Poll

How did the money arrive on Tena Bar

River Flooding
1 (5%)
Floated to it's resting spot via Columbia river
2 (10%)
Planted
6 (30%)
Dredge
11 (55%)
tossed in the river in a paper bag
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 17

Voting closed: August 16, 2016, 09:05:28 AM

Author Topic: Tena Bar Money Find  (Read 558721 times)

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • Thanked: 400 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5745 on: December 08, 2020, 11:43:03 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can someone please help me get my hands on the Palmer report?

On 10.21.2020 I submitted an FOIA request for the "Columbia River flow study" mentioned in Part 51, page 375, footnote 21559, which may or may not be the same as the Palmer report. The response on 10.29.2020 referred to a "Flow study of Washougal River" (which I had not specifically requested) and reported "no records found".

The document you asked for is not part of the Palmer report but a separate study on Washougal River flow. If you have the title or author of the study just enter it in Google Scholar and Google will probably give you a url for it ... 
 
The following users thanked this post: Dfs346

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • Thanked: 400 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5746 on: December 09, 2020, 12:00:14 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can someone please help me get my hands on the Palmer report? I can't seem to find it online.

I cant share any FBI docs Tom and I were given.

A few docs related to the Palmer report socalled appear in the FOIA. FLYJACK posted a few of these docs at DZ but he gave no finder info.  However, DB Cooper numbers appear on the bottoms of several pages so you can track these DB Cooper numbers through the pdfs ... if you have the time. 

So ask Andrade or FLYJACK to help you. Or go to DZ and look up FJ's posts ...

DBC Numbers on 302 docs FJ posted include: DB Cooper 18799, 18802, 18803, 18804, 18809 and two other pages which have no identifying numbers but are dated 2/14/80.   

Here is DB Cooper 18804 attached below . . .
« Last Edit: December 09, 2020, 12:23:18 AM by georger »
 
The following users thanked this post: Dfs346

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • Thanked: 400 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5747 on: December 09, 2020, 04:24:19 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can someone please help me get my hands on the Palmer report? I can't seem to find it online.

Pages FJ posted which reference some aspect of the Palmer report all come from Part 46.

The pages are:  043-048 (DBC 18799-18804).  Page 050 (DBC 18809)  and page 055 (DBC 18816).

So go to Part 46 and look up those pages and copy them to a jpeg or word doc or whatever file type you want.

That should give you something to work with. Hope this helps -
 
The following users thanked this post: Darren, Dfs346

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • Thanked: 400 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5748 on: December 09, 2020, 01:48:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can someone please help me get my hands on the Palmer report? I can't seem to find it online.

Pages FJ posted which reference some aspect of the Palmer report all come from Part 46.

The pages are:  043-048 (DBC 18799-18804).  Page 050 (DBC 18809)  and page 055 (DBC 18816).

So go to Part 46 and look up those pages and copy them to a jpeg or word doc or whatever file type you want.

That should give you something to work with. Hope this helps -

I have emailed Shutter all of the Part 46 files that relate to the Palmer Report - Dave can put these in the Vault when he gets time ...   
 
The following users thanked this post: Shutter

Offline Dfs346

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5749 on: December 09, 2020, 02:36:20 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can someone please help me get my hands on the Palmer report?

The Washington State Historical Society made a FOIA request to the FBI for this document but did not succeed (see attachments).
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • Thanked: 400 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5750 on: December 09, 2020, 04:47:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can someone please help me get my hands on the Palmer report?

The Washington State Historical Society made a FOIA request to the FBI for this document but did not succeed (see attachments).

Not sure what to say I havnt already said before! Palmer wrote no report, as far as I know. If he did Ive never seen or heard of it - ask Tom? In that sense there is no Palmer report! When Poyner asks for the "Palmer Report" he may be asking for something that does not exist, so far as I know!

Palmer gave a verbal report. That was transcribed into a multi-page 302. Pages from that document have already been released! They are in Part 46 - pages shown below! FJ found those pages in Part 46 and posted some of those pages at DZ so go there and copy them.

Kaye and Georger were given a number of documents which some began to refer to as the Palmer Report. Tom calls it The Transcript on his website. Georger calls it: documents related to the money find we received from Larry Car !  Some people may be referring to that whole package of documents as the 'Palmer Report' ?

Galen Cook emailed Georger and asked him what his "Palmer Report" included! Georger replied "I dont know what you mean". Cook replied saying he had the "full Palmer Report" and Tom and I had only been provided partial copies! This went back and forth several times without resolution.... so I guess Mr. Cook has the Full Palmer Report" whatever that means! Cook said he had been given his FULL PALMER REPORT by his friend the FBI Agent SA Curtis Ng at Seattle. Who knows what the truth is! Ive never asked Ng about this... my conversations with Ng have always been case specific. ;D

My conclusion is the words Palmer Report seem to stand for a lot of different things with no two people meaning the same thing! 

 :rofl:
 
« Last Edit: December 09, 2020, 05:55:21 PM by georger »
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • Thanked: 400 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5751 on: December 11, 2020, 04:17:41 PM »
Files related to the Tina Bar Money Find and Excavation include:

#THE INGRAM STORY:  HAROLD, PATRICIA, & BRIAN INGRAM:
FOIA Part 46.

# THE INGRAM STORY - PART II  – FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS:

#  TRIBUTARY REPORT – MR SNAVELY: 
MR. PARKE SNAVELY, Oregon office United States Geological Survey consulted concerning tributary flow into the Columbia River.

# DREDGING REPORT- MR BECHLY: Date:  Feb. 13, 1980
FOIA Part …

# GEOLOGIST REPORT – MR. PALMER :  Date: Feb 14, 1980.
FOIA Part 46.

# HYDROLOGIST REPORT – MR. BRADLEY Date: Feb. 20, 1980
FOIA Part …

REQUEST OF THE FBI LABORATORY: FOUND MONEY
REQUEST OF THE FBI LABORATORY #2: FOUND MONEY
FBI LAB ANALYSIS – 4 ADDITIONAL BILLS PROVIDED BY CRYSTAL INGRAM :
LAB REPORTS … Date: Feb 25, 1980 …

*Most of these files have already been released in the FOIA:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

* See FLYJACK posts at Dropzone for past releases and updates.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2020, 04:21:13 PM by georger »
 
The following users thanked this post: andrade1812, Darren, Dfs346

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9356
  • Thanked: 933 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5752 on: December 11, 2020, 04:39:29 PM »
Haven't been able to put the files on the website. they are doing maintenance..can't login at all..

"We are currently performing migrations and maintenance on our backend systems, logging into the system may periodically be impacted."
 

Offline Dfs346

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5753 on: December 11, 2020, 05:32:55 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
# DREDGING REPORT- MR BECHLY: Date:  Feb. 13, 1980

Could we infer that Mr Bechly is the person whose name is redacted in Part 43, pages 374, 375, 377?
 

Offline Dfs346

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5754 on: December 11, 2020, 05:45:18 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
#  TRIBUTARY REPORT – MR SNAVELY: 
MR. PARKE SNAVELY, Oregon office United States Geological Survey consulted concerning tributary flow into the Columbia River.

Is Mr Parke Snavely the person whose name is redacted in Part 43, pages 329, 330? If so, has the FBI released (through FOIA or otherwise) the enclosures to this memo, identified as "(2 Lab report, Q59)"?
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • Thanked: 400 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5755 on: December 12, 2020, 12:01:53 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
#  TRIBUTARY REPORT – MR SNAVELY: 
MR. PARKE SNAVELY, Oregon office United States Geological Survey consulted concerning tributary flow into the Columbia River.

Is Mr Parke Snavely the person whose name is redacted in Part 43, pages 329, 330? If so, has the FBI released (through FOIA or otherwise) the enclosures to this memo, identified as "(2 Lab report, Q59)"?

Yes the same person. However I havent seen any report by him, so perhaps that is yet to be released, or there is no report?

Q58 and Q59 etc., are designators for 'specimens' sent in for analysis; in this case the groups of bills the Ingrams found and turned in. Specimen Q58 was a group of bills for which analysis was requested: including finger print analysis which was negative. The Q58 testing was the source of silver nitrate finger printing Tom detected on some of the bills. The lab report on Q58 notes that it arrived as a large group of 'deteriorated bills which at first blush were uncountable'. Analysis of bills labeled Specimen Q59  was for mineralogy, sand types, and erosion metrics. Tom conducted similar tests on his 3 bills. These tests were important because for one thing the Lab is looking for mineralogy compatible with different geological regions/tributaries. Subsequent lab analysis placed an estimate on the total number of bills as being something in the neighborhood of $5800 or ~290 bills ...   

Lab reports have their own unique file designations but would always refer to the specimen Q-number sent in for Lab analysis.

The Snavely matter could be completely separate from the Lab testing mentioned on this 302.   
« Last Edit: December 12, 2020, 05:00:29 AM by georger »
 
The following users thanked this post: Dfs346

Offline dudeman17

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5756 on: December 22, 2020, 06:41:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Been reading this thread and your comments about pulling the ripcord early if an inexperienced diver make complete sense.  So Let me ask two questions here?  I personally believe he was ABSOLUTELY EXPERIENCED based on his knowledge of the planes and chutes.  His complete calmness right until his departure. So if he knew what he was doing and most of us believe he did, in 1971, with clouds below, and lets say he can trust the 10,000 feet altitude he ordered the pilots to maintain?  Could he have lets say counted, like 1,2,3,4 etc to guess his altitude when he pulls?  IE, would he know how many feet per second he would drop?  Second question, is the movie Point Break.  I assume you have seen it.  The one with the late great Patrick Swayze and Keano Reeves.  Not the newer remake. (which I have not seen).  The parachute scene is crazy as you know. So Swayze pulls his chute very very late. Maybe hundreds of feet from the water?  How far fetched is that?  And the control they had before they pulled the chutes?  Can we believe that DB Cooper could have had more control than people have been told?  Perhaps he could have maneuvered before he pulled the cord or if he pulled on one rope would it not steer him to some degree?


DBfan - Sorry, I didn't mean to blow off your questions, sometimes I miss a few days and your post got past me. So if you're still interested, better late than never. (Although on a 50 year old case, how late can I be?) There are a lot of variables for the answers.

Was Cooper experienced? I guess no one really knows, but as you say, the fact that he seemed familiar with the parachutes would seem to indicate that he was. But what kind of experience and how much? If his experience was military, he likely had a handful of static line jumps. He would be familiar with the harness, somewhat familiar with the canopy control, but not familiar with freefall. If he was a civilian sport jumper, he would likely have many more jumps. He would be familiar with the harness and the canopy control. How familiar he would be with freefall would depend on how many jumps he had and how good he was at it. Freefall control is kind of like learning to ride a bicycle, in that there is a subtle balance point to it. It can be wobbly to learn, but once it 'clicks' it's pretty intuitive and not very hard. And like anything, some people take to it better than others.

Altitude - Yeah, I think he could count on the pilots' flying at the requested 10k'. But, pilots use altitude at MSL, which is above sea level. The useful altitude a jumper has is AGL, above ground level. The difference would be the elevation of the terrain below him. I've heard varying reports of how high the mountains were below him, some people say 2k to 3k, I think R99 said some as high as 4k to 5k. If he's smart, he would consider the highest possible terrain and use that as his workable altitude. So if the highest mountains below him might be at 5k, he would subtract that from the 10k and figure he had 5k below him to work with. Yes he could count that out in seconds. There are standard freefall tables that tell how far you would fall in how many seconds. Remember that it takes several seconds to achieve terminal velocity, so in your first seconds you don't fall as far as you would in the same time at terminal. Smart experienced jumpers also develop a decent sense of visual altitude awareness. But that would depend on several factors. How solid was the cloud cover, were there holes where he could see to the ground? What was the moon, how much ambient light? How close was he to a city or other ground based light sources. Another thing a smart jumper does when jumping in clouds is to take note of what the lowest cloud base is, whether he could count on coming out of the bottom of the clouds and have altitude left.

Point Break - All the skydiving scenes in the movie are real (except the low pull) so all the freefall control you see is real. The 'Hollywood' parts are that they edited several jumps together so that their scene lasts longer than actual jumps do, and Keanu's character, you're not going to be that good at it on your first jump.

Pulling low - It varies, but typically a sport jumper opens the parachute at around 2500'. This allows time to deal with a malfunctioned main and get under a reserve if needed, and also time to maneuver into the desired landing area. But it's not necessary. In Cooper's day it wasn't uncommon for people to pull low on purpose for 'sport'. ('Ground rush is a gas, but it sure ain't practical.') And Cooper was jumping with one parachute, and those bailout rigs ARE reserves. His kind of chute would typically open in a few hundred feet. Once it's open and flying, it neither knows nor cares whether there's 2000, 200, or even 20 feet below. It's doing what it does. I wrote a piece at dropzone a while back speculating the possibility that Cooper could have maneuvered in freefall over an open field and pulled so low so as not to drift into trees. A lot of unlikely suppositions to that, though.

Canopy control - It's generally regarded that the chute he had was an unmodified, non steerable one. Pretty much no control. Yeah, he could pull on the lines and get a bit of drift or turn out of it, but not much. However, and this is speculative, but if Cooper knew enough about chutes to be familiar with a certain modification on some reserves known as a 'four line release', and if he had access to his knife when he got under canopy, he could potentially do some in-air rigging. Once he was under the open parachute, he could cut the four rear-most lines. This would allow the bottom of the back of the chute to rise up in kind of a 'bubble' shape. This would allow some air to escape out the back, giving the chute some forward drive. Then, by pulling either the next outside lines, or just the risers, he could steer it. That would give him some control and sort of allow him to choose his landing site.
 

Offline DBfan57

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5757 on: March 03, 2021, 12:55:20 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Been reading this thread and your comments about pulling the ripcord early if an inexperienced diver make complete sense.  So Let me ask two questions here?  I personally believe he was ABSOLUTELY EXPERIENCED based on his knowledge of the planes and chutes.  His complete calmness right until his departure. So if he knew what he was doing and most of us believe he did, in 1971, with clouds below, and lets say he can trust the 10,000 feet altitude he ordered the pilots to maintain?  Could he have lets say counted, like 1,2,3,4 etc to guess his altitude when he pulls?  IE, would he know how many feet per second he would drop?  Second question, is the movie Point Break.  I assume you have seen it.  The one with the late great Patrick Swayze and Keano Reeves.  Not the newer remake. (which I have not seen).  The parachute scene is crazy as you know. So Swayze pulls his chute very very late. Maybe hundreds of feet from the water?  How far fetched is that?  And the control they had before they pulled the chutes?  Can we believe that DB Cooper could have had more control than people have been told?  Perhaps he could have maneuvered before he pulled the cord or if he pulled on one rope would it not steer him to some degree?


DBfan - Sorry, I didn't mean to blow off your questions, sometimes I miss a few days and your post got past me. So if you're still interested, better late than never. (Although on a 50 year old case, how late can I be?) There are a lot of variables for the answers.

Was Cooper experienced? I guess no one really knows, but as you say, the fact that he seemed familiar with the parachutes would seem to indicate that he was. But what kind of experience and how much? If his experience was military, he likely had a handful of static line jumps. He would be familiar with the harness, somewhat familiar with the canopy control, but not familiar with freefall. If he was a civilian sport jumper, he would likely have many more jumps. He would be familiar with the harness and the canopy control. How familiar he would be with freefall would depend on how many jumps he had and how good he was at it. Freefall control is kind of like learning to ride a bicycle, in that there is a subtle balance point to it. It can be wobbly to learn, but once it 'clicks' it's pretty intuitive and not very hard. And like anything, some people take to it better than others.

Altitude - Yeah, I think he could count on the pilots' flying at the requested 10k'. But, pilots use altitude at MSL, which is above sea level. The useful altitude a jumper has is AGL, above ground level. The difference would be the elevation of the terrain below him. I've heard varying reports of how high the mountains were below him, some people say 2k to 3k, I think R99 said some as high as 4k to 5k. If he's smart, he would consider the highest possible terrain and use that as his workable altitude. So if the highest mountains below him might be at 5k, he would subtract that from the 10k and figure he had 5k below him to work with. Yes he could count that out in seconds. There are standard freefall tables that tell how far you would fall in how many seconds. Remember that it takes several seconds to achieve terminal velocity, so in your first seconds you don't fall as far as you would in the same time at terminal. Smart experienced jumpers also develop a decent sense of visual altitude awareness. But that would depend on several factors. How solid was the cloud cover, were there holes where he could see to the ground? What was the moon, how much ambient light? How close was he to a city or other ground based light sources. Another thing a smart jumper does when jumping in clouds is to take note of what the lowest cloud base is, whether he could count on coming out of the bottom of the clouds and have altitude left.

Point Break - All the skydiving scenes in the movie are real (except the low pull) so all the freefall control you see is real. The 'Hollywood' parts are that they edited several jumps together so that their scene lasts longer than actual jumps do, and Keanu's character, you're not going to be that good at it on your first jump.

Pulling low - It varies, but typically a sport jumper opens the parachute at around 2500'. This allows time to deal with a malfunctioned main and get under a reserve if needed, and also time to maneuver into the desired landing area. But it's not necessary. In Cooper's day it wasn't uncommon for people to pull low on purpose for 'sport'. ('Ground rush is a gas, but it sure ain't practical.') And Cooper was jumping with one parachute, and those bailout rigs ARE reserves. His kind of chute would typically open in a few hundred feet. Once it's open and flying, it neither knows nor cares whether there's 2000, 200, or even 20 feet below. It's doing what it does. I wrote a piece at dropzone a while back speculating the possibility that Cooper could have maneuvered in freefall over an open field and pulled so low so as not to drift into trees. A lot of unlikely suppositions to that, though.

Canopy control - It's generally regarded that the chute he had was an unmodified, non steerable one. Pretty much no control. Yeah, he could pull on the lines and get a bit of drift or turn out of it, but not much. However, and this is speculative, but if Cooper knew enough about chutes to be familiar with a certain modification on some reserves known as a 'four line release', and if he had access to his knife when he got under canopy, he could potentially do some in-air rigging. Once he was under the open parachute, he could cut the four rear-most lines. This would allow the bottom of the back of the chute to rise up in kind of a 'bubble' shape. This would allow some air to escape out the back, giving the chute some forward drive. Then, by pulling either the next outside lines, or just the risers, he could steer it. That would give him some control and sort of allow him to choose his landing site.

Sorry it took me so long to find the response. I saw your PM.  So the last paragraph is very interesting. Though they say it was no steerable, if he was to see he was going to hit the water, could he have done something to avoid it?  IE, use the knife or pull the chords to get some drift?  After all, they said there was plenty of wind?  If he could not avoid the water, which I do not believe, he has to cut himself from the chute assuming he can swim and I would bet that he could.  It would have been very unpleasant though.  Cold water.  it would be a struggle to survive if he hit the water.  But Isn't more likely he did not based on the path?  I am amazed the living co pilot has no better knowledge of the damn path?
 

Offline Robert99

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
  • Thanked: 132 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5758 on: March 03, 2021, 03:08:58 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Been reading this thread and your comments about pulling the ripcord early if an inexperienced diver make complete sense.  So Let me ask two questions here?  I personally believe he was ABSOLUTELY EXPERIENCED based on his knowledge of the planes and chutes.  His complete calmness right until his departure. So if he knew what he was doing and most of us believe he did, in 1971, with clouds below, and lets say he can trust the 10,000 feet altitude he ordered the pilots to maintain?  Could he have lets say counted, like 1,2,3,4 etc to guess his altitude when he pulls?  IE, would he know how many feet per second he would drop?  Second question, is the movie Point Break.  I assume you have seen it.  The one with the late great Patrick Swayze and Keano Reeves.  Not the newer remake. (which I have not seen).  The parachute scene is crazy as you know. So Swayze pulls his chute very very late. Maybe hundreds of feet from the water?  How far fetched is that?  And the control they had before they pulled the chutes?  Can we believe that DB Cooper could have had more control than people have been told?  Perhaps he could have maneuvered before he pulled the cord or if he pulled on one rope would it not steer him to some degree?


DBfan - Sorry, I didn't mean to blow off your questions, sometimes I miss a few days and your post got past me. So if you're still interested, better late than never. (Although on a 50 year old case, how late can I be?) There are a lot of variables for the answers.

Was Cooper experienced? I guess no one really knows, but as you say, the fact that he seemed familiar with the parachutes would seem to indicate that he was. But what kind of experience and how much? If his experience was military, he likely had a handful of static line jumps. He would be familiar with the harness, somewhat familiar with the canopy control, but not familiar with freefall. If he was a civilian sport jumper, he would likely have many more jumps. He would be familiar with the harness and the canopy control. How familiar he would be with freefall would depend on how many jumps he had and how good he was at it. Freefall control is kind of like learning to ride a bicycle, in that there is a subtle balance point to it. It can be wobbly to learn, but once it 'clicks' it's pretty intuitive and not very hard. And like anything, some people take to it better than others.

Altitude - Yeah, I think he could count on the pilots' flying at the requested 10k'. But, pilots use altitude at MSL, which is above sea level. The useful altitude a jumper has is AGL, above ground level. The difference would be the elevation of the terrain below him. I've heard varying reports of how high the mountains were below him, some people say 2k to 3k, I think R99 said some as high as 4k to 5k. If he's smart, he would consider the highest possible terrain and use that as his workable altitude. So if the highest mountains below him might be at 5k, he would subtract that from the 10k and figure he had 5k below him to work with. Yes he could count that out in seconds. There are standard freefall tables that tell how far you would fall in how many seconds. Remember that it takes several seconds to achieve terminal velocity, so in your first seconds you don't fall as far as you would in the same time at terminal. Smart experienced jumpers also develop a decent sense of visual altitude awareness. But that would depend on several factors. How solid was the cloud cover, were there holes where he could see to the ground? What was the moon, how much ambient light? How close was he to a city or other ground based light sources. Another thing a smart jumper does when jumping in clouds is to take note of what the lowest cloud base is, whether he could count on coming out of the bottom of the clouds and have altitude left.

Point Break - All the skydiving scenes in the movie are real (except the low pull) so all the freefall control you see is real. The 'Hollywood' parts are that they edited several jumps together so that their scene lasts longer than actual jumps do, and Keanu's character, you're not going to be that good at it on your first jump.

Pulling low - It varies, but typically a sport jumper opens the parachute at around 2500'. This allows time to deal with a malfunctioned main and get under a reserve if needed, and also time to maneuver into the desired landing area. But it's not necessary. In Cooper's day it wasn't uncommon for people to pull low on purpose for 'sport'. ('Ground rush is a gas, but it sure ain't practical.') And Cooper was jumping with one parachute, and those bailout rigs ARE reserves. His kind of chute would typically open in a few hundred feet. Once it's open and flying, it neither knows nor cares whether there's 2000, 200, or even 20 feet below. It's doing what it does. I wrote a piece at dropzone a while back speculating the possibility that Cooper could have maneuvered in freefall over an open field and pulled so low so as not to drift into trees. A lot of unlikely suppositions to that, though.

Canopy control - It's generally regarded that the chute he had was an unmodified, non steerable one. Pretty much no control. Yeah, he could pull on the lines and get a bit of drift or turn out of it, but not much. However, and this is speculative, but if Cooper knew enough about chutes to be familiar with a certain modification on some reserves known as a 'four line release', and if he had access to his knife when he got under canopy, he could potentially do some in-air rigging. Once he was under the open parachute, he could cut the four rear-most lines. This would allow the bottom of the back of the chute to rise up in kind of a 'bubble' shape. This would allow some air to escape out the back, giving the chute some forward drive. Then, by pulling either the next outside lines, or just the risers, he could steer it. That would give him some control and sort of allow him to choose his landing site.

Sorry it took me so long to find the response. I saw your PM.  So the last paragraph is very interesting. Though they say it was no steerable, if he was to see he was going to hit the water, could he have done something to avoid it?  IE, use the knife or pull the chords to get some drift?  After all, they said there was plenty of wind?  If he could not avoid the water, which I do not believe, he has to cut himself from the chute assuming he can swim and I would bet that he could.  It would have been very unpleasant though.  Cold water.  it would be a struggle to survive if he hit the water.  But Isn't more likely he did not based on the path?  I am amazed the living co pilot has no better knowledge of the damn path?

Hopefully, Dudeman will comment on the parachuting aspects of your remarks.  And I will comment on your flight path remarks.  As has been posted here numerous times, if the airliner was on the Western Flight Path (and it was), it would be flying headings as directed by the Seattle ATC controller and not tracking directly to or from a VORTAC navigation station.  Since 1971 was well before the GPS navigation era, the flight crew could not immediately determine from their instruments their exact location.  Consequently, Rataczak has stated that he told someone on the radio (it's not in the heavily redacted Seattle Center radio transcripts) to "mark your maps" when he thought Cooper has jumped.

If the airliner had been tracking down the centerline of V-23 at the time Cooper jumped, all Rataczak would have to say to whoever he was talking to on the radio, "Cooper jumped, we are inbound on radial so-and-so of the so-and-so VORTAC, and so-many DME miles from the station."

Rataczak's "mark your maps" remark supports the belief that the airliner was on the WFP and didn't know its exact position when Cooper jumped.   
 

Offline EU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1964
  • Thanked: 292 times
    • ERIC ULIS: From the History Channel
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #5759 on: March 03, 2021, 03:27:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Hopefully, Dudeman will comment on the parachuting aspects of your remarks.  And I will comment on your flight path remarks.  As has been posted here numerous times, if the airliner was on the Western Flight Path (and it was), it would be flying headings as directed by the Seattle ATC controller and not tracking directly to or from a VORTAC navigation station.  Since 1971 was well before the GPS navigation era, the flight crew could not immediately determine from their instruments their exact location.  Consequently, Rataczak has stated that he told someone on the radio (it's not in the heavily redacted Seattle Center radio transcripts) to "mark your maps" when he thought Cooper has jumped.

If the airliner had been tracking down the centerline of V-23 at the time Cooper jumped, all Rataczak would have to say to whoever he was talking to on the radio, "Cooper jumped, we are inbound on radial so-and-so of the so-and-so VORTAC, and so-many DME miles from the station."

Rataczak's "mark your maps" remark supports the belief that the airliner was on the WFP and didn't know its exact position when Cooper jumped.

I should clarify something here.

According to Ammerman, he did not provide any headings for 305. Capt Scott determined for himself the route he opted to take. ATC simply made certain other aircraft stayed out of the way and directed the F-106's as well as the T-33.

Obviously 305 flew south via V23 out of Seattle. However, as is not uncommon, Scott doglegged the portion that went from Maylay to either Canby or Eugene (I'm not certain). This had the benefit of offering a more direct path south that largely avoided the major population centers of downtown Vancouver and downtown Portland. This essentially put the jet on a due south heading very near the Columbia River.

Importantly, Ammerman told me that once the T-33 pulled in behind 305 ( which appears to be at a point near Ridgefield) that he provide the T-33 one heading only (south) as it trailed 305. Therefore, it suggests that 305 was not flying all over the place in and around Vancouver, PDX and Portland as depicted on the FBI Flight Path map. Otherwise, the T-33 heading would have been changed to replicate 305's path.
Some men see things as they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

RFK