DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 654]

36 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

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. 

I am a professional, I have a degree in parsing...

Did I mention that I solved a 45 year old case... they want to do a documentary on it but Covid has messed it up. I might be the only Cooper sleuth that actually solved an old case.

but, generally, I process all the information and determine what best fits within its frame.. a sort of informal application of logic and reason.

The Columbia landing theory just doesn't fit well. You need to reject some info to make it fit, like jamming a round peg in square hole, Ulis style.

If there was a large (8 minute) time span between the 8:10/11 report of oscillations and pressure bump it would have been exposed by evidence or the crew during the analysis.

I have some document where they referred to them as "pressure fluctuations" but have been unable to find it.. I must have thousands of documents..

 

[Coopericane 44]

Another new release of FBI files https://vault.fbi.gov/D-B-Cooper /d.b.-cooper-part-60-of-60/view

[Para-DZ 0]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

I am a professional, I have a degree in parsing...

Did I mention that I solved a 45 year old case... they want to do a documentary on it but Covid has messed it up. I might be the only Cooper sleuth that actually solved an old case.

but, generally, I process all the information and determine what best fits within its frame.. a sort of informal application of logic and reason.

The Columbia landing theory just doesn't fit well. You need to reject some info to make it fit, like jamming a round peg in square hole, Ulis style.

If there was a large (8 minute) time span between the 8:10/11 report of oscillations and pressure bump it would have been exposed by evidence or the crew during the analysis.

I have some document where they referred to them as "pressure fluctuations" but have been unable to find it.. I must have thousands of documents..

 

Chaucer is passive aggressive. He starts arguments and then tries to pretend he’s your pal. He got himself kicked out of a DB Cooper Facebook group I heard. He’s trying to be relevant in the case by trying to cast doubt. Anyone can do that about anything. The man named Georger takes his side only because he doesn’t agree with Flyjack. Chaucer you should go back to the Zodiac case. 

[Chaucer 102]

46 minutes ago, Para-DZ said:

Chaucer is passive aggressive. He starts arguments and then tries to pretend he’s your pal. He got himself kicked out of a DB Cooper Facebook group I heard. He’s trying to be relevant in the case by trying to cast doubt. Anyone can do that about anything. The man named Georger takes his side only because he doesn’t agree with Flyjack. Chaucer you should go back to the Zodiac case. 

Your last 8 posts on this board have been about me. Perhaps you should focus more on DB Cooper and less about me. I’m a nobody.

Peace, my friend. 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, Coopericane said:

Another new release of FBI files https://vault.fbi.gov/D-B-Cooper /d.b.-cooper-part-60-of-60/view

And I just checked for it this morning...

Hope there something new in there..

[Chaucer 102]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

I am a professional, I have a degree in parsing...

Did I mention that I solved a 45 year old case... they want to do a documentary on it but Covid has messed it up. I might be the only Cooper sleuth that actually solved an old case.

but, generally, I process all the information and determine what best fits within its frame.. a sort of informal application of logic and reason.

The Columbia landing theory just doesn't fit well. You need to reject some info to make it fit, like jamming a round peg in square hole, Ulis style.

If there was a large (8 minute) time span between the 8:10/11 report of oscillations and pressure bump it would have been exposed by evidence or the crew during the analysis.

I have some document where they referred to them as "pressure fluctuations" but have been unable to find it.. I must have thousands of documents..

 

FJ, 

I am an academic and professional researcher. It’s literally what I do for a living. 

Nothing about the Columbia theory requires a rejection of evidence - only a rejection of your flawed conclusion about the fluctuations, oscillations, and bumps all somehow being the same thing. 

Regarding the 8 minute time span, how do you reconcile Soderlind’s calculations of a DZ all the way to Columbia? Going to ignore that too? Or what about the the crew’s statement that it could have been as late as 8:15, 8:17 or even 8:20? We going to forget about that too? What about Carr’s suggestion of a jump farther south? Going to reject one FBI special agent in favor of others that are closer to your theory? What about the fact that there is nothing in the transcripts or 302s describing anything such as a “violent pressure bump” or any indication that the crew reported Cooper left the aircraft? Just going to whistle and forget that too? 

The fact is that you are engaging in the same behavior that you accuse me of. Parsing terminology. Ignoring one anecdote in favor of others. Making certain phrases synonymous without a shred of evidence. Jamming a round peg in a square whole. 

The plane was one place, the money ended up somewhere else. If you actually want to use deductive reasoning, you would conclude that the most logical vehicle for how that happened would be the river. The evidence leaves open the possibility of a later jump. Whether that’s absolutely what happened? Who knows? Maybe Bigfoot ate the money and then walked over and shat it all over Tena Bar. 

The entire point of my argument is that there is uncertainty about where the plane was when Cooper jumped. That’s not new and it’s not controversial. You claim to know precisely where the plane was when Cooper jumped. I think anyone claiming to know anything with precision about this case is on a fool’s errand. 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

54 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

FJ, 

I am an academic and professional researcher. It’s literally what I do for a living. 

Nothing about the Columbia theory requires a rejection of evidence - only a rejection of your flawed conclusion about the fluctuations, oscillations, and bumps all somehow being the same thing. 

Regarding the 8 minute time span, how do you reconcile Soderlind’s calculations of a DZ all the way to Columbia? Going to ignore that too? Or what about the the crew’s statement that it could have been as late as 8:15, 8:17 or even 8:20? We going to forget about that too? What about Carr’s suggestion of a jump farther south? Going to reject one FBI special agent in favor of others that are closer to your theory? What about the fact that there is nothing in the transcripts or 302s describing anything such as a “violent pressure bump” or any indication that the crew reported Cooper left the aircraft? Just going to whistle and forget that too? 

The fact is that you are engaging in the same behavior that you accuse me of. Parsing terminology. Ignoring one anecdote in favor of others. Making certain phrases synonymous without a shred of evidence. Jamming a round peg in a square whole. 

The plane was one place, the money ended up somewhere else. If you actually want to use deductive reasoning, you would conclude that the most logical vehicle for how that happened would be the river. The evidence leaves open the possibility of a later jump. Whether that’s absolutely what happened? Who knows? Maybe Bigfoot ate the money and then walked over and shat it all over Tena Bar. 

The entire point of my argument is that there is uncertainty about where the plane was when Cooper jumped. That’s not new and it’s not controversial. You claim to know precisely where the plane was when Cooper jumped. I think anyone claiming to know anything with precision about this case is on a fool’s errand. 

 

No, your point is to ram and bully your baseless theory down everybody's throat.

You are wrong, it does require a rejection of the evidence. I have pointed it out but you just ignore it.

And you are still making false claims about me, that is why I left Shutter's site. I got tired of the lies and BS... I have always maintained that it could be 8:10 to 8:15 (around Battle Ground).

Carr's suggestion is irrelevant, he had no evidence for it, it was just a theory. I find most people use the appeal to authority fallacy rookies.. always look for the argument under the conclusion, Carr had none.

The area to the Columbia was suggested before the sled test and analysis was done. There was no evidence for it, just speculation.

And the 8:10-8:15 DZ is not my theory, it came from the FBI analysis. I just agreed with it after analyzing all the information available.. STOP CALLING IT MY THEORY

As for the crew statements,,  we don't have access to all the communications and discussion but the FBI did.

Anderson said the sled test was exactly the same, during the sled test the gauge reacted "violently". If Anderson were correct then the gauge also reacted violently during NORJAK.

So nothing you screeched above contradicts that FBI DZ analysis. NOTHING.

All you have a baseless opinion. That is it.

You can't even answer a simple question,,

What do you know that the FBI didn't? yes, it is a trick question.

It isn't even new, everyone has considered it and I spent time researching it but found no evidence for it.

You have added nothing to it. ZERO

 

Look, your goal seeking opinion is set that is clear, that won't change.. you are scrambling to maintain it resorting to lies and fallacies... 

 

I am done with you.

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by FLYJACK

[Chaucer 102]

And it appears I am done with you because like Eric Ulis, it’s either your theories or antipathy with no room for respectful discussion. 
 

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, Chaucer said:

And it appears I am done with you because like Eric Ulis, it’s either your theories or antipathy with no room for respectful discussion. 
 

It isn't my theory,,, and you added nothing to the topic, ZERO, NADA..

There is a small minority of Cooper people who are not capable or worthy of respectful discussions..

You are one of those.

You can discuss it all you want,, just not with me. I just don't care what you think or have to say.

[Chaucer 102]

6 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I would say a range of 810-815 is pretty reasonable. That is still a range of 15 air miles times one mile in each direction for chute drift...a search area of approximately 30 square miles at least. No wonder Cooper was able to elude the cops early on. 

On the evening of the hijacking, people were watching TV and knew what was going on to an extent. But down in Clark County, all they had was a few local cops running up and down the main roads and trying to look for him. But in a thirty-square mile possible search area, Cooper had the upper hand. 

Not according to Flyjack. Any deviation from 8:10 and you are an utter moron who knows nothing about the case. 
 

Careful, Blevins, you might end up in Flyjack’s personal cancel culture for no other reason than daring to disagree with him.

[FLYJACK 654]

3 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

Not according to Flyjack. Any deviation from 8:10 and you are an utter moron who knows nothing about the case. 
 

Careful, Blevins, you might end up in Flyjack’s personal cancel culture for no other reason than daring to disagree with him.

A liar just like Georger.. nobody likes liars.

[Chaucer 102]

And this is why no one worth a damn posts her anymore. Enjoy your circle jerks about fluctuating, oscillating, bumping, and the like! 

[FLYJACK 654]

6 hours ago, Chaucer said:

And this is why no one worth a damn posts her anymore. Enjoy your circle jerks about fluctuating, oscillating, bumping, and the like! 

He seems real nice...

 

“the greatest scholars are not usually the wisest people” 
― Geoffrey Chaucer

Edited July 3, 2021 by FLYJACK

[Para-DZ 0]

13 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Don't feel bad. EVERYONE'S done with me. You get used to it. Then you realize it was a bonus all along and just go out and do your OWN thing. 

Finished installing the tie down eye bolts on the truck. Some of the soft gear for the Cooper/UFO party has to be tied to the top of the canopy. All of you guys in Cooperland who ignored this event (and probably hoped it would go away) are going to regret not signing up to go. (Well, if you lived within driving range anyway.) You think Ariel was fun? We have that beat by miles. MANY miles. And you don't even have to try and drive yourself home at 2AM, as you had to do at Ariel. You just go to bed and start up again the next morning. And then the next. On the third morning, you go home. By then, you are ready to go home. The picture below is not from the party site, but it's a couple of miles west of that spot. 

Robert. You have a book. You have ideas about the case. Chaucer has none of this. 

[Andrade1812 51]

Chauser, It would be nice to have those calculations from Soderlind or Tosaw's notes from that interview with Soderlind. Otherwise, all we have are the FBI search zone maps, and none of them include the Columbia from what I can recall.

[FLYJACK 654]

Chaucer's claim is flawed... he has no legit argument, just an opinion. An opinion everyone has considered. He has brought nothing new except a few hypocritical comments.

but,

He builds on the speculative claim that the pressure bump was some completely different event much later than the 8:11 oscillation report by the crew AND the FBI analysis was completely wrong. If the crew didn't use the term "Pressure Bump" at 8:11 then it didn't happen then, he claims. Not only is there no evidence for this but it is contradicted, reminds me exactly of the Western FP. It is a childish interpretation. The FBI and the crew would have easily figured out a big delay or a material distinction. The crew believed the 8:11 time frame. The lights of Portland is NOT over the Columbia. Anderson said largest "pressure bump" of all...  aka many..

Chaucer need to show the error in the FBI analysis... he can't because he only has an opinion.

The "pressure bump" that Anderson referred to was the last largest one FELT by the crew, oscillations were SEEN on the gauge, they are measures of the same thing, pressure fluctuations. Fluctuations were also mentioned in crew comms at the "8:11" time.

The FBI did NOT only use the report of oscillations. There were also reports of fluctuations and a violent reaction on the gauge matched the sled test "exactly".

Chaucer has misunderstood the evidence and found himself a victim of the Vortex, it will turn you mad and hostile when others don't share your delusion. Nobody agrees 100% with anybody else. When your ego is supported by being right and you play in the Vortex you do pay a high price, negotiable American currency..... bank strapped in packets of 100's..

Enter the Vortex at your own peril.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

"Simply put, the DZ is uncertain because the 
flight path is uncertain, likewise the issue of 
the oscillations vs bump (pressure fluctuation) 
which occured. Ckret was of the opinion that the 
oscillations and bump were two distinct events. 

Good luck - 

Georger"

 

Above Georger in 2009 refers to the bump as a "pressure fluctuation". He was correct then.. now he denies it.

At 8:11 The crew reported "cabin fluctuating"

and

At 8:11 crew comms "at the present cabin is fluctuating"

The fluctuation is a "bump" even Georger admitted it.. Remember Anderson said it was the largest (bump) by far, that means many "fluctuations". The FBI analysis got it right no matter how times Georger posts misinformation or Chaucer pouts.

 

Edited July 4, 2021 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

Anybody remember the source for Cooper using cursive writing??

My notes say it was in a FOIA but I can't find it.

[FLYJACK 654]

7 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I certainly don't. I always heard he dictated and the stew(s) wrote them. But I can't say for sure. 

Cooper supplied the first note.. Miss, I have a bomb....

My notes say "MISS" printed and the rest cursive..

 

but I can't find the source,,, I have thousands of docs to wade through..

this is what I could find..

Flo,, "felt-tip pen" "plain paper" "neat, legible handwriting"

Edited July 4, 2021 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

I don't really have an opinion on the Amboy chute but a few things.. 

The find location I have is 5 miles due E from the FP, that is extreme for a drift.

The sled test showed no violent increase in fluctuations/oscillations until after the weight was dropped, very little change when a man went down the stairs and stood at the end. That indicates the 8:10-12 timeframe is the sweet spot.

The winds were not known at the 8:10-12 location and time. Robert99 and (Ulis) are incorrect in asserting as fact the winds were from the SW at that time... The data is not precise, it is averaged over an hour and using Portland as a proxy is a stretch, it is too far from the 8:10-12 area. The fact is, based on other wind data the winds were shifting in the area around that time from SE to SW..

The best we can say is the winds were from SE to SW at the 8:10-12 time along the FP. You cannot say as a fact the winds were from the SW at that time/location, there is no data that shows that. Even the FBI used Portland and Salem data hourly averages as a proxy...  it is just not precise enough.

Here is the Portland wind data average between 8 - 9... note elevation is virtually the same direction as the ground.

Portland and Salem was used as an "ESTIMATE".. 

Edited July 4, 2021 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Cooper supplied the first note.. Miss, I have a bomb....

My notes say "MISS" printed and the rest cursive..

 

but I can't find the source,,, I have thousands of docs to wade through..

this is what I could find..

Flo,, "felt-tip pen" "plain paper" "neat, legible handwriting"

Finally, found it...

[FLYJACK 654]

6 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I don't really have an opinion on the Amboy chute but a few things.. 

The find location I have is 5 miles due E from the FP, that is extreme for a drift.

The sled test showed no violent increase in fluctuations/oscillations until after the weight was dropped, very little change when a man went down the stairs and stood at the end. That indicates the 8:10-12 timeframe is the sweet spot.

The winds were not known at the 8:10-12 location and time. Robert99 and (Ulis) are incorrect in asserting as fact the winds were from the SW at that time... The data is not precise, it is averaged over an hour and using Portland as a proxy is a stretch, it is too far from the 8:10-12 area. The fact is, based on other wind data the winds were shifting in the area around that time from SE to SW..

The best we can say is the winds were from SE to SW at the 8:10-12 time along the FP. You cannot say as a fact the winds were from the SW at that time/location, there is no data that shows that. Even the FBI used Portland and Salem data hourly averages as a proxy...  it is just not precise enough.

Here is the Portland wind data average between 8 - 9... note elevation is virtually the same direction as the ground.

Portland and Salem was used as an "ESTIMATE".. 

Here Portland ground wind SW at 8 and S at 8:30...

[FLYJACK 654]

https://web.archive.org/web/20080402013303/http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/03/03282008_Chute-opens-speculation.cfm

CHUTE OPENS SPECULATION

Friday, March 28, 2008
By ERIK ROBINSON, Columbian Staff Writer

AMBOY — Dan Cooper, paging Dan Cooper.

Dennis Levanen, who lives in the Heisson area, said he vividly remembers the airplane flying directly over his house on Thanksgiving Eve in 1971. He quibbles with the FBI’s flight path of the airplane, noting that it appears several miles west of where it actually flew.

“It was just huge and roaring,” he said. “It was under a lot of power to keep it airborne, going as slow as the guy demanded.”

 

Dennis Levanen lived 1 mile directly North of the Heisson store.

 

[FLYJACK 654]

So, I know nothing about parachute construction.

This is the Amboy chute edge seam and line attachment,,, does it indicate anything? cargo vs personal?

 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

45 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

So, I know nothing about parachute construction.

This is the Amboy chute edge seam and line attachment,,, does it indicate anything? cargo vs personal?

 

 

There may be something different in the construction of cargo chutes for the weight.. IDK