DB Cooper

[georger 197]

Quote

This is a minor issue, and doesn't add anything new, but I wanted to put a point on it, since it changes my perception of how the search went down.

I was just rereading the partial transcript Ckret provided that described how the DZ was predicted.

Looking at the way it was written, and the redacted signature that says "Northwest Airlines", I've suddenly realized that it apparently wasn't the FBI or the USAF that predicted the DZ.

Someone at Northwest Airlines did. And not a committee. Some single person?

I thought we decided Soderlind played a role.

Georger

• Quote

[snowmman 3]

Quote

snowmman said:
Someone at Northwest Airlines did. And not a committee. Some single person?

georger said:
I thought we decided Soderlind played a role.

well, ckret's latest post makes it cloudier than even the two page report we have, says.

Paul Soderlind makes sense. We've never had confirmation of his role(s)...for instance the most intriguing one was Tosaw's claim that Soderlind flew the test drop plane. (Tosaw provides enough other details on the test flight (which I've posted) that I believe it). Soderlind retired from Northwest in 1973.
(mild atrial fibrillation affected flying aspect of career).
He was 48 in 1971.

Also, the Northwest Chief Meteorologist I think has been mentioned in terms of providing data. That would have been Dan Sowa?, who worked closely with Soderlind.

I still don't believe there was a committee, and I think Ckret's latest claims are unsupported. If Ckret has more pages that outline how the drop zone was calculated, that would be nice to have. I'm not sure what Ckret is reading for his latest post.

The two page transcript clearly states what data was used, and it's signed by one person, apparently from Northwest.

[georger 197]

Quote

Quote

snowmman said:
Someone at Northwest Airlines did. And not a committee. Some single person?

georger said:
I thought we decided Soderlind played a role.

well, ckret's latest post makes it cloudier than even the two page report we have, says.

Paul Soderlind makes sense. We've never had confirmation of his role(s)...for instance the most intriguing one was Tosaw's claim that Soderlind flew the test drop plane. (Tosaw provides enough other details on the test flight (which I've posted) that I believe it). Soderlind retired from Northwest in 1973.
(mild atrial fibrillation affected flying aspect of career)

Also, the Northwest Chief Meteorologist I think has been mentioned in terms of providing data. That would have been Dan Sowa?, who worked closely with Soderlind.

I still don't believe there was a committee, and I think Ckret's latest claims are unsupported. If Ckret has more pages that outline how the drop zone was calculated, that would be nice to have. I'm not sure what Ckret is reading for his latest post.

The two page transcript clearly states what data was used, and it's signed by one person, apparently from Northwest.

Reply, There are very few things I know for a fact
from my own personal knowledge but I do know
Boeing was brought into the mix by NWA almost
immediately - the transcript mentions some of this. I have no problem with Ckret's account. Its new.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

Quote

So we have the accomplica angle again

Not really - after a few days he could easily have taken a taxi to the airport and got his car. By then the dye was washed out his hair and he had on regular glasses and maybe casual clothes. Get out of a taxi - wait for the taxi to leave and go right for the parking lot.

Ah - so he would go to all that trouble to get the car away... but leave the majority of the money in a bucket .. even though he now appears to actually have transport to fetch it? Can you not see that this makes absolutely no sense???

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[quade 3]

Quote

Did the FBI run a check on EVERY car in the SEA-TAC parking lot?

Even if they did that wouldn't mean much. A person could still take a cab, bus or taxi and pretty much all could be done anonymously and without a real trace.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

Not really - after a few days he could easily have taken a taxi to the airport and got his car. By then the dye was washed out his hair and he had on regular glasses and maybe casual clothes. Get out of a taxi - wait for the taxi to leave and go right for the parking lot.

Why doesn't he just take a taxi to the airport to begin with? That way he wouldn't have to "return to the scene of the crime" just to pick up a stupid car?

Oh, that's right, you're trying to justify the parking ticket -- except if you think about it, it doesn't make any sense to begin with for such a "perfect crime" laid out by a "criminal mastermind."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ckret 0]

Snowmman,

Didn't open the jpg's to look at the report you were referencing, I was speaking to the jump (equipment used and how it would have performed in a high or low opening) which was calulated by a member of the Boeing jump club, of which all were investigated.

The problem with the report is they used the time of the oscillations for the jump, which i think is wrong. i think when you put the whole jump together the oscillations were Cooper slowly moving down the stairs. The bump didn't occur until a few minutes later; when they could see Portland just from the north.

So all of the calulations are correct, just have to move everything south a few minutes.

[georger 197]

Quote

Snowmman,

Didn't open the jpg's to look at the report you were referencing, I was speaking to the jump (equipement used and how it would have performed in a highor low opening) which was calulated by a member of the Boeing jump club, of which all were investigated.

The problem with the report is they used the time of the oscillations for the jump, which i think is wrong. i think when you put the whole jump together the oscillations were Cooper slowly moving down the stairs. The bump didn't occur until a few minutes later; when they could see Portland just from the north.

So all of the calulations are correct, just have to move everything south a few minutes.

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

Reply> in order for something to "oscillate" you
have to have some force(s) being applied where a
sympathetic frequency is set up. The logical force is the wind, or cross winds. The logical event is the stairs extending into the air stream. But this happens
at about 20:12 precisely when they make a left
hand turn in the approach to BTGVOR, which changes the angle of the aircraft relative to the
wind(s).

So, it is not required that the stairs are being extended further, only that the flight angle of
the (plane with stairs) changes with respect to the
airstream.

Also there is nothing in the transcript which says the
oscillations increased or decreased after they began or if they went away? prior to the bump?

The test which confirmed the bump also confirmed
oscilaltions prior to the bump? And what exactly
was "oscillating"

Just an observation -

Georger

[Ckret 0]

Quote

Quote

Snowmman,

Didn't open the jpg's to look at the report you were referencing, I was speaking to the jump (equipement used and how it would have performed in a highor low opening) which was calulated by a member of the Boeing jump club, of which all were investigated.

The problem with the report is they used the time of the oscillations for the jump, which i think is wrong. i think when you put the whole jump together the oscillations were Cooper slowly moving down the stairs. The bump didn't occur until a few minutes later; when they could see Portland just from the north.

So all of the calulations are correct, just have to move everything south a few minutes.

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

Reply> in order for something to "oscillate" you
have to have some force(s) being applied where a
sympathetic frequency is set up. The logical force is the wind, or cross winds. The logical event is the stairs extending into the air stream. But this happens
at about 20:12 precisely when they make a left
hand turn in the approach to BTGVOR, which changes the angle of the aircraft relative to the
wind(s).

So, it is not required that the stairs are being extended further, only that the flight angle of
the (plane with stairs) changes with respect to the
airstream.

Also there is nothing in the transcript which says the
oscillations increased or decreased after they began or if they went away? prior to the bump?

The test which confirmed the bump also confirmed
oscilaltions prior to the bump? And what exactly
was "oscillating"

Just an observation -

Georger[/reply

You are applying too much science, over overanalyzing, sometimes the answers are simple. From putting everything together, the crew was referencing the cabin pressure gauge when the statement of “oscillation” was made. Not that they were feeling an oscillation in the aircraft. Remember; in another log created at the same time as the one reporting oscillations the word used was “fluctuations.”

Because the crew always referenced the bump as a pressure change it would make since that prior to the large “Pressure Event,” there were small events leading up.

Now go back and get you’re Cooper “on.” You are gingerly walking down the air stairs because you have never done this before. With each step you take caution, take a step and see what happens, take a step and see what happens. As you are doing this, the cabin pressure gauge in the cockpit starts to fluctuate.

The engineer notices this and reports the anomaly to ops, these fluctuations continue for a few minutes as you figure things out. Once you’re set you jump and the stairs come back to the body of the plane, causing the pressure event known as “the bump.” It is noticeable but not dramatic, the needle instantly spikes, they notice the change in their ears, things calm quickly. Because the small fluctuations continue (the stairs are still open to about 15 degrees) nothing is reported they just assume this is a continuation of what they have already reported. But they do take note, “wonder if he just jumped?” As they wonder this they notice they are just north of the Portland suburbs.

I think the individual typing the teletype was being fed info from the guy keeping the hand written log. When the guy keeping the handwritten log said, “they are reporting some type of fluctuations in the cabin pressure; they said the gauge is bouncing.” The teletype operator then typed “oscillations” his words not the crews.

Amazing how small, even seeming harmless interpretations can cause large fluctuations or oscillations in history.

• Quote

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

I think the individual typing the teletype was being fed info from the guy keeping the hand written log. When the guy keeping the handwritten log said, “they are reporting some type of fluctuations in the cabin pressure; they said the gauge is bouncing.” The teletype operator then typed “oscillations” his words not the crews.

Amazing how small, even seeming harmless interpretations can cause large fluctuations or oscillations in history.

Note: Ckret says "I think" and he is speculating. This is OK as long as WE all understand this is NOT the FBI or the INVESTIGATIVE forces saying this IS what happened. This is an FBI agent being one of us - just a normal Joe Blow.

As far as I know CKRET is not a pilot, skyjumper or aviation expert.
NOR am I - therefore I have stayed OUT of most of these technical information specific iposts. I leave that to the experts, hopefully others will do the same.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[Ckret 0]

I would encourage all of you to stay away from the nonsense, of course I realize to some this is all nonsense, c'est la vie. Soon we will have really cool stuff to take about. I just doubled the daily rations of food to the guys locked in the basement so maybe that will get them moving.

"it puts the lotion in the basket."

[georger 197]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Snowmman,

Didn't open the jpg's to look at the report you were referencing, I was speaking to the jump (equipement used and how it would have performed in a highor low opening) which was calulated by a member of the Boeing jump club, of which all were investigated.

The problem with the report is they used the time of the oscillations for the jump, which i think is wrong. i think when you put the whole jump together the oscillations were Cooper slowly moving down the stairs. The bump didn't occur until a few minutes later; when they could see Portland just from the north.

So all of the calulations are correct, just have to move everything south a few minutes.

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

Reply> in order for something to "oscillate" you
have to have some force(s) being applied where a
sympathetic frequency is set up. The logical force is the wind, or cross winds. The logical event is the stairs extending into the air stream. But this happens
at about 20:12 precisely when they make a left
hand turn in the approach to BTGVOR, which changes the angle of the aircraft relative to the
wind(s).

So, it is not required that the stairs are being extended further, only that the flight angle of
the (plane with stairs) changes with respect to the
airstream.

Also there is nothing in the transcript which says the
oscillations increased or decreased after they began or if they went away? prior to the bump?

The test which confirmed the bump also confirmed
oscilaltions prior to the bump? And what exactly
was "oscillating"

Just an observation -

Georger[/reply

You are applying too much science, over overanalyzing, sometimes the answers are simple. From putting everything together, the crew was referencing the cabin pressure gauge when the statement of “oscillation” was made. Not that they were feeling an oscillation in the aircraft. Remember; in another log created at the same time as the one reporting oscillations the word used was “fluctuations.”

Because the crew always referenced the bump as a pressure change it would make since that prior to the large “Pressure Event,” there were small events leading up.

Now go back and get you’re Cooper “on.” You are gingerly walking down the air stairs because you have never done this before. With each step you take caution, take a step and see what happens, take a step and see what happens. As you are doing this, the cabin pressure gauge in the cockpit starts to fluctuate.

The engineer notices this and reports the anomaly to ops, these fluctuations continue for a few minutes as you figure things out. Once you’re set you jump and the stairs come back to the body of the plane, causing the pressure event known as “the bump.” It is noticeable but not dramatic, the needle instantly spikes, they notice the change in their ears, things calm quickly. Because the small fluctuations continue (the stairs are still open to about 15 degrees) nothing is reported they just assume this is a continuation of what they have already reported. But they do take note, “wonder if he just jumped?” As they wonder this they notice they are just north of the Portland suburbs.

I think the individual typing the teletype was being fed info from the guy keeping the hand written log. When the guy keeping the handwritten log said, “they are reporting some type of fluctuations in the cabin pressure; they said the gauge is bouncing.” The teletype operator then typed “oscillations” his words not the crews.

Amazing how small, even seeming harmless interpretations can cause large fluctuations or oscillations in history.

Good post. Thanks Ckret!

Georger

• Quote

[Orange1 0]

Quote

[ - therefore I have stayed OUT of most of these technical information specific iposts. I leave that to the experts, hopefully others will do the same.

Yes, so have you yet managed to somehow make sense of the fact that Cooper would go back to retrieve a car but still leave all that money behind?

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[snowmman 3]

Quote

Ckret said:
So all of the calulations are correct, just have to move everything south a few minutes.

I had a longer reply but a short one will suffice.
This answer is wrong. You can't move and have the calculations be correct unless the wind is exactly the same as calculated in the original spot.

Also the plane speed (more precisely velocity?) is different at a different point south. (which means cooper's speed plus direction at jump is different. And heck we might not have the data but possibly the alititude at jump is different.

Basically everything's different, and it's even unclear how accurate the original calcuation was, because of it's fuzzy use of error margins in the data...i.e. the idea of drawing a couple of straight lines is bad graphing of error boundaries I think.

Basically, you have to start all over. Surprised Ckret thinks the old calculations/map can be reused, just shifting it south. It's like it's 1971 again, and bad use of data again?

[snowmman 3]

Quote

Ckret said:
Amazing how small, even seeming harmless interpretations can cause large fluctuations or oscillations in history.

This is wrong too. Interpretations are always wrong to some degree by definition. i.e. the word "interpret" implies some subjectiveness being applied. This will change over time as new data arrives or old data becomes discarded.

The error here is not the interpretation. The error is not using all of the primary data. The missing primary data is the crew debrief which I theorized was not part of the data used by the guy who predicted the DZ.

Basically, this is an example of failure due to non-freely-available data. i.e. believing that experts can interpret data and pass it on only their interpretation. Here, the FBI had access to data about the crew debrief, and different people were involved with the test drop, and different people did the DZ prediction. It's not clear that all the people, and all the data, were ever in a single room together to hash it all out.

(edit) I say this because we are not "smarter" about this in 2008, and there is no new data. The only difference is we're looking at all the data and interpreting one way. That strongly suggests the "wrong" interpretation in 1971 is due to the factors I describe.


Process failure, basically.
If it was NASA, and a mars lander had crash landed as a result, we'd have a much better post mortem. Since it's just Cooper, we instead let the myth of jumping into the woods live for 37 years.
Good enough for government work!
or
Can't see it from where I live!

[Ckret 0]

Quote

Quote

Ckret said:
So all of the calulations are correct, just have to move everything south a few minutes.

I had a longer reply but a short one will suffice.
This answer is wrong. You can't move and have the calculations be correct unless the wind is exactly the same as calculated in the original spot.

Also the plane speed (more precisely velocity?) is different at a different point south. (which means cooper's speed plus direction at jump is different. And heck we might not have the data but possibly the alititude at jump is different.

Basically everything's different, and it's even unclear how accurate the original calcuation was, because of it's fuzzy use of error margins in the data...i.e. the idea of drawing a couple of straight lines is bad graphing of error boundaries I think.

Basically, you have to start all over. Surprised Ckret thinks the old calculations/map can be reused, just shifting it south. It's like it's 1971 again, and bad use of data again?

The 1971 data is correct when looked at from a "general" sense. There are far too many unknowns for any real precision. The winds a few miles south of the 1971 search are generally the same, the speed of the aircraft is generally the same, the performance of the chute is generally the same. When we can locate more specific data we can plug it in and hope for a better result but we don’t have that,

“is that so wrong”

[Ckret 0]

Quote

Quote

Ckret said:
Amazing how small, even seeming harmless interpretations can cause large fluctuations or oscillations in history.

This is wrong too. Interpretations are always wrong to some degree by definition. i.e. the word "interpret" implies some subjectiveness being applied. This will change over time as new data arrives or old data becomes discarded.

The error here is not the interpretation. The error is not using all of the primary data. The missing primary data is the crew debrief which I theorized was not part of the data used by the guy who predicted the DZ.

Basically, this is an example of failure due to non-freely-available data. i.e. believing that experts can interpret data and pass it on only their interpretation. Here, the FBI had access to data about the crew debrief, and different people were involved with the test drop, and different people did the DZ prediction. It's not clear that all the people, and all the data, were ever in a single room together to hash it all out.

(edit) I say this because we are not "smarter" about this in 2008, and there is no new data. The only difference is we're looking at all the data and interpreting one way. That strongly suggests the "wrong" interpretation in 1971 is due to the factors I describe.


Process failure, basically.
If it was NASA, and a mars lander had crash landed as a result, we'd have a much better post mortem. Since it's just Cooper, we instead let the myth of jumping into the woods live for 37 years.
Good enough for government work!
or
Can't see it from where I live!

I think that was the point I was making, The calculations were made on the information provided, however, the results were wrong because they had the wrong or incomplete information to begin with. It was done so by ommision and/or (lets say) "poor transmission of data" if that suits you better.

We aren't building rocket ships here. "NASA?" you crack me up Snowmman

[snowmman 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ckret said:
So all of the calulations are correct, just have to move everything south a few minutes.

I had a longer reply but a short one will suffice.
This answer is wrong. You can't move and have the calculations be correct unless the wind is exactly the same as calculated in the original spot.

Also the plane speed (more precisely velocity?) is different at a different point south. (which means cooper's speed plus direction at jump is different. And heck we might not have the data but possibly the alititude at jump is different.

Basically everything's different, and it's even unclear how accurate the original calcuation was, because of it's fuzzy use of error margins in the data...i.e. the idea of drawing a couple of straight lines is bad graphing of error boundaries I think.

Basically, you have to start all over. Surprised Ckret thinks the old calculations/map can be reused, just shifting it south. It's like it's 1971 again, and bad use of data again?

The 1971 data is correct when looked at from a "general" sense. There are far too many unknowns for any real precision. The winds a few miles south of the 1971 search are generally the same, the speed of the aircraft is generally the same, the performance of the chute is generally the same. When we can locate more specific data we can plug it in and hope for a better result but we don’t have that,

“is that so wrong”

I don't see a page showing the calculations for the 1971 DZ so I have nothing that tells me how right or wrong they are or how they might apply to the data for a jump further south.

You say "you know" it's good enough. Well okay. I wouldn't hire you as a subcontract to do the calcs on the jump so I'm not sure why your opinion is good. I'm not even sure you know what calcs were behind the original 1971 map. You're just looking at the result, and maybe some names on who produced it and saying "must be good"

(edit) Heck, by way of "example" we can't agree on whether there's a one minute error on the radar ticks on the flight path. That's a huge error in possible data processing, and is evidence that no results from 1971 should be taken at face value.

[snowmman 3]

Quote

We aren't building rocket ships here. "NASA?" you crack me up Snowmman

uhh...oh yeah, forgot...no one building rockets here...[garage door closes quickly]

[georger 197]

Quote

Quote

We aren't building rocket ships here. "NASA?" you crack me up Snowmman

uhh...oh yeah, forgot...no one building rockets here...[garage door closes quickly]

Reply> I built a bird house once, and it worked!

[377 21]

Did my first tunnel flying recently. Really fun. Would be a perfect venue for testing Cooper money bag ideas. They wont allow anything that could break loose, (they have dings on their turbine blades caused by loose coins) but you could probably rig a test to see if something tied with shroud line could stay closed. They can crank up the speed to simulate jet exit velocities. It is pricey, but when I looked at their electrical panel I understood: over 600KW at higher speeds, about 400KW at 100 mph.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

If it was NASA, and a mars lander had crash landed as a result, we'd have a much better post mortem. Since it's just Cooper, we instead let the myth of jumping into the woods live for 37 years.
Good enough for government work!

You are right the myth needs to end - and I got you loud and clear.
Seeing is believing and no one knows - is this how it will end?

Will the myth live forever and the truth forever buried.....?

This has become a poker game. If Cooper was holding a winning hand would he fold with the hand down or call the bluff? Knowing Duane it would depend on who he was playing - and what the stakes were...

He was a card counter, but he knew when to stop...get in and get out before the house spotted you.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[georger 197]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ckret said:
So all of the calulations are correct, just have to move everything south a few minutes.

I had a longer reply but a short one will suffice.
This answer is wrong. You can't move and have the calculations be correct unless the wind is exactly the same as calculated in the original spot.

Also the plane speed (more precisely velocity?) is different at a different point south. (which means cooper's speed plus direction at jump is different. And heck we might not have the data but possibly the alititude at jump is different.

Basically everything's different, and it's even unclear how accurate the original calcuation was, because of it's fuzzy use of error margins in the data...i.e. the idea of drawing a couple of straight lines is bad graphing of error boundaries I think.

Basically, you have to start all over. Surprised Ckret thinks the old calculations/map can be reused, just shifting it south. It's like it's 1971 again, and bad use of data again?

The 1971 data is correct when looked at from a "general" sense. There are far too many unknowns for any real precision. The winds a few miles south of the 1971 search are generally the same, the speed of the aircraft is generally the same, the performance of the chute is generally the same. When we can locate more specific data we can plug it in and hope for a better result but we don’t have that,

“is that so wrong”

I don't see a page showing the calculations for the 1971 DZ so I have nothing that tells me how right or wrong they are or how they might apply to the data for a jump further south.

You say "you know" it's good enough. Well okay. I wouldn't hire you as a subcontract to do the calcs on the jump so I'm not sure why your opinion is good. I'm not even sure you know what calcs were behind the original 1971 map. You're just looking at the result, and maybe some names on who produced it and saying "must be good"

(edit) Heck, by way of "example" we can't agree on whether there's a one minute error on the radar ticks on the flight path. That's a huge error in possible data processing, and is evidence that no results from 1971 should be taken at face value.

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

Reply> Ckret's comment is correct. Small erorrs at
beginning >>>> large errors downstream. Doesnt
require special skills to see that. Somebody didn't
keep it simple so it became a labyrinth quick. I have
always said Cooper expected that. It was one of his primary tools in the hijacking and it doesnt take
Einstein to see that.

By 1980 I think a lot of people just wanted this to go away, then the money turns up. That does not mean
the money surfaced so it wouldnt go away. That means it hadnt gone away from the beginning.

It's no demerit for the FBI or anyone else. It's just
the way it is. A lot of things conspire to make
this a labyrinth and a mystery. Basic facts got lost
forever.

Georger

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

I apologize Jo. I forgot to mention Duane in my posts.
I attached some stuff you should be able to work with.
You can date them by the silver they're pulling. The rest should be obvious to you.
Get the beer cans id'ed, and you'll be one step closer.


Du-ane the Rat, the wonderful, wonderful rat
Whenever he gets in a fix, he reaches into his bag of tricks
You'll laugh so much your sides will ache
Your heart will go pitter pat
Watching Du-ane, the wonderful rat.

Snowmman this is only one of several times you have "drop" something on me. Before it was a picture titled Firecrew which I had seen in the past and the one called Snowline.


I had seen the CPS photo in 1980 the first time and several times since. You comment how much one of the guys resembled Duane.

This last photo titled Pulling Silverr got my attention. You also refer to Duane as Du-ane and that is how you pronouce Dwayne which was an alias he used.

There are 3 men in the middle of the photo engrossed so much in a conversation they are unaware that someone is taking their picture. Where you the one taking that picture? I also noticed how much the one behind the guy with the hat on resembled the photo in the CPS photos.

You made it a guessing game based on the beer cans, but no one knows the brand or age. I am guessing that photo is about 1958 to 1960. It may be as late as 1962 to 1966.

I promised myself I would not bite into your game, but I just can't help myself. Who, where and why?

You are not a pilot or jumper and I have the impression you are young. Young enough and with the computer expertise to alter a photo or are you trying to tell us something about Du-ane, Dwayne, Duane and Dusty --- Duerkson, Dourksen, Dourkson, Duerksen.

Was that pic made in the "twilight zone" Marana - right now I can't remember the name of that place but you guys know what I am talking about.

You didn't pull that photo out of a hat and there was a motive that only I would see. Who is the guy with the tee shirt and the other one with his elbows propped behind him.

Isn't it odd that the three guys seem to resemble others implicated in the Cooper saga over the yrs - you worked over-time on that photo.

A CA reunion of old CPS's? Or it it something more sinister? Too young to be a group of Alpha 88's.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[snowmman 3]

I was thinking I could do a shock loading test for a nylon cord/bank bag neck tie, and see what force it could withstand.

Then I realized that there are a lot of variables, and that a thought experiment that identified all of the variables would be more powerful.

I don't know if people are interested in discussing this.
In summary, I think a key issue is how much additional canvas was above the neck knot...i.e. how full the bank bag was. If there was 6" or so of extra canvas about the knot, my thinking is:

1) If the nylon cord was wrapped multiple times around the neck before tying a knot, then even if the knot was simple, like some kind of girth hitch, or complex, there would be a self-tightening behavior of the nylon cord around the bank bag when a load is applied with the "loop" that may have existed as a Cooper-attach method from the neck.

2) This self-tightening would increase the clamping force on the canvas neck, which would yield until it compressed enough to resist the clamping force. This clamping force, coupled with the friction between nylon and canvas, would create the force that would resist the chaotic loading during jet exit.

3) A key existence proof is the prussik knot, (which we can discuss) which supports 200 lb loads easily when a nylon cord is wrapped around a nylon rope less than 1/2" inch in diameter.

4) The biggest unknown is the amount of extra canvas. If not enough, the knot will slide off before the clamping force is sufficient.

5) We also don't know if the neck tie was used (with a loop on the other end) to attach to cooper, or whether a rope around the bag was used to attach to cooper.

The one myth I would like to break, is that the bag couldn't be tied to withstand the turbulent jet exit.

I believe I could do a simple multi-wrap neck tie, that would resist the wind forces if a 20 lb bank bag was hung outside a car going 100-140mph. (available car limited speed :) )

The difficult thing to simulate might be the effects of shock loading, or a glitch in the self tightening aspect of the neck knot.
So a tunnel test might not be able to prove anything (unless it always failed).