by the receiving ARINC ground station, and then transmitted on the ARINC teletype network to various Northwest Airlines locations including Seattle and Minneapolis. In the special case of the hijacking, the ARINC VHF radio communications were also phone patched to Seattle and Minneapolis and perhaps other locations. Thus the NWA ground stations that had the phone patches would hear the transmissions from the airliner on the ARINC frequency live and then, a few minutes later, would receive the formatted teletype version of the message. The teletype version of the message would contain a time record that indicated when it was transmitted on the teletype system and this could be, and would be, a few minutes after the actual live transmission. One of the people in Seattle lists the time of the live reception of the "23 DME miles south of Portland" message as 8:18 while the teletype version was transmitted with an 8:22 time hack.
Presumably, the entire voice radio exchanges between the airliner, ARINC personnel, and NWA personnel would have been tape recorded. And the radio exchanges on the ARINC frequency could be heard by anyone with a VHF radio receiver and within range of the appropriate transmitters. However, there does not seem to have been a complete transcript prepared of the ARINC messages related to the NWA airliner.
Robert99
-
Hmmm, why, or how would they leave out the 9:00 entry, and seemingly get the figures mixed up. TAT, FF (fuel flow) etc. wasn't the transcripts type in "play by play" action, or as they were being transmitted?
They didn't leave out the 9pm (0500Z) entry OR get the figures mixed up. THIS INFO IS NOT IN "THE TRANSCRIPTS"!
The info you're showing is not part of a TRANSCRIPT. It is part of an incident report prepared after the incident, largely from notes (including event times) prepared by people who were listening as the events unfolded. The temp and FF were reported and were noted, but whoever prepared the incident report didn't include the temp. Why should they? Do you think that temp was going to mean anything to the people (FBI) who were going to get the report? And there was no reason to specifically state the FF because they said, instead, that it was the same as it had been.
The "transcripts" are "play by play." This incident report is like an executive summary.
-
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the two sets. the paragraph I put on here is from the PDF that explains at the top the information was taken primarily from manual recorded notes during communications connected with the hijacking, or as they said it high-jacking. on 11/25/71. should I not be stating transcripts? I understand the section Georger posted, those, if I'm correct are the Harrison papers.
-
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the two sets. the paragraph I put on here is from the PDF that explains at the top the information was taken primarily from manual recorded notes during communications connected with the hijacking, or as they said it high-jacking. on 11/25/71. should I not be stating transcripts? I understand the section Georger posted, those, if I'm correct are the Harrison papers.
Shutter, take a look at the top of the page you are quoting and if it says "08/20/2008, 13:15, FAX ( FBI's FAX number blacked out), F.B.I. Seattle, 001/017" then you are looking at the first page of the 17 pages of the "FBI Notes". These "notes" were compiled from a number of documents and all 17 pages of them were FAXed to Sluggo by Larry Carr in 2008. They may very well contain information from the Seattle ATC transcripts as well as the ARINC teletypewriter printouts plus notes from other personnel who were listening in on the ARINC and ATC voice communications.
So the "notes" contain any errors that may have appeared in the original documents that the FBI used to compile their notes. In addition, these notes are not all inclusive of the original documents. As Hominid says, they are basically a summary of the overall incident.
Robert99
-
Yes, that's the date on the PDF.....
-
which ones should I be looking at for accurate information?
-
which ones should I be looking at for accurate information?
Specifically what information are you looking for?
-
So the "notes" contain any errors that may have appeared in the original documents that the FBI used to compile their notes.
They are not notes compiled by the FBI. They are an incident report by/from NWA. READ IT.
-
So the "notes" contain any errors that may have appeared in the original documents that the FBI used to compile their notes.
They are not notes compiled by the FBI. They are an incident report by/from NWA. READ IT.
I just want to make sure of what I'm looking at it correct. like the 8:52 mark. which set has the best known times frames? I remember going through this with Hominid, but it's been a while since I really started back reading them. sometimes the tools in the shed get dull on me :)
-
I just want to make sure of what I'm looking at it correct. like the 8:52 mark. which set has the best known times frames? I remember going through this with Hominid, but it's been a while since I really started back reading them. sometimes the tools in the shed get dull on me :)
The "transcripts," which include transcribed radio comms and include the teletype messages with time stamps, is a PDF that is 1.02MB. I think it is available at DZ and also the Seattle Post Intelligencer. The history museum got a copy recently directly from the FBI. Here is the link to it: history museum copy of transcripts (http://collections.washingtonhistory.org/emuwebwshs/objects/common/webmedia.php?irn=18961)
-
I just want to make sure of what I'm looking at it correct. like the 8:52 mark. which set has the best known times frames? I remember going through this with Hominid, but it's been a while since I really started back reading them. sometimes the tools in the shed get dull on me :)
The "transcripts," which include transcribed radio comms and include the teletype messages with time stamps, is a PDF that is 1.02MB. I think it is available at DZ and also the Seattle Post Intelligencer. The history museum got a copy recently directly from the FBI. Here is the link to it: history museum copy of transcripts (http://collections.washingtonhistory.org/emuwebwshs/objects/common/webmedia.php?irn=18961)
I have both PDF's, one says DB Cooper transcripts, and starts at 3:07 pm. the other 6-20-2008 as the title to the PDF. also has the handwritten times on them in black.
-
It is a viable theory. Im not sure I like packets arriving separately then stacking in the same location? I would prefer packets arriving in cemented blocks held together by sediment. Of course if Dorwin's 'part of a brief case was found' is ever confirmed, then its a new ball game.
By what date do you want the money in the Ingram location? Under how much sediment?
Last July, Meyer Louie and I talked to a fisherman named "Jon" (or maybe "John") who claimed that he had basically visited Tina Bar just about ever day since the date of the hijacking. And with the other fisherman who were at Tina Bar frequently, it is a bit of a surprise that the money was not found before it was covered by sand. I don't see any rational explanation for the non-discovery unless there was snow or other bad weather that keep people away for several days or longer.
I believe Brian Ingram stated that the packets were under about 1 to 3 inches of sand. And they were cemented together. Also, one of the packets had obviously been exposed to water before it was cemented since some of the bills had been rotated and portions of them torn off before being buried. You have stated elsewhere that the sand between the bills was "rounded" and that Palmer called it Columbia River "silt". Presumably, the "silt" in question also coated the land above the level where the bills were found. This last point could have been accomplished during earlier flooding, some of which got to 16 feet above sea level or just below the top of the "dam" for the dairy retention pond. Jon said that he had never seen the river water level high enough to actually flow into the retention pond.
Unless you and Tom Kaye are permitted to do some additional tests that finds evidence of Columbia River water contamination, such as those missing diatoms, there is no data to indicate that the money packets were ever in the river. This despite the obvious conclusion that the money may well have been buried in cemented form under several inches of sand, which in turn was under maybe up to 6 or 10 feet of river water. So the packets would have been exposed to the round sand or "silt" prior to arriving at the location of their discovery at Tina Bar.
To me, this suggests that the prior location(s) of the packets would have been exposed to moving water (other than river water) on at least some occasions and that was the water that cemented the packets and "torqued" one of them. Perhaps the cementing of the packets could occur while the bills were more or less protected to some extent by the money bag, or whatever, but the torqued packet would need direct contact without protection with moving water (perhaps rainwater) before being cemented. This suggests that the packets spent some significant time elsewhere before they arrived at Tina Bar. The fact that some of the bills were in quite good condition when cemented supports the idea that the cementing took place soon after the hijacking.
Do you know what the Columbia River water level at Vancouver was on the date of the hijacking? When did it reach 10 to 12 feet? Also, the construction of the flushing channel and the marina, just upstream of Tina Bar, may have figured into this one way or another. Does Amazon, who used to keep her boat there, know the date of the marina's construction?
Robert99
1. Jon's question is valid. Galen’s answer is money was found a few months before Feb 1980/Ingram. Another possible answer is the money was deposited and covered over by the same process – a high water event. Or as Tom suggested, the money was weathering out from deeper strata, in successive stages over a number of years . Again, there are tests that might help answer this question.
2. Lack of diatoms: The usual cause of a lack of surface diatoms is (a) lack of oxygen, (b) buried below the habitat zone. A possible third answer is: money was not there long enough, or too high on the beach, to be affected by the 1979 season of diatoms ? Again more tests need to be run.
3. Water data etc for 1971. I will try to dig that out. I think there was high water in ’72 but not as high as in 79.
4. I agree. There is nothing known that requires the bills were ever “in” the Columbia; only exposed to silt bearing river water, in the Columbia basin somewhere. Round river water sand would be conveyed in any exposed place.
What seems apparent is that no other unusual traits/sands/minerals were found either. Just a uniform slate of traits compatible with the Columbia river basin in the Tina Bar vicinity (versus places like the Washougal which has distinctive geological traits). In fact the uniformity of traits, common to this area, may be a distinguishing fact. And some traits specific to time spent at Tina Bar itself.
Let me stop with this much.
-
Hmmm, why, or how would they leave out the 9:00 entry, and seemingly get the figures mixed up. TAT, FF (fuel flow) etc. wasn't the transcripts type in "play by play" action, or as they were being transmitted?
They didn't leave out the 9pm (0500Z) entry OR get the figures mixed up. THIS INFO IS NOT IN "THE TRANSCRIPTS"!
The info you're showing is not part of a TRANSCRIPT. It is part of an incident report prepared after the incident, largely from notes (including event times) prepared by people who were listening as the events unfolded. The temp and FF were reported and were noted, but whoever prepared the incident report didn't include the temp. Why should they? Do you think that temp was going to mean anything to the people (FBI) who were going to get the report? And there was no reason to specifically state the FF because they said, instead, that it was the same as it had been.
The "transcripts" are "play by play." This incident report is like an executive summary.
I think you are correct here. Im sorry I referred to my quote as being FROM the "Transcript", because in fact my quote I posted is from the "NWA Incident report".
I have this Word doc I use here. The doc is an assembled working doc. consisting of (1) the PI Transacript(s), (2) The NWA Incident Report, and (3) a few other documents I have. Everything is chronologically assembled, more or less as best as possible ... to get an overall "cross referenced flavor" of what was happening at some specific time.
Hom is entirely correct! This doc I use is a "bastardised" thing. But I use it so I wont have to go searching through a bunch of docs and can consult just one doc and usually find something, if I have a time (more or less)! Sorry for the confusion...
Didn't the NWA Incident report originally come from Carr via Sluggo?
-
Didn't the NWA Incident report originally come from Carr via Sluggo?
It is my understanding that the 17 page "FBI Notes" or "NWA Incident Report" was sent to Sluggo by Carr based on Sluggo's comments in the DZ thread. This document is also included in the 99 page version of the PI document. I believe Sluggo had all of this information posted on his web page in 2008. The background of the PI document seems to be something of a mystery and I don't know if it originated before or after Sluggo had the information on his web page.
-
.... the 17 page "FBI Notes" or "NWA Incident Report" ..... This document is also included in the 99 page version of the PI document.
The incident report is not part of the 99 pg PI document, which is "the transcript" (entirely transcript of different categories of radio comms). A small part of what is in the transcript is in the back of the incident report.
-
Ok, which bullshit story do we believe between the two documents.....which ones should go in the garbage? Hominid, you are the man when it comes to these documents. how about making one with the best known information in it, or can this be done?
My point being, it seems lots of people, including myself get confused with the two PDF's. we have lags in the time, differences between the two etc.
-
Didn't the NWA Incident report originally come from Carr via Sluggo?
It is my understanding that the 17 page "FBI Notes" or "NWA Incident Report" was sent to Sluggo by Carr based on Sluggo's comments in the DZ thread. This document is also included in the 99 page version of the PI document. I believe Sluggo had all of this information posted on his web page in 2008. The background of the PI document seems to be something of a mystery and I don't know if it originated before or after Sluggo had the information on his web page.
Take the attached photo and try to reconstruct (stack) the piles of bills into the stack found by Ingram.
(of course nobody knows what the cemented assemblage he found looked like!)
-
Didn't the NWA Incident report originally come from Carr via Sluggo?
It is my understanding that the 17 page "FBI Notes" or "NWA Incident Report" was sent to Sluggo by Carr based on Sluggo's comments in the DZ thread. This document is also included in the 99 page version of the PI document. I believe Sluggo had all of this information posted on his web page in 2008. The background of the PI document seems to be something of a mystery and I don't know if it originated before or after Sluggo had the information on his web page.
Take the attached photo and try to reconstruct (stack) the piles of bills into the stack found by Ingram.
(of course nobody knows what the cemented assemblage he found looked like!)
After getting the money back in its original order, please put Humpty Dumpty back together again for the benefit of the young pre-kindergarten kids.
-
Ok, which bullshit story do we believe between the two documents.....which ones should go in the garbage? Hominid, you are the man when it comes to these documents. how about making one with the best known information in it, or can this be done?
My point being, it seems lots of people, including myself get confused with the two PDF's. we have lags in the time, differences between the two etc.
The transcripts and the NWA incident report are just two of the few "windows" into the case. They are each part of the "evidence" we have, mostly about what the FBI has in its case file and evidence box. There is no one piece of the evidence that is all we need. There would probably be little concensus on what the best known info is.
Regarding when various things happened, parts of the "transcripts" are more precise and accurate than the incident report. Comparing things that were addressed in both reveals that things that were documented in the transcripts as occurring at different times were lumped together under single times in the report (and sometimes even out of sequence). And when you figure out that one of the documents is an incident report prepared after the fact, rather than an event log, then you can see why the report is not a good source of timing info. Don't use the report for accurate time, or in place of what is in the transcripts about times.
Until recently, the report was the only thing we had that addresses some of the events (Portland and south). There was no choice but to use the report info about the events, but keeping in mind that the time info in the report is less precise (besides the fact that the report is just some NWA management saying what they thought happened). Even at this point there is some info in the report that you can't find anywhere else.
The transcripts are themselves actually multiple documents, each with its own precision regarding time. The Seattle center transcript is the best because it gives times down to the second. These are probably times at which the communications began, but it doesn't matter much because these comms are generally brief.
At the bottom end of the transcripts are those for which the only times given are approximate times at the beginnings and ends of recordings.
In between, are the Oakland center transcripts and the teletype messages, which have nothing to do with ARINC as Robert claims. With the teletype messages you have to account for the fact that everything in a message was voice over a radio before the minute after the specified minute. That is, a message identified as 0411 was sent between 8:11:00 and 8:12:00 pst.
Recently we got a new source about what happened and when. These are logs created by multiple NWA employees (especially 2 of them) during the hijacking. One of them just told me that it was SOP in the company that people all over the company would make such logs, and someone would transcribe radio comms into a teletype, whenever they became aware of an "incident." He explains the obvious, that such logs become very useful in reconstructing what happened.
Of course we must expect that there would be some human error in such data. But the man said the employees (including himself) purposely tried to note times when the transmissions began, and said that every timepiece (including their watches) was meticulously synchronized to zulu time. There are now multiple, fairly accurate sources of what happened and when. Where they don't all agree, it is sometimes possible to resolve the ambiguity.
For anyone who reads this post, I'm sorry. It's too hard to say it in a sentence.
-
No problem Hom, write two pages if you so desire! thanks for all the info. it's frustrating on my end. I've read them both several times, but forget which is which while quoting something. it's a difficult situation when it comes to the PDF's. it's not so hard when you are aware of the details. I'll get it stuck in my head one way, or the other.....:)
-
Robert99, do you know much about the claims of the flight path east of the known path? I know Jerry Thomas is strong the path flew east. anything to toss into the conversation about this. I'd like to find everything out about the claims, all of them.
-
At the bottom end of the transcripts are those for which the only times given are approximate times at the beginnings and ends of recordings.
In between, are the Oakland center transcripts and the teletype messages, which have nothing to do with ARINC as Robert claims. With the teletype messages you have to account for the fact that everything in a message was voice over a radio before the minute after the specified minute. That is, a message identified as 0411 was sent between 8:11:00 and 8:12:00 pst.
HOMINID, SET UP AND PAY ATTENTION FOR A MINUTE HERE!
ARINC had EVERYTHING to do with those teletype messages and the networks over which they were transmitted. ARINC stands for AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INCORPORATED. It was set up to provide radio communications for the airlines that was not related to air traffic control. If you don't know what ARINC does, then Goggle it! The VHF radio frequency being used for the phone patch was an ARINC frequency and, again, the ARINC teletype messages were prepared from voice messages over that frequency.
As aircraft avionics and satellite capabilities have improved over the decades, voice and data transmitting capabilities have improved to the point where even engine performance parameters can be sent automatically from anywhere on the planet (if the airliner is above about 20,000 feet) to any place(s) desired. This is the source of the information (from a European company) that is now being used in the search for the missing Malaysian airliner.
Your first sentence above is not clear. Some of the teletypewriter printouts have the times listed both in PST and in Zulu time. The PST is plainly labeled and the Zulu time is in the last line of the printout and is bracketed by two letters on each end. Zulu time is 8 hours AHEAD of PST. There is nothing complicated about this.
Your assumption that the voice message was received only a minute before the message was transmitted by teletype is not supported by facts. For a very short message consisting of only a few words, it may be able to format it and transmit it in the same minute that is showing on the clock. But for longer messages, a short paragraph or so and shown in some of the printouts, it may well take two or three minutes for receipt, processing, and transmitting.
Robert99
-
Robert99, do you know much about the claims of the flight path east of the known path? I know Jerry Thomas is strong the path flew east. anything to toss into the conversation about this. I'd like to find everything out about the claims, all of them.
There is no data to support a flight path on the east side of Portland or anything that isn't on the far west side of Portland. A flight path on the east side of Portland would have added another 10 to 15 miles of flying (about 4 or 5 minutes) and would be great enough to show up in the data. It doesn't.
JT, like Jo and some others, needs a east side flight path to support their Washougal route or some other claim. There is no evidence that the airliner was ever over the Washougal watershed.
-
Robert99, do you know much about the claims of the flight path east of the known path? I know Jerry Thomas is strong the path flew east. anything to toss into the conversation about this. I'd like to find everything out about the claims, all of them.
There is no data to support a flight path on the east side of Portland or anything that isn't on the far west side of Portland. A flight path on the east side of Portland would have added another 10 to 15 miles of flying (about 4 or 5 minutes) and would be great enough to show up in the data. It doesn't.
JT, like Jo and some others, needs a east side flight path to support their Washougal route or some other claim. There is no evidence that the airliner was ever over the Washougal watershed.
That's kind of what I thought. I'm sure a fuel issue would also X this path out. hopefully we can get to the bottom of the damn scripts.
-
SIT UP AND PAY ATTENTION!
(anyone interested in learning something moderately
useful about the "Cooper" hijacking case)
HOMINID, SET UP AND PAY ATTENTION FOR A MINUTE HERE!
ARINC had EVERYTHING to do with those teletype messages and the networks over which they were transmitted. ARINC stands for AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INCORPORATED. It was set up to provide radio communications for the airlines that was not related to air traffic control. If you don't know what ARINC does, then Goggle it! The VHF radio frequency being used for the phone patch was an ARINC frequency and, again, the ARINC teletype messages were prepared from voice messages over that frequency.
Thank you for the condescending, basic (but useless) information. Someone who doesn't know could indeed easily find out by a web search something about "what ARINC does." (I don't recommend Goggle.) Someone who wants to know something actually relevant to the cooper case will have to find out what ARINC DID IN 1971 and what part of that service was actually USED BY NORTHWEST AIRLINES IN 1971. Your last sentence above is totally wrong, as I'll explain presently.
Someone who learns more than what your simpleton "Goggle" search yielded can find out that ARINC was indeed set up to provide radio comms for the airlines. However, it was "set up" by a group of airlines and was originally owned by that group. When that group "set up" ARINC, they transferred their existing long-range radio comm network assets to this new corporation they had established. Those airlines did it voluntarily. Not all airlines participated. NWA was not part of that group of airlines that transferred their comm networks to ARINC.
In 1971, Northwest Airlines had little need for ARINC and used ARINC very little. The reason for this is simple. Northwest Airlines had their own very extensive, very capable long range radio communications network. Every time they extended their service area, since the beginnings of the airline, they would install a very good radio station at each new airport they served. Had they ever sold off their radio network as a separate company, that company alone would have been worth probably 5%-10% as much as NWA. NWA had its own frequency assignments from the federal government.
(I was amazed when I learned how recently NWA finally transferred its long range radio communication assets to ARINC. It was just a handful of years before their merger into Delta. 2004 if I remember right.)
Because NWA had its own very good comm network in 1971, NWA's routine use of ARINC was pretty much limited to occasional situations in which a flight found itself somewhere in which it could not "get through" by radio but needed to communicate right away (rather than waiting until they could get through). The flight crews trained for this even if they never ended up actually having to do it.
To use ARINC in this situation, the company had to have an account with ARINC. The flight crew would radio the regional office of ARINC using the frequency everyone knew for that office. They would identify themselves (e.g., "Northwest flight 305") and say they wanted a message relayed to company dispatch, flight ops or whatever (as identified in the account subscription).
The ARINC office would take the message by voice, write it out in a highly structured way using standardized abbreviations, QA it, then teletype it to whatever airline office was identified in the airline subscription. ARINC used people very familiar with airline lingo to do all this, so the teletypes they sent out did not have the bonehead mistakes apparent throughout the teletype messages we see in the "transcripts."
For those situations in which a flight was "out of contact," NWA could also call ARINC to have ARINC contact the flight and relay a message to the flight. And, they could arrange for ARINC to set up a "phone patch."
"Phone patch" was an ARINC service that NWA actually did use during the hijacking, but not at all as you claim.
ARINC had a lot of radio stations scattered around, like at Salem, Eugene and Medford, OR. They also had a lot of radio frequencies assigned to them. (The same was true of NWA.) These assets were constantly being used for airline comms wherever the flights happened to be. But, in any specific area, ARINC generally had some frequencies available that were not being used.
When ARINC received a call from NWA (for example) to set up a "phone patch" with a flight, ARINC would select one of its frequencies that was not being used in the area where the flight was (or was going to be) and would tell the airline to use that selected frequency. ARINC would connect a telephone circuit to a transceiver set to the selected frequency. The other end of the telephone circuit would be at an NWA office.
The flight 305 crew would talk into their radio (set to the assigned frequency), the transceiver nearby (like at Eugene) would receive the signal and send it out over the telephone circuit. NWA flight ops would talk back into the telephone, the signal would travel by telephone to that transceiver, which would convert it to a radio signal that would "wing its way" up to flight 305. A patch between radio and telephone, hence "phone patch." No teletype. However, this ARINC service did normally include the recording of all communication on the circuit.
When the flight eventually flew long enough to get close to the range limit of that initial radio station and its transceiver, ARINC would have to arrange to provide similar service through another radio station (at Medford, for example). Another frequency would be available there, so ARINC would set a transceiver there to a new frequency and would patch that transceiver output into the same telephone circuit. And ARINC would notify NWA, which would notify the flight.
Anyone with the right radio could listen to the communications. But no flight other than 305 is going to talk on the frequency because doing so could result in ARINC terminating service for their airline. Besides, all the airlines have a stake in being able to have such semi-dedicated service. The phone patch was similar in function to a "dedicated" telephone line.
Back to the "phone patch" and hijack night:
When NWA found that 305 was going to be flying south of Portland, they knew they needed to arrange for comm coverage south of Portland. This is because their own network didn't extend down there, because they had no routes down there. So, they contacted ARINC and arranged for the phone patch south of Portland. The patch was set up and 305 actually switched over to it even before reaching Portland. Curious, isn't it, that the first use of the phone patch started when the teletype messages ended?
As the flight proceeded to Reno, ARINC assigned new frequencies (for different physical areas). The logs and transcripts refer to this. They were the frequency changes that were not associated with handoffs between controllers. At the end, there was even chatter about ARINC needing a bit of advance notice if the flight proceeded on down to Mexico.
The logs in the "Harrison" papers also include references to communications in which someone inquired about whether or not these (phone patch) comms were being recorded, with someone answering "affirmative."
At the bottom end of the transcripts are those for which the only times given are approximate times at the beginnings and ends of recordings.
In between, are the Oakland center transcripts and the teletype messages, which have nothing to do with ARINC as Robert claims. With the teletype messages you have to account for the fact that everything in a message was voice over a radio before the minute after the specified minute. That is, a message identified as 0411 was sent between 8:11:00 and 8:12:00 pst.
Your first sentence above is not clear. Some of the teletypewriter printouts have the times listed both in PST and in Zulu time. The PST is plainly labeled and the Zulu time is in the last line of the printout and is bracketed by two letters on each end. Zulu time is 8 hours AHEAD of PST. There is nothing complicated about this.
Robert99
What I was trying for in that first sentence is that some of the transcripts are at the bottom of the spectrum as far as time precision is concerned. Nothing to do with the teletype printouts.
Your assumption that the voice message was received only a minute before the message was transmitted by teletype is not supported by facts. For a very short message consisting of only a few words, it may be able to format it and transmit it in the same minute that is showing on the clock. But for longer messages, a short paragraph or so and shown in some of the printouts, it may well take two or three minutes for receipt, processing, and transmitting.
Your assumption that there was any "format it and transmit it" is not supported by facts. The messages were sent in the minute range identified at the end of the message, regardless of when the beginning of the message was first heard.
-
SIT UP AND PAY ATTENTION!
(anyone interested in learning something moderately
useful about the "Cooper" hijacking case)
HOMINID, SET UP AND PAY ATTENTION FOR A MINUTE HERE!
ARINC had EVERYTHING to do with those teletype messages and the networks over which they were transmitted. ARINC stands for AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INCORPORATED. It was set up to provide radio communications for the airlines that was not related to air traffic control. If you don't know what ARINC does, then Goggle it! The VHF radio frequency being used for the phone patch was an ARINC frequency and, again, the ARINC teletype messages were prepared from voice messages over that frequency.
Thank you for the condescending, basic (but useless) information. Someone who doesn't know could indeed easily find out by a web search something about "what ARINC does." (I don't recommend Goggle.) Someone who wants to know something actually relevant to the cooper case will have to find out what ARINC DID IN 1971 and what part of that service was actually USED BY NORTHWEST AIRLINES IN 1971. Your last sentence above is totally wrong, as I'll explain presently.
Someone who learns more than what your simpleton "Goggle" search yielded can find out that ARINC was indeed set up to provide radio comms for the airlines. However, it was "set up" by a group of airlines and was originally owned by that group. When that group "set up" ARINC, they transferred their existing long-range radio comm network assets to this new corporation they had established. Those airlines did it voluntarily. Not all airlines participated. NWA was not part of that group of airlines that transferred their comm networks to ARINC.
In 1971, Northwest Airlines had little need for ARINC and used ARINC very little. The reason for this is simple. Northwest Airlines had their own very extensive, very capable long range radio communications network. Every time they extended their service area, since the beginnings of the airline, they would install a very good radio station at each new airport they served. Had they ever sold off their radio network as a separate company, that company alone would have been worth probably 5%-10% as much as NWA. NWA had its own frequency assignments from the federal government.
(I was amazed when I learned how recently NWA finally transferred its long range radio communication assets to ARINC. It was just a handful of years before their merger into Delta. 2004 if I remember right.)
Because NWA had its own very good comm network in 1971, NWA's routine use of ARINC was pretty much limited to occasional situations in which a flight found itself somewhere in which it could not "get through" by radio but needed to communicate right away (rather than waiting until they could get through). The flight crews trained for this even if they never ended up actually having to do it.
To use ARINC in this situation, the company had to have an account with ARINC. The flight crew would radio the regional office of ARINC using the frequency everyone knew for that office. They would identify themselves (e.g., "Northwest flight 305") and say they wanted a message relayed to company dispatch, flight ops or whatever (as identified in the account subscription).
The ARINC office would take the message by voice, write it out in a highly structured way using standardized abbreviations, QA it, then teletype it to whatever airline office was identified in the airline subscription. ARINC used people very familiar with airline lingo to do all this, so the teletypes they sent out did not have the bonehead mistakes apparent throughout the teletype messages we see in the "transcripts."
For those situations in which a flight was "out of contact," NWA could also call ARINC to have ARINC contact the flight and relay a message to the flight. And, they could arrange for ARINC to set up a "phone patch."
"Phone patch" was an ARINC service that NWA actually did use during the hijacking, but not at all as you claim.
ARINC had a lot of radio stations scattered around, like at Salem, Eugene and Medford, OR. They also had a lot of radio frequencies assigned to them. (The same was true of NWA.) These assets were constantly being used for airline comms wherever the flights happened to be. But, in any specific area, ARINC generally had some frequencies available that were not being used.
When ARINC received a call from NWA (for example) to set up a "phone patch" with a flight, ARINC would select one of its frequencies that was not being used in the area where the flight was (or was going to be) and would tell the airline to use that selected frequency. ARINC would connect a telephone circuit to a transceiver set to the selected frequency. The other end of the telephone circuit would be at an NWA office.
The flight 305 crew would talk into their radio (set to the assigned frequency), the transceiver nearby (like at Eugene) would receive the signal and send it out over the telephone circuit. NWA flight ops would talk back into the telephone, the signal would travel by telephone to that transceiver, which would convert it to a radio signal that would "wing its way" up to flight 305. A patch between radio and telephone, hence "phone patch." No teletype. However, this ARINC service did normally include the recording of all communication on the circuit.
When the flight eventually flew long enough to get close to the range limit of that initial radio station and its transceiver, ARINC would have to arrange to provide similar service through another radio station (at Medford, for example). Another frequency would be available there, so ARINC would set a transceiver there to a new frequency and would patch that transceiver output into the same telephone circuit. And ARINC would notify NWA, which would notify the flight.
Anyone with the right radio could listen to the communications. But no flight other than 305 is going to talk on the frequency because doing so could result in ARINC terminating service for their airline. Besides, all the airlines have a stake in being able to have such semi-dedicated service. The phone patch was similar in function to a "dedicated" telephone line.
Back to the "phone patch" and hijack night:
When NWA found that 305 was going to be flying south of Portland, they knew they needed to arrange for comm coverage south of Portland. This is because their own network didn't extend down there, because they had no routes down there. So, they contacted ARINC and arranged for the phone patch south of Portland. The patch was set up and 305 actually switched over to it even before reaching Portland. Curious, isn't it, that the first use of the phone patch started when the teletype messages ended?
As the flight proceeded to Reno, ARINC assigned new frequencies (for different physical areas). The logs and transcripts refer to this. They were the frequency changes that were not associated with handoffs between controllers. At the end, there was even chatter about ARINC needing a bit of advance notice if the flight proceeded on down to Mexico.
The logs in the "Harrison" papers also include references to communications in which someone inquired about whether or not these (phone patch) comms were being recorded, with someone answering "affirmative."
At the bottom end of the transcripts are those for which the only times given are approximate times at the beginnings and ends of recordings.
In between, are the Oakland center transcripts and the teletype messages, which have nothing to do with ARINC as Robert claims. With the teletype messages you have to account for the fact that everything in a message was voice over a radio before the minute after the specified minute. That is, a message identified as 0411 was sent between 8:11:00 and 8:12:00 pst.
Your first sentence above is not clear. Some of the teletypewriter printouts have the times listed both in PST and in Zulu time. The PST is plainly labeled and the Zulu time is in the last line of the printout and is bracketed by two letters on each end. Zulu time is 8 hours AHEAD of PST. There is nothing complicated about this.
Robert99
What I was trying for in that first sentence is that some of the transcripts are at the bottom of the spectrum as far as time precision is concerned. Nothing to do with the teletype printouts.
Your assumption that the voice message was received only a minute before the message was transmitted by teletype is not supported by facts. For a very short message consisting of only a few words, it may be able to format it and transmit it in the same minute that is showing on the clock. But for longer messages, a short paragraph or so and shown in some of the printouts, it may well take two or three minutes for receipt, processing, and transmitting.
Your assumption that there was any "format it and transmit it" is not supported by facts. The messages were sent in the minute range identified at the end of the message, regardless of when the beginning of the message was first heard.
You have made a very abrupt U-turn on your claims about ARINC's involvement in the airliner communications on the evening of the hijacking. Now instead of claiming that ARINC was not involved at all, you give a lecture about the history of ARINC and your assumptions about its relationship with NWA.
Again, contrary to your earlier allegations, the Xerox copies of the ARINC teletype messages (which you call "transcripts") are a record of how and what NWA and others, excluding the Seattle and Oakland ATC Centers, communicated with the hijacked airliner. The Seattle and Oakland ATC Centers, plus other air traffic control facilities, used their own equipment to communicate with the airliner. The NWA/FBI and others used ARINC capabilities for both the teletype messages as well as the voice phone patches. And contrary to your claims, the ARINC teletype messages were "formatted" to ARINC standards before transmission. I'm taking ARINC's word on that point over your claims.
It is unlikely that NWA had superior communication capabilities to TWA, PAA, and other such airlines that had extensive international operations. And let me point out again, ARINC was not involved in air traffic control which was handled by the FAA through their own facilities. Generally, you don't seem to understand the functions of these organizations and who had responsibility for what.
-
You have made a very abrupt U-turn on your claims about ARINC's involvement in the airliner communications on the evening of the hijacking. Now instead of claiming that ARINC was not involved at all, you give a lecture about the history of ARINC and your assumptions about its relationship with NWA.
No U-turn. If you had actually read my earlier post you would know that I have never claimed that ARINC was not involved at all. It's also obvious that you didn't actually read the most recent post. No surprise. (That's why I didn't address it to you.) It's typical of you. Scan things looking for something you can bend to support your stupid concepts, or something to attack because it doesn't support your stupid concepts.
You should try to actually understand the lecture. It explains why NWA was able to do in 1971 the same things as ARINC did as long as NWA's flight was in their historical service area. The only difference was that ARINC had to be concerned with routing to and from their airline customers, while NWA didn't have to be concerned with that. It's not assumptions.
Again, contrary to your earlier allegations, the Xerox copies of the ARINC teletype messages (which you call "transcripts") are a record of how and what NWA and others, excluding the Seattle and Oakland ATC Centers, communicated with the hijacked airliner. The Seattle and Oakland ATC Centers, plus other air traffic control facilities, used their own equipment to communicate with the airliner.
I don't usually call them transcripts. I prefer "TTY log," but they are part of the 99 page document I call "transcripts" since that is what all the different parts are. The TTY log is in fact a transcript, not of a recording but of the conversations as they were occurring--which is part of the reason they have so many errors.
What you said in the first sentence is not contrary to any of my earlier allegations except that I say ARINC has nothing to do with those teletype messages. Maybe try actually reading my earlier allegations. All the rest is obvious to me and probably everyone else. Since you know it too, it appears it's obvious to any idiot.
The NWA/FBI and others used ARINC capabilities for both the teletype messages as well as the voice phone patches. And contrary to your claims, the ARINC teletype messages were "formatted" to ARINC standards before transmission. I'm taking ARINC's word on that point over your claims.
"The" teletype messages? Many organizations other than ARINC had the capabilities of sending and receiving teletype messages without ARINC involvement. Even individuals (like "hams") do. Sure. Call it "formatted."
It is unlikely that NWA had superior communication capabilities to TWA, PAA, and other such airlines that had extensive international operations.
Stupid comment. Pointless. I never said NWA had communication capabilities superior to those of such airlines. NWA did have long-range radio communications capabilities that were superior to such capabilities of the airlines who had transferred those capabilities to ARINC when they established ARINC. Those airlines had given up capabilities and become reliant on ARINC. NWA had not. Try to learn to read for comprehension.
And let me point out again, ARINC was not involved in air traffic control which was handled by the FAA through their own facilities. Generally, you don't seem to understand the functions of these organizations and who had responsibility for what.
Thanks for the useless info everyone knows. Generally, you are incapable of learning.
-
Hominid, YOU need to start reading your own posts. And if your local library has a dictionary, stop by and look up the meaning of the word "t-r-a-n-s-c-r-i-p-t", among others. With luck, the library will have a docent to help you with this task.
So let's take a look at a some of those messages in the Xerox copies of the ARINC teletype print outs that appear in the 99 page PI document. Let's start with the very first message on the very first page of those print outs.
Does the message at 3:07 PM PST represent anything other than a routine departure message related to a specific aircraft and stations? Are we safe in assuming that this message relates to Flight 305, that the flight took off from Portland, and that its destination is Seattle?
Does the message at 6:42 PM PST have anything to do with Flight 305? Or is it just a routine transmission over the ARINC system related to another NWA aircraft?
Does the message at 7:34 PM PST have anything to do with Flight 305? Or is it just another routine transmission over the ARINC system related to another NWA aircraft? This specific message has been discussed at length on another Cooper thread.
Whether you can believe it or not, the above messages were not emergencies and were routinely transmitted over the ARINC system on the afternoon and evening of November 24, 1971, in accordance with NWA's contract with ARINC.
It would be helpful if you confined your lectures to subjects that you have at least some knowledge of.
Robert99
-
Robert99
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
∞ buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
_______∞__________
SMACK!
DAMNED PESKY GNAT
-
Robert99
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
∞ buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
∞
buzz
_______∞__________
SMACK!
DAMNED PESKY GNAT
Skin so Soft - (or vanilla)
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/16/garden/a-gardener-s-world-psssst-a-bath-oil-as-bug-spray.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/16/garden/a-gardener-s-world-psssst-a-bath-oil-as-bug-spray.html)
-
According to another person Bill Rataczak made this statement:
"We know where Cooper jumped. We just don't know where he landed."
I haven't found that quote yet, but here is one from Rataczak.
"During our descent into Reno, we made a P.A. to Cooper (if he was still there) that the stairs
needed to be raised for landing so they would not be damaged, which could prevent a subsequent takeoff'
And here:
“I agree with my good friend, FBI Agent Ralph Himmelsbach, who bird-dogged the Cooper case for
many years,” Rataczak says. “I don’t think he made it out alive. I think he’s down there in the blackberry
brambles someplace.”
Doesn't sound to me as if he, or anyone knows exactly where Cooper jumped, or they wouldn't have checked with
Cooper on the PA if they were aware he left the plane.
-
This is from Wiki. did Scott fly the plane anytime after leaving SEA?
Subsequent analyses called the original landing zone estimate into question: Scott, who was flying the aircraft manually because of Cooper's speed and altitude demands, later determined that his flight path was significantly farther east than initially assumed.[6] Additional data from a variety of sources—in particular Continental Airlines pilot Tom Bohan, who was flying four minutes behind Flight 305—indicated that the wind direction factored into drop zone calculations had been wrong, possibly by as much as 80 degrees.[56] This and other supplemental data suggested that the actual drop zone was probably south-southeast of the original estimate, in the drainage area of the Washougal River.[57]
"I have to confess," wrote retired FBI chief investigator Ralph Himmelsbach in his 1986 book, "if I [were] going to look for Cooper, I would head for the Washougal."[58] The Washougal Valley and its surroundings have been searched by multiple private individuals and groups in subsequent years; to date, nothing directly traceable to the hijacking has been found.[6]
-
According to another person Bill Rataczak made this statement:
"We know where Cooper jumped. We just don't know where he landed."
I haven't found that quote yet, but here is one from Rataczak.
"During our descent into Reno, we made a P.A. to Cooper (if he was still there) that the stairs
needed to be raised for landing so they would not be damaged, which could prevent a subsequent takeoff'
And here:
“I agree with my good friend, FBI Agent Ralph Himmelsbach, who bird-dogged the Cooper case for
many years,” Rataczak says. “I don’t think he made it out alive. I think he’s down there in the blackberry
brambles someplace.”
Doesn't sound to me as if he, or anyone knows exactly where Cooper jumped, or they wouldn't have checked with
Cooper on the PA if they were aware he left the plane.
I think if you check back on posts by that other person you will find that the statement used to be that they knew when he jumped, not where he jumped, and that the "when" was when the pressure pulse occurred, NOT at 0xxxZ. You won't find anywhere but "that other person" saying they knew where the HJ jumped. I think they were confident, but not absolutely certain, that he had jumped at the time the pressure pulse occurred, whenever that was.
-
This is from Wiki. did Scott fly the plane anytime after leaving SEA?
Subsequent analyses called the original landing zone estimate into question: Scott, who was flying the aircraft manually because of Cooper's speed and altitude demands, later determined that his flight path was significantly farther east than initially assumed.[6] Additional data from a variety of sources—in particular Continental Airlines pilot Tom Bohan, who was flying four minutes behind Flight 305—indicated that the wind direction factored into drop zone calculations had been wrong, possibly by as much as 80 degrees.[56] This and other supplemental data suggested that the actual drop zone was probably south-southeast of the original estimate, in the drainage area of the Washougal River.[57]
"I have to confess," wrote retired FBI chief investigator Ralph Himmelsbach in his 1986 book, "if I [were] going to look for Cooper, I would head for the Washougal."[58] The Washougal Valley and its surroundings have been searched by multiple private individuals and groups in subsequent years; to date, nothing directly traceable to the hijacking has been found.[6]
The wiki is so fouled up it is worthless. All of the fouled up accounts of the case are what are used as the sources for wiki. In general, Scott was not flying the plane. We've had some indication he held the wheel a bit to feel the "oscillations," and I've seen something to the effect that he took the controls to land at Reno. Himmelsback is as reliable as wiki.
-
According to another person Bill Rataczak made this statement:
"We know where Cooper jumped. We just don't know where he landed."
I haven't found that quote yet, but here is one from Rataczak.
"During our descent into Reno, we made a P.A. to Cooper (if he was still there) that the stairs
needed to be raised for landing so they would not be damaged, which could prevent a subsequent takeoff'
And here:
“I agree with my good friend, FBI Agent Ralph Himmelsbach, who bird-dogged the Cooper case for
many years,” Rataczak says. “I don’t think he made it out alive. I think he’s down there in the blackberry
brambles someplace.”
Doesn't sound to me as if he, or anyone knows exactly where Cooper jumped, or they wouldn't have checked with
Cooper on the PA if they were aware he left the plane.
I think if you check back on posts by that other person you will find that the statement used to be that they knew when he jumped, not where he jumped, and that the "when" was when the pressure pulse occurred, NOT at 0xxxZ. You won't find anywhere but "that other person" saying they knew where the HJ jumped. I think they were confident, but not absolutely certain, that he had jumped at the time the pressure pulse occurred, whenever that was.
That was a copy/paste from a post made by Blevins. according to him that's what Rataczak said. I find it contradicts what Rataczak says at a conference....
I was pretty sure Scott didn't fly the plane after takeoff from SEA. what about his statement of the path being more to the east. is this also incorrect to what Scott said? or is there some truth in that statement?
-
That was a copy/paste from a post made by Blevins. according to him that's what Rataczak said. I find it contradicts what Rataczak says at a conference....
I was pretty sure Scott didn't fly the plane after takeoff from SEA. what about his statement of the path being more to the east. is this also incorrect to what Scott said? or is there some truth in that statement?
Blevins' statement is a "morphing" of what he had posted before to the effect that "they" knew when the HJ jumped. I think the Scott saying the path would have been more to the east is ONLY an allegation by Himmelsbach. No corroboration. Scott can't be asked about it except by a medium. It's not in Scott's public statements of record.
-
That was a copy/paste from a post made by Blevins. according to him that's what Rataczak said. I find it contradicts what Rataczak says at a conference....
I was pretty sure Scott didn't fly the plane after takeoff from SEA. what about his statement of the path being more to the east. is this also incorrect to what Scott said? or is there some truth in that statement?
Blevins' statement is a "morphing" of what he had posted before to the effect that "they" knew when the HJ jumped. I think the Scott saying the path would have been more to the east is ONLY an allegation by Himmelsbach. No corroboration. Scott can't be asked about it except by a medium. It's not in Scott's public statements of record.
makes sense. I can't remember where I seen it. isn't there some documentation from Scott? good luck trying to find a medium who couldn't easily find this subject lol.
I'm getting a feeling of floating...thump....end of session.....
-
Here's an article re. Scott on the occasion of his death. Note what his wife said he said about public info concerning the hijacking. The presentation to the aero club is also available online.
'D.B. Cooper' pilot dies; William Scott never talked much about 1971 skyjacking
March 15, 2001
By Susan Gilmore
Seattle Times staff reporter
For 30 years, William "Scotty" Scott said little about the world's most famous skyjacking,
shunning assorted authors and movie producers who came knocking at his door.
Mr. Scott died of prostate cancer Sunday at his home in Green Valley, Ariz., taking to the
grave much of what he knew about that fateful night, said his wife, Frances. "When he came
home that night," she said, "he told his family about it, and that was the end of it. He
was a very quiet man. Very reserved."
Only in recent years had he begun to talk about the skyjacking that perplexed the FBI and
continues to rivet those who think Cooper may have survived the jump of 10,000 feet into
the blackness of a storm over Southwest Washington.
Her husband was convinced Cooper died in the leap, said Frances Scott. "He felt he jumped
into Lake Merwin (Cowlitz County) and got tangled up in dead trees and died," she said.
On the 25th anniversary of the heist, Mr. Scott spoke to a local pilots club.
Mr. Scott never saw Cooper. "He was intent on flying the plane and being able to get people
out of there alive and save the aircraft for Northwest," said his widow. Little by little,
she said, her husband had begun to talk about it the past few years. "It was good for him,"
she said. "In later years, he'd get mad at authors. Scotty would say, 'No, that's not the
way it happened.' They weren't there; he was."
-
I met Susan Gilmore (the Seattle Times reporter on this article) a few years ago right before she retired. Evidently, she did a lot of reporting on little DB Cooper stories over the years. She said Jerry Thomas would call fairly frequently and check in. It's too bad I don't work there any more and she doesn't. I might have been able to do some research and make it look like I was working. :)
-
According to another person Bill Rataczak made this statement:
"We know where Cooper jumped. We just don't know where he landed."
I haven't found that quote yet, but here is one from Rataczak.
"During our descent into Reno, we made a P.A. to Cooper (if he was still there) that the stairs
needed to be raised for landing so they would not be damaged, which could prevent a subsequent takeoff'
And here:
“I agree with my good friend, FBI Agent Ralph Himmelsbach, who bird-dogged the Cooper case for
many years,” Rataczak says. “I don’t think he made it out alive. I think he’s down there in the blackberry
brambles someplace.”
Doesn't sound to me as if he, or anyone knows exactly where Cooper jumped, or they wouldn't have checked with
Cooper on the PA if they were aware he left the plane.
I think if you check back on posts by that other person you will find that the statement used to be that they knew when he jumped, not where he jumped, and that the "when" was when the pressure pulse occurred, NOT at 0xxxZ. You won't find anywhere but "that other person" saying they knew where the HJ jumped. I think they were confident, but not absolutely certain, that he had jumped at the time the pressure pulse occurred, whenever that was.
the other person cherry picks (if he can find something) what fits his needs. That has been his modus since he first surfaced. It's almost guaranteed that what he picks and publishes is quoted out of context and may have even been changed! His quoting Kitt is a perfect example of that and Kitt was not happy about it.
-
According to another person Bill Rataczak made this statement:
"We know where Cooper jumped. We just don't know where he landed."
I haven't found that quote yet, but here is one from Rataczak.
"During our descent into Reno, we made a P.A. to Cooper (if he was still there) that the stairs
needed to be raised for landing so they would not be damaged, which could prevent a subsequent takeoff'
And here:
“I agree with my good friend, FBI Agent Ralph Himmelsbach, who bird-dogged the Cooper case for
many years,” Rataczak says. “I don’t think he made it out alive. I think he’s down there in the blackberry
brambles someplace.”
Doesn't sound to me as if he, or anyone knows exactly where Cooper jumped, or they wouldn't have checked with
Cooper on the PA if they were aware he left the plane.
I think if you check back on posts by that other person you will find that the statement used to be that they knew when he jumped, not where he jumped, and that the "when" was when the pressure pulse occurred, NOT at 0xxxZ. You won't find anywhere but "that other person" saying they knew where the HJ jumped. I think they were confident, but not absolutely certain, that he had jumped at the time the pressure pulse occurred, whenever that was.
That was a copy/paste from a post made by Blevins. according to him that's what Rataczak said. I find it contradicts what Rataczak says at a conference....
I was pretty sure Scott didn't fly the plane after takeoff from SEA. what about his statement of the path being more to the east. is this also incorrect to what Scott said? or is there some truth in that statement?
It contradicts everyone's testimony! It contradicts Anderson's testimony for sure!
Blevins is just a troll. Period. You literally cannot take anything he says as factual. Everyone including Gray that has had any personal experience with him says that!
Anderson's testimony is specific and detailed. Not only did they not know exactly where they were when he jumped, they weren't even sure he had jumped until Scott finally went back (against orders) and checked and quoting: "It appears our friend has left us" (they are near Reno)!
Anderson says they "discussed" the pulse/bump/oscillations for some minutes and on the basis of that discussion Rataczak then reported it ... after the fact! Their position for where the bump occurred was an ESTIMATE! Their time when they thought he (might have) jumped was an ESTIMATE!
I'm not sure where RMB got the quote he is pounding the boards with - some video of Rataczak? In Gray's book? He once said where the quote could be found but I forget where he stated, because frankly I don;t care, because there are plenty of Rataczak quotes which have authenticity and are backed up by other's people's testimony to go on... without relying on anything this Blevins says. (laugh)
Frankly folks: we are too good to be derailed by such nonsense, ie Blevins-speak.
If this posts I am having all kinds of problems keeping this website up and going tonight! Delays specialnotices, etc etc etc ... lets see if this posts at all...
-
The quote itself "We know where Cooper jumped. We just don't know where he landed" doesn't show up anywhere. if he claims Rataczak said this in an email, it contradicts what he has said in the past. ” Rataczak says. “I don’t think he made it out alive. I think he’s down there in the blackberry brambles someplace.”
He also says this:
There’s been a lot of talk, some recently, about former purser Ken Christiansen being D. B. Cooper.
He was fully vetted by the F.B.I., who determined he was not a person of interest.
-
The quote itself "We know where Cooper jumped. We just don't know where he landed" doesn't show up anywhere. if he claims Rataczak said this in an email, it contradicts what he has said in the past. ” Rataczak says. “I don’t think he made it out alive. I think he’s down there in the blackberry brambles someplace.”
He also says this:
There’s been a lot of talk, some recently, about former purser Ken Christiansen being D. B. Cooper.
He was fully vetted by the F.B.I., who determined he was not a person of interest.
Exactly. This plus what Kitt told me also puts the lie to the assertion: "The FBI (nor NWA) looked at NWA employees." I have no idea why people would let that slip without challenge. It's tantamount to saying the FBI and NWA were morons! Sluggo once stated a figure for formal suspects'/with files the FBI has. The number was over 1000 and may have been 1054? 1021? Something like that. The critical comment was: "and beyond that the FBI looked at thousands more!". NWA Historian Kitt says NWA did its own investigation also and looked at its own employees - conducted actual interviews. Blevins' assertion is simply wrong. What we don't know is how far wrong it is. Just think about this! It's takes a lot to contend neither the FBI nor NWA 'looked at NWA employees'? It's an astounding assertion. What it establishes is the public void in actual knowledge about the Cooper case. Why didn't Gray look into this and say anything about it? Once again it is obvious the public is missing many basic facts about the Cooper case. It's the public's knowledge about this case that is lacking; with people like writer RMB ready to fill in the void with total crap !
Once again I need to say: 99.999% of everything that shows up buried at Tina Bar is there due to hydrological actions, or it wouldn't be there at all. Why the Cooper money would be an exception is beyond me. The weight of Probability suggests the Cooper money also arrived at Tina Bar by hydrological action, or hydro-related action.
Maybe I should amend the above to say: There are people out there who do know facts about the Cooper case. What they know, however, is not part of the common 'Cooper case lexicon'. (and it isn't in the Wikipedia article on the DB Cooper case, especially with people like Blevins tampering with the Wikipedia page!)
-
It makes perfect sense for NWO to look into there own. how could someone assume it wasn't a mechanic, or a purser? they would be missing one of the corners in the square I've mentioned. what does the cops do when someone is found dead in a home. they look for an inside job. the same for an abducted child. I'm sure the cameras would stop rolling the second something was said they didn't like.
-
This seems to be another part Blevins fails to follow. we have them admitting the timing is off on the first plot of the jump. if the timing is further out of whack, it's only 2 minutes away from the Columbia!!!
Here is what Carr said, most of you already know. these two posts are comments made by Agent Carr on Dropzone.com.
A bit of new info, the concrete time of the jump was based on the crews communication with NWA flight operations. NWA flight operations was keeping a running log documenting each communication noting the time. I did a re-read of the NWA log, tower transmission and the flight crew interviews and discovered when the crew felt the pressure variance they were not on the phone with NWA. They called just after to report the incident. The person keeping the log must have not written the time he received the communication but the time the crew thought they felt the bump.
Another clue to the time is the ground radio teletype log. It my understanding that the teletype will automatically log the time with the communication. The crew typed a message which was logged at 8:12 and mentioned oscillations not a bump.
The crew referenced a call to Cooper at 8:05 PM when making a statement about the pressure change, stating the pressure bump occurred 5 to 10 minutes after this. They further stated that when they felt the pressure change they were not yet to Portland but definitely in the suburbs.
In reviewing the flight path the plane flew directly over Battleground WA, turn and flew a straight line to Salem OR. If you look at the map I posted, 8:11 PM was the determined to be the jump point which is listed as point A. Point S is 8:10 PM and Point F is 8:12. The plot was laid out with a +-1 minute delay in reporting.
From all of this and the location where the money was found, we need to extend the calulation to 8:13, 8:14 and 8:15. I am guessing this would put the jump location near Orchard WA.
Now, Carr also says this?
So the time reported when the crew mentioned the oscillations was when Cooper most likely started down the stairs. The further he got down the stairs the more air would be rushing through the cabin. The pressure bump, which would be when he jumped, occurred (according to Rataczak) 10 to 15 minutes after their last contact with Cooper at 8:05.
-
MYTH BUSTING IN PROGRESS:
This is what Cooper relayed to the crew through Mucklow:
(1) Fly to Mexico City non-stop, if you can't make it then anywhere in Mexico.
(2) Fly with landing gear and flaps down
(3) Do not fly above 10,000 feet
(4) Fly with the lights out in the cabin
(5) Do not land in the US for fuel or any other reason.
(6) No one aft of the first Class Curtain
(7) After takeoff the stewardess will be allowed to the cockpit.
(8) The rear door open and the stairs extended for takeoff.
Cooper did not request the flaps be set at 15 degrees.
Cooper never requested a speed.
Cooper never asked for the plane to speed up or slow down.
Cooper did not request flight updates from the crew at any time during the incident.
THE TIME LINE SHIFT
From re-reading the interviews and logs, the work going on here, the money (how and where it was found) and much thought on the subject, this is how the time line has shifted:
At 7:42 Cooper called to the cockpit and told them he could not get the stairs to open. The crew slowed the plane and the stairs opened a bit. (my thoughts here) So now Cooper is looking at the stairs twisting his head around like a dog hearing a high pitch noise trying to figure it out.
He soon gets it, "the stairs drop by gravity, if i walk out on them they drop, the further my weight gets out over the stairs, the lower they go." Having realized this Cooper finalizes whatever it is he needs to do and by 8:05 he is ready to go.
He now starts to slowly test out his theory by walking out a few feet on the stairs. As he does they drop a bit further, causing the opening in the rear of the craft to get larger. Because of this, the air pressure in the cabin starts to change. Rataczak sees the cabin pressure gauge oscillating at 8:10 to 8:12 and reports it to NWA flight ops.
For the next five to ten minutes Cooper gets it all figured out and jumps, creating the "bump" 5 to 10 minutes after the last contact at 8:05.
The oscillations and bump are two different events confused as one by the agents conducting interviews. This confusion led investigators to believe the 8:11 report by Rataczak was the jump.
-
7:42 all the way to 8:05 is a lot of time. Rataczak couldn't have seen the gauge in the co-pilots seat. is it possible Cooper was on the stairs at 8:12 and then jumped 5-10 minutes later? this would drop him in the river if he didn't pull? if you go by the new drop zone. it seems to appear he got away. I think they would have found his body in this area sooner or later?
Thoughts?
-
7:42 all the way to 8:05 is a lot of time. Rataczak couldn't have seen the gauge in the co-pilots seat. is it possible Cooper was on the stairs at 8:12 and then jumped 5-10 minutes later? this would drop him in the river if he didn't pull? if you go by the new drop zone. it seems to appear he got away. I think they would have found his body in this area sooner or later?
Thoughts?
It's obvious nobody wants to release information about this case and until that happens no real progress can be made. Why authorities are taking this stance is anyone's guess. At this late date it can't be just because this is an active case! This opens the door to every conspiracy theorist of every stripe to engage in prolonged narcissism of the type displayed daily at Dropzone. This scenario feeds conspiracy theory that says 'the FBI simply wants the case to die and go away'. Lot's of crazy things happened in the 60s and 70s - this is no exception!
-
When does anything in the case make sense anyway :) I think it makes them look worse by just letting it drag on. I've said in the past that they should turn it over to the US Marshal's office. I can only imagine some of the threads for Hoffa. conspiracies out the ass I'm sure.
-
Here is a short video of my simulator. I'm still working on my landings which have improved dramatically :) I also added a new plane. ERJ-140. and of course my newly painted Northwest Orient 727-100. the color isn't a match, but it works for me....Mark, take note of the landings. you will notice they don't go straight down lol.....had to say it.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQHnh5eJKvA
-
40 some odd years. Frustrating when authorities wont release all their info on cases this old. It is obvious to anyone with a half a brain that they aren't going to solve the case... and it seems they want to make sure no one else does either. I am more into investigating the zodiac case than this one. At least in that case there are some police reports that have been made available to the public. Most have not. It's disappointing.
7:42 all the way to 8:05 is a lot of time. Rataczak couldn't have seen the gauge in the co-pilots seat. is it possible Cooper was on the stairs at 8:12 and then jumped 5-10 minutes later? this would drop him in the river if he didn't pull? if you go by the new drop zone. it seems to appear he got away. I think they would have found his body in this area sooner or later?
Thoughts?
It's obvious nobody wants to release information about this case and until that happens no real progress can be made. Why authorities are taking this stance is anyone's guess. At this late date it can't be just because this is an active case! This opens the door to every conspiracy theorist of every stripe to engage in prolonged narcissism of the type displayed daily at Dropzone. This scenario feeds conspiracy theory that says 'the FBI simply wants the case to die and go away'. Lot's of crazy things happened in the 60s and 70s - this is no exception!
None of it makes any sense. it's to old of a story/crime to have any hold on it security wise. I doubt they would even prosecute him if they found him alive. a couple years would be a life sentence at this point and time.
-
When does anything in the case make sense anyway :) I think it makes them look worse by just letting it drag on. I've said in the past that they should turn it over to the US Marshal's office. I can only imagine some of the threads for Hoffa. conspiracies out the ass I'm sure.
When will drones enter the Cooper chase/debate !? I just had to say something about this. :)
-
Everything seems to get confusing even with people who have had access to the files.
Tom Kaye
"It tells you (the money) likely didn't come down 20 miles of the Washougal River," Kaye said. "Then it brings up the question of where did Cooper really jump. We have reason to believe the jump zone was farther south. If the money landed in the Columbia, that would be the easiest explanation for how it got to Tena Bar."
Larry Carr
The crew referenced a call to Cooper at 8:05 PM when making a statement about the pressure change, stating the pressure bump occurred 5 to 10 minutes after this. they further stated that when they felt the pressure changed they were not yet to Portland, but definitely in the suburbs.
Now, the suburbs of Portland are not in the area of 8:15. are they implying they crossed the river before they felt the bump? I thought the first pressure felt was at 8:10? or oscillation. the pressure bump according to Carr was 5-10 minutes after the 8:05 transmission. could they possibly be wrong and it was 5-10 minutes after the oscillation? that would put them over the suburbs of Portland?
-
One of the NWA personnel who was listening to the phone patch in Seattle gave a time of 8:18 PM for the airliner being at the 23 DME (nautical miles) position south of the present day Battleground VORTAC. The teletypewriter message about that location was listed as being sent on the teletypewriter circuit to Seattle at 8:22 PM. Since it required a finite time to "format" the message to be sent over the ARINC teletypewriter system, the 8:18 PM time for being at that location is probably correct.
This means that at 8:15 PM, the airliner would already be south of the Columbia River by several miles. At 8:10 PM, the airliner would still be several miles north of the Tina Bar area.
The above assumes the airliner bypassed Portland on the west side which is the only route that will provide meaningful correlations with the data.
-
Everything seems to get confusing even with people who have had access to the files.
Tom Kaye
"It tells you (the money) likely didn't come down 20 miles of the Washougal River," Kaye said. "Then it brings up the question of where did Cooper really jump. We have reason to believe the jump zone was farther south. If the money landed in the Columbia, that would be the easiest explanation for how it got to Tena Bar."
Larry Carr
The crew referenced a call to Cooper at 8:05 PM when making a statement about the pressure change, stating the pressure bump occurred 5 to 10 minutes after this. they further stated that when they felt the pressure changed they were not yet to Portland, but definitely in the suburbs.
Now, the suburbs of Portland are not in the area of 8:15. are they implying they crossed the river before they felt the bump? I thought the first pressure felt was at 8:10? or oscillation. the pressure bump according to Carr was 5-10 minutes after the 8:05 transmission. could they possibly be wrong and it was 5-10 minutes after the oscillation? that would put them over the suburbs of Portland?
Was it suburbs of Portland or 'suburbs of Vancouver" ! ?
-
Everything seems to get confusing even with people who have had access to the files.
Tom Kaye
"It tells you (the money) likely didn't come down 20 miles of the Washougal River," Kaye said. "Then it brings up the question of where did Cooper really jump. We have reason to believe the jump zone was farther south. If the money landed in the Columbia, that would be the easiest explanation for how it got to Tena Bar."
Larry Carr
The crew referenced a call to Cooper at 8:05 PM when making a statement about the pressure change, stating the pressure bump occurred 5 to 10 minutes after this. they further stated that when they felt the pressure changed they were not yet to Portland, but definitely in the suburbs.
Now, the suburbs of Portland are not in the area of 8:15. are they implying they crossed the river before they felt the bump? I thought the first pressure felt was at 8:10? or oscillation. the pressure bump according to Carr was 5-10 minutes after the 8:05 transmission. could they possibly be wrong and it was 5-10 minutes after the oscillation? that would put them over the suburbs of Portland?
Was it suburbs of Portland or 'suburbs of Vancouver" ! ?
well, that's all part of the confusing part 8)
-
One of the NWA personnel who was listening to the phone patch in Seattle gave a time of 8:18 PM for the airliner being at the 23 DME (nautical miles) position south of the present day Battleground VORTAC. The teletypewriter message about that location was listed as being sent on the teletypewriter circuit to Seattle at 8:22 PM. Since it required a finite time to "format" the message to be sent over the ARINC teletypewriter system, the 8:18 PM time for being at that location is probably correct.
This means that at 8:15 PM, the airliner would already be south of the Columbia River by several miles. At 8:10 PM, the airliner would still be several miles north of the Tina Bar area.
The above assumes the airliner bypassed Portland on the west side which is the only route that will provide meaningful correlations with the data.
I've been leaning more towards the fence of a timing issue over a flight path issue. I'm beginning to think the path could be correct, and the time frames are at error. lots of fumbling going on. nothing is clear cut stating this is exactly where the plane was at "time here". 8:10 the transcripts say he could of jumped here. then we find we have two different issues with the stairs causing a jump further south than first expected. each time this occurs we get closer to the water hazards. he might have jumped around PDX, lost the money, and went home? I don't know......
I have all day tomorrow to myself 8) I'm going to run some more flights and see what happens.
-
Everything seems to get confusing even with people who have had access to the files.
Tom Kaye
"It tells you (the money) likely didn't come down 20 miles of the Washougal River," Kaye said. "Then it brings up the question of where did Cooper really jump. We have reason to believe the jump zone was farther south. If the money landed in the Columbia, that would be the easiest explanation for how it got to Tena Bar."
Larry Carr
The crew referenced a call to Cooper at 8:05 PM when making a statement about the pressure change, stating the pressure bump occurred 5 to 10 minutes after this. they further stated that when they felt the pressure changed they were not yet to Portland, but definitely in the suburbs.
Now, the suburbs of Portland are not in the area of 8:15. are they implying they crossed the river before they felt the bump? I thought the first pressure felt was at 8:10? or oscillation. the pressure bump according to Carr was 5-10 minutes after the 8:05 transmission. could they possibly be wrong and it was 5-10 minutes after the oscillation? that would put them over the suburbs of Portland?
Was it suburbs of Portland or 'suburbs of Vancouver" ! ?
well, that's all part of the confusing part 8)
I think it should be "not in Portland yet" ........ "but in the suburbs of Vancouver". We discussed ad nauseum on DZ what "in the suburbs of Vancouver" meant. Sluggo decide Orchard qualified ... is that everyone else's recollection. ?
I can look this up. Rat also testified independently and spoke of being "in the suburbs of Vancouver". I mean .... going south to cross the Columbia there are no 'suburbs' of Portland, until you get past downtown Portland then into the suburbs.
-
One of the NWA personnel who was listening to the phone patch in Seattle gave a time of 8:18 PM for the airliner being at the 23 DME (nautical miles) position south of the present day Battleground VORTAC. The teletypewriter message about that location was listed as being sent on the teletypewriter circuit to Seattle at 8:22 PM. Since it required a finite time to "format" the message to be sent over the ARINC teletypewriter system, the 8:18 PM time for being at that location is probably correct.
This means that at 8:15 PM, the airliner would already be south of the Columbia River by several miles. At 8:10 PM, the airliner would still be several miles north of the Tina Bar area.
The above assumes the airliner bypassed Portland on the west side which is the only route that will provide meaningful correlations with the data.
I've been leaning more towards the fence of a timing issue over a flight path issue. I'm beginning to think the path could be correct, and the time frames are at error. lots of fumbling going on. nothing is clear cut stating this is exactly where the plane was at "time here". 8:10 the transcripts say he could of jumped here. then we find we have two different issues with the stairs causing a jump further south than first expected. each time this occurs we get closer to the water hazards. he might have jumped around PDX, lost the money, and went home? I don't know......
I have all day tomorrow to myself 8) I'm going to run some more flights and see what happens.
I think the timeline of the jump is early. If Andy is correct that there was indecision and nobody even communicated the 'bump and Cooper possibly leaving' until later, "after we discussed it Rat then called it in" .... then there is no question the assign times to the bump and possible jump are early. From 8: 12 all the way to possible 8:16 or 18.
There is no question in my mind that the Tina Bar money is a flow-in event. From somewhere. Somewhere close to Tina Bar, somewhere further upstream from Tina Bar but a flow-in event probably in the company of other debris.
Maybe during the first higher than normal water even of 1972. Even Tom thinks it's early. Or just maybe, with the dredging debris in 1974, then moved to the find location.
0% probability of plant and no evidence of plant while there is all kinds of evidence the find is compatible with hydrological placement.
Call CNN in Atlanta! That will give Dropzone and Blevins and Danny some publicity!
-
Agreed. I know it has been discussed about the low percentage of a splash down, but that was further north. lots & lots of water around as the clock ticks...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4DAg3_XyRM
-
If we agree that the time of the jump is incorrect, and further south, shouldn't we now also agree that the money could of made it to the Columbia, or in the Columbia? I'm going to email Tom and see what his thoughts are on the trail since even the FBI agree's the jump is further south.
It seems to open possibilities that Cooper could have survived, and the money didn't, or was separated from him. personally I don't think he made it. I think he might be in a spot that was never checked, or discovered. as time goes by the body slowly disappears into the surrounding area. I don't agree with Amazon stating a body could be seen decades later.
I would love to take $50 in one dollar bills, and put it in a bag like Cooper used and place it in the river., or $25 in the river, and $25 on the bank. 10 people donating $5 could reach this goal. getting someone to monitor it becomes the problem. I liked Tom's testing, but they were just snippets of currency. two nice bundles would be great!
The battle of Little Bighorn is a fine example of how mother nature hides things. if it wasn't for the brush fire they would of had no idea what clues it uncovered once the brush was removed. they were able to document the whole battle which ended up backing up everything the Indians have be stating for decades.
-
Interesting interview with Msgt. Wally Johnson. he describes the black box used on the 727. according to him both pressure anomalies would have been recorded. what ever happen to these records? Carr should have known this, or acknowledged they were on the box for record. I'm sure the time could be figured out between the two different issues with the pressure (oscillation/bump) did Washington keep these records, and another box was put back in the plane?
I posted the section about the black box, and the entire interview for download. he also describes the people in the photo with everyone involved with the drop test.
-
Here is a video I made from the files of the Washington Historical Society. Bill Rataczak explains the plane's configuration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5r6-39WYfQ
-
Thanks, Shut, for the vid on Bill. I was surprised to realize that that was the first time I've seen him in a video.
-
Thanks, Shut, for the vid on Bill. I was surprised to realize that that was the first time I've seen him in a video.
Yes, the glamour is there! Congrats on spotting it. Of course GLAMOUR PROVES NOTHING!
Can you reconcile the "cross bedded sands" to the clay-lump layer Palmer found and date them?
Rataczak doesn't mention that. No glamour in it!
-
Thanks, Shut, for the vid on Bill. I was surprised to realize that that was the first time I've seen him in a video.
Your welcome.....and it's in living color 8)
(http://www.classicthemes.com/images/LaramiePeacock1962.gif)
-
Georger, did you remove your post to edit? I come back from the store, and it was gone?
-
Yeah, G, where did it go? It was quite a comprehensive analysis of the soils at TB.
-
Yeah, G, where did it go? It was quite a comprehensive analysis of the soils at TB.
I didn't think anyone was interested. I may redo later and post it in the Tena Bar Money thread. Basically its an analysis of the Palmer report as it corresponds to Kaye's analysis.
Tom and others focus on the 'clay lump and sand' layer Palmer identified as being the dredge spoils from 1974. Above that layer, Palmer identifies a "cross bedded sand" layer which in the Palmer analysis may be the actual baseline against which he assigned all other strata. Each layer found represents a segment of time. The cross bedded layer would presumably represent all deposits, wave action, and erosion between Sept 1974 and the start of the 'upper active layer' which may start in 1978, after the severe drought of 1977. If Palmer is correct then the "cross bedded layer" can only correspond to water events between Sept 1974 and say Sept 1978. So the question arises: does the Columbia river height data at the Vancouver station between Sept 1974 and Sept 1978 support multiple cross-bedded deposition events (at Tina Bar) between Sept '74 and Sept '78, and generally I think it does. Palmer had access to those same Vancouver station records I do today. Those water event records seem to confirm the cross-bedded layer consisting of multiple high water events, which Palmer identified as layer "B". On that basis Palmer would be fully justified in claiming that the "clay lump and sand" layer "C" found below the cross bedded sands layer "B", was in fact the dredging sediments from 1974. Then on top of Layer "B" Palmer places the "upper active" layer representing deposits from say Sept 1978 to the current time February of 1980 - and it is in this topmost layer "A" the Ingram money was recovered.
Kaye arrives in 2008 and finds a severely eroded beachfront at Tina bar, Kay can see a clay layer exposed in the erosion cut, and Kaye believes that clay layer he is seeing predates 1974. Tom believes this is the very layer Palmer was looking at in 1980 and called the 'dredge spoils' layer, but it was not. Tom may be saying that the dredge spoils layer had all but washed away by 1980 and so there was no dredging layer to be found, and Palmer misidentified a deeper (pre 1971?) layer as being the 1974 dredge spoils 'clay and sand'. Quite frankly, it is difficult for me to believe Palmer would make such a basic mistake. Palmer was an expert in this area.
Tom would then assign Palmer's cross bedded sands layer 'C' as consisting of (a) remnants of the dredging spoils deposited in 1974 and post 1974-Sept 1978 sands laid down by multiple water events between the end of 1974 to say early 1978.
All of this matters because the dating of the layer in which Ingram money was found is crucial. The water records must agree with the strata found, in any event. And the Vancouver station records I have generally support the multiple water-deposition events which Palmer's cross bedded sands layer 'B' implies.
I can easily see how Palmer would have identified anything below layer 'B', especially anything containing clay, as the 1974 bottom dredging sediments which consists of both clay and coarse sand. But, the baseline is set in Palmer's mind once he see's the cross bedded layer 'B'. Stratum 'B' represents a definable period of time against which actual nearby river station records can be checked. Please recall, it was not just Palmer out a Tina Bar alone. He had backup and co-researchers working with him, some of who are named on Kaye's site. (a professional hydrologist for one).
So Palmer is not operating in complete darkness here.
Do water-weather records support the idea that all of the 1974 dredging spoils placed at Tina Bar had withered down to a non-existent thin layer by the time the cross bedded layer 'B' starts to be assembled at Tina Bar? No. There is nothing to support that contention. The best one could do is contend that cross bedded layer 'B' represents a portion of dredging spoils and post-dredging sands laid down between 8-74 and say 9-78 when we are sure the next cycle of deposition with the flood of 1978 begins (and deposits the upper active layer Palmer found).
This exercise illustrates the issues involved. But, water and weather records must correspond and account for whatever beach strata are found, because beach's just don't build themselves!. Beaches are a temporal story of deposition, erosion, water and wave action, et cetera. Beaches are a clock.
-
Yeah, G, where did it go? It was quite a comprehensive analysis of the soils at TB.
I didn't think anyone was interested. I may redo later and post it in the Tena Bar Money thread.
Yes, please post it again when you have time. everything you post is of value that I've seen. your presents, and experience is a must on this forum. I hardly ever get quick response times on my comments. don't feel bad ;D
-
Yeah, G, where did it go? It was quite a comprehensive analysis of the soils at TB.
I didn't think anyone was interested. I may redo later and post it in the Tena Bar Money thread.
Yes, please post it again when you have time. everything you post is of value that I've seen. your presents, and experience is a must on this forum. I hardly ever get quick response times on my comments. don't feel bad ;D
I added it to my last post above. Now I have to get running - tomorrow has already arrived here -
-
Thanks, Shut, for the vid on Bill. I was surprised to realize that that was the first time I've seen him in a video.
Here's the second Bruce :
http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/5112499111_006.do
-
R99 has posted two critical posts which are a synopsis of the current debate, and critical to the FP debate; I hope he doesn't mind that I repose them here. TIA R99.
quote:
Robert99
The pilot who said he wanted to fly over the ocean could have purposely flown over the river (?)
The short answer is "yes", but the airliner was above several cloud layers and an overcast so that the river could not have been seen visually. In addition, the airliner was only over the river proper for a few miles (at more than three miles per minute groundspeed) so the probability of Cooper landing in water deliberately is quite low. The crew didn't know when he planned to jump or when he actually did jump.
In all probability, the airliner was just taking a short cut around the west side of Portland, to avoid flying over the city, when Cooper jumped. Somewhere around Toledo (or the Mayfield/Malay Intersection) the airliner left V-23 and flew direct to the area of the Canby Intersection which is on V-23 and 27 DME miles south of the present day Battleground VORTAC.
The above shortcut would mean that the airliner either overflew or passed very close to Tina Bar. Note that the Columbia River runs north, or a couple of degrees east of north, at Tina Bar. In any event, all of the chase aircraft and the helicopter that tried to sight the airliner were vectored to the west and southwest sides of Portland.
There is nothing to support a flight path on the east side of Portland or even east of Tina Bar. The people who claim the flight stayed on V-23 or east of it while in the Portland area are simply making that claim since they need Cooper to survive the hijacking to support their claims about their Cooper candidates.
Further, the topography of the Tina Bar area is so unique that additional statements can be made once the flight path has been pinned down. And we need the un-redacted Seattle ATC transcripts to do that.
Robert99
Jo, You don't understand how the Air Traffic Control system operates. On the flight to Reno, the Portland Airport would not be contacted by the airliner which was under direct control of the Seattle ATC Center. Portland was NOT involved.
It makes no difference what happened to any radio transcripts in Portland. The transcripts in question involved the Seattle ATC communications and not anything from Portland.
The FBI had transcripts of ALL relevant communications from both the Seattle ATC and Oakland ATC Centers within about a week of the hijacking. The Seattle transcripts were redacted by the FBI but they did not redact the Oakland transcripts.
Robert99
-
Blevins is missing some key points in the flight path debate, ands he is making assumptions which are not true. He says the FBI FP map is true because Larry Carr presented it, and Carr was a Cooper case agent!
(1) Carr passed out the fp map specifically to get people's evaluation and analysis, to judge the map's veracity! Not because the map was True, as Blevins states! Blevins has made a fundamental error of fact. Read the Dropzone thread 2009 -
(2) Carr DID NOT pass out the map because it is TRUE! Carr says that very clearly. Read the thread.
(3) Carr talked to Rataczak multiple times and still did not know if the FBI flight path map was true or not! Blevins keeps telling people to talk to Rataczak. Blevins should talk to Larry Carr! The thread is very clear on these points! Blevins should read the thread!
(4) RobertBlevins doesn't know anything about flight path maps or how pilots fly airplanes, or anything about the technical decisions that were made by pilots and others or why, on the evening of 11-24-71 !!
(5) Since Blevins literally doesn't know anything about this whole matter or why Carr even brought the flight path map out in the first place (for evaluation and analysis!), Blevins keeps yacking about the plane having been East vs West of I5, of all things. Nobody has bothered to tell Bobby Blevins that "I5" doesn't have a God damned thing to do with anything! I5 had nothing to do with the route #305 flew! But Blevins is stuck on "I5" for some weird reason. He might as well be stuck on "cows at the Fazio farm"! In addition Blevins can cite no reason whatever for what made the pilots fly one route versus another! Blevins is just blowing smoke in this whole debate.
(6) Blevins is stuck on "east vs west of I5". Or east vs west of Vancouver, or Portland. Blevins is 100% unaware evidently that this problem involves two variables at least, not just one. Position and Time! Not just position, east or west of I5 but the time of being at any given position! Blevns’ discussion of this whole matter is literally at the level of a Kindergartner trying to discuss and make pronouncemrnts about General Relativity! Beam Blevins up!
Blevins' posts on this whole subject are utter nonsense and meaningless.
He is missing the fact and history of why Larry Carr posted the map in the first place: to be evaluated and examined by experts, of which RobertMBlevins is not one!
-
I've been reading it. he just goes 100% what the FBI claims, or says until it conflicts with KC. Larry Carr admits on this video with the map and says "the believed flight path"...this clearly means that they are not positive of the path, or he wouldn't be stating that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLOgfkv4alk
-
I've been in the cockpit all evening. testing the speeds again. I amazed how things will change with passengers, and then without, or different temps will give different speeds. I'm going to be recording the first 40 minutes of the flight. the video will be rather large in size due to the uncompressed video. we are talking about 50 gigs of space. it records at a little over a gig a minute! then I have to compress them so they will be transferable to You Tube without having to wait 30+ hours to upload. I will be including what is said on the transcripts according to that time. this will take some time to put together, but should be interesting to watch...... 8)
I will also show any corrections needed in the transcripts during that time frame.
(http://www.x-plane.hu/kep/cikkek/727/020.jpg)
-
I've been reading it. he just goes 100% what the FBI claims, or says until it conflicts with KC. Larry Carr admits on this video with the map and says "the believed flight path"...this clearly means that they are not positive of the path, or he wouldn't be stating that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLOgfkv4alk
Correct! "Believed flight path". How could Blevins have missed this? He has missed a whole year of discussions by Carr and others on Dropzone 2009. Like missing a whole year of school.
Carr brought the map to Dropzone specifically to get evaluation and analysis, not to present it as thee true flight path of 305 on 11-24-71! That point is fundamental and true, whether Blevins likes it or not! All of that after
Carr personally talk to Bill Rataczak multiple times! Larry makes that very clear on the thread.
Blevins is totally out on a limb here, as usual. He's talking total nonsense. Blevins would have been better off had he cited Tom Kaye as the reason he-Blevins accepts the FBI flight path map; not Carr!.
It is also 100% clear Blevins doesn't have a technical grasp of the problem. He keeps citing "east vs west of I5" which has nothing to do with anything! I5 did not figure in anyone's thinking or actions when 305 flew a route going south. I5 is irrelevant. Moreover, it is not just position, but time & position. Carr discussed time as much if not more than position and everyone agreed the timeline was off, but by how much.
Remember it was Blevins who posted this piece of garbage attached he claims was a 'flight path Kenny drew'! People have told Blevins hundreds of times his picture is not a flight path at all - he just won't accept that because he doesn't even know what a flight path map is! The man is a natural born idiot.
You can't argue with Blevins. If I was R99 I would simply tell Blevins everything he has ever said on this whole problem is nonsense and irrelevant, and leave it at that. because Blevins is incapable of change except to turn around and claim: "I never said that" just to get himself out of the corner he has put himself in time after time after time for 4 long years. The man is an idiot.
-
I put it on DZ several times. he will only listen to what he can hear, which is about half of the story. best case, to worse case, and nothing in between.
-
I put it on DZ several times. he will only listen to what he can hear, which is about half of the story. best case, to worse case, and nothing in between.
Blevins keeps telling people to talk to Rataczak! He tells R99 and makes fun of him saying he should have talked to Rat in 2009! Wasn't it Blevins who was going to talk to Rataczak in 2010, and never did, or couldn't get a reply? He says Porteous talked to Rataczak and Blevins relies on that.
What Blevins is missing is that Carr himself talked to Rataczak multiple times in 2009 and still came out uncertain about the veracity of the FBI map, Blevins somehow knows is true!
R99 should tell Blevins: Go talk to Carr who has talked to Rataczak! :) :) :)
10:1 Blevins will read this here and try to deny it, or he will read it and ignore it hoping it goes away so he can continue to peddle his false portrait of Larry Carr and the whole Carr-Flight path discussion on Dropzone in 2009. It's amazing the things this guy does not know or chooses to ignore, and later claims never happened or exists, all so he can continue his Eulenspiegel!
-
The FBI had to come up with some sort of proposed flight path and jump spot in order to figure out where to start their search . But, even so, there is a wide range of confidence they could have in it from "We're pretty sure this is where and when he jumped" to "We can't be sure, but this is our best guess at this time". What Georger notes above about Carr talking to Rataczak and sharing it on the DZ forum for comment, leads me to think it might be the second one.
Or, maybe they originally thought they had a good idea of where he jumped. But, after finding no body, parachute, spare chute, brief case or money in the area -- and money turning up a little over seven years later a good distance away -- may have given the FBI some doubt.
Robert99 has done far more studying than me and I admit I don't understand all of it. I don't know why he puts so much effort into trying to convince RobertMBlevins on the flight path. RobertMBlevins has already made up his mind, and nothing short of a body turning up is going to change it.
-
The FBI had to come up with some sort of proposed flight path and jump spot in order to figure out where to start their search . But, even so, there is a wide range of confidence they could have in it from "We're pretty sure this is where and when he jumped" to "We can't be sure, but this is our best guess at this time". What Georger notes above about Carr talking to Rataczak and sharing it on the DZ forum for comment, leads me to think it might be the second one.
Or, maybe they originally thought they had a good idea of where he jumped. But, after finding no body, parachute, spare chute, brief case or money in the area -- and money turning up a little over seven years later a good distance away -- may have given the FBI some doubt.
Robert99 has done far more studying than me and I admit I don't understand all of it. I don't know why he puts so much effort into trying to convince RobertMBlevins on the flight path. RobertMBlevins has already made up his mind, and nothing short of a body turning up is going to change it.
Let me make a cogent reply when I can tomorrow - I think its important to bring up Himmeslbach's 1976 pree release which changed the drop zone further south from the original Search zone. But I want to be able to document H's statement and will do so tomorrow - - -
In 2009 after working months on the FP and drop zone at Dropzone, with Larry Carr present, Sluggo settled on the Orchard WA area as a likely drop zone... which ironically fit almost exactly H's statement from 1976! Sluggo of course was working completely independently. We laughed at the irony involved, but it lead to Sluggo getting an interview with H which he published at DZ during this period...
I need to check my files before posting further.
-
The FBI had to come up with some sort of proposed flight path and jump spot in order to figure out where to start their search . But, even so, there is a wide range of confidence they could have in it from "We're pretty sure this is where and when he jumped" to "We can't be sure, but this is our best guess at this time". What Georger notes above about Carr talking to Rataczak and sharing it on the DZ forum for comment, leads me to think it might be the second one.
Or, maybe they originally thought they had a good idea of where he jumped. But, after finding no body, parachute, spare chute, brief case or money in the area -- and money turning up a little over seven years later a good distance away -- may have given the FBI some doubt.
Robert99 has done far more studying than me and I admit I don't understand all of it. I don't know why he puts so much effort into trying to convince RobertMBlevins on the flight path. RobertMBlevins has already made up his mind, and nothing short of a body turning up is going to change it.
Where Cooper jumped and when he jumped varies according to the author, as noted in a Bruce Smith post below.
Where was 305? [In reply to]
Can't Post
________________________________________
I see there is a lot of talk about chatting with Rataczak to clarify where 305 was when Cooper jumped.
That might be useful, but I also think it would be worthwhile to review what has already been revealed by the principals.
1. Rataczak told me he did know where 305 was when DBC jumped. Later in our 70-minute phone conversation he said that 305 was east of V-23 by a couple miles due to the wind.
2. Himmelsbach told me that Rataczak told him that 305 was over the Washougal.
3. Mrs. Cooper says that Rataczak told her that he could see the lights of Vancouver to the right. Not sure what that means. It sounds like perfect Jo Weber haze. But it could very well be V-23-ish, too.
4. Calame and Rhodes say that Scott told the folks at Himms' retirement party in 1980 that 305 was west of V-23 and over Woodland, WA.
5. Larry says V-23 All the Way to Red Bluff, CA!
6. Marianne Lincoln of Shady Acres Airport in Spanaway, WA says that the transmission from Seattle Center she heard were reporting east of V-23 to Gresham and then up the Columbia River Gorge.
7. Multiple eye witnesses allegedly report that they saw a burning object descend from a low-flying aircraft just west of the I-5 bridge over the Columbia, just about the time that 305 passed over the area.
( BruceSmith on Sep 21, 2014, 1:39 AM)
Fact: nobody including SA Larry Carr seems to know who or what generated the socalled FBI FP Map which Larry presented via Sluggo in 2009. The origin of that map is a total mystery to me. In any event, we know the FBI was not in the business of generating 'flight path and drop zone maps' back in 1971 and that specifically included the Seattle and Portland offices of the FBI.
The first map called "FBI Search Map" was generated as a joint effort between engineers at NWA and computer techs at Ft. Lewis, Wa., according to SA Tom Manning. This map merely plots zones of probability according to the data available at the time, but proved empty when a massive searches were conducted on this basis. Pilot Wm Scott told officials he thought Cooper had bailed near Woodland, Wa., "about 25 miles north of Portland". Searches there were conducted on that basis.
With the statute of limitations ending in 1976, Ralph Himmelsbach at the Portland Office entered the picture to extend the case; he obtained a John Doe warrant and updated the press on the Cooper case. Himmelsbach now refers to a (new?) computer analysis and says, quote: "We are positive Cooper came down in a 24 square mile area 12 miles north of Portland". (In an independent analysis by Sluggo etal in 2009, Sluggo speculates Cooper may have bailed near Orchard, Wa.)
1980 arrives and the Ingram money is found. Himmelsbach specifically tells agents the money came down the Washougal based on hydrologist and other reports (Palmer etal). Himmelsbach now claims Cooper bailed near the Washougal River, and Rataczak suddenly chimes in saying: ' When Cooper bailed we were east of V23'. The Washougal Theory is thus born!
2009 arrives and SA Larry Carr surfaces with the previously unseen "FBI Map" in hand, but he isn't sure how valid the map is as a correct depiction of the flight path of 305, but if the map is an accurate depiction, when and where on this map did Cooper bail; that discussion is brought to Dropzone. The matter gets debated on Dropzone during 2009 with no firm conclusions during which time noted experts Robert99, Hominid, and Farflung all make significant contributions, the Washougal Theory is rejected, and several variants of the Carr FBI FP Map are suggested based on different people's analyses, and new interviews of ATC and 305 flight crew people who were involved at the time. The rendezvous of T33's with flight 305 below Portland near Lake Oswego is documented by R2, for the first time. Interviews of people who were personally involved with the flight reenactment commence over a period of months and are still ongoing!
I cant post whole newspaper articles here due to size... will have to post the others later ...
-
"4. Calame and Rhodes say that Scott told the folks at Himms' retirement party in 1980 that 305 was west of V-23 and over Woodland, WA."
This is what I asked a couple weeks ago about people claiming the plane flew over Woodland. just for giggles lets assume they were off on the plotting of the map, or where the plane was east, or west. if you take the same calculations and put them further west the same distance away from V23. things start to make more sense. the plane now fly's over Woodland, and also goes completely around Portland....
Just Saying.... 8)
-
"4. Calame and Rhodes say that Scott told the folks at Himms' retirement party in 1980 that 305 was west of V-23 and over Woodland, WA."
This is what I asked a couple weeks ago about people claiming the plane flew over Woodland. just for giggles lets assume they were off on the plotting of the map, or where the plane was east, or west. if you take the same calculations and put them further west the same distance away from V23. things start to make more sense. the plane now fly's over Woodland, and also goes completely around Portland....
Just Saying.... 8)
Pardon my ignorance, but how close would that flight path get to Tena Bar?
-
"4. Calame and Rhodes say that Scott told the folks at Himms' retirement party in 1980 that 305 was west of V-23 and over Woodland, WA."
This is what I asked a couple weeks ago about people claiming the plane flew over Woodland. just for giggles lets assume they were off on the plotting of the map, or where the plane was east, or west. if you take the same calculations and put them further west the same distance away from V23. things start to make more sense. the plane now fly's over Woodland, and also goes completely around Portland....
Just Saying.... 8)
Pardon my ignorance, but how close would that flight path get to Tena Bar?
still not close enough, probably 4 or 5 miles guessing...
-
A typo on the Rataczak comment that Georger re-printed from the DZ.
Initially, Bill Rataczak told me that he did NOT know where 305 was when Cooper jumped.
"It's an enigma," he added.
Later in our 70-minute conversation, Bill said that 305 had drifted in the wind a few miles east of V-23.
-
A typo on the Rataczak comment that Georger re-printed from the DZ.
Initially, Bill Rataczak told me that he did NOT know where 305 was when Cooper jumped.
"It's an enigma," he added.
Later in our 70-minute conversation, Bill said that 305 had drifted in the wind a few miles east of V-23.
drifted east at what location? they were on the east side of V23 a lot from Maylay to BTG area
-
All I heard was that they had "drifted east of V-23," presumably somewhere in the general vicinity of the jump zone.
The Big Question on Rataczak is how calculated are his comments. After our 70-minute conversation, he asked me for a copy of my work on Cooper, as he knew I had been doing a lot of writing. I sent him a 60-page treatise that was titled, "Why Can't the FBI Find DB Cooper," and it pointed out a lot of the inconsistencies of the Norjak investigation.
Not only did iI never hear from Rataczak again despite my many emails and phone calls, whenever anyone asks for my work to "get a better understanding of where you're coming from," as did Bill, I strongly suspect that they want to prepare a new kind of spin to their story.
If you only tell one story to ALL reporters, why would you need to know where anyone is coming from? Calame did this with me as well. He dodged me ever after.
-
"4. Calame and Rhodes say that Scott told the folks at Himms' retirement party in 1980 that 305 was west of V-23 and over Woodland, WA."
This is what I asked a couple weeks ago about people claiming the plane flew over Woodland. just for giggles lets assume they were off on the plotting of the map, or where the plane was east, or west. if you take the same calculations and put them further west the same distance away from V23. things start to make more sense. the plane now fly's over Woodland, and also goes completely around Portland....
Just Saying.... 8)
Somebody took Woodland seriously - there was a large search around Woodland! That is fact.
-
A typo on the Rataczak comment that Georger re-printed from the DZ.
Initially, Bill Rataczak told me that he did NOT know where 305 was when Cooper jumped.
"It's an enigma," he added.
Later in our 70-minute conversation, Bill said that 305 had drifted in the wind a few miles east of V-23.
This is the kind of thing that drives people crazy!
You need to tell Blevins that one reason Carr came to Dropzone was to get opinions regarding the quote: "believed flight path", ie FBI map! Blevins is telling people that Carr presented the FBI Map as the gospel - the opposite is true.
Blevins apparantly hasn;t read year 2009 in the Dropzone Thread! DuuH! Blevins is doing it again - putting words in people's mouths, this time Carr, just as he did with Kitt. It is hilarious he has supposedly written Kitt to ask Rataczak about the FBI flight path map? Blevins will never get a reply!
The whole issue is in the hands of the windbags, still!
>:(
-
So, why do you think that Rataczak gave me two incompatible answers on the FP, Georger?
Do you think it might be intentional?
I do.
BTW: Himmelsbach told me that he and Bill Rataczak have become best friends in the aftermath of the Cooper case. In fact, Bill called Himms while I was chatting with Ralph in his living room.
Coincidence? I wonder if Mrs. Himms called Billy when I sat down on those lovely turquoise leather couches....
..just sayin'.
-
G, do you know how to get ahold of Andy Anderson? His perspective might be helpful.
-
So, why do you think that Rataczak gave me two incompatible answers on the FP, Georger?
Do you think it might be intentional?
I do.
BTW: Himmelsbach told me that he and Bill Rataczak have become best friends in the aftermath of the Cooper case. In fact, Bill called Himms while I was chatting with Ralph in his living room.
Coincidence? I wonder if Mrs. Himms called Billy when I sat down on those lovely turquoise leather couches....
..just sayin'.
Yes. I am sure Rataczak is being selective in what he says to who -
I cant/wont comment on Anderson.
-
So, why do you think that Rataczak gave me two incompatible answers on the FP, Georger?
Do you think it might be intentional?
I do.
BTW: Himmelsbach told me that he and Bill Rataczak have become best friends in the aftermath of the Cooper case. In fact, Bill called Himms while I was chatting with Ralph in his living room.
Coincidence? I wonder if Mrs. Himms called Billy when I sat down on those lovely turquoise leather couches....
..just sayin'.
Yes. I am sure Rataczak is being selective in what he says to who -
I cant/wont comment on Anderson.
Didn't Rataczak have a rather horrendous accident on his pushbike that included a sizable whack to his head? I don't mean to be unkind, but it may not have done much for his memory.
-
So, why do you think that Rataczak gave me two incompatible answers on the FP, Georger?
Do you think it might be intentional?
I do.
BTW: Himmelsbach told me that he and Bill Rataczak have become best friends in the aftermath of the Cooper case. In fact, Bill called Himms while I was chatting with Ralph in his living room.
Coincidence? I wonder if Mrs. Himms called Billy when I sat down on those lovely turquoise leather couches....
..just sayin'.
Yes. I am sure Rataczak is being selective in what he says to who -
I cant/wont comment on Anderson.
Didn't Rataczak have a rather horrendous accident on his pushbike that included a sizable whack to his head? I don't mean to be unkind, but it may not have done much for his memory.
Yes. He was in grave condition for a long time, as I understand it. But he survived well after a long recovery.
-
Here is an excellent extended version of the video "First Flights 1963". it goes further than the first video catching an inside view of the prototype cockpit, to showing the manufacturing. it's a long video but it is shared with the 747. the first part most have seen, but it continues with new material.
The first 30 minutes are dedicated to the 727, no need to watch past that point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uni6HVfthKs
-
Carpet warehouse and Cooper expert RobertMBlevins says:
RobertMBlevins
Sep 24, 2014, 4:02 PM
Post #55608 of 55611 (95 views)
Re: [mrshutter45] Trip to WA 2010 & Carr! [In reply to] Quote:
'The FBI doesn't know where the map originated from. Carr even admits this...'
[Blevins reply]
"Most likely scenario is that it was created by Paul Soderlind and his team from NWA, using the available data from all the known sources. There is a picture out there on the internet somewhere (I may have it on one of our other computers still) that shows a similar map in the background. On a wall. It is one of the pictures taken during the Army search for Cooper."
Blevins has been repeating the same confusion for four+ years. ! :)
So there you have it folks. This is where the FBI Map presented by Carr came from! From Paul Soderlind and his team from NWA; date uncertain. And the Air Force was not involved! And, das photo Blevins is speaking of with the FBI (yellow) map in the background, he saw somewhere on the internet (I wonder where!), is attached below. "It is one of the pictures taken during the Army search for Cooper." The FBI map Carr presented is clearly visble in the photo Blevins mentions - yepper! See it? :)
BTW:
"Soderlind retired in 1973. He later became a consultant for Boeing, Embry-Riddle, the U.S. Air Force, and the Federal Aviation Administration, among others."
-
Actually I think Blevy might be right this time. I blew up this photo and believe that it's the path on the wall?
-
Actually I think Blevy might be right this time. I blew up this photo and believe that it's the path on the wall?
Those do not look like aeronautical charts to me. The FBI maps, all of them, are aeronautical charts with plots on them.
-
Actually I think Blevy might be right this time. I blew up this photo and believe that it's the path on the wall?
Have never seen that photo before ?
-
Actually I think Blevy might be right this time. I blew up this photo and believe that it's the path on the wall?
Those do not look like aeronautical charts to me. The FBI maps, all of them, are aeronautical charts with plots on them.
It looks pretty damn close to me? I can make out what appears to be the flight path. anyone else?
-
Actually I think Blevy might be right this time. I blew up this photo and believe that it's the path on the wall?
Those do not look like aeronautical charts to me. The FBI maps, all of them, are aeronautical charts with plots on them.
It looks pretty damn close to me? I can make out what appears to be the flight path. anyone else?
Do you know the date of the map in the middle? It has to be 1972 or earlier, but I don't see any recognizable features on it.
-
Actually I think Blevy might be right this time. I blew up this photo and believe that it's the path on the wall?
Those do not look like aeronautical charts to me. The FBI maps, all of them, are aeronautical charts with plots on them.
It looks pretty damn close to me? I can make out what appears to be the flight path. anyone else?
Do you know the date of the map in the middle? It has to be 1972 or earlier, but I don't see any recognizable features on it.
It's the map from the FBI website I believe. I've had it for a while. I turned up upright. the forum won't let me post a photo? have to see what is wrong. it's telling me it didn't pass security?
-
Let me try it again...here is the FBI map I have...I think this is the map Carr rolls out on the table in the video.
-
Actually I think Blevy might be right this time. I blew up this photo and believe that it's the path on the wall?
Those do not look like aeronautical charts to me. The FBI maps, all of them, are aeronautical charts with plots on them.
It looks pretty damn close to me? I can make out what appears to be the flight path. anyone else?
Do you know the date of the map in the middle? It has to be 1972 or earlier, but I don't see any recognizable features on it.
It's the map from the FBI website I believe. I've had it for a while. I turned up upright. the forum won't let me post a photo? have to see what is wrong. it's telling me it didn't pass security?
The large "control zone", which presumably is for Portland, is not consistent with the Portland control zone shown on the FBI charts.
ON SECOND VIEWING, maybe it is consistent with Portland. It is not a "control zone" but simply a boundary showing the base of the control area.
-
Actually I think Blevy might be right this time. I blew up this photo and believe that it's the path on the wall?
Those do not look like aeronautical charts to me. The FBI maps, all of them, are aeronautical charts with plots on them.
It looks pretty damn close to me? I can make out what appears to be the flight path. anyone else?
Do you know the date of the map in the middle? It has to be 1972 or earlier, but I don't see any recognizable features on it.
It's the map from the FBI website I believe. I've had it for a while. I turned up upright. the forum won't let me post a photo? have to see what is wrong. it's telling me it didn't pass security?
The large "control zone", which presumably is for Portland, is not consistent with the Portland control zone shown on the FBI charts.
Didn't you say there was aeronautical changes after the map was made?
-
Actually I think Blevy might be right this time. I blew up this photo and believe that it's the path on the wall?
Those do not look like aeronautical charts to me. The FBI maps, all of them, are aeronautical charts with plots on them.
It looks pretty damn close to me? I can make out what appears to be the flight path. anyone else?
Do you know the date of the map in the middle? It has to be 1972 or earlier, but I don't see any recognizable features on it.
It's the map from the FBI website I believe. I've had it for a while. I turned up upright. the forum won't let me post a photo? have to see what is wrong. it's telling me it didn't pass security?
The large "control zone", which presumably is for Portland, is not consistent with the Portland control zone shown on the FBI charts.
Didn't you say there was aeronautical changes after the map was made?
I have amended my last post to indicate that what I was looking at was apparently simply an indicator of the base of the control area (which relates to altitude and visibility).
Since this map is presumably on the wall of the people doing the search in early 1972, it could not be dated later than 1972. These aeronautical charts were updated ever six months in the 1972 era.
-
Here is a map from SkyVector. it appears they changed the "Control Area"
-
Here is another flight path map. it's from "historicalwings.com"
(http://fly.historicwings.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/HighFlight-DBCooper3-219x300.jpg)
An earlier best Estimate of the Flight Path of “Dan Cooper” on Northwest Orient Flight 305; Seattle is marked in yellow on top; overlaid onto a modern FAA sectional chart (2012) — best estimate of where he came down based on winds would be about 40 miles ENE of Portland International Airport (second large yellow area from the top as marked on this chart).
-
And one more of a search map. this is from Seattlepi....
-
Here is a map from SkyVector. it appears they changed the "Control Area"
Major changes have been made in controlled airspace and its representation on maps since 1971.
-
Here is another flight path map. it's from "historicalwings.com"
(http://fly.historicwings.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/HighFlight-DBCooper3-219x300.jpg)
An earlier best Estimate of the Flight Path of “Dan Cooper” on Northwest Orient Flight 305; Seattle is marked in yellow on top; overlaid onto a modern FAA sectional chart (2012) — best estimate of where he came down based on winds would be about 40 miles ENE of Portland International Airport (second large yellow area from the top as marked on this chart).
That "40 miles ENE of Portland International Airport" would put Cooper halfway to Pasco. That just doesn't work.
-
And one more of a search map. this is from Seattlepi....
I would be wary of that one (search map) from the PI.
The PI also posted this! Note position of Tina Bar.
-
I think this is the site where I got the FBI map from. the link doesn't seem to work going to the FBI anymore. they probably took the photo down..
http://www.wickenburgnews.com/news/coopermystery.htm
Here is another look at the photo with the map on the wall. is it possible the "No's" are on that map?
Also Georger, do you know who the agent is? I can't find the site where the photo came from..
-
I think this is the site where I got the FBI map from. the link doesn't seem to work going to the FBI anymore. they probably took the photo down..
http://www.wickenburgnews.com/news/coopermystery.htm
Here is another look at the photo with the map on the wall. is it possible the "No's" are on that map?
Also Georger, do you know who the agent is? I can't find the site where the photo came from..
That may be Tom Manning.
What is this PI map supposed to depict ? Anyone know?
-
I don't know unless they are just showing a map they used? Ariel is boxed off?
the caption to the photo reads: A map used in 1972 during the search for D.B. Cooper. (The Associated Press/provided by seattlepi.com file)
-
I don't know unless they are just showing a map they used? Ariel is boxed off?
the caption to the photo reads: A map used in 1972 during the search for D.B. Cooper. (The Associated Press/provided by seattlepi.com file)
What is the attachment limit here? I cant post any of the newspaper page photos I have here ???
-
I don't know unless they are just showing a map they used? Ariel is boxed off?
the caption to the photo reads: A map used in 1972 during the search for D.B. Cooper. (The Associated Press/provided by seattlepi.com file)
What is the attachment limit here? I cant post any of the newspaper page photos I have here ???
192 kb's. what size is your documents?
-
I don't know unless they are just showing a map they used? Ariel is boxed off?
the caption to the photo reads: A map used in 1972 during the search for D.B. Cooper. (The Associated Press/provided by seattlepi.com file)
What is the attachment limit here? I cant post any of the newspaper page photos I have here ???
192 kb's. what size is your documents?
The last one I tried to post was 200kb. Can the limit be increased?
-
yes, I'll increase it now.....
-
yes, I'll increase it now.....
let us know what its increased to ???
-
yes, I'll increase it now.....
let us know what its increased to ???
I set it at 200 kb's. it tells you at the bottom where you "choose file"
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip
Restrictions: 3 per post, maximum total size 668KB, maximum individual size 200KB
-
What is that "NO" on the flightpath plot released by the FBI?
(re. the duscussion under "clues, documents and evidence" (http://www.thedbcooperforum.com/index.php?topic=6.msg2272#msg2272))
It isn't "NO." It's a repaired "NB."
The full flightpath plot was made in three pieces which were then stuck together. Each piece was plotted on an aeronautical chart. The piece that had 44°N through 46°N was cut off along a constant-latitude line about 1/4 minute north of the 46°N line. This piece was then pasted down on top of the corresponding part of the piece that covered 46°N and northward. This covered up material that was on the latter (northern) piece of chart.
The material that was covered up is apparent from magnifying the 46°N vicinity of the higher resolution flightpath plot we've discussed some in the past. It includes part of a state name. It includes arrows for time annotations that had been written on the northern piece of chart. And, it includes the lower part of the "NB" that had been written on that piece of chart.
After the central chart piece was stuck on the more northern piece, someone replaced the part of the "B" that had been covered but did not replace the covered part of the "N." And the replaced part of the "B" was done with a narrower, less dense marker.
What about the meaning of "NB"?
The "B" means that the 1°x1° quadrangle in which "NB" appears is in a 1° wide band of latitude that is the second such band north of the latitude baseline (45°N) of zone DK. The "N" means that the quadrangle is in a 1° band of longitude that is the 13th band starting from the western baseline (135°W longitude) of that zone DK. To those who know the coordinate system, the "NB" means the 1°x1° quadrangle is the one lying between 46°N, 123°W and 47°N, 122°W. By convention the code was placed in the lower left corner of the quadrangle.
A couple of questions are obvious. What's that "zone DK"? And, why all the complexity? You can look right on the chart and see that the 1°x1° quadrangle lies between 46°N, 123°W and 47°N, 122°W. First question first.
This is all part of a thing called the "world geographic reference system," conventionally abbreviated "GEOREF." This obsolete system was used by the air force and army air force. It is pretty much equivalent to latitude and longitude except that it identifies areas, rather than points, and cannot be nearly as precise.
In the system, the longitudes of the world are divided into 24 15°-wide bands of longitude eastward from the 180° longitude meridian. These bands are assigned letters from A to Z, excluding I and O, starting at the band on the east side of 180° longitude.
Similarly, latitudes are divided into twelve 15° bands which are assigned letters A to M starting at the band adjacent to the south pole.
The intersections of the 15°-wide latitude bands and longitude bands creates zones which are 15°x15° quadrangles which are uniquely identified by the letter for the longitude zone followed by the letter for the latitude zone.
Using this system, the fourth longitude band (designated "D") would extend from 135°W to 120°W and would encompass the areas with which we are concerned. Latitude band J would be 30°N to 45°N and would encompass the areas of the flightpath south of about Salem, OR and latitude band K would be 45°N to 60°N and would encompass the areas north of Salem. Hence the areas south of Salem would be in 15°x15° quadrangle (zone) DJ and the areas to the north would be in zone DK.
This system also includes breaking each of the 15° bands (lat and lon) into 15 1°-wide bands. These then are assigned letters A to Q (skipping I and O) from the south and from the east. Because the longitudes between 123° and 122° are the 13th band, the longitude band is assigned letter "N," and this is the first letter of the identifications of all the 1°x1° quadrangles in the areas of the flightpath. The three quandrangles north of 45°N are DKNA, DKNB and DKNC. The system uses 2 letters to identify large quadrangles, plus 2 more letters to identify the smaller quadrangles within the large ones.
The three 1°x1° quadrangles south of 45°N are the 13th, 14th and 15th in the "N" longitude zone of 15°x15° quadrangle DJ, so they are DJNN, DJNP and DJNQ. The "NP" was not marked on the lower half of the complete flightpath plot, but the "NN" and "NQ" were. So the NN and NQ on the plot are not "in sequence" with the NA, NB and NC in the upper half of the plot because they are in a different 15°x15° quadrangle than the NA, NB and NC.
So, to the second question. Why put the notations on the chart?
The notations are conspicuous. They were put on the separate pieces before the pieces were put together and served to make it easy and quick for the people who put the pieces together to put them together in the right sequence. It was an assembly aid. Those people were accustomed to the GEOREF system. Up until about 1971 the quadrangle identifications had been preprinted on the airforce edition aero charts the people were accustomed to using. Those charts also included explanations of how to use the system to identify and reference 1-minute by 1-minute geographical areas.
-
What is that "NO" on the flightpath plot released by the FBI?
(re. the duscussion under "other documents and evidence" (http://www.thedbcooperforum.com/index.php?topic=6.msg2272#msg2272))
It isn't "NO." It's a repaired "NB."
The full flightpath plot was made in three pieces which were then stuck together. Each piece was plotted on an aeronautical chart. The piece that had 44°N through 46°N was cut off along a constant-latitude line about 1/4 minute north of the 46°N line. This piece was then pasted down on top of the corresponding part of the piece that covered 46°N and northward. This covered up material that was on the latter (northern) piece of chart.
The material that was covered up is apparent from magnifying the 46°N vicinity of the higher resolution flightpath plot we've discussed some in the past. It includes part of a state name. It includes arrows for time annotations that had been written on the northern piece of chart. And, it includes the lower part of the "NB" that had been written on that piece of chart.
After the central chart piece was stuck on the more northern piece, someone replaced the part of the "B" that had been covered but did not replace the covered part of the "N." And the replaced part of the "B" was done with a narrower, less dense marker.
What about the meaning of "NB"?
The "B" means that the 1°x1° quadrangle in which "NB" appears is in a 1° wide band of latitude that is the second such band north of the latitude baseline (45°N) of zone DK. The "N" means that the quadrangle is in a 1° band of longitude that is the 13th band starting from the western baseline (135°W longitude) of that zone DK. To those who know the coordinate system, the "NB" means the 1°x1° quadrangle is the one lying between 46°N, 123°W and 47°N, 122°W. By convention the code was placed in the lower left corner of the quadrangle.
A couple of questions are obvious. What's that "zone DK"? And, why all the complexity? You can look right on the chart and see that the 1°x1° quadrangle lies between 46°N, 123°W and 47°N, 122°W. First question first.
This is all part of a thing called the "world geographic reference system," conventionally abbreviated "GEOREF." This obsolete system was used by the air force and army air force. It is pretty much equivalent to latitude and longitude except that it identifies areas, rather than points, and cannot be nearly as precise.
In the system, the longitudes of the world are divided into 24 15°-wide bands of longitude eastward from the 180° longitude meridian. These bands are assigned letters from A to Z, excluding I and O, starting at the band on the east side of 180° longitude.
Similarly, latitudes are divided into twelve 15° bands which are assigned letters A to M starting at the band adjacent to the south pole.
The intersections of the 15°-wide latitude bands and longitude bands creates zones which are 15°x15° quadrangles which are uniquely identified by the letter for the longitude zone followed by the letter for the latitude zone.
Using this system, the fourth longitude band (designated "D") would extend from 135°W to 120°W and would encompass the areas with which we are concerned. Latitude band J would be 30°N to 45°N and would encompass the areas of the flightpath south of about Salem, OR and latitude band K would be 45°N to 60°N and would encompass the areas north of Salem. Hence the areas south of Salem would be in 15°x15° quadrangle (zone) DJ and the areas to the north would be in zone DK.
This system also includes breaking each of the 15° bands (lat and lon) into 15 1°-wide bands. These then are assigned letters A to Q (skipping I and O) from the south and from the east. Because the longitudes between 123° and 122° are the 13th band, the longitude band is assigned letter "N," and this is the first letter of the identifications of all the 1°x1° quadrangles in the areas of the flightpath. The three quandrangles north of 45°N are DKNA, DKNB and DKNC. The system uses 2 letters to identifies large quadrangles, plus 2 more letters to identify the smaller quadrangles within the large ones.
The three 1°x1° quadrangles south of 45°N are the 13th, 14th and 15th in the "N" longitude zone of 15°x15° quadrangle DJ, so they are DJNN, DJNP and DJNQ. The "NP" was not marked on the lower half of the complete flightpath plot, but the "NN" and "NQ" were. So the NN and NQ on the plot are not "in sequence" with the NA, NB and NC in the upper half of the plot because they are in a different 15°x15° quadrangle than the NA, NB and NC.
So, to the second question. Why put the notations on the chart?
The notations are conspicuous. They were put on the separate pieces before the pieces were put together and served to make it easy and quick for the people who put the pieces together to put them together in the right sequence. It was an assembly aid. Those people were accustomed to the GEOREF system. Up until about 1971 the quadrangle identifications had been preprinted on the airforce edition aero charts the people were accustomed to using. Those charts also included explanations of how to use the system to identify and reference 1-minute by 1-minute geographical areas.
Yes. It all makes sense, now. Thanks!
-
Nice report Hominid....as usual. thanks for clearing it up. didn't Jo claim she wrote "No" on the map 8)
(http://us.cdn4.123rf.com/168nwm/arcady31/arcady311206/arcady31120600002/13986246-gold-award-medal-with-ribbon-vector-illustration.jpg)
-
Nice report Hominid....as usual. thanks for clearing it up. didn't Jo claim she wrote "No" on the map 8)
Thanks. Haven't a clue re. her claiming it. Don't read much of what she writes. Too hard to figure out what she's trying to say.
-
Nice report Hominid....as usual. thanks for clearing it up. didn't Jo claim she wrote "No" on the map 8)
Thanks. Haven't a clue re. her claiming it. Don't read much of what she writes. Too hard to figure out what she's trying to say.
Jo DID claim that she wrote "NO" on the map. But that doesn't mean that she had even seen it before it turned up online here.
-
Nice report Hominid....as usual. thanks for clearing it up. didn't Jo claim she wrote "No" on the map 8)
Thanks. Haven't a clue re. her claiming it. Don't read much of what she writes. Too hard to figure out what she's trying to say.
Jo DID claim that she wrote "NO" on the map. But that doesn't mean that she had even seen it before it turned up online here.
I seriously doubt the FBI would allow someone to scribble on potential evidence, or something that could be used in Court. obviously the letters have been on there from the beginning. 8)
-
Nice report Hominid....as usual. thanks for clearing it up. didn't Jo claim she wrote "No" on the map 8)
Thanks. Haven't a clue re. her claiming it. Don't read much of what she writes. Too hard to figure out what she's trying to say.
Jo DID claim that she wrote "NO" on the map. But that doesn't mean that she had even seen it before it turned up online here.
I seriously doubt the FBI would allow someone to scribble on potential evidence, or something that could be used in Court. obviously the letters have been on there from the beginning. 8)
Hominid may have just uncovered the reason(s) that the FBI chart is nonsense. It looks like that chart is a montage of all the charts they could get their hands on and may have combined nautical miles, statute miles, meters, and who knows what else, in its creation.
Trying to understand that map is one of those "Abandon Hope" type of situations.
Goggle "US Army Map Reading and Land Navigation Handbook", which is FM 3-25-26, to learn more about all the unusual military type of map reference systems including GEOREF.
-
Nice report Hominid....as usual. thanks for clearing it up. didn't Jo claim she wrote "No" on the map 8)
(http://us.cdn4.123rf.com/168nwm/arcady31/arcady311206/arcady31120600002/13986246-gold-award-medal-with-ribbon-vector-illustration.jpg)
That's a good one! :) :) :) :) :) Like Hom I never can follow Jo Weber but she definitely said she knew 'who' had written "NO" on the chart and I think she said the "NO" referred to "NOT THE REAL FLIGHT MAP" or something to that effect. She obviously failed to see all the other "NX"'s below the "NO". Oh well. Typical Jo.
-
Nice report Hominid....as usual. thanks for clearing it up. didn't Jo claim she wrote "No" on the map 8)
Thanks. Haven't a clue re. her claiming it. Don't read much of what she writes. Too hard to figure out what she's trying to say.
Jo DID claim that she wrote "NO" on the map. But that doesn't mean that she had even seen it before it turned up online here.
Are you saying people's posts create Jo's next headline? :)
-
Nice report Hominid....as usual. thanks for clearing it up. didn't Jo claim she wrote "No" on the map 8)
Thanks. Haven't a clue re. her claiming it. Don't read much of what she writes. Too hard to figure out what she's trying to say.
Jo DID claim that she wrote "NO" on the map. But that doesn't mean that she had even seen it before it turned up online here.
Are you saying people's posts create Jo's next headline? :)
Yes, indeed! Just make a post that Batman was involved in the Cooper hijacking and Jo will weave him into one of her five page posts and include first hand stories of how Batman and Duane were pub-crawling buddies. And how Duane attended Robin's Bar Mitzvah.
-
Nice report Hominid....as usual. thanks for clearing it up. didn't Jo claim she wrote "No" on the map 8)
Thanks. Haven't a clue re. her claiming it. Don't read much of what she writes. Too hard to figure out what she's trying to say.
Jo DID claim that she wrote "NO" on the map. But that doesn't mean that she had even seen it before it turned up online here.
Are you saying people's posts create Jo's next headline? :)
Yes, indeed! Just make a post that Batman was involved in the Cooper hijacking and Jo will weave him into one of her five page posts and include first hand stories of how Batman and Duane were pub-crawling buddies. And how Duane attended Robin's Bar Mitzvah.
No one knows that better than Himmelsbach! He really stepped into it when he took Jo in.
-
So, why do you think that Rataczak gave me two incompatible answers on the FP, Georger?
Do you think it might be intentional?
I do.
BTW: Himmelsbach told me that he and Bill Rataczak have become best friends in the aftermath of the Cooper case. In fact, Bill called Himms while I was chatting with Ralph in his living room.
Coincidence? I wonder if Mrs. Himms called Billy when I sat down on those lovely turquoise leather couches....
..just sayin'.
Yes. I am sure Rataczak is being selective in what he says to who -
I cant/wont comment on Anderson.
Didn't Rataczak have a rather horrendous accident on his pushbike that included a sizable whack to his head? I don't mean to be unkind, but it may not have done much for his memory.
I spoke with Rataczak for 70 minutes on the phone in 2009 and after the accident, and he displayed no cognitive impairments whatsoever.
-
Blevins is playing his usual games with the flight path issue. Very simply it was the FBI, Larry Carr, (who came to us!) looking for advice about ... the flight path. Neither Cooper or any sign of him has ever been found, except for his money. The location of the money and the known flight path are quite divergent. It only makes sense that one would question the flight path and that is precisely what Carr and the FBI came to Dropzone to do ...... so Whiplash Blevins amid your claims of personal abuse and other Chicken Little stuff, don't try to change the history of Dropzone, and that's just for starters.
So you accept the FBI's flight path on faith, without knowing anything about it other than empty platitudes
and name-dropping, and people you don't know anything about either! Frankly, you speaking about the DB Cooper flight path is a lot like the horses' ass speaking about radar! Give the world a break Blevinaide, from your ignorant self abusive games.
Stop with the red herring: 'have you talked to Rataczak?'. You have not talked to Rataczak! :D
Stop with the straw man: "You should be talking to the FBI, not me!". Well Blevinaide, nobody is talking to you about anything looking for answers. It is you doing all the talking! People are merely answering trying to cope with your personal attacks you have repeated thousands of times since August 2010. The correct response would be: "GFY and STFU and go scrub a floor or clean carpet and stay the hell out of the Cooper debate and people's lives!!" ;D
Quick Test: You tell us what Cooper's last order was for flap settings just prior to his bailing out?
You tell us where flight #305 was at 8:20pm
You tell us where the T33's came from and how and where they were directed to intercept 305, by who?
:)
-
Let me try and answer for him since he returns that favor so many time in the past.
Some "pretty smart guys" made the flight path. 8)
Those same "smart guys" including members from NWO are too stupid to realize one of there own guys did this crime ;D
Followed by LOL, (*wink*) (*smiles*) and a lot of "are you kidding me (*laughs*)"
This is the same guy looking for truth, but wants to hold off the report to the FBI in order to push a questionable story about movie rights about the "KC Saga" the guy who wants to stall them, but only has until Sunday?
-
Let me try and answer for him since he returns that favor so many time in the past.
Some "pretty smart guys" made the flight path. 8)
Those same "smart guys" including members from NWO are too stupid to realize one of there own guys did this crime ;D
Followed by LOL, (*wink*) (*smiles*) and a lot of "are you kidding me (*laughs*)"
This is the same guy looking for truth, but wants to hold off the report to the FBI in order to push a questionable story about movie rights about the "KC Saga" the guy who wants to stall them, but only has until Sunday?
And his use of "pretty smart guys" comes directly from Tom Kaye@! They are Tom's words! Blevins is even stealing Tom line and using it as his own!!!
What a Smurf.
-
Let me try and answer for him since he returns that favor so many time in the past.
Some "pretty smart guys" made the flight path. 8)
Those same "smart guys" including members from NWO are too stupid to realize one of there own guys did this crime ;D
Followed by LOL, (*wink*) (*smiles*) and a lot of "are you kidding me (*laughs*)"
This is the same guy looking for truth, but wants to hold off the report to the FBI in order to push a questionable story about movie rights about the "KC Saga" the guy who wants to stall them, but only has until Sunday?
And his use of "pretty smart guys" comes directly from Tom Kaye@! They are Tom's words! Blevins is even stealing Tom line and using it as his own!!!
What a Smurf.
Blevins keeps dropping this canard -
As far as determining the flight path after the plane left Seattle, I think you can point to Paul Soderlind (pictures attached) for a lot of that. Rataczak names Soderlind and his team as a primary force in determining where Cooper jumped. Soderlind was probably the smartest guy who ever worked for NWA.
"Soderlind was probably the smartest guy who ever worked for NWA." :) :) :) :) :)
It's laughable and idiotic.
"Soderlind and his team."
Soderlind is now leading a TEAM of students and inferiors! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
The USAF is now under Soderlind's command! Hupp one two three four ... right face! :) :) :) :) :)
Saint Soderlind, ruler of the Universe!
Wir werden weiter marschieren Soderlind
Wenn alles in Scherben fällt, Soderlind
Denn heute da hört uns Deutschland Soderlind
Und morgen die ganze Welt. das Soderlind
Ja Vol YA VOL MEIN kommandant.
Uber Alles Soderlind, ja vol!
Hupp two three four.
Herr Soderlind ist uber alles.
All according to Herr Blevins who has an infatuation with Soderlind! ;)
-
Ok, our fun is over with a 2 post per day maximum. let's try to keep things focused on this side of the board. yes, that includes me too. ;D ;D
-
Carr states this about the flight path:
"The map is an investigative tool calculated from several pieces of evidence. If one piece is slightly wrong it throws off the map, which could explain why nothing was found on the original search and the money was found where it was."
He also explains in a video that the map shows the path the plane took, or the alleged flight path. both comments leave questions about the path.
more to follow:
I am with you on the oscillation, when i read through the case file it seems as if the "pressure bump" and oscillation were one in the same. For me the finding of the money changes all of that. If there is no logical, verifiable piece of evidence or information that can point to the money ending up where it did by human hands, then it had to get there on its own from the environment. Since I can't find anything that says it was human, then it had to be environment. Because there is no way the money could have ended up where it did from
Page break....
the original search area, then the original dropzone was calculated wrong. Therefore, it stands to reason that the crew felt oscillations at 8:12 and the pressure bump a few minutes later. The second officer stated the last contact they had with Cooper was 8:05 and it was 5 to 10 minutes after that they felt the pressure change. I also don't think a trained air crew would mix up terms, an oscillation would be just that and a pressure change would be called a pressure change or bump. I think where things went wrong was during the testing. For some reason we were not to re-create oscillations only the pressure bump. At this point the terms must have been combined and believed to be one in the same.
-
Carr states this about the flight path:
"The map is an investigative tool calculated from several pieces of evidence. If one piece is slightly wrong it throws off the map, which could explain why nothing was found on the original search and the money was found where it was."
He also explains in a video that the map shows the path the plane took, or the alleged flight path. both comments leave questions about the path.
more to follow:
I am with you on the oscillation, when i read through the case file it seems as if the "pressure bump" and oscillation were one in the same. For me the finding of the money changes all of that. If there is no logical, verifiable piece of evidence or information that can point to the money ending up where it did by human hands, then it had to get there on its own from the environment. Since I can't find anything that says it was human, then it had to be environment. Because there is no way the money could have ended up where it did from
Page break....
the original search area, then the original dropzone was calculated wrong. Therefore, it stands to reason that the crew felt oscillations at 8:12 and the pressure bump a few minutes later. The second officer stated the last contact they had with Cooper was 8:05 and it was 5 to 10 minutes after that they felt the pressure change. I also don't think a trained air crew would mix up terms, an oscillation would be just that and a pressure change would be called a pressure change or bump. I think where things went wrong was during the testing. For some reason we were not to re-create oscillations only the pressure bump. At this point the terms must have been combined and believed to be one in the same.
Ckret never talked to Anderson, so far as I know. I hope I am not wrong about that. I hope I am not wrong about that because if Ckret had talked to Anderson (and he still could!), if the answers we have from Anderson are true, then the bump was not reported immediately with the bump happening but a number of minutes later, "after we discussed it for a few minutes then Rataczak called it in and we still weren't sure...". It's delays like that that add up in minutes at precisely the time when minutes in reporting, and assigning a time to the jump, is crucial. Three minutes? Five minutes? That brings the location of the jump further south of say Battleground, closer to the Columbia itself. And exploring issues like that was one of the key reason Ckret came to Dropzone at all. (which Blevins seems totally unaware of.)
-
Wild card question -
Were there any revolving beacons or lights (aviation or maritime) working in the vicinity of PDX or Vancouver or Portland on the night of the hijacking, when 305 passed through?
-
Wild card question -
Were there any revolving beacons or lights (aviation or maritime) working in the vicinity of PDX or Vancouver or Portland on the night of the hijacking, when 305 passed through?
A quick guess would be lights on the bridges for one. then of course PDX just to the east....
Pearson field airport close to I-5
-
I spotted a tower while flying at night. I took a screenshot of the sim, and Google street view. they are in the same location a little over a half a mile north of the Columbia on I-5 it has a blinking beacon (red)
I can drive on the roads too ;D
-
I spotted a tower while flying at night. I took a screenshot of the sim, and Google street view. they are in the same location a little over a half a mile north of the Columbia on I-5 it has a blinking beacon (red)
High things all over the country have blinking lights (red, if I'm remembering right). Example: AM radio antennas. It's to keep planes from crashing into them at night. This was true in the 1970 dark ages too.
-
I spotted a tower while flying at night. I took a screenshot of the sim, and Google street view. they are in the same location a little over a half a mile north of the Columbia on I-5 it has a blinking beacon (red)
High things all over the country have blinking lights (red, if I'm remembering right). Example: AM radio antennas. It's to keep planes from crashing into them at night. This was true in the 1970 dark ages too.
Correct, I was just answering G's question about lights in the area. you also have different intensities with different heights.
Were there any revolving beacons or lights (aviation or maritime)
-
I spotted a tower while flying at night. I took a screenshot of the sim, and Google street view. they are in the same location a little over a half a mile north of the Columbia on I-5 it has a blinking beacon (red)
High things all over the country have blinking lights (red, if I'm remembering right). Example: AM radio antennas. It's to keep planes from crashing into them at night. This was true in the 1970 dark ages too.
Correct, I was just answering G's question about lights in the area. you also have different intensities with different heights.
Were there any revolving beacons or lights (aviation or maritime)
Rataczak says he, they, could see the lights of Portland/Vancouver coming up - at 8:10. Some dispute this was possible due to cloud cover. Rotating beacons, like light houses, tend to be noticed from a distance due to the blinking on/off effect. It's likely Cooper looked around from the stairs at least prior to jumping. People have said the bright lights on the Lake Merwin dam might have been visible from a distance. Bright rotating and blinking beacons near PDX might have been visible? It's just a thought -
-
I spotted a tower while flying at night. I took a screenshot of the sim, and Google street view. they are in the same location a little over a half a mile north of the Columbia on I-5 it has a blinking beacon (red)
High things all over the country have blinking lights (red, if I'm remembering right). Example: AM radio antennas. It's to keep planes from crashing into them at night. This was true in the 1970 dark ages too.
Correct, I was just answering G's question about lights in the area. you also have different intensities with different heights.
Were there any revolving beacons or lights (aviation or maritime)
Rataczak says he, they, could see the lights of Portland/Vancouver coming up - at 8:10. Some dispute this was possible due to cloud cover. Rotating beacons, like light houses, tend to be noticed from a distance due to the blinking on/off effect. It's likely Cooper looked around from the stairs at least prior to jumping. People have said the bright lights on the Lake Merwin dam might have been visible from a distance. Bright rotating and blinking beacons near PDX might have been visible? It's just a thought -
Did Rataczak see lights on the ground or just the glow from Portland/Vancouver, which can be quite pronounced, through the clouds?
-
I spotted a tower while flying at night. I took a screenshot of the sim, and Google street view. they are in the same location a little over a half a mile north of the Columbia on I-5 it has a blinking beacon (red)
High things all over the country have blinking lights (red, if I'm remembering right). Example: AM radio antennas. It's to keep planes from crashing into them at night. This was true in the 1970 dark ages too.
Correct, I was just answering G's question about lights in the area. you also have different intensities with different heights.
Were there any revolving beacons or lights (aviation or maritime)
Rataczak says he, they, could see the lights of Portland/Vancouver coming up - at 8:10. Some dispute this was possible due to cloud cover. Rotating beacons, like light houses, tend to be noticed from a distance due to the blinking on/off effect. It's likely Cooper looked around from the stairs at least prior to jumping. People have said the bright lights on the Lake Merwin dam might have been visible from a distance. Bright rotating and blinking beacons near PDX might have been visible? It's just a thought -
Did Rataczak see lights on the ground or just the glow from Portland/Vancouver, which can be quite pronounced, through the clouds?
I will find the quote.
-
Rataczak says he, they, could see the lights of Portland/Vancouver coming up - at 8:10. Some dispute this was possible due to cloud cover. Rotating beacons, like light houses, tend to be noticed from a distance due to the blinking on/off effect. It's likely Cooper looked around from the stairs at least prior to jumping. People have said the bright lights on the Lake Merwin dam might have been visible from a distance. Bright rotating and blinking beacons near PDX might have been visible? It's just a thought -
There are a few things that should be understood about cloud cover information as it relates to flight 305 while it approached Portland.
The first is that the information we have applies strictly to a specific place at a specific time. That specific place was not the location of flight 305, and the specific time was not when the flight was nearing Vancouver and Portland.
The cloud cover information we have is about what portion of the sky could be seen (or not seen) from a cloud-cover observation site at PDX. This information also says what portion of the sky around PDX an airplane could be in such that the crew would be able to clearly see back to the cloud observation point at PDX. It's a reciprocal relationship.
The cloud coverage data doesn't apply exactly to what cloud coverage would be seen from a place other than PDX (e.g., Battle Ground). And it doesn't apply exactly to the question of what could be seen on the ground at places other than PDX. Applicability to places other than the PDX observation site is only approximate.
Also, the cloud coverage information we have was for 8pm and 9pm. Clouds aren't static. There was in fact a clearing trend. So the information we have applies only approximately for 8:13pm.
The second important thing to understand is that cloud coverage classified as "overcast" does not (and did not then) mean complete coverage. For some time now, the cloud coverage definitions are in terms of eighths of the sky that are covered. In 1971 the definitions were in terms of tenths, and "overcast" meant more than 9 tenths coverage. This could still leave a small part of the sky that would be visible from the PDX observation site. A plane could occasionally pass through small areas where it would be able to see PDX.
Finally, it is incorrect to characterize the cloud cover as being layers of scattered and broken cover AND an overcast. The fact is that the definitions (then and now) are in terms of cummulative cover. A cloud layer is classified as "broken" if that layer plus the layers below it block a certain amount of sky. An overcast in 1971 was a cloud layer that, along with all lower layers, blocked more than 9 tenths of the sky. For example, a layer blocking half the sky could be an overcast layer if the lower layers blocked a different half of the sky. Depending upon vertical spacing between layers, it would in such a case be possible for an airplane crew to see through a "hole" in one cloud layer, through the space between layers, then through a hole in a lower layer to see some point on the ground.
-
I have brought up the escape from Alcatraz before. I just watched the episode I've seen before, but I caught a few things I didn't the first time. the FBI handed over the case to the US Marshal's in the late 70's. it took them almost two years to give them all the files? a lot of the original files were stored at the National Archives in San Francisco.
This was where the Agent who is currently on the case discovered the buried files about a raft being found, and a car being stolen the next day. If you don't recall, the FBI claimed for years that no raft was found, and no crimes committed following the escape. Alcatraz was a Federal prison with the reputation of being escape proof. could the FBI be following the same guidelines with this case? the escape I can almost understand that they were under pressure not to look bad with the escape proof prison proving them wrong. did they quickly assume they all drown? why would pieces not related to the raft show up days later? and oar, there life vests, a packet of photo's, but not a single piece of a rather large raft? records also indicate a boat was close to the Island just after midnight. the engine cut off, and started moments later?
Here we have key pieces of evidence missing? the butts, the glass Cooper drank from. these are important to the crime, perhaps not so important in 1971, but if it took them two years to get all the files in order it could be from an organizing issue, to going over what to give the Marshall's office. it's almost like they meant to bury the key pieces in the archives hoping nobody would bother?
-
Ceiling of 5,000 feet, broken clouds at 3,500, scattered clouds at 1,500. Winds of 12 to 14 knots, light rain showers.
-
Rataczak says he, they, could see the lights of Portland/Vancouver coming up - at 8:10. Some dispute this was possible due to cloud cover. Rotating beacons, like light houses, tend to be noticed from a distance due to the blinking on/off effect. It's likely Cooper looked around from the stairs at least prior to jumping. People have said the bright lights on the Lake Merwin dam might have been visible from a distance. Bright rotating and blinking beacons near PDX might have been visible? It's just a thought -
There are a few things that should be understood about cloud cover information as it relates to flight 305 while it approached Portland.
The first is that the information we have applies strictly to a specific place at a specific time. That specific place was not the location of flight 305, and the specific time was not when the flight was nearing Vancouver and Portland.
The cloud cover information we have is about what portion of the sky could be seen (or not seen) from a cloud-cover observation site at PDX. This information also says what portion of the sky around PDX an airplane could be in such that the crew would be able to clearly see back to the cloud observation point at PDX. It's a reciprocal relationship.
The cloud coverage data doesn't apply exactly to what cloud coverage would be seen from a place other than PDX (e.g., Battle Ground). And it doesn't apply exactly to the question of what could be seen on the ground at places other than PDX. Applicability to places other than the PDX observation site is only approximate.
Also, the cloud coverage information we have was for 8pm and 9pm. Clouds aren't static. There was in fact a clearing trend. So the information we have applies only approximately for 8:13pm.
The second important thing to understand is that cloud coverage classified as "overcast" does not (and did not then) mean complete coverage. For some time now, the cloud coverage definitions are in terms of eighths of the sky that are covered. In 1971 the definitions were in terms of tenths, and "overcast" meant more than 9 tenths coverage. This could still leave a small part of the sky that would be visible from the PDX observation site. A plane could occasionally pass through small areas where it would be able to see PDX.
Finally, it is incorrect to characterize the cloud cover as being layers of scattered and broken cover AND an overcast. The fact is that the definitions (then and now) are in terms of cummulative cover. A cloud layer is classified as "broken" if that layer plus the layers below it block a certain amount of sky. An overcast in 1971 was a cloud layer that, along with all lower layers, blocked more than 9 tenths of the sky. For example, a layer blocking half the sky could be an overcast layer if the lower layers blocked a different half of the sky. Depending upon vertical spacing between layers, it would in such a case be possible for an airplane crew to see through a "hole" in one cloud layer, through the space between layers, then through a hole in a lower layer to see some point on the ground.
The description of a cloud layer applies only to that single cloud layer. The description of an overcast applies only to the single cloud layer that is described as an overcast and has nothing to do with any cloud layers that are below it or above it. An "overcast" itself would cover from 90 percent of the sky to 100 percent of the sky. Any cloud layers below the "overcast" would further obscure vision.
Weather information such as cloud layers and their height above the ground or sea level are not limited to ground observers alone but may also include pilot reports of the weather. Also, it should be remembered that the weather information reported in the hourly sequence reports is normally recorded at about 10 minutes before the hour in question.
The matter of observation of ground lights, such as airport beacons, is not as simple as it may appear. In the specific case of airport beacons, they are configured to be easier to observe at lower altitudes. That is, they are essentially two (or three) rotating flashlights pointed just above the horizon. They are not one or two big light bulbs flashing on and off. The end result is that if you are flying at 1000 feet over flat terrain you can see the airport beacons from 10 or 15 miles away. But your view of the beacon would be somewhat more restricted if you were at 10,000 feet and the same distance from it.
-
I think you have to keep in mind that Cooper doesn't have the flight plan, it's just a direction (Mexico City,) maybe he's done the flight before, that's a maybe, he agrees to Reno, doesn't seem to care that much *meh* same-ish direction, he wants to get out the aircraft, aft stair issues, his plan is general/simple, he rolls the dice (everyone argues the difficulty of the jump but it's easy when you have no choice) and bails, BUT when he hits the broken cloud layer then he could see a general idea of the river, highway, dam, whatever.
-
The description of a cloud layer applies only to that single cloud layer. The description of an overcast applies only to the single cloud layer that is described as an overcast and has nothing to do with any cloud layers that are below it or above it. An "overcast" itself would cover from 90 percent of the sky to 100 percent of the sky. Any cloud layers below the "overcast" would further obscure vision.
Following is from Section 2 of Aviation Weather Services Advisory Circular AC 00-45G, Change 1, published jointly by the National Weather Service and the FAA (emphasis added to make it clear enough for you):
"When more than one layer is reported, layers are in ascending order of height. For each layer above a lower layer or layers, the sky cover designator for that layer will be the total sky cover which includes that layer and all lower layers. In other words, the summation concept of cloud layers is used.
"Transparent" sky cover is clouds or obscuring phenomena aloft through which blue sky or higher sky cover is visible. As explained in Table 2-1, a scattered, broken, or overcast layer may be reported as "thin." To be classified as thin, a layer must be half or more transparent. Remember that sky cover of a layer includes all sky cover reported below that layer."
This is from a pretty current document, but the same was true in 1971. (But, what would the weather service or FAA know about it?)
-
The description of a cloud layer applies only to that single cloud layer. The description of an overcast applies only to the single cloud layer that is described as an overcast and has nothing to do with any cloud layers that are below it or above it. An "overcast" itself would cover from 90 percent of the sky to 100 percent of the sky. Any cloud layers below the "overcast" would further obscure vision.
Following is from Section 2 of Aviation Weather Services Advisory Circular AC 00-45G, Change 1, published jointly by the National Weather Service and the FAA (emphasis added to make it clear enough for you):
"When more than one layer is reported, layers are in ascending order of height. For each layer above a lower layer or layers, the sky cover designator for that layer will be the total sky cover which includes that layer and all lower layers. In other words, the summation concept of cloud layers is used.
"Transparent" sky cover is clouds or obscuring phenomena aloft through which blue sky or higher sky cover is visible. As explained in Table 2-1, a scattered, broken, or overcast layer may be reported as "thin." To be classified as thin, a layer must be half or more transparent. Remember that sky cover of a layer includes all sky cover reported below that layer."
This is from a pretty current document, but the same was true in 1971. (But, what would the weather service or FAA know about it?)
Seen from above, the issue is light scattering through whatever cloud cover exists. Commonly called a 'light dome'. (we measure the luminosity of light domes all the time when deciding where to place an optical system). What Rataczak supposedly said was they could see the light from 'the suburbs' of Portland/Vancouver? coming up. That may be a little more limited than a general light dome over the whole area of the twin cities. Until Rataczak specifies what he means its all speculation...
-
doesn't seem to care that much *meh* same-ish direction, he wants to get out the aircraft,
Ok, apologies for a brief off topic....but I just found this out and thought it was interesting. The word "meh" came from the Simpsons TV show.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meh?s=t
-
Ceiling of 5,000 feet, broken clouds at 3,500, scattered clouds at 1,500. Winds of 12 to 14 knots, light rain showers.
You gave no clue as to why you posted this. We've seen it for several years. If I remember correctly, I think it came to DZ from agent Carr and I think it was Robert99 that first pointed out that the report is a bit defective. The problem is incorrect usage of "ceiling." Whoever originated it must have thought that "ceiling" and "overcast" are synonymous. Given that a "broken" layer is not specified as less than normal density, the "ceiling" would be the "broken" clouds at 3500 feet. In this report, "ceiling" should have been "overcast." If the report did come from Carr, he probably got it out of the case file and it may well have come from a special report NWA got at around the time of the Portland passing. Much of what Carr posted was never questioned about things like when, where, and where did it come from, largely because people would immediately post about something else so that discussions rarely focused. With "overcast" substituted for "ceiling" this report is pretty much like the special report NWA obtained for 9:17pm:
METAR KPDX 250517Z 250517 24012KT 06SM -SHRA SCT15 BKN35 OVC50
at 9:17pm: wind 12kt from 240°true (30° S of due west), visibility 6 stat miles, light rain showers, bottom of scattered layer still at 1500ft, bottom of broken layer now at 3500ft, & bottom of overcast layer still at 5000ft. No temperature in the report.
-
I think you have to keep in mind that Cooper doesn't have the flight plan, it's just a direction (Mexico City,) maybe he's done the flight before, that's a maybe, he agrees to Reno, doesn't seem to care that much *meh* same-ish direction, he wants to get out the aircraft, aft stair issues, his plan is general/simple, he rolls the dice (everyone argues the difficulty of the jump but it's easy when you have no choice) and bails, BUT when he hits the broken cloud layer then he could see a general idea of the river, highway, dam, whatever.
Professor Moriarty, please keep in mind that Cooper jumped at night through multiple cloud layers and it is very difficult to determine landmarks when you are tumbling head over heels, as Cooper was probably doing, even in the daytime under such conditions.
-
The description of a cloud layer applies only to that single cloud layer. The description of an overcast applies only to the single cloud layer that is described as an overcast and has nothing to do with any cloud layers that are below it or above it. An "overcast" itself would cover from 90 percent of the sky to 100 percent of the sky. Any cloud layers below the "overcast" would further obscure vision.
Following is from Section 2 of Aviation Weather Services Advisory Circular AC 00-45G, Change 1, published jointly by the National Weather Service and the FAA (emphasis added to make it clear enough for you):
"When more than one layer is reported, layers are in ascending order of height. For each layer above a lower layer or layers, the sky cover designator for that layer will be the total sky cover which includes that layer and all lower layers. In other words, the summation concept of cloud layers is used.
"Transparent" sky cover is clouds or obscuring phenomena aloft through which blue sky or higher sky cover is visible. As explained in Table 2-1, a scattered, broken, or overcast layer may be reported as "thin." To be classified as thin, a layer must be half or more transparent. Remember that sky cover of a layer includes all sky cover reported below that layer."
This is from a pretty current document, but the same was true in 1971. (But, what would the weather service or FAA know about it?)
Let me check into this further. I'll be back in due time.
In another post, you list NWA as having a special weather observation made at 9:17 PM (PST?). Do you know the purpose of this observation? This observation would be approximately one hour after the airliner passed through the area headed to Reno.
-
In another post, you list NWA as having a special weather observation made at 9:17 PM (PST?). Do you know the purpose of this observation? This observation would be approximately one hour after the airliner passed through the area headed to Reno.
I don't know. This was among the reports and forecasts agent Carr brought to DZ. Wasn't a real METAR like I showed it. I typed the METAR to facilitate input to a weather generator for a flight simulator. I can check on what other locations were in the printout if you like. That might give a clue. Maybe possibility of people getting out to search? There is no explanation of anything on the printout.
-
In another post, you list NWA as having a special weather observation made at 9:17 PM (PST?). Do you know the purpose of this observation? This observation would be approximately one hour after the airliner passed through the area headed to Reno.
I don't know. This was among the reports and forecasts agent Carr brought to DZ. Wasn't a real METAR like I showed it. I typed the METAR to facilitate input to a weather generator for a flight simulator. I can check on what other locations were in the printout if you like. That might give a clue. Maybe possibility of people getting out to search? There is no explanation of anything on the printout.
I'll keep your offer in mind but at present I don't know what it would be used for. Remember that the airliner was south of Portland by about 8:18PM PST, then there was the regular 9:00PM PST hourly sequence report, and then the special one at 9:17PM PST. Special reports are normally only made in the event of such things as an aircraft accident or something of that magnitude.
-
I don't know. This was among the reports and forecasts agent Carr brought to DZ. Wasn't a real METAR like I showed it. I typed the METAR to facilitate input to a weather generator for a flight simulator. I can check on what other locations were in the printout if you like. That might give a clue. Maybe possibility of people getting out to search? There is no explanation of anything on the printout.
I'll keep your offer in mind but at present I don't know what it would be used for. Remember that the airliner was south of Portland by about 8:18PM PST, then there was the regular 9:00PM PST hourly sequence report, and then the special one at 9:17PM PST. Special reports are normally only made in the event of such things as an aircraft accident or something of that magnitude.
Because of the times being after what we were interested in, I had never paid much attention to this particular report amongst those Carr posted. There is a handwritten "Terminal Forecast" at the top. There is no header on the top of the listing. The content appears very slightly similar to current Terminal Area Forecasts. The entries are "one liners" for each airport. Each airport entry appears to be a brief statement of current condition followed by forecast, but there is no clue as to the time for which the forecast would apply. The stations in the listing are:
Astoria, Redmond, PDX, Troutdale?, Baker, Salem, North Bend (OR), Medford, Klamath Falls, and three I can't make out.
-
The description of a cloud layer applies only to that single cloud layer. The description of an overcast applies only to the single cloud layer that is described as an overcast and has nothing to do with any cloud layers that are below it or above it. An "overcast" itself would cover from 90 percent of the sky to 100 percent of the sky. Any cloud layers below the "overcast" would further obscure vision.
Following is from Section 2 of Aviation Weather Services Advisory Circular AC 00-45G, Change 1, published jointly by the National Weather Service and the FAA (emphasis added to make it clear enough for you):
"When more than one layer is reported, layers are in ascending order of height. For each layer above a lower layer or layers, the sky cover designator for that layer will be the total sky cover which includes that layer and all lower layers. In other words, the summation concept of cloud layers is used.
"Transparent" sky cover is clouds or obscuring phenomena aloft through which blue sky or higher sky cover is visible. As explained in Table 2-1, a scattered, broken, or overcast layer may be reported as "thin." To be classified as thin, a layer must be half or more transparent. Remember that sky cover of a layer includes all sky cover reported below that layer."
This is from a pretty current document, but the same was true in 1971. (But, what would the weather service or FAA know about it?)
Hominid,
Reference is also made to your previous posts, and replies to them, on weather reporting.
Section 2, Aviation Weather Services Advisory Circular, AC 00-45G, Change 1, published July 29, 2010, is a three page section titled: Aviation Product Classification and Policy, and does NOT contain what you have quoted above.
The METAR format for weather reporting was NOT adopted in North America, which includes the United States of America, until June 1, 1996. Consequently, it has nothing to do with the weather reports from November 1971 or the Cooper hijacking period.
You joined the DZ Cooper thread on September 27, 2011 and on that same day I downloaded and printed out a programmed text (Teletype Sequence Reports AM-33), January 1970, from the US Army Primary Helicopter School, Fort Wolters, Texas. You and I exchanged a number of PMs in January and February, 2012 on DZ discussing this very report, which you should also have a copy of, and it says NOTHING about "cumulative" cloud cover.
And if my memory is correct, neither you nor I found any other documentation on weather reporting that was in effect on November 24, 1971.
So, how about citing chapter and verse for your claims about "cumulative" cloud reporting being valid on the date of the hijacking.
Robert99
-
I think you have to keep in mind that Cooper doesn't have the flight plan, it's just a direction (Mexico City,) maybe he's done the flight before, that's a maybe, he agrees to Reno, doesn't seem to care that much *meh* same-ish direction, he wants to get out the aircraft, aft stair issues, his plan is general/simple, he rolls the dice (everyone argues the difficulty of the jump but it's easy when you have no choice) and bails, BUT when he hits the broken cloud layer then he could see a general idea of the river, highway, dam, whatever.
Professor Moriarty, please keep in mind that Cooper jumped at night through multiple cloud layers and it is very difficult to determine landmarks when you are tumbling head over heels, as Cooper was probably doing, even in the daytime under such conditions.
funny :) :) :)
-
I just installed what is called "HD mesh" on my simulator. it is more accurate data with the ground textures, or objects. it now shows a detailed map of the Portland area. all the rivers and lakes are now visible that weren't there originally. the downfall is all my airports disappeared. I either have to re-install them, or find out what went wrong. I'll make a video flying over the tip pf Hayden island. you will clearly see Smith lake.
If we are to try and use this option. we need to move the flight path. we must show reasons for this move. it will cause a domino effect with the path. you can't just move it in one area to fit the need.
-
I just installed what is called "HD mesh" on my simulator. it is more accurate data with the ground textures, or objects. it now shows a detailed map of the Portland area. all the rivers and lakes are now visible that weren't there originally. the downfall is all my airports disappeared. I either have to re-install them, or find out what went wrong. I'll make a video flying over the tip pf Hayden island. you will clearly see Smith lake.
If we are to try and use this option. we need to move the flight path. we must show reasons for this move. it will cause a domino effect with the path. you can't just move it in one area to fit the need.
check Force Lake and the large gated off swampy marsh East of it next to I5,, should be reachable without altering path
-
will do.
-
Here is one I made yesterday. it's before the upgrade. Smith lake is not on my textures though....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBnATwX9V_o
-
Here is Cooper's point of view, again Smith lake not visible on this texture...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQTbwUXOoKw
-
The new video is currently uploading to You Tube. It's not the best. I don't have my movie software on this computer. I'm using Microsoft movie maker....
It's ready...faster than expected :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_aGB2m5ubk
-
Here is Cooper's point of view, again Smith lake not visible on this texture...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQTbwUXOoKw
That looks like Force Lake in your vid,, the swamp area is just East of it about 5x larger,, the flight path may have been slightly closer to I5 and still hit the waypoint coordinates as in the FBI map, Smith Lake seems too far in a no pull without really moving the flightpath
Force Lake in blue,, swamp.Marsh in red
swamp/marsh today..
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.60388,-122.686219,3a,75y,200.42h,64.14t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1saAoDOiTp5P8Hx84FdJYPog!2e0
-
Have you used Google distance maps? it's pretty accurate. Force lake is small....
-
Have you used Google distance maps? it's pretty accurate. Force lake is small....
yes, it is small, 5-600 ft wide, the swamp east of it is quite large today, 1500-2000ft across,, IDK about the 70s..
the flight path on the FBI map looks to be virtually touching I5, the green dot is the swamp area,,
Anybody know what the x's in red pen mean on the map marked here in blue
Vanport Wetlands habitat area closed off no trespass
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.60395,-122.686247,3a,15y,246.56h,82.61t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sn16MtVQDLOJQc0oLcM8W8Q!2e0
-
Have you used Google distance maps? it's pretty accurate. Force lake is small....
yes, it is small, 5-600 ft wide, the swamp east of it is quite large today, 1500-2000ft across,, IDK about the 70s..
the flight path on the FBI map looks to be virtually touching I5, the green dot is the swamp area,,
Anybody know what the x's in red pen mean on the map marked here in blue
Vanport Wetlands habitat area closed off no trespass
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.60395,-122.686247,3a,15y,246.56h,82.61t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sn16MtVQDLOJQc0oLcM8W8Q!2e0
There are actually four of those red x marks. The fourth one is a bit to the left of the bottom end of the green arrow. If you draw a straight line through the left most ones and another straight line through the right most ones, and extending them to the north, those two straight lines will connect with the Malay Intersection on V23 near Toledo. And extending them to the south will result in their connecting with V-23 again near the Canby Intersection.
When the airliner was in the Portland area, the Seattle ATC controllers were involved in efforts to vector several different military aircraft to the airliner. All of those vector attempts were on the west and southwest sides of Portland. Consequently, these four red x marks were probably put there by the ATC controllers to pinpoint the airliner and chase aircraft locations during the attempts to vector them together.
-
In the same respect one could speculate a few things. how much radar data did they really rely on? now,according to one report Captain Scott had to re-configure the path. he claims they flew over the Woodland area. if you move the path the same distance on the other side of V-23 the plane is further away from Portland, and lines up with the red x's? the plane is also closer to the Woodland area? it's just a thought....
-
I posted a news report stating Scott had to re-configure the flight path. why would this be needed if they relied on radar? how much did they really know about the path?
-
I posted a news report stating Scott had to re-configure the flight path. why would this be needed if they relied on radar? how much did they really know about the path?
They should have known the flight path quite well. Remember that the Air Traffic Controllers were looking at the aircraft on radar and the precise accuracy depends on how far the aircraft was from a radar station. The radar being used by the ATC people was the same radar system they used ever day and that information was routinely recorded on tape as well as the voice communications.
-
I posted a news report stating Scott had to re-configure the flight path. why would this be needed if they relied on radar? how much did they really know about the path?
They should have known the flight path quite well. Remember that the Air Traffic Controllers were looking at the aircraft on radar and the precise accuracy depends on how far the aircraft was from a radar station. The radar being used by the ATC people was the same radar system they used ever day and that information was routinely recorded on tape as well as the voice communications.
I kind of figured that, but what makes Scott decide to re-calculate the path? that's like telling someone you took a different route than the GPS recorded in your car?
-
I posted a news report stating Scott had to re-configure the flight path. why would this be needed if they relied on radar? how much did they really know about the path?
They should have known the flight path quite well. Remember that the Air Traffic Controllers were looking at the aircraft on radar and the precise accuracy depends on how far the aircraft was from a radar station. The radar being used by the ATC people was the same radar system they used ever day and that information was routinely recorded on tape as well as the voice communications.
I kind of figured that, but what makes Scott decide to re-calculate the path? that's like telling someone you took a different route than the GPS recorded in your car?
After the money was found at Tina Bar, I think someone leaned on Scott to say that the airliner had "drifted" to the east of the earlier flight path in order to support the original jump area. This, of course, resulted in the development of the Washougal Wash Down Theory which has proven to be baseless.
-
Can anyone tell me exactly where Victor 23 is?
I understand it is an aerial flight corridor eight miles wide, but in the jump zone what are the boundaries?
As for the flight path, for Cooper to have landed in the Ariel area he must have jumped a few miles south and west to account for his drift back north and east in the winds. If Cooper landed in the Ariel-Amboy area that means he jumped south of Woodland and pretty close to the I-5.
No?
-
V-23 is the orange line running through the map attached. this map is what they used to give possible landing area's. odds are they didn't take into consideration that Cooper was on the stairs prior to jumping. the bump was felt later than the 8:10/12 mark. putting Cooper south of this location searched.
The 3 red lines are the possible flight path.
Amboy is to far off the present flight path. the chute was found right in the middle of point A & B. which is close to Ariel rather than Amboy.
-
I rushed the video so it might not be of use :'( anyway it from about 10,000 at about the 8:12 position. you can see Vancouver lake out the cockpit window, and out side you can see lake Merwin. pilots will catch my AOA pitching down. I was trying to maintain 10,000, but was a couple hundred above :P
Amboy is about 5.7 nautical miles from this point due east.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=774QWKuSI5Q
-
Can anyone tell me exactly where Victor 23 is?
I understand it is an aerial flight corridor eight miles wide, but in the jump zone what are the boundaries?
As for the flight path, for Cooper to have landed in the Ariel area he must have jumped a few miles south and west to account for his drift back north and east in the winds. If Cooper landed in the Ariel-Amboy area that means he jumped south of Woodland and pretty close to the I-5.
No?
Bruce you really amaze me at times. After all these years you weren't paying attention ? ........ If you still don't know where V-23 is, go look at Sluggo's website and search under /Victor 23/ at DZ .... and you will have the answer to your question .... in addition to having charts galore. Better get moving. The Final is next Friday! ;)
Maybe Bruce is not alone? :-\
-
That would be Vector-23 :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVq4_HhBK8Y
-
Let me re-phrase my question:
If Victor 23 is eight miles wide, what are it's western and eastern boundaries in the 8:13 pm time frame?
-
Let me re-phrase my question:
If Victor 23 is eight miles wide, what are it's western and eastern boundaries in the 8:13 pm time frame?
West would be just shy of I-5.....east is a little harder to get a fix on visual wise. Moulton Falls Park would be above the position. the plane flew about one mile west of Ariel if I'm correct.
-
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
How do you know V-23's western perimeter was just shy of I-5 at 8:13? Any maps, etc?
-
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
How do you know V-23's western perimeter was just shy of I-5 at 8:13? Any maps, etc?
Because ALL OF THE MAPS AND DIAGRAMS!!!! .... ARE ON DROPZONE OR SLUGGOS WEBSITE, as previously posted by a lot of people since 2008. It is now_2015, seven years later.
The maps are generally too big to post here so you will have to go visit these website and download them there.
Here is a section of one map given us by Farflung which shows V23E, V23, and V23W. Do you remember this? Every Victor airway s eight miles wide - four miles wide on each side of the 'center line'.
-
It's rather simple. the plane flew over Battleground around that time. go to Google distance maps and measure. I also measured it through the simulator. V-23 runs through Battleground. see attached maps. Robert99, does this sound correct?
Where are you going with this?
My maps are similar to what Georger added to his post....
-
It's rather simple. the plane flew over Battleground around that time. go to Google distance maps and measure. I also measured it through the simulator. V-23 runs through Battleground. see attached maps. Robert99, does this sound correct?
Where are you going with this?
My maps are similar to what Georger added to his post....
In 1971 (and going from north to south), V-23 did a dog-leg from the Seattle VORTAC (which was located between the parallel runways on the Seattle Airport) to the Mayfield Intersection (near Toledo and now named the Malay Intersection) and then to the Portland VORTAC (now named the Battlefield VORTAC). From there, V-23 went direct to the Eugene and then Medford VORTACS and continued south.
Also in 1971, a V-23E went direct from the Seattle VORTAC to the Portland VORTAC and then did a dog-leg to the Eugene VORTAC where it apparently ended. Today, the segment of V-23E between the Seattle and Portland (now Battleground) VORTACS is known as V-495 and it goes from the Portland VORTAC to the Newburg VORTAC and continues off to the southwest.
At the same time, there was a V-23W that started at the Portland (Battleground) VORTAC and went off to the southwest. It was apparently renamed V-495 when V-23E and V-23W were deleted.
Copies of maps L1 and L2, which contains the information that the crew of the hijacked airliner would have used on the flight from Seattle to Reno, are available on Sluggo's web page.
Also, I sent Fred Poynter at the WSHM all the original disks on those maps, but I don't know if he has actually put them online. But I don't want to see them again, actually I have printed copies of them which I use, due to all the hoops I had to be jumped through just to get that information.
So if Bruce wants to view the original map disks, perhaps he should pay Fred Poynter a visit. Otherwise, Sluggo's web page should be sufficient.
-
Here is another look at the supposed dropzone. it's from 10,000, you can see I-5 easily....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQbqwXrRMBU
-
Here is another look at the supposed dropzone. it's from 10,000, you can see I-5 easily....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQbqwXrRMBU
seeing nothing but labels?
-
Must be the resolution on your screen. the video is a little dark due to nite time mode, but you should be able to see it. click on the you tube logo (lower right) and watch it straight from You Tube on a larger video/mode/screen.
-
Saw the trailer on youtube Shutter, when can we expect the full 305 flight path?
-
Saw the trailer on youtube Shutter, when can we expect the full 305 flight path?
I'm hoping to start putting it all together soon. it's down to a time frame thingy. I'm going to record it in 3 separate portions, and the put it together. it's seems simple, but a lot will be involved. the best known recording program is called "Fraps". this eats a little over a gigabyte per minute of uncompressed video :o. I'm still undecided whether or not to record the entire route from Seattle to Portland with so much dead space in between the times on the transcripts. I have to get creative filling in the dead spots so nobody falls asleep :D
The present time frame of the video would be close to an hour. that's a lot of time to make it worth watching. I'm open to any idea's from all.......
The plane is presently in Rome :o I found a guy who paints X-Planes. he is putting the correct numbers on the plane (N467US) along with a Project 305 logo on the tail section. he's the one who made the Northwest livery you see on my plane now.
You found it pretty quick. I just posted it hours before you seen it :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUO6HzxhbEY
-
You found it pretty quick. I just posted it hours before you seen it :o
I don't sleep well.
The present time frame of the video would be close to an hour. that's a lot of time to make it worth watching. I'm open to any idea's from all.......
I had a couple of thoughts to help you fill time, you might think about adding text during the empty bits updating the known activities of Cooper at the time.
Also, I've been mulling this for a long time, but I like the idea of a podcast. Once you complete and release the whole project, the visuals of the product could be used in conjunction with audio from a podcast of some of the regular forum posters. Just a thought. There is so little good Cooper content on the net (at least, content that isn't in forum form).
-
Thanks for the reply.
I was thinking about the dead spots as well, but filling them in isn't really an issue as much as putting the right material up. this basically turns it into a actual program vs a flight path. it's a lot of work to get everything to fall into place. this is where I will need help. I'm game for a full blown show, but it will require a lot of work.
I like the podcast thingy. would I have to put it online first, or upload it from the computer? the actual path video?
-
I haven't done a podcast in seven years; I used to record it on my computer then save it to the web. I'm told it would be easy enough to take existing audio and overlay it with video using widely available software, but I've never done it. The process would probably be to use an online podcasting service like blogtalkradio to create the actual podcast, then go from there.
-
Is that a pre-recorded podcast, or live?
I did a quick search and found this...
To Create a Video Podcast:
Film your video.
Upload your video to your computer.
Using editing software, add special effects and graphics or correct any problems in the video.
Determine whether your video will be streaming or downloadable, and use a video encoder to format it in a manageable file size for online viewing.
Find a host for your video podcast. Make sure that the host can accommodate your video's bandwidth.
If your host does not provide an RSS feed for your video podcast, create one yourself.
Lastly, promote your video podcast just as you would a podcast.
The podcasts and video podcasts you find online range from the amateur to the streamlined and sophisticated. They are a testament to the accessibility of this technology for listeners and creators alike. Anyone can -- and clearly anyone will -- podcast.
-
It's something to play around with while you're completing your project. I have friends who do this sort of thing for money, I'll pester them for help.
-
It's something to play around with while you're completing your project. I have friends who do this sort of thing for money, I'll pester them for help.
Ok, see what you can find out.....Thanks
-
Here's where I'm going with my concern over the actual dimensions of V-23.
Rataczak told me, eventually, that he thought 305 was east of V-23 by a couple of miles when Cooper jumped. The maps say that the center of V-23 was over Battleground, and V-23 would only extend four miles to the east. Tack on a couple more miles from Rataczak and that puts 305 six or seven miles east of Battleground at 8:13. That doesn't get you into the Washougal much.
-
The Washougal Washdown theory is dead. It's a good example of people trying to force a conclusion based on poor interpretation of a small amount of evidence, then going through endless mental gymnastics to try to prove it.
-
Here's where I'm going with my concern over the actual dimensions of V-23.
Rataczak told me, eventually, that he thought 305 was east of V-23 by a couple of miles when Cooper jumped. The maps say that the center of V-23 was over Battleground, and V-23 would only extend four miles to the east. Tack on a couple more miles from Rataczak and that puts 305 six or seven miles east of Battleground at 8:13. That doesn't get you into the Washougal much.
Let's say he is accurate ? Then what does he mean by "east of V-23". Is he saying 'east of the center line of V23', or 'east of the 4 mile boundary on the east side of V23'? If it's the first then he is still inside the boundaries of V23. If it's the last then he is outside of V23, but still not in the Washougal.
He has made the remark: "I am the only living person who knows where we were when Cooper bailed". That remark is on record.
You do realise if Blevins is right then Rataczak had-has ptsd and all of his testimony is suspect ... based on Gray's quotes from Hancock, saying that Rat was "freaking out in the cockpit". :D
-
Just because Rataczak lot a little emotional in the cockpit, doesn't mean that we have to THROW out everything he said.
The only question I have it - can we believe him? What other pressures may be in play here.
-
Here's where I'm going with my concern over the actual dimensions of V-23.
Rataczak told me, eventually, that he thought 305 was east of V-23 by a couple of miles when Cooper jumped. The maps say that the center of V-23 was over Battleground, and V-23 would only extend four miles to the east. Tack on a couple more miles from Rataczak and that puts 305 six or seven miles east of Battleground at 8:13. That doesn't get you into the Washougal much.
Let's say he is accurate ? Then what does he mean by "east of V-23". Is he saying 'east of the center line of V23', or 'east of the 4 mile boundary on the east side of V23'? If it's the first then he is still inside the boundaries of V23. If it's the last then he is outside of V23, but still not in the Washougal.
He has made the remark: "I am the only living person who knows where we were when Cooper bailed". That remark is on record.
You do realise if Blevins is right then Rataczak had-has ptsd and all of his testimony is suspect ... based on Gray's quotes from Hancock, saying that Rat was "freaking out in the cockpit". :D
When I read Vincent Bugliosi's book on the JFK assassination, one of the chapters on conspiracy theories talked about how many of the people with conspiracy theories told entirely different stories right after the assassination and didn't change those stories until years and years later.
Didn't the FBI talk to Rataczak right after they landed in Reno? Wouldn't they have used that information to determine what area to search? I think there's good reason to believe the search area was wrong (mostly because they didn't find anything in the search area and Tina Bar was far from the search area), but Rataczak's remark years later sounds like someone teasing the press.
-
Just because Rataczak lot a little emotional in the cockpit, doesn't mean that we have to THROW out everything he said.
The only question I have it - can we believe him? What other pressures may be in play here.
That, is my major criticism of Gray's book. He drops items of information apparently gleaned from FBI files, then makes no effort to explain or connect the new 'revelations' so they have any value. Then, he states technical and personal information that is not just wrong, but crazy (and even smarmy)! In terms of truth and a better understanding, his book may have zero value!
He has given Blevins and others a lot to work with. I hope that was his intention. Sensationalism.
-
Here's where I'm going with my concern over the actual dimensions of V-23.
Rataczak told me, eventually, that he thought 305 was east of V-23 by a couple of miles when Cooper jumped. The maps say that the center of V-23 was over Battleground, and V-23 would only extend four miles to the east. Tack on a couple more miles from Rataczak and that puts 305 six or seven miles east of Battleground at 8:13. That doesn't get you into the Washougal much.
Let's say he is accurate ? Then what does he mean by "east of V-23". Is he saying 'east of the center line of V23', or 'east of the 4 mile boundary on the east side of V23'? If it's the first then he is still inside the boundaries of V23. If it's the last then he is outside of V23, but still not in the Washougal.
He has made the remark: "I am the only living person who knows where we were when Cooper bailed". That remark is on record.
You do realise if Blevins is right then Rataczak had-has ptsd and all of his testimony is suspect ... based on Gray's quotes from Hancock, saying that Rat was "freaking out in the cockpit". :D
When I read Vincent Bugliosi's book on the JFK assassination, one of the chapters on conspiracy theories talked about how many of the people with conspiracy theories told entirely different stories right after the assassination and didn't change those stories until years and years later.
Didn't the FBI talk to Rataczak right after they landed in Reno? Wouldn't they have used that information to determine what area to search? I think there's good reason to believe the search area was wrong (mostly because they didn't find anything in the search area and Tina Bar was far from the search area), but Rataczak's remark years later sounds like someone teasing the press.
Rataczak is basically within the time frame allowance and specific when he says "... and it was 5 to 10 minutes after (we had talked to Cooper) and we could see the lights of the suburbs of Portland/Vancouver? coming up..."
So they had a rough idea of where they were and the general time frame. They weren't anywhere in the Washougal and they sure as hell weren't north near Woodland or Lake Merwin. The problem is: when did he come to the realisation he states above? Immediately after landing at Reno, or later. We have literally no immediate testimony from the crew except for what the FBI is telling the public and doing in it's ground searches into 1972 .... and the NWA search map has surfaced in 1971/72.
Surely NWA debriefed their own pilots! Surely the 1971-72 NWA map is based in part on Rataczak's testimony soon after the hijacking and is a fundamental part of the NWA search map. Something happened to change minds between the end of 1972 and the next public statement by Himmeslbach in 1976 moving the dropzone to "12 miles north of Portland", which changes again in 1980 to "he landed near the Washougal"!
We have different people changing the dropzone through the years, depending on what events or fad was happening at the time.
One thing that makes me believe Rat's statement above is true-like saying, "we could see the lights of the suburbs coming up", is the simple fact that a short time later south of Portland R2 is talking to both 305 and the T33 pilot lining the two up for a rendevois near Lake Oswego south of Portland, in a fairly specific time frame which loosely agrees with 305 being just north of Vancouver just a few minutes earlier, almost exactly as Rataczak says they were.
This gives two points of reference, as it were, in a connected time frame - and the frames all seem to line up? I am sure R99 has an opinion about this. And I am sure the Controller that brought the two together is not lying.
-
I'm not throwing out what Rataczack says, I just think the "Cooper had to land in Washougal in order for the money to get to Tina Bar" meme made him say "I guess it was possible we were over there". That Rataczak talk on DVD from the NWA museum sold on ebay has Rataczak basically endorsing the FBI flight path (he jokes about how erratic his flying was). Watching that talk, it's hard not to like Rataczak. It's just important to remember he was at the controls of the aircraft, not drawing a map. It's also important to remember how awful human memory is, especially after so many years.
As long as I'm defending people, let me defend Geof Gray and his book. Gray's work is a piece of creative non-fiction (aka literary non-fiction). He wasn't trying to produce "the definitive Cooper book" but instead was trying to communicate both the fascinating mystery that is the case, as well as express the zeitgeist of the fanatics still following and investigating the case (i.e. us). Bottom line, Gray and his editors are first and foremost trying to sell a lot of books, not satiate the desires of the fanatics. We should be lucky to have a commercially funded book, remember, Tosaw, Himmelsbach and most of the other Cooper books are self-published.
-
I'm not throwing out what Rataczack says, I just think the "Cooper had to land in Washougal in order for the money to get to Tina Bar" meme made him say "I guess it was possible we were over there". That Rataczak talk on DVD from the NWA museum sold on ebay has Rataczak basically endorsing the FBI flight path (he jokes about how erratic his flying was). Watching that talk, it's hard not to like Rataczak. It's just important to remember he was at the controls of the aircraft, not drawing a map. It's also important to remember how awful human memory is, especially after so many years.
As long as I'm defending people, let me defend Geof Gray and his book. Gray's work is a piece of creative non-fiction (aka literary non-fiction). He wasn't trying to produce "the definitive Cooper book" but instead was trying to communicate both the fascinating mystery that is the case, as well as express the zeitgeist of the fanatics still following and investigating the case (i.e. us). Bottom line, Gray and his editors are first and foremost trying to sell a lot of books, not satiate the desires of the fanatics. We should be lucky to have a commercially funded book, remember, Tosaw, Himmelsbach and most of the other Cooper books are self-published.
Zeitgeist ? Gray and his editors are first and foremost trying to sell a lot of books. We should be lucky to have a commercially funded book.
A Cooper Hijacking Big Mac? :D :D :D
R2 and others who were handling the flight say the east route Washoual theory - never happened!
No official map or account shows the Washougal route happened.
No official person has ever endorsed the Washougal route officially ... and no map of one exists!
;)
One thing that makes me believe Rat's statement above is true-like saying, "we could see the lights of the suburbs coming up", is the simple fact that a short time later south of Portland R2 is talking to both 305 and the T33 pilot lining the two up for a rendevois near Lake Oswego south of Portland, in a fairly specific time frame which loosely agrees with 305 being just north of Vancouver just a few minutes earlier, almost exactly as Rataczak says they were.
This gives two points of reference, as it were, in a connected time frame - and the frames all seem to line up? I am sure R99 has an opinion about this. And I am sure the Controller that brought the two together is not lying.
These two factual events which are true, and a longer Washougal route, are empirically incompatible.
-
From Georger:
"That, is my major criticism of Gray's book. He drops items of information apparently gleaned from FBI files, then makes no effort to explain or connect the new 'revelations' so they have any value. Then, he states technical and personal information that is not just wrong, but crazy (and even smarmy)! In terms of truth and a better understanding, his book may have zero value!"
Da Cuz says:
I agree with you Georger. Geoffrey has a weakness - he doesn't share. As a result, his research and writing is not cross-pollinated, reviewed, or corrected through the heat of this forum and the DZ. His singularity can work against him.
Also, I don't trust his blind faith in the FBI documents. There are many factual errors in places, such as the parachute mess, and the snafu situation of who is sitting in Row 18. According to various FBI statements, Mitchell, Gregory and Cooper were all sitting in 18 C. On each other's laps??? C'mon!
As for Rataczak, initially he told me he didn't know where 305 was when Cooper jumped. Then he said they drifted to the east in the wind, but he didn't say east of what. Then he said they were east of V-23. Others say that Rataczak told them he was approaching the lights of Vancouver, putting him smack-dab in the middle of V-23 over Battleground. Adding to the problem, Himms is adamant about the Washougal, and he says, point-blank, that Rataczak told him that's where they were. Why didn't he just tell me the Real Story instead of beating around the bush? What's the big frigging deal? What are the pressures on these guys shifting the story this way and that?
Bottom Line: Did Rataczak deceive Himmelsbach? Or did Himmelsbach mis-interpret whatever Rataczak told him? Or is Himmelsbach deceiving me? Or is everyone just confused and wishes these questions would just go away???
-
From Georger:
"That, is my major criticism of Gray's book. He drops items of information apparently gleaned from FBI files, then makes no effort to explain or connect the new 'revelations' so they have any value. Then, he states technical and personal information that is not just wrong, but crazy (and even smarmy)! In terms of truth and a better understanding, his book may have zero value!"
Da Cuz says:
I agree with you Georger. Geoffrey has a weakness - he doesn't share. As a result, his research and writing is not cross-pollinated, reviewed, or corrected through the heat of this forum and the DZ. His singularity can work against him.
Also, I don't trust his blind faith in the FBI documents. There are many factual errors in places, such as the parachute mess, and the snafu situation of who is sitting in Row 18. According to various FBI statements, Mitchell, Gregory and Cooper were all sitting in 18 C. On each other's laps??? C'mon!
As for Rataczak, initially he told me he didn't know where 305 was when Cooper jumped. Then he said they drifted to the east in the wind, but he didn't say east of what. Then he said they were east of V-23. Others say that Rataczak told them he was approaching the lights of Vancouver, putting him smack-dab in the middle of V-23 over Battleground. Adding to the problem, Himms is adamant about the Washougal, and he says, point-blank, that Rataczak told him that's where they were. Why didn't he just tell me the Real Story instead of beating around the bush? What's the big frigging deal? What are the pressures on these guys shifting the story this way and that?
Bottom Line: Did Rataczak deceive Himmelsbach? Or did Himmelsbach mis-interpret whatever Rataczak told him? Or is Himmelsbach deceiving me? Or is everyone just confused and wishes these questions would just go away???
You are not the issue - the issue is the official history of the flight path and suspected dropzone.
Nobody seems to have found any official reference to the Washougal until shortly after the money find in Feb 1980, and then everyone is talking about the Washougal in official quarters. The Washougal is named in both the Palmer and Bradley reports commissioned by the FBI. Palmer was a geologist. Bradley was a hydrologist.
The FBI supplied background case information to both Bradley and Palmer. Bradley asked and was given an area where the FBI felt Cooper had jumped.
That area was defined as: ' an area in the State of Washington bounded by the Lewis River on the north, by the Clark County-Skamania County line on the east, and the Columbia River on the south.' No western boundary was set. Palmer was given the same information. No specific dropzone was given.
[edit] It might be worth noting that when Himmelsbach and Jerry Thomas teamed up to search the Washougal, JT talked to Rataczak and neither Rataczak or Himmelsbach, or anyone else, was able to give JT definitive guidance on where to search for Cooper near the Washougal, including whether north or south or anywhere else! Isn't it reasonable to assume that if the FBI had had a reasonable idea of where to look near the Washougal, based on anything concrete from the Air Force, Rataczak, etal ... the FBI would have had that area searched? Dozens of people have searched all over the Washougal over the years and all came up empty handed.
-
It's hard to say what they were doing in 1972 soon after the jump. the photo's below show them completely out of the jump zone searching. they are doing what appears to be a search east of the known flight path.
-
It's hard to say what they were doing in 1972 soon after the jump. the photo's below show them completely out of the jump zone searching. they are doing what appears to be a search east of the known flight path.
I am quite sure if the FBI had had confidence in a particular drop zone, they would have given that info to both Bradley and Palmer in 1980. They were asking these professionals to give their best estimate of how Cooper money might have arrived on Tina Bar - having precise drop zone data was vital to that task. Instead they are told to consider an area bounded by the Lewis River on the north, and the Columbia River on the south. That's a good sized piece of territory. :D Had someone narrowed this large swath down to the lower third, both Bradley and Palmer might have eliminated the Washougal and come up with a different answer? Because in fact, Bradley says something like:
'Several streams feed the Columbia upstream of the Fazio farm. I am eliminating them due to size, or the degree of slope, or location due to the scope of the large swath of territory specified and the forces needed to move a small package a long distance to the Columbia (as the FBI seems to want) from the northern area of the defined drop zone all the way to the Columbia. It is also unlikely that the described package would have passed through Lacamas Lake to the Columbia due to structural obstacles there that affect flow.'
Bradley is focused on large streams with sufficient volume and power to move a money package a long distance with certainty all the way to the Columbia, and then to Tina Bar, vs. a scenario which starts closer to the Columbia and closer to Tina Bar itself. Bradley worked within the parameters given him by the FBI.
We have this discussed all of this over and over at Dropzone and now here. The NWA-FBI Search Map is about as good an estimate of any 'drop zone' as it got, it seems. If Bradley and Palmer had been given different parameters I am convinced they would have focused on different solutions and answered accordingly. If they had been told: 'We suspect that Cooper bailed somewhere south of Battleground, closer to the Columbia, I suspect Bradley and Palmer would have looked for a different solution. Smaller feeder streams would have received more serious consideration, areas which are dry but fill up and flow during high water periods might have been considered. Topography as well as active streams would have been considered.
If the FBI had had good reason to say: 'We think 305 was clear over near the Washougal vs close to Battleground', then and only then would the Washougal have gained attention. If, Bradley had been told: '305 flew a straight line between Toledo and the tip of Hayden Island', then Bradley's focus would have changed to that looking for streams and flow opportunities which could supply money to the Fazio property from that flight path assumption.
The data people are given usually plays a role in the solutions people come up with.
-
I'm just a-ponderin'.
I'm also considering what retired FBI agent Gary Tallis said at the Portland Symposium in 2011. He said he was a rookie G-man in 1971 and assigned to the aerial search. He flew for two weeks as a spotter in a helicopter, and he said he spent at least a week looking far to the east, over the snow-covered foothills of the Cascades. I asked him if that included the Washougal basin and he said "Yes."
I know I am quick to suspect the Bureau of shenanigans, but I think it would be a lack of critical thinking not to ponder if the maps and info from the FBI are rigged. What if they found Cooper on the upper slopes? Or traces of his being there? Could Himms be correct?
Remember, as Calame said, "The longer this DB Cooper thing stays unsolved, the bigger the speculations become." Or words to that effect.
-
On the "Flight From Justice" video they had an undercover FBI agent (hidden from view) and he claims they had no idea where Cooper jumped.....
Just walked into the house, will catch up in a while. also have to download windows 7 onto this computer.....
-
I'm just a-ponderin'.
I'm also considering what retired FBI agent Gary Tallis said at the Portland Symposium in 2011. He said he was a rookie G-man in 1971 and assigned to the aerial search. He flew for two weeks as a spotter in a helicopter, and he said he spent at least a week looking far to the east, over the snow-covered foothills of the Cascades. I asked him if that included the Washougal basin and he said "Yes."
I know I am quick to suspect the Bureau of shenanigans, but I think it would be a lack of critical thinking not to ponder if the maps and info from the FBI are rigged. What if they found Cooper on the upper slopes? Or traces of his being there? Could Himms be correct?
Remember, as Calame said, "The longer this DB Cooper thing stays unsolved, the bigger the speculations become." Or words to that effect.
What you describe is in 1971-72.
By 1980 Bradley couldn't perform his job unless he knew what the FBI knew. The drop zone I described is exactly what they gave to Bradley, so far as I know it. So what you say fits within a general uncertainty??
But ........ at least we are discussing these matters, as best we can.
Like Shutter I have things going on here ... long hard day. I need some time to decompress.
-
I'm releasing the "Official Trailer" for the flight path video. many thanks to andrade1812 for helping with the script, and technical advice with the edit process. it took almost a week to put together, and about 12 edits to the video. this will be a "mini series' starting with a look at the Boeing 727, and it's functions inside, and out. following this will be a look at other possibilities in the flight path. basically east, and west. the final video will be of the flight path as it's seen on the FBI map. the transcripts will run with the flight.
Georger also viewed the video giving his input as well. thanks to both Georger, and andreade1812.
The date hasn't been set as of yet, but the process has started. it will be a lot of work, more than I've done with any video rendering before. I will be asking some of you questions along the way. I'm hoping to get the best known information for these video's in order to have something solid to work with, and use in the future. all the videos will be in 720, and 1080 HD formats.
Feel free to link the video to anyone you so desire.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3waV0APRscE
-
MORE!
-
Nice.. thanks.
-
RMB boastfully posts again quote Tom Kaye, who is a pilot:
RobertMBlevins
Feb 19, 2015, 11:35 PM
Post #57373 of 57373 (7 views)
Re: [RobertMBlevins] What the Citizen Sleuths Say About Flight Path [In reply to]
________________________________________
From the Citizen Sleuths, who were the only civilian team ever allowed to examine and study the Cooper evidence: (Important portions highlighted in bold)
'The FBI transcripts identify the towns of Toledo, Pigeon Springs, Ariel, Highland, Battle Ground and Vancouver as being either on or near the radar recorded flight path. This information coincides with the FBI map and does not support an overflight of Tena Bar or the Washougal River.
The placard was recovered at the location shown in Figure 2 which is near Toutle, and 20 miles north of the Ariel Washington jump zone. This location is almost directly under the FBI flight path. Giving the placard a free fall time of nine minutes and a south west cross wind of 18 knots, then the plane would have to been 2.68 miles from where the placard was recovered and 2.6 miles west of V23. This distance is well within the official 8 mile width for the Victor airway and is 4 miles east of the theoretical Tena Bar flight path. This data places a constraint on the planes position approximately six minutes before the jump and suggests flight #305 was on the original FBI flight path.
Anecdotally, the original air traffic controller that handled the Northwest Airlines flight north of Portland was interviewed directly over the phone. He volunteered that he was sure that Flight #305 never left the V23 airway the entire time he had them on radar...'
1. Kaye doesn't say one word about the drop-zone, drop-time, or timeline in the Transcript of the FBI map. He very carefully avoids that, the real issues!
2. Kaye's statement: "R2 was sure that Flight #305 never left the V23 airway the entire time he had them on radar..." leaves out one glaring fact, in R2's own words, quote: But I wasn't watching the radar the whole time and during the time 305 flew by Portland (on the west side). I was busy with the T33. And the people at Portland missed it too because they were busy with traffic."
So, Kaye's words "...the entire time he had them on radar".. is literal and deceiving, because it does not include the period where 305 flew by Portland! R2 doesn't know where 305 was! R2 was busy with the T33! When R2 next saw 305, 305 had already passed Portland and was south of Portland with a T33 in hot pursuit! And R2 continued to bring them together near Lake Oswego. The T33 had been launched from the Ntl Guard base at PDX in Portland.
3. Kaye omits other things R2 said! R2 also said, quoting: "... as far as I know 305 was flying right down the 'center line' of V23 and went straight across the Portland airport" ..... there was no meander west to avoid PDX!
The FBI map doesn't even show that!Why hasn't Kaye reported the whole truth of what R2 said to a number of researchers? There are other researchers on record too who have also talked to R2 not just once but multiple times - that is a fact!The caveat is: "I wasn't watching 305. I have assumed he was on the center line of Victor-23"!
So, the next time Mr. Blevins wants to quote Tom Kaye quoting R2, maybe Mr. Blevins should pick up the phone and talk to the Controller himself, after Blevins has talked to Rataczak which he is contemptuously advising others to do?
4. Blevins pollutes his post further by also saying: "Tom Kaye's team ...who were the only civilian team ever allowed to examine and study the Cooper evidence" ? Where did Blevins get that, from the Tooth Fairy?
Blevins and Tom Kaye need to tell the whole truth for a change, and allow people to make up their own minds.
:)
-
The above is more reason more documentation should apply. it's unfortunate they didn't keep very good records of this whole thing. I'm hearing Carr state "believed path, I'm hearing an undercover agent say they didn't know where he jumped. different stories between the pilots. it's an endless cluster of problems.
This is why I want to try an validate things. show other possibilities that are plausible. does anyone know if Dawson can be found, or if he is still alive. I can't find anything on the guy? are the traffic controllers anywhere to be found? Anderson is another key person for information. time is running out with getting any information from people involved in this!
Mr. Blevins likes to put things in bold, perhaps this will apply also ;D
5' 10" - 6'
Hair parted on left.
Olive, Latin appearance
What happened in the "green river murders" does not apply to this case. Cooper's description was based on witnesses being with him for hours, not minutes, or seconds. the description was compiled by "pretty smart guys" just like Paul Soderlind.
I think his "double standard" applies here nicely ;D
-
The above is more reason more documentation should apply. it's unfortunate they didn't keep very good records of this whole thing. I'm hearing Carr state "believed path, I'm hearing an undercover agent say they didn't know where he jumped. different stories between the pilots. it's an endless cluster of problems.
This is why I want to try an validate things. show other possibilities that are plausible. does anyone know if Dawson can be found, or if he is still alive. I can't find anything on the guy? are the traffic controllers anywhere to be found? Anderson is another key person for information. time is running out with getting any information from people involved in this!
Mr. Blevins likes to put things in bold, perhaps this will apply also ;D
5' 10" - 6'
Hair parted on left.
Olive, Latin appearance
What happened in the "green river murders" does not apply to this case. Cooper's description was based on witnesses being with him for hours, not minutes, or seconds. the description was compiled by "pretty smart guys" just like Paul Soderlind.
I think his "double standard" applies here nicely ;D
Back up!
When I wrote my post above last night, which centers on R2, I suddenly asked myself "WHY? is anyone having to write this?". I mean really! Who in hell do Kaye and Blevins think they are? God? The final word on the DB Cooper case?" Half the world has talked to R2 and knows what R2 said and thinks... everyone but Blevins, that is! Then I go to DZ today and see Blevins even added to his 'Tom Kaye and Soderlind are Gods' post last nite, saying:
Note to folks interested in the DB Cooper case: Suspect anyone who disregards the truth in favor of personalities, or who goes after anyone on a personal level who is also investigating the case. This indicates they have a personal agenda which supersedes and taints any real truth they may be trying to present.
(This post was edited by RobertMBlevins on Feb 20, 2015, 1:46 AM)
Whose does this WACKO at Auburn WA think he is? This is obviously quite personal with him. I hope he doesn't throw himself off the Tacoma Bridge or shoot people in a convenience store 'out of sympathy with' the FBI flight path map, Paul Soderlind's memory, and Polar Bears!?
Blevins is just another Andy! A pure propagandist with nothing to offer in the DB Cooper case!
DB Cooper case and Blevins Psycho-Billy drama mill.... closed!
This guy Blevins is plain f@@king nuts! :-\ :-\ :-\ ::) ::) ::) :P :-[ :-\ :-* :-* :-* :-* :'( :o :o :o
____________________________________________________________________________
There is money sitting on a sandbar about 4.7 miles downstream of Vancouver WA. A river connects that sandbar and *any* version of the 305 DB Cooper flight path you can come up with, real or imagined. Simon sayz: The river flows down stream of any possible intersection of the flight path and the river.
The very highest probability is: the money got to the sandbar by flowing water vs. being a plant or being brought there by polar bears. Simon sayz: 'flowing rivers have a habit of moving things, from point A to point B!
And psycho-billy propaganda and personal attacks from the Auburn Washington Nutcase, cannot improve or alter these basic facts of the cosmos!
This is a technical-historical problem involving mainly the Air Force and Soderlind who put together the first flight path accounts for #305. Mssrs. Tom and Kaye and Robert M Blevins weren't there and had no hand in this! Duuuh! Maybe that's the primary reason they don't have the answers now? But, they sure as hell don’t mind claiming they have the answers now, which is an even bigger surprise and an exercise in futility!
This is what usually happens when one person goes from running a mop in the Shipping and Delivery Dept. to issuing memos to Division Directors and then the CEO and the Board, then claiming he owns and runs the whole business while putting a flashing red light on the hood of his 'Little Subbie"! Some wacko like this arrives about every five years and makes it through the Personnel Dept and Quality Control!
:-*
-
The Blevins flight path?
Is there one? I doubt it. And I have never had the impression he is arguing acceptance of 'an' FBI flight path (which is east of V23?) because he needs to support KC, in some way? Blevins has never specified a dropzone for KC. In fact, so far as I know, Blevins has steered away from saying 'KC dropped here vs there'. That leaves open the option that KC could have dropped 'anywhere' and Blevins will attempt to accommodate that.
All that is at stake for Blevins is his ego. He took a stand supporting the FBI 'yellow' map. Now he is stuck supporting it. He will change his KC fiction to accommodate any flight path ! Just give him two hours to dream something up ... flight paths and facts are just an inconvenience Blevins tolerates and argues around, issuing bulletins to: Those interested in the DB Cooper case! It is baloney on it's face.
It probably comes as a surprise to Blevins that Tosaw wrote a book! That Tosaw actually talked and worked with Soderlind at all. That Soderlind even spoke to Tosaw. This marginalises the notion Blevins has been spouting that Soderlind was some kind of god who did 'all of the work on a flight 305 flight path'. Blevins has never mentioned the Air Force. Just the FBI web page, Tom Kaye's web page, and Soiderlind (God of all flight paths and NWA).
It probably came as a further disappointment for R99 to tell Blevins 'he' is the one who did the actual calculations for the placard Tom Kaye is using on his webpage! I am sure Blevins thought Tom Kaye did the calculations .. :D
I think what Blevins really wants is his own thread at Dropzone, where he is the Moderator and final authority. That way he could just perma-ban anyone he sees as an inconvenience. And he could have his own DB Cooperland Temple and rule the whole discussion, then advertise himself as an expert on the whole internet.
There is only One True Cooperland, and its name is Robert M Blevins. Worship at the Blevins of your choice!
-
Once again, I wish people would stick to the categories provided, if there is going to be a flow of conversation on a topic. I know! I'm a harsh taskmaster ... and I don't even run this website! :) :) Valuable posts are getting put in places where people can't respond; that's the point.
Two posts I'm bringing here:
MarkBennett
That appears to be the conversation. The original post on DZ is here:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4393509#4393509
Rataczak said he could see the lights of Vancouver and Portland coming into view. Jo surmised it was on the right because he sits on the right. However, as you say Robert99, that could be in front of the aircraft on either the right, the left or straight ahead. Rataczak said nothing on that point. It shows how a comment can be misconstrued over time.
Shutter
The plane starts turning westward past the 8:15 mark. he could easily seen through the front window of the cockpit s the sides.
I believe he also states the pressure bump was felt over the suburbs. that's a good distance away from the original jump point.
When Carr came to DZ he promoted discussion on the flight path. To what extent he was representing the FBI vs himself, I do not know. But he was interested in any technical remarks concerning the FBI's 'flight path'. He even released FBI docs to Sluggo for sharing with the public. The technical discussion of the FP that ensued was open and deep. Nothing was left off the table. It became clear that Larry was open to anything 'the best technical minds' could offer, and quite frankly it was during that period, that R99 appeared and posted his calculations to Sluggo at Sluggo's website. That was a marvelous period. It is also worth noting that others with strong credentials were working off to the side, and I won't name them except to say their contributions were substantial. During that period Tom Kaye's team was formed and began it's work. Real work was being done on core questions in the DB Cooper case, for the first time perhaps since 1980!
From all of the above, two key group beliefs have emerged. (a) those that hold with the original time stamps and the original projected dropzone for Cooper, vs. (b) a second group who believes there is flexibility in the time stamps such that Cooper could have jumped further south than originally thought, closer to the Columbia basin. This second group believes there is significant flexibility in the time stamps regardless of the flight path chosen, discounting an 'east-path near the Washougal'.
The second group is bolstered by several key facts and assumptions: (1) Himmelsbach and other agents announced in 1976 that the FBI's position on the dropzone had changed, and was now "12 miles north of Portland". That demonstrates unreliability in the previously forecast prime jump zone. (2) All flight paths intersect the Columbia River which flows right by Tina's Bar. (3) Cooper money was found on Tina's Bar in 1980. (4) The evidence of the money exhumed by the excavation in 1980 at Tina's Bar, supports the view that the Ingram money was not just a "plant" but a more complex natural phenomenon produced by Nature. The forensic facts found during the excavation exclude the possibility that 'the Ingram find was a single source man-made plant' that merely had been worked on by natural forces over time at Tina's Bar. We believe that the bulk of any new evidence that emerges will also support that interpretation.
In contrast, the first group of 'flight path-dropzone fundamentalists', produced only empty searches, an Amboy chute of uncertain stature, multiple conflicting stories about who and what derived one or more original flight path maps, a redacted Transcript of flight communications, and total uncertainty leading to endless speculations over who Dan Cooper was or was not, and total uncertainty about how Cooper money could have ever wound up at Tina's Bar further south on the Columbia river at all except via some unknown set of unpredictable circuitous circumstances, or as a plant by who knows who!
The difference between the two groups is chaos vs order.
;)
-
I'll run a video of the position discussed above from about the 8:16 time frame, and post it here in a while. I just got home from a long haul northbound....
Georger, you are correct about the categories.......keep me on my toes ;D ;D
-
This is approx. the 8:16 location. the views are from the co-pilots seat. I raised the view a little bit due to the 727's having a high panel. they typically have to stretch up a little for a good view out the front window. should be watched in HD for quality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9QcRR2j4EU
-
This is approx. the 8:16 location. the views are from the co-pilots seat. I raised the view a little bit due to the 727's having a high panel. they typically have to stretch up a little for a good view out the front window. shold be watched in HD for quality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9QcRR2j4EU
He had a good panoramic view.
-
He had a good panoramic view.
I put the video together rather quickly. I forgot to mention no volume :P
-
East of V23?
Both Smith and Blev keep saying R said "east of V23", at the jump time 8:11-13. And this puts 305 in the Washougal. And the FBI map is correct according to Blevins and Kaye. Have Blevins or Smith looked at a map lately!?
What are these people meaning when they keep saying "east of V23", to be in the Washougal? East of the center line of V23, or clear out of the envelope of V23, east outside of the east boundary of V23?
If the FBI map is correct, 305 was never "outside" of the east-side envelope of V23. And during the critical period 8:11-8:13 305 was in fact almost on the center line of V23! 305 was never completely outside of V23 anywhere! Especially during the critical jump time 8:11-13. And in both cases 305 is not ever in the Washougal drainage basin where any tributary feeds the Washougal River!
Blevins can't have it both ways saying the FBI map is True, then saying 305 was "east of V23 based on Rataczak" which the FBI map does not show!.
It is time for Smith and Blevins to start looking at some maps for a change and stop blowing smoke. This has become a fruitless enterprise.
See maps attached.
-
Excellent post Georger. people need to understand certain points about viewing the path, and calculating. you can't look at the map and just plot things by looking at it. assuming things will not cut it either. if people don't know exactly where V23 is, they can't come to any conclusions.
Fuel consumption would be wasted flying the path they believe. then you are flying over major population points, and more fuel wasted getting back onto V23.
-
Just as Robert99 has done in the past, anyone has a right to express possible routes the flight took, but calculations need to backup what you are implying. R99 has done this. he's working on things people haven't a clue about at this very moment. things like this take time, jumping to conclusions is not the answer. Bobby whines to R99 for not showing anything, but he fails once again to notice R99 has shown possibilities. Blevins likes short simple conclusions, but we all know where that got him with his botched investigative skills. we have a part time writer arguing with a known aeronautical engineer, a pilot, and a skydiver?
I'm not sold on anything path related, but I'm willing to listen to possibilities. :-\
-
Just as Robert99 has done in the past, anyone has a right to express possible routes the flight took, but calculations need to backup what you are implying. R99 has done this. he's working on things people haven't a clue about at this very moment. things like this take time, jumping to conclusions is not the answer. Bobby whines to R99 for not showing anything, but he fails once again to notice R99 has shown possibilities. Blevins likes short simple conclusions, but we all know where that got him with his botched investigative skills. we have a part time writer arguing with a known aeronautical engineer, a pilot, and a skydiver?
I'm not sold on anything path related, but I'm willing to listen to possibilities. :-\
Blevins and Smith have dispensed with any investigative skills. They are now delving in pure fiction ....... where facts just get in the way.
I hate to remind everyone but, this suspension of reality is the RULE at DZ, installed in order to keep Jo Weber going... and now Blevins. That Moderator himself was a "fiction" wannabe writer. Facts and truth get in way.
It is what it is and that's all that it is: to paraphrase Popeye.
Dat's All Folks!
;D
-
I don't say 305 was east of V-23. Rather, I say that Bill Rataczak told me 305 was east of V-23. I also write that BR told me he didn't know where he was.
Personally, after reading what is here, I'm thinking 305 was a lot further west than Bill alluded to. I-5-ish at least.
-
I don't say 305 was east of V-23. Rather, I say that Bill Rataczak told me 305 was east of V-23. I also write that BR told me he didn't know where he was.
Personally, after reading what is here, I'm thinking 305 was a lot further west than Bill alluded to. I-5-ish at least.
I think they were trying to fly V23 and generally were. I agree they probably would have avoided Portland going west or east around it, then on to Reno. I think Cooper saw the sky-glow of Vancouver-Portland coming up and bailed. When and where is the question. I think the money at Tina's Bar is like the placard. It indicates he landed in the Columbia Water shed but not east in the Washougal water shed. I think that is all anyone can say without more data. I wish we could have more information!
Please let us know if the news media up there covers Blevins' news release to the FBI. Or is it a total dud?
-
I don't say 305 was east of V-23. Rather, I say that Bill Rataczak told me 305 was east of V-23. I also write that BR told me he didn't know where he was.
Personally, after reading what is here, I'm thinking 305 was a lot further west than Bill alluded to. I-5-ish at least.
I think they were trying to fly V23 and generally were. I agree they probably would have avoided Portland going west or east around it, then on to Reno. I think Cooper saw the sky-glow of Vancouver-Portland coming up and bailed. When and where is the question. I think the money at Tina's Bar is like the placard. It indicates he landed in the Columbia Water shed and it is isn;t east in the Washougal basin. I think that is all anyone can say without more data. I wish we could have more information!
Please let us know if the news media up thee covers Blevins 'news release to the FBI'. Or is it a total dud?
During the past 4 years I remember reading a few things that I can't find at this time.
1) A teenage girl was at her family owned airport and listened to the chatter of the hi-jacking on her fathers radio. I think she said she heard the plane overhead when it passed.
2) One of the pilots wanted to dump Cooper in the ocean and he started to fly the plane to the west of their intended route.
Again, I am not sure if this is fact or fiction as I can't find the source. Georger, do you have any recollection of these two points?
-
I don't say 305 was east of V-23. Rather, I say that Bill Rataczak told me 305 was east of V-23. I also write that BR told me he didn't know where he was.
Personally, after reading what is here, I'm thinking 305 was a lot further west than Bill alluded to. I-5-ish at least.
I think they were trying to fly V23 and generally were. I agree they probably would have avoided Portland going west or east around it, then on to Reno. I think Cooper saw the sky-glow of Vancouver-Portland coming up and bailed. When and where is the question. I think the money at Tina's Bar is like the placard. It indicates he landed in the Columbia Water shed and it is isn;t east in the Washougal basin. I think that is all anyone can say without more data. I wish we could have more information!
Please let us know if the news media up thee covers Blevins 'news release to the FBI'. Or is it a total dud?
During the past 4 years I remember reading a few things that I can't find at this time.
1) A teenage girl was at her family owned airport and listened to the chatter of the hi-jacking on her fathers radio. I think she said she heard the plane overhead when it passed.
2) One of the pilots wanted to dump Cooper in the ocean and he started to fly the plane to the west of their intended route.
Again, I am not sure if this is fact or fiction as I can't find the source. Georger, do you have any recollection of these two points?
I think number 1 above originates with Jo Weber who claims it happened somewhere in the Portland area.
Number 2 above definitely happened. Co-pilot Rataczak came up with the idea and I think it is discussed in the Seattle ground radio transcripts. But he was over ruled and the flight did not fly over the Pacific at any point. Nevertheless, the flight crew was aware of the bomb potential and did not want to fly over populated areas when they could avoid them.
-
I'm not so sure they can hear the plane from that altitude, at least not from inside. the planes over my house are at about 2,000. I can hardly hear them inside.
-
I don't say 305 was east of V-23. Rather, I say that Bill Rataczak told me 305 was east of V-23. I also write that BR told me he didn't know where he was.
Personally, after reading what is here, I'm thinking 305 was a lot further west than Bill alluded to. I-5-ish at least.
I think they were trying to fly V23 and generally were. I agree they probably would have avoided Portland going west or east around it, then on to Reno. I think Cooper saw the sky-glow of Vancouver-Portland coming up and bailed. When and where is the question. I think the money at Tina's Bar is like the placard. It indicates he landed in the Columbia Water shed and it is isn;t east in the Washougal basin. I think that is all anyone can say without more data. I wish we could have more information!
Please let us know if the news media up thee covers Blevins 'news release to the FBI'. Or is it a total dud?
During the past 4 years I remember reading a few things that I can't find at this time.
1) A teenage girl was at her family owned airport and listened to the chatter of the hi-jacking on her fathers radio. I think she said she heard the plane overhead when it passed.
2) One of the pilots wanted to dump Cooper in the ocean and he started to fly the plane to the west of their intended route.
Again, I am not sure if this is fact or fiction as I can't find the source. Georger, do you have any recollection of these two points?
I do recall this and I am sure I can find the original account, with some time. Let me come back to this tonight....
Thanks Vicki..
G
-
I'm not so sure they can hear the plane from that altitude, at least not from inside. the planes over my house are at about 2,000. I can hardly hear them inside.
The girl/lady who listened to flight chatter on a radio at an airport:
I dont recall her hearing 305 go over overhead, but I could be wrong.
I do recall her description of the flight comms chatter and the discussion with BR wanting to dump Cooper in the ocean...
I do recall something about 305 being west off (something or someplace)?
I also recall posters at DZ being skeptical of this whole story.
Let's try and find the full account .....
(I came here to send Shutter a PM... you will have a PM shortly)
-
I'm not so sure they can hear the plane from that altitude, at least not from inside. the planes over my house are at about 2,000. I can hardly hear them inside.
The girl/lady who listened to flight chatter on a radio at an airport:
I dont recall her hearing 305 go over overhead, but I could be wrong.
I do recall her description of the flight comms chatter and the discussion with BR wanting to dump Cooper in the ocean...
I do recall something about 305 being west off (something or someplace)?
I also recall posters at DZ being skeptical of this whole story.
Let's try and find the full account .....
(I came here to send Shutter a PM... you will have a PM shortly)
I went ahead and searched the DZ. Farflung dissected the story/fallacy.
It can be found here:http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4131876#4131876
Google map: Location of Shady Acres Airport. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Shady+Acres+Airport-3b8/@47.1145484,-122.5187509,11z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x25b33be73621225e
-
That airport is close to V23. the map doesn't show where the plane was at that time frame. that would be around 8 minutes into the flight. it's close to McChord. the plane was at 7,000 feet at that time frame.
V-495 runs directly over it. (Shady Acres)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNP0GEeWvrQ
-
Marianne Scott Lincoln was the 14 year-old girl who told this story, and I broke it on the Mountain News in 2011 after she told me the tale in August.
She was quite adamant about what she told me. She said she listened on her family's radio in the hanger, and listened to the Seattle Center's side of the conversation. She never heard the cockpit, apparently.
Marianne started the conversation by overhearing me tell another person about my book on DB Cooper, and when I mentioned that the skyjacker wanted $200,000, Marianne jumped in and vociferously argued that Cooper had wanted $400,000 and that there was an argument over the radio. Eventually, the skyjacker was talked down to 200K.
Marianne was resolute about that.
She also said that she thought the plane was far east of V-23 and turned left at Gresham and headed up the Columbia River Gorge. She wasn't absolutely sure on that, but that was her basic recall.
M