47 47
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

This discussion is getting a bit reductive. 

The facts are this:  the crew reported oscillations at 8:11 and 8:12. The oscillations preceded the pressure bump. Therefore, the pressure bump had to have occurred after 8:11/8:12. That's simply the truth. No one knows exactly when the pressure bump occurred. Hell, the CREW doesn't know when the pressure bump occurred. 

You can't use the contemporaneous crew statements while ignoring the fact that they hadn't reported oscillations at 8:10 let alone a bump. 

Also, you keep wanting to use the terms "pressure bumps" and "oscillations" interchangeable depending on how it suits you. They are two distinct, though correlated, events. Analogous to labor pains and child birth. The crew reported labor pains at 8:12, but the baby hadn't been born yet. Isn't it logical to conclude that the baby was born after 8:12?

We also have to differentiate between the terms "evidence" and "proof". Can I prove that Cooper jumped near the Columbia? No, I cannot. Is there evidence to suggest that possibility? Yes, there is. Meanwhile, if you can provide supporting evidence that Cooper jumped near Ariel while also accounting for the money find a dozen miles west, I'd love to hear it.

Lastly, while the money find can't be used as evidence, it is one of the few confirmed data points in this case. It is perfectly reasonable to use this data point along with others to form opinions. 

I've said my piece, and I have little left to add. Without more information, there will always be uncertainty about this topic. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chaucer said:

This discussion is getting a bit reductive. 

The facts are this:  the crew reported oscillations at 8:11 and 8:12. The oscillations preceded the pressure bump. Therefore, the pressure bump had to have occurred after 8:11/8:12. That's simply the truth. No one knows exactly when the pressure bump occurred. Hell, the CREW doesn't know when the pressure bump occurred. 

You can't use the contemporaneous crew statements while ignoring the fact that they hadn't reported oscillations at 8:10 let alone a bump. 

Also, you keep wanting to use the terms "pressure bumps" and "oscillations" interchangeable depending on how it suits you. They are two distinct, though correlated, events. Analogous to labor pains and child birth. The crew reported labor pains at 8:12, but the baby hadn't been born yet. Isn't it logical to conclude that the baby was born after 8:12?

We also have to differentiate between the terms "evidence" and "proof". Can I prove that Cooper jumped near the Columbia? No, I cannot. Is there evidence to suggest that possibility? Yes, there is. Meanwhile, if you can provide supporting evidence that Cooper jumped near Ariel while also accounting for the money find a dozen miles west, I'd love to hear it.

Lastly, while the money find can't be used as evidence, it is one of the few confirmed data points in this case. It is perfectly reasonable to use this data point along with others to form opinions. 

I've said my piece, and I have little left to add. Without more information, there will always be uncertainty about this topic. 

 

 

Chaucer argues on the DBCooper Forum. He argues on Reddit. He argues on here. He probably does it other places that we don’t know about. Apparently everyone dislikes him. 
 

He says “I’ve said my piece, and I have little more left to add”. 
 

Then stop talking about it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Chaucer said:

This discussion is getting a bit reductive. 

The facts are this:  the crew reported oscillations at 8:11 and 8:12. The oscillations preceded the pressure bump. Therefore, the pressure bump had to have occurred after 8:11/8:12. That's simply the truth. No one knows exactly when the pressure bump occurred. Hell, the CREW doesn't know when the pressure bump occurred. 

You can't use the contemporaneous crew statements while ignoring the fact that they hadn't reported oscillations at 8:10 let alone a bump. 

Also, you keep wanting to use the terms "pressure bumps" and "oscillations" interchangeable depending on how it suits you. They are two distinct, though correlated, events. Analogous to labor pains and child birth. The crew reported labor pains at 8:12, but the baby hadn't been born yet. Isn't it logical to conclude that the baby was born after 8:12?

We also have to differentiate between the terms "evidence" and "proof". Can I prove that Cooper jumped near the Columbia? No, I cannot. Is there evidence to suggest that possibility? Yes, there is. Meanwhile, if you can provide supporting evidence that Cooper jumped near Ariel while also accounting for the money find a dozen miles west, I'd love to hear it.

Lastly, while the money find can't be used as evidence, it is one of the few confirmed data points in this case. It is perfectly reasonable to use this data point along with others to form opinions. 

I've said my piece, and I have little left to add. Without more information, there will always be uncertainty about this topic. 

 

 

You state the facts are this.... then you state assumptions and "truths".. 

They are NOT.

The crew feels a marked increase in fluctuations/oscillations that ended in a "bump", just like the sled test, they reported it at 8:10/11.  The crew said they believed 8:10/11.. Rataczak said ears popped at 8:10.. 

You keep claiming the crew did not report the "pressure bump" at 8:11 so it didn't happen, this is nonsense. The crew didn't use that term at the time as they were trying to sort out what happened.

They also have the comms "he took leave of us"...

Pressure bumps and oscillations are not analogous to labor pains and child birth... The crew said the largest bump by far that means many,, unless they had multiple births your analogy is false. Your claim of logic is busted.

Your error is that you think you understand what the crew means by "pressure bump" vs "oscillations".. the pressure bump was a larger fluctuation/oscillation that was physically felt. This is backed up by the crew statements and times. If was a completely different event minutes later that would have been exposed and the crew would not have claimed the 8:10 time.

The so called pressure bump the crew refers to is the biggest of a series of pressure fluctuations aka oscillations. Anderson said it was exactly the same as the sled test.. when the weight dropped a violent increase in fluctuations...  that matches what the crew reported at 8:10. There were minor oscillations prior. 

You still ignore the facts.

"Lights of Portland" is not over the Columbia or close to it.. it is N of Vancouver.

The crew stated 8:10/11 and believed Cooper jumped further N closer to Merwin. If Cooper jumped near Portland Airport they would know it.

For Cooper to have jumped over/near the Columbia, the sled test was wrong, the FBI/Investigators were wrong and the crew was wrong.. that is a big bar to jump.

 

I have several theories about TBAR... some posted, some not. All maintain the FBI FP, LZ range and Spring entry into the Columbia R and are not contradicted by evidence. None can be proven,, and there may still be an unknown explanation.

Cooper landing next to the Columbia and the money washing into it in Spring is a legit theory but probably one of the weakest ones because it is so contradicted by evidence.. besides IMO, unlikely Cooper would choose to jump over an urban area like Van/Portland virtually over the Portland Airport in a non-steerable chute. It would be the last place he would want to jump. 

So, not backed by evidence, contradicted by evidence and doesn't really make sense....  = weak theory.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Georger, the aft stair-light is activated when the handle is moved from the locked up detent.. not when the stairs move or are lowered.

It is odd, as Tina claimed the red (amber) stair-light came on much later. 

Either Tina is mistaken or Cooper moved the handle from the up and locked detent but didn't get it into the down position. There is a button on the top that needs to be pressed. For Tina to see the light come back on later the handle would have been returned to the up and locked position by Cooper then moved out of the up and locked detent a 2nd time. That might be why Cooper was initially struggling with the stairs.

There are only two lights in the cockpit, a green stairs locked down and an amber for the handle out of the unlocked position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Chaucer and Georger continue to ignore and distort the evidence... 

Anderson said it not me..

"A:    I monitored the gauges and reported to Captain Scott.  We all agreed that the gauges were detecting a disruption of airflow, most likely caused by Cooper testing out the aft stairs.   But we all felt one physically distinguishable "bump" with our ears which came abruptly after we had been monitoring the gauges. We all felt it almost in unison, surprised, "there he goes!"  It was the largest bump by far, an abrupt pressure change.  We all thought he had exited the aircraft at that point, because the gauges never detected any further major airflow disruptions after that ‘thud’. The re-test duplicated the oscillations and the pressure bump exactly. "
 

"It was the largest bump by far",,,,, that means there were many bumps... if there were many bumps then the term "bump" does not refer to a single bump but a series ending with a LARGER bump. The crew is using the term to refer the largest bump in a series of bumps. A series of bumps is not a single event when the door bounces up nearly closed. They are oscillations.

and..

Anderson said it.. He confirmed when the sled test duplicated the OSCILLATIONS and THE PRESSURE BUMP exactly.. He used the term oscillations.

"The re-test duplicated the OSCILLATIONS AND THE PRESSURE BUMP exactly"...

 

That is it, busted.

Further nail in the coffin.

During the test they walked down the stairs and there was "very little change noted on the Cabin Pressure Rate of Change Gauge.

 

littlepresschangewalkstairs.jpg

 

The Gauge reacted violently when the weight was dropped. NOT BEFORE. Not when they walked down the stairs and exactly like NORJAK.

sledtestaa.jpg

 

Conclusion, the "pressure bump" referred to by the crew was the last largest bump in a series of bumps or oscillations which matched the sled drop test exactly.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don’t know if you’re purposefully trying to muddle things at his point.

Are you now saying that the “oscillations” they reported were not actually oscillations but rather “small bumps”? Are you saying that the “larger” bump reported by Anderson is a separate incident from the “pressure bump” that the sled test proved was caused by Cooper leaving the craft? Are you saying that the “oscillations” reported at 8:11/8:12 are not oscillations at all but actually the “larger bump”? 

Frankly, you’ve lost me, and I truly don’t know what your even theorizing here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chaucer said:

I honestly don’t know if you’re purposefully trying to muddle things at his point.

Are you now saying that the “oscillations” they reported were not actually oscillations but rather “small bumps”? Are you saying that the “larger” bump reported by Anderson is a separate incident from the “pressure bump” that the sled test proved was caused by Cooper leaving the craft? Are you saying that the “oscillations” reported at 8:11/8:12 are not oscillations at all but actually the “larger bump”? 

Frankly, you’ve lost me, and I truly don’t know what your even theorizing here. 

You are confused, trapped in an a semantic quicksand of your own making...

I am not saying it ANDERSON is. Bumps and oscillations are the same thing. The pressure bump referred to by the crew was just the last largest one.

Read the evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

There was no sharp turn in the FP... this is a red herring.

The "FBI" FP map is plotted points with a 1 mile error in it. 

It is NOT the precise FP but a series of points joined together for rough representation.

I took the plotted points and added in the error then smoothed the path. The sharp turn disappears. 

This isn't necessarily exactly the path but far more representative of a 727 FP than the "FBI" point plotted map...

This smoothed FP is within the "FBI" map error.

Using the "FBI" point plotted map in any analysis is inferior and misleading.

FlightPathsmoothedlight.thumb.jpg.48c665ab0fa4e9a3d57ad22f9fa78883.jpg

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

You are confused, trapped in an a semantic quicksand of your own making...

I am not saying it ANDERSON is. Bumps and oscillations are the same thing. The pressure bump referred to by the crew was just the last largest one.

Read the evidence.

 

I’ve read the evidence. I agree with everything you said. Whether you call it “pressure changes” or “oscillations” or “small bumps”, we know that was Cooper going out on the stairs. Whether you call it a “pressure bump” or a “larger bump”, that was Cooper leaving the plane. Anderson says this and the sled test confirmed this. 

So, what exactly are we even talking about? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
41 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

I’ve read the evidence. I agree with everything you said. Whether you call it “pressure changes” or “oscillations” or “small bumps”, we know that was Cooper going out on the stairs. Whether you call it a “pressure bump” or a “larger bump”, that was Cooper leaving the plane. Anderson says this and the sled test confirmed this. 

So, what exactly are we even talking about? 

So what is the problem. You claim that I and everyone else is confused... I think you are the confused one.

The sled test matched the oscillations and pressure bump exactly AND a man going down the stairs showed very little change on the cabin pressure gauge.

Therefore, the oscillations reported by the crew at 8:10/11 was a series of bumps ending with the largest "pressure bump".. time confirmed by the crew.

 

So, for Cooper to have jumped over the Columbia,, the crew was wrong, the FBI/analysis was wrong and the sled test was wrong. Reminds me of the Western FP...

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

So what is the problem.

The sled test matched the oscillations and pressure bump exactly AND a man going down the stairs showed very little change on the cabin pressure gauge.

Therefore, the oscillations reported by the crew at 8:10/11 was a series of bumps ending with the largest "pressure bump".. time confirmed by the crew.

 

So, for Cooper to have jumped over the Columbia,, the crew was wrong, the FBI/analysis was wrong and the sled test was wrong. Reminds me of the Western FP...

 

OK, so we’ll use your terminology for the sake of argument. There was a series of small bumps which occurred for an extended period of time ending with a large bump. We don’t know for how long the small bumps happened, and we don’t know the time of the large bump.

To suggest that when the crew reported the small bumps they were also reporting the large bump is not supported by Anderson’s statement:

“What we noticed was the pattern of the oscillations was continuing and there was a very minor disruption of the slipstream. Scott said at first he wasn’t feeling anything for sure, then a little later he thought  there was more drag and the nose was deviating a little. When the final bump happened and the oscillations stopped that sealed it. But even then we weren’t sure and we waited before calling anybody.”

So, Anderson confirms that the “pattern of oscillations” continued for an extended period of time. He also differentiates between “bump” and “oscillations”. Lastly, he confirms that they waited before alerting anyone of the final “bump”. How long did they wait? What time did they report the final bump? No one knows. 

If you want to continue to believe that the report of a “pattern of oscillations” or a “series of pressure fluctuations” are the same thing as a “pressure bump” or “larger bump” then go ahead, but I don’t think that’s correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

OK, so we’ll use your terminology for the sake of argument. There was a series of small bumps which occurred for an extended period of time ending with a large bump. We don’t know for how long the small bumps happened, and we don’t know the time of the large bump.

To suggest that when the crew reported the small bumps they were also reporting the large bump is not supported by Anderson’s statement:

“What we noticed was the pattern of the oscillations was continuing and there was a very minor disruption of the slipstream. Scott said at first he wasn’t feeling anything for sure, then a little later he thought  there was more drag and the nose was deviating a little. When the final bump happened and the oscillations stopped that sealed it. But even then we weren’t sure and we waited before calling anybody.”

So, Anderson confirms that the “pattern of oscillations” continued for an extended period of time. He also differentiates between “bump” and “oscillations”. Lastly, he confirms that they waited before alerting anyone of the final “bump”. How long did they wait? What time did they report the final bump? No one knows. 

If you want to continue to believe that the report of a “pattern of oscillations” or a “series of pressure fluctuations” are the same thing as a “pressure bump” or “larger bump” then go ahead, but I don’t think that’s correct. 

There were minor oscillations/bumps on the gauge for some time PRIOR to the 8:10/11 report of oscillations,, they were reporting an increase in the cabin. That increase matched the increase in oscillations/bumps during the sled test per Anderson.

You are conflating the terms and events.

That event was replicated exactly per Anderson when the sled was dropped, very little change with a man going down the stairs,,  case closed.

The gauge reacted "violently" only when the sled was dropped exactly like Norjak.

He says it...

"The re-test duplicated the OSCILLATIONS AND THE PRESSURE BUMP exactly"...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaucer, you have this screwed up.. not me and everyone else.

Even Rataczak reported that his ears popped (pressure bump) at 8:10

You fail to recognize that Anderson's statements, Rataczak's statements and the sled test contradict your assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

There were minor oscillations/bumps on the gauge for some time PRIOR to the 8:10/11 report of oscillations,, they were reporting an increase in the cabin. That increase matched the increase in oscillations/bumps during the sled test per Anderson.

You are conflating the terms and events.

That event was replicated exactly per Anderson when the sled was dropped, very little change with a man going down the stairs,,  case closed.

The gauge reacted "violently" only when the sled was dropped exactly like Norjak.

He says it...

"The re-test duplicated the OSCILLATIONS AND THE PRESSURE BUMP exactly"...

 

 

No, I haven’t screwed up anything. You are confusing terms and cherry-picking statements to prove your point. 

The statements from the crew all point to a series of oscillations, fluctuations, etc. happening and that those concluded with one final pressure bump. The reports all state that the “oscillations” were an on-going, continual event (“he’s fiddling with the stairs”, “he’s doing something with the stairs”) There’s no indication that they were report a singular event. The sled test confirmed that the pressure bump was caused by Cooper leaving the craft. It did not confirm that Cooper left the craft, there were a series of oscillations, and then a pressure bump. You have the chronology ass-backwards.

The fact remains that the oscillations are NOT the same thing as the pressure bump, and the oscillations were reported at 8:11/8:12 per the transcripts. Thus, the pressure bump - if was reported - was reported some time AFTER that. 

One more time: the oscillations/fluctuations/small bumps, etc. are NOT the same thing as the pressure bump/large bump. 

Whether my theory that Cooper ended up on the north bank of the Columbia is irrelevant. The above are facts of the case. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

 

No, I haven’t screwed up anything. You are confusing terms and cherry-picking statements to prove your point. 

The statements from the crew all point to a series of oscillations, fluctuations, etc. happening and that those concluded with one final pressure bump. The reports all state that the “oscillations” were an on-going, continual event (“he’s fiddling with the stairs”, “he’s doing something with the stairs”) There’s no indication that they were report a singular event. The sled test confirmed that the pressure bump was caused by Cooper leaving the craft. It did not confirm that Cooper left the craft, there were a series of oscillations, and then a pressure bump. You have the chronology ass-backwards.

The fact remains that the oscillations are NOT the same thing as the pressure bump, and the oscillations were reported at 8:11/8:12 per the transcripts. Thus, the pressure bump - if was reported - was reported some time AFTER that. 

One more time: the oscillations/fluctuations/small bumps, etc. are NOT the same thing as the pressure bump/large bump. 

Whether my theory that Cooper ended up on the north bank of the Columbia is irrelevant. The above are facts of the case. 

 

You are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Georger, you continue to prove you are a fraud... keep it up, I am documenting all of it.

I didn't change anything as "you predicted"...

My statements have been consistent, your understanding is dishonest or ignorant. (as usual) 

I always said there were minor oscillation prior per Anderson, several times in previous posts,, you claimed I said there were none. YOU LIED, you always lie because your goal is for your ego to win not to uncover the truth. You just make up stuff to discredit others, there is no weaker tactic intellectually.

I pointed out the reports that said they increased "violently" AFTER the sled was dropped not before. 

That hasn't changed.. There was no concession. Georger fabricated it to claim a victory. That tactic is best kept to politicians and Marxists... 

 

FACT: There were minor oscillations long before the crew reported "getting cabin oscillations" at 8:10 (they had increased)

FACT: During the sled test oscillations did not increase when a man went down the stairs and stood on the end.

FACT: Fluctuations/Oscillations increased violently when the weight was dropped.

FACT: Anderson claimed the oscillations and pressure bump were exactly the same during the test.

FACT: Anderson referred to the pressure bump as "the largest by far".. (that means many)

FACT: Rataczak said his ears popped at 8:10

FACT: Georger is a serial liar.

 

You guys are all screwed up trying to defend an opinion because you can't get it straight that oscillations are pressure fluctuations. They differ in frequency and magnitude. The so called "pressure bump" was just a larger one that was felt.

At 8:10 the crew reported.. "getting some oscillations in the cabin",,, long after the minor oscillations were seen on the gauges.. WHY, because the oscillations had increased in frequency and magnitude exactly like the sled test showed and Anderson claimed..

You guys are attacking me personally to justify your opinion in a bizarre strawman ploy. AlI I did was agree with the FBI LZ assessment after looking at all the information... you have engaged in a perverse distraction strategy where discrediting me (with lies from Georger) somehow makes you right.

What you guys really need to do is argue why, where and how with more information, more data and access to the crew with fresh memories the investigators and the crew got it wrong...  you haven't, you can't so you try to discredit me. You guys are pathetic and an embarrassment to all Cooper slueths.

 

oscillationscabin.jpg.401a0676044a74b2cebc1cd493bfdb53.jpg

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooper wasn't concerned with prints..

He was concerned with the notes.

He left the cigarettes, tie and offered money to the stews, all potential sources for prints.

Cooper demanded the notes back and the matchbook which had been used to write notes on... 

Why was Cooper not concerned with leaving prints..

 

hjwroteonmatchbook.jpeg.dfcf240751c4dea3b56b9c77181315b7.jpeg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Georger, you continue to prove you are a fraud... keep it up, I am documenting all of it.

I didn't change anything as "you predicted"...

My statements have been consistent, your understanding is dishonest or ignorant. (as usual) 

I always said there were minor oscillation prior per Anderson, several times in previous posts,, you claimed I said there were none. YOU LIED, you always lie because your goal is for your ego to win not to uncover the truth. You just make up stuff to discredit others, there is no weaker tactic intellectually.

I pointed out the reports that said they increased "violently" AFTER the sled was dropped not before. 

That hasn't changed.. There was no concession. Georger fabricated it to claim a victory. That tactic is best kept to politicians and Marxists... 

 

FACT: There were minor oscillations long before the crew reported "getting cabin oscillations" at 8:10 (they had increased)

FACT: During the sled test oscillations did not increase when a man went down the stairs and stood on the end.

FACT: Fluctuations/Oscillations increased violently when the weight was dropped.

FACT: Anderson claimed the oscillations and pressure bump were exactly the same during the test.

FACT: Anderson referred to the pressure bump as "the largest by far".. (that means many)

FACT: Rataczak said his ears popped at 8:10

FACT: Georger is a serial liar.

 

You guys are all screwed up trying to defend an opinion because you can't get it straight that oscillations are pressure fluctuations. They differ in frequency and magnitude. The so called "pressure bump" was just a larger one that was felt.

At 8:10 the crew reported.. "getting some oscillations in the cabin",,, long after the minor oscillations were seen on the gauges.. WHY, because the oscillations had increased in frequency and magnitude exactly like the sled test showed and Anderson claimed..

You guys are attacking me personally to justify your opinion in a bizarre strawman ploy. AlI I did was agree with the FBI LZ assessment after looking at all the information... you have engaged in a perverse distraction strategy where discrediting me (with lies from Georger) somehow makes you right.

What you guys really need to do is argue why, where and how with more information, more data and access to the crew with fresh memories the investigators and the crew got it wrong...  you haven't, you can't so you try to discredit me. You guys are pathetic and an embarrassment to all Cooper slueths.

 

oscillationscabin.jpg.401a0676044a74b2cebc1cd493bfdb53.jpg

 

I haven't attacked you personally. I disagree with your conclusion, but I have nothing against you personally, and I respect you immensely as a researcher. If you want to degenerate this into name-calling, then I'm out. 

FACT: There were minor oscillations long before the crew reported "getting cabin oscillations" at 8:10 (they had increased),

FACT CHECK:  There is no evidence to suggest this differentiation. Of course the crew is going to report "cabin oscillations" because they never left the cabin. Also, the transcript you provided above conveniently has time stamps faded out so as to be unreadable. According to the time stamp, that report was given at 8:12, not 8:10.  I've attached a clearer copy below. The oscillations were reported as late as 8:12 which means the pressure bump happened after that. 

Anderson states that they were "flying dirty" so they would have felt something early on, but they all felt oscillations and presumed it was Cooper "doing something with the aft stairs". Any other conclusion is an invention.

FACT: During the sled test oscillations did not increase when a man went down the stairs and stood on the end.

FACT CHECK: The FBI document reports "very little change", not "no change". Anderson himself said that the oscillations were so minor that Scott wasn't even sure he felt them. Here's Anderson:

"These were minor oscillations. We detected on the guages only."

FACT: Fluctuations/Oscillations increased violently when the weight was dropped. 

FACT CHECK:  The "fluctuations/oscillations" did not increase "violently". The FBI statement says that the gauge reacted "violently". Anderson states clearly that after the the "pressure bump" the oscillations ended abruptly. You are implying that after the sled test, the oscillations increased dramatically in the cabin which did not happen.

FACT: Anderson claimed the oscillations and pressure bump were exactly the same during the test.

FACT CHECK: Anderson claims no such thing. He only claims that the sled test matched his experience the night of the hijacking:  a series of oscillations which they concluded was Cooper messing with the aft stairs followed by a strong pressure bump that ended the oscillations. In fact, in his statement, Anderson makes it clear that the oscillations and pressure bump are separate things:

"What we noticed was the pattern of the oscillations was continuing"

"We all agreed that the guages were detecting a disruption of airflow, most likely caused by Cooper testing out the aft stairs.   But we all felt one physically distinguishable "bump" with our ears"

"When the final bump happened and the oscillations stopped that sealed it." 

FACT: Anderson referred to the pressure bump as "the largest by far".. (that means many)

FACT CHECK: This changes nothing. Anderson and others have used multiple terms to describe these events. This isn't some smoking gun here. See above.

FACT: Rataczak said his ears popped at 8:10. 

FACT CHECK: Rataczak has said multiple things over the years. You yourself supplied a document that gives a range from 8:10 to 8:15. He later said that the jump occurred 5 to 10 minutes after last contact (8:05)  and then told Carr it was 10 to 15 minutes after last contact.  Anderson has said there was uncertainty over when the pressure bump occurred. Soderlind gives a range from Ariel to the Columbia. Also, this statement is from a newspaper article which we all should know should be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to statements and "facts". 

My point is that you want the jump time to be 8:10 so badly that you are engaging in behavior that you are accusing me of: ignoring evidence, distorting evidence, and confusing the facts. 

Now you seem to want to engage in personal attacks. Sorry, it's not personal to me. It's just that your conclusions are wrong. 

Cheers. 

812.jpg

Edited by Chaucer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I haven't attacked you personally. I disagree with your conclusion, but I have nothing against you personally, and I respect you immensely as a researcher. If you want to degenerate this into name-calling, then I'm out. 

FACT CHECK: You did, you keep saying I am confused because I don't agree your opinion. It isn't my conclusion, it is the analysis done by/for the FBI.

FACT: There were minor oscillations long before the crew reported "getting cabin oscillations" at 8:10 (they had increased),

FACT CHECK:  There is no evidence to suggest this differentiation. Of course the crew is going to report "cabin oscillations" because they never left the cabin. Also, the transcript you provided above conveniently has time stamps faded out so as to be unreadable. According to the time stamp, that report was given at 8:12, not 8:10.  I've attached a clearer copy below. The oscillations were reported as late as 8:12 which means the pressure bump happened after that. 

Anderson states that they were "flying dirty" so they would have felt something early on, but they all felt oscillations and presumed it was Cooper "doing something with the aft stairs". Any other conclusion is an invention.

FACT CHECK CHECK: There is evidence.. Anderson "largest (bump) by far" and the sled test results.. Why did the crew suddenly report oscillations long after the minor ones were noted on the gauge? because they were different somehow? What caused the other "bumps"? pressure fluctuations/oscillations. The timestamp is not accurate, analysis of tapes and data put it at 8:10/11. Your timestamp criticism is irrelevant. EXACTLY, they felt oscillations and reported them, the ones before were on the gauge only..

FACT: During the sled test oscillations did not increase when a man went down the stairs and stood on the end.

FACT CHECK: The FBI document reports "very little change", not "no change". Anderson himself said that the oscillations were so minor that Scott wasn't even sure he felt them. Here's Anderson:

"These were minor oscillations. We detected on the guages only."

FACT: Fluctuations/Oscillations increased violently when the weight was dropped. 

FACT CHECK:  The "fluctuations/oscillations" did not increase "violently". The FBI statement says that the gauge reacted "violently". Anderson states clearly that after the the "pressure bump" the oscillations ended abruptly. You are implying that after the sled test, the oscillations increased dramatically in the cabin which did not happen.

FACT CHECK CHECK: They did increase violently on the gauge and Anderson said it was exactly like NORJAK.. The gauge measures/represents fluctuations/oscillations. The gauge reacting violently after the weight was dropped is an increase in oscillations which Anderson confirmed matched NORJAK, he was in the cabin.

FACT: Anderson claimed the oscillations and pressure bump were exactly the same during the test.

FACT CHECK: Anderson claims no such thing. He only claims that the sled test matched his experience the night of the hijacking:  a series of oscillations which they concluded was Cooper messing with the aft stairs followed by a strong pressure bump that ended the oscillations. In fact, in his statement, Anderson makes it clear that the oscillations and pressure bump are separate things:

"What we noticed was the pattern of the oscillations was continuing"

"We all agreed that the guages were detecting a disruption of airflow, most likely caused by Cooper testing out the aft stairs.   But we all felt one physically distinguishable "bump" with our ears"

"When the final bump happened and the oscillations stopped that sealed it." 

FACT CHECK CHECK: Right, he claims it matched exactly. But, the test showed "very little" gauge movement when a man was going down and standing on the stairs and a violent reaction on the gauge when the weight dropped... A violent reaction on the gauge is a measure of oscillations.

There were airflow disruptions after the thud/pressure bump, they were just not major... the stairs were still partially open with no weight on them. Anderson is saying that those elevated (series of) oscillations ended when the final bump happened.

Anderson "because the gauges never detected any further major airflow disruptions after that ‘thud’. The re-test duplicated the oscillations and the pressure bump exactly"

FACT: Anderson referred to the pressure bump as "the largest by far".. (that means many)

FACT CHECK: This changes nothing. Anderson and others have used multiple terms to describe these events. This isn't some smoking gun here. See above.

FACT CHECK CHECK: It indicates that there was a loose use of terminology and more than one bump, more than one bump indicates a series. The "pressure bump" was the largest of a series... that series matches the violent reaction matching the sled test after the weight was dropped.

FACT: Rataczak said his ears popped at 8:10. 

FACT CHECK: Rataczak has said multiple things over the years. You yourself supplied a document that gives a range from 8:10 to 8:15. Anderson has said there was uncertainty over when the pressure bump occurred. Soderlind gives a range from Ariel to the Columbia. Also, this statement is from a newspaper article which we all should know should be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to statements and "facts". 

FACT CHECK CHECK: Rataczak has changed some of his statements over the years but statements made closer to the event are more accurate. True, the range is 8:10 to 8:15 at the latest, that is the FBI LZ that was searched. The analysis gave a higher probability to the 8:10 to 8:12 timeframe.

My point is that you want the jump time to be 8:10 so badly that you are engaging in behavior that you are accusing me of: ignoring evidence, distorting evidence, and confusing the facts. 

FACT CHECK: BS.. I looked at the information with no agenda and concluded the DZ analysis was correct, I have zero agenda for the 8:10 time. YOU ARE MAKING IT UP to discredit me that is a classic Georger move.. 

Now you seem to want to engage in personal attacks. Sorry, it's not personal to me. It's just that your conclusions are wrong. 

FACT CHECK: You didn't outright lie like Georger did but you didn't call out his blatant lies and you kept saying I was confused because I don't accept your opinion..   Now you make up some nonsense about wanting 8:10 so badly...

Cheers. 

FACT CHECK: My conclusion is based on my interpretation of the information, it confirms the analysis done by/for the FBI and the crew statements.. The obligation is for you to show where they got it wrong, you haven't done that at all. You have expressed an opinion that you keep elevating to fact.

What do you know that they didn't? You keep ignoring this...

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I'm saying your are confusing the oscillations with the pressure bump. Don't feel bad. The FBI did that for decades. Unfortunately, conflating these two events and trying to shoehorn them into the 8:10 time frame is where your theory falls apart.

Regardless, It seems none of the facts I can offer you will change your mind. 

Good luck in your research.

Edited by Chaucer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
46 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

I'm saying your are confusing the oscillations with the pressure bump. Don't feel bad. The FBI did that for decades. Unfortunately, conflating these two events and trying to shoehorn them into the 8:10 time frame is where your theory falls apart.

Regardless, It seems none of the facts I can offer you will change your mind. 

Good luck in your research.

I know exactly what you're saying, you keep saying the same thing over and over but it is your opinion, based on assumptions not facts. You keep claiming facts that are not so.. Don't feel bad Ulis does the same thing all the time..

The so called "pressure bump" was the last and largest of a series of oscillations felt by the crew.

The FBI had far more info, data and access to the crew than you...

You conveniently avoided the question.. 

What do you know that the FBI didn't? It is a simple question that requires an answer,, otherwise you just have a baseless opinion.

 

BTW, if you can ever prove that Cooper or the money itself landed next to Columbia, I have great TBAR theory....

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FJ, for the most part, we agree. Where we differ is on the timing.

All I'm saying is that there is a degree of uncertainty that would allow for a jump a closer to the Columbia. Can I prove that Cooper did jump closer to the Columbia? No.

But there is enough of a range that the time frame makes is possible. That's all. 

Regarding you question about what the FBI knew vs. what I know? All I can say is that I think the FBI confused the report of oscillations with the actual pressure bump when Cooper jumped. SA Carr thought the same thing among other researchers more knowledgeable than myself. 

The only thing I object to vehemently is the comparison to Ulis. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
9 hours ago, Chaucer said:

FJ, for the most part, we agree. Where we differ is on the timing.

All I'm saying is that there is a degree of uncertainty that would allow for a jump a closer to the Columbia. Can I prove that Cooper did jump closer to the Columbia? No.

But there is enough of a range that the time frame makes is possible. That's all. 

Regarding you question about what the FBI knew vs. what I know? All I can say is that I think the FBI confused the report of oscillations with the actual pressure bump when Cooper jumped. SA Carr thought the same thing among other researchers more knowledgeable than myself. 

The only thing I object to vehemently is the comparison to Ulis. :rofl:

Not really, you kept saying over there.. that I was confused.. that is an opinion. I don't share your assessment of the pressure bump/oscillations.

Pressure fluctuations cause oscillations. Oscillations were noted on the gauge but in this context the last "pressure bump" was larger and felt by the crew. So, for NORJAK all pressure bumps are oscillations, however the crew described the largest one as the "pressure bump" because of the magnitude.

It is like the terms Chevrolet and Corvette.. 

They are cars (pressure fluctuations), a Chevrolet (Oscillation) and Corvette (pressure bump)... 

A Corvette is a Chevrolet but is a unique subset. A Pressure bump is an oscillation but is a unique subset. It was larger and physically felt.

That is why the FBI used them interchangeably, the so called "pressure bump" differed only in magnitude, A unique oscillation. Since, the sled test showed that the frequency and magnitude increased after the weight dropped and Anderson said it was exactly the same as NORJAK, that supports it happening within seconds, not minutes.

 

The crew saw minor oscillations on the gauges.... for some time.

About 8:10/11..  They got a cabin increase in frequency/magnitude (reported it) ending with the largest pressure bump (felt a thud). That did not last 8 minutes. If Anderson was correct about the sled test it would be a very brief period.

No major fluctuations were felt after the final "pressure bump".

The crew was unsure what happened, discussed it and used the term "pressure bump" in retrospect.

 

It is possible (I said anything is possible) the money landed near the Columbia but not for the reasons you claim. It would not be the time duration of the oscillations/pressure bump sequence but due to timing error for the FP.

However, the lights of Portland really makes that unlikely, that indicates N of Vancouver, not over the Columbia. 

The FBI also had crew comms, plane data and access to the crew that we don't have, so it is a high bar to show that they got it so wrong. I found a gross error by the FBI but I have several pieces evidence that proves they were wrong or lying.

Finally, everyone considered a Columbia landing when the money was found, it is human nature to find a cause in a correlation.. you can theorize but like the Western FP, you need evidence.

So, a near Columbia landing is a theory, with no supporting evidence and even contradictory evidence. Unless something new comes up, the FBI DZ is where I believe Cooper landed. Ariel to around Battle Ground/Brush Prairie.

and Ulis is famous, he solved the Cooper case... it was clearly TK

 

IMO,, if the pressure bump (jump) was virtually over the Columbia next to the Airport,, the crew would have known it and expressed it. The crew would have been acutely ware of their location there.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are you so sure about the use of the terminology? Pressure fluctuations/oscillations/pressure bumps, etc. How are you able to parse the difference? What evidence do you have that this is what these words mean and that the FBI and flight crew were using these words in the way that you state? 

I disagree with your assessment and your Chevy Corvette analysis. I don’t think it’s accurate. I’ve already explained why and I won’t bore everyone repeating myself. 

I respect your adherence to the FBI flight path, and I’d be curious to see what evidence you have that would explain how the money ended up in the Columbia months or years after the hijacking after previously landing near Ariel.

Either way, enjoy your Independence Day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

47 47