47 47
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Robert99 said:

First, I need to correct the "3 to 5 degrees" to "8 to 10 degrees" rotation from the hinge point of the aft stairs according to Dr. Edwards' post on his blog today.

I don't know the exact length of the stairs from the hinge point to their tip but it is unlikely that the tip of the free fall stairs were ever more than two feet from the fuselage due to the wind.  Only when Cooper was on the stairs would the tip go down enough for him to have room to jump.

And again, the "oscillations" don't mean anything.  The jump time was a second or two before the cockpit crew felt the change in air pressure and saw it on the flight engineer's panel.

 

I don't disagree,  

I was calling out the fact that some so called Cooper case experts continue to ignore the fact that the guy actually flying the plane.. Rataczak, said he was hand flying the plane and felt the plane dip when Cooper was on the stairs.. He also said that the call to Soderlind was in the suburbs of Portland.

That destroys the claim that Cooper jumped over the Columbia or south of that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

I don't disagree,  

I was calling out the fact that some so called Cooper case experts continue to ignore the fact that the guy actually flying the plane.. Rataczak, said he was hand flying the plane and felt the plane dip when Cooper was on the stairs.. He also said that the call to Soderlind was in the suburbs of Portland.

That destroys the claim that Cooper jumped over the Columbia or south of that...

And I was calling out the fact that some so-called Cooper experts continue to ignore the fact that it really doesn't make any particular difference whether the aircraft was being flown by the autopilot or hand flown by the crew.

Also, whether it was being flown by the autopilot or a human doesn't have anything to do with the flight path.

Flyjack, for your information, autopilots can fly aircraft better than humans.  And I suspect that Soderlind was correct about the autopilot being used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
22 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

And I was calling out the fact that some so-called Cooper experts continue to ignore the fact that it really doesn't make any particular difference whether the aircraft was being flown by the autopilot or hand flown by the crew.

Also, whether it was being flown by the autopilot or a human doesn't have anything to do with the flight path.

Flyjack, for your information, autopilots can fly aircraft better than humans.  And I suspect that Soderlind was correct about the autopilot being used.

This isn't a discussion about which is better..

But, I'll add you to list... the plane was hand flown at that time.. 

Rataczak said so. The path was erratic. Rataczak felt Cooper and the plane dip. The plane was being flown dirty, unlikely to be done on autopilot.

 

Based on tests and experts the pilot would not feel somebody leaving the stairs if the plane was on autopilot. They would if it was manually flown..  not only did Rataczak say he was hand flying the plane he also said he felt Cooper...

Claiming the plane was on autopilot after knowing Rataczak said he was hand flying the plane is an attempt to discredit Rataczak..

This is simple stuff,,, Solerlind erred or got bad info.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

This isn't a discussion about which is better..

But, I'll add you to list... the plane was hand flown at that time.. 

Rataczak said so. The path was erratic. Rataczak felt Cooper and the plane dip. The plane was being flown dirty, unlikely to be done on autopilot.

 

Based on tests and experts the pilot would not feel somebody leaving the stairs if the plane was on autopilot. They would if it was manually flown..  not only did Rataczak say he was hand flying the plane he also said he felt Cooper...

Claiming the plane was on autopilot after knowing Rataczak said he was hand flying the plane is an attempt to discredit Rataczak..

This is simple stuff,,, Solerlind erred or got bad info.

 

Everyone interested in this matter should visit Dr. Edwards' blog.  He has resumed posting on the hijacking using newly released and unredacted information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
26 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

Everyone interested in this matter should visit Dr. Edwards' blog.  He has resumed posting on the hijacking using newly released and unredacted information.

Waste of time..  Edward's is wrong..he has never even acknowledged the fact that the guy actually flying the plane said he was hand flying at the time and felt Cooper..

Edward's book and hypothesis is that Cooper jumped further South,, ignoring Rataczak enables confirmation bias..

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Based on tests and experts the pilot would not feel somebody leaving the stairs if the plane was on autopilot.

 

Did you mean “somebody ON the stairs”?

Auto-pilot or not, everyone in the cockpit would have felt the pressure bump caused by the jump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

Everyone interested in this matter should visit Dr. Edwards' blog.  He has resumed posting on the hijacking using newly released and unredacted information.

Those files were released in 2017. 
 

I think Bob is great, but how he has Cooper jumping over or south of the Columbia is a mystery to me. Both Rat and Andy have statements indicating that both the jump and the call to Soderlind happened before the Columbia.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2023 at 11:01 AM, FLYJACK said:

It is possible but I can't agree that we have all the info necessary to draw that conclusion.. it is always a leap to claim a conclusion based on a negation.. (what we don't have) you need more info, a stronger argument to use negation.

If it was only Himm's book I might agree..  but two independent conflations or coincidences is tough to dismiss.

Forgive me, but I can't figure out why any "conflation" would be necessary to explain this very straightforward fact. What am I missing? Himmelsbach has it in his book and in his head. Years later, after the book exists, and after Himmelsbach has repeated the data point and believes it to be true, a suspect is suggested who has that as one of their traits. That seems completely normal. Each suspect has lots of traits, some of which directly correspond to the boilerplate, some of which don't. It's not weird at all that two suspects might share a trait, particularly this many years apart and this many suspects later, and expecially given that now the stains are "out there" as a thing.

If anything, the odd part is that that particular trait showed up that one and only time in the boilerplate, as @olemisscub says. The rest is entirely linear and utterly explainable.

What am I missing?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, Math of Insects said:

Forgive me, but I can't figure out why any "conflation" would be necessary to explain this very straightforward fact. What am I missing? Himmelsbach has it in his book and in his head. Years later, after the book exists, and after Himmelsbach has repeated the data point and believes it to be true, a suspect is suggested who has that as one of their traits. That seems completely normal. Each suspect has lots of traits, some of which directly correspond to the boilerplate, some of which don't. It's not weird at all that two suspects might share a trait, particularly this many years apart and this many suspects later, and expecially given that now the stains are "out there" as a thing.

If anything, the odd part is that that particular trait showed up that one and only time in the boilerplate, as @olemisscub says. The rest is entirely linear and utterly explainable.

What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that years after the Himmelsbach book the FBI files also state that hijacker Cooper had cig stains... not just the other suspect "Eugene".

It is not simple and linear..

So, you need two independent conflations...

1380755440_ScreenShot2023-03-31at7_22_51AM.png.937bfba7a5ffe0380f22a4058fc66fed.png

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

You are missing the fact that years after the Himmelsbach book the FBI files also state that hijacker Cooper had cig stains... not just the other suspect "Eugene".

It is not simple and linear..

So, you need two independent conflations...

1380755440_ScreenShot2023-03-31at7_22_51AM.png.937bfba7a5ffe0380f22a4058fc66fed.png

I'm not missing that. Perhaps we are using "conflation" differently? This just seems like one thing happened, then years later, after the first thing happened, another thing happened. It is hard to imagine a clearer example of something "linear." 

The only real question is that single addition to the boilerplate in this instance.

One suggestion was a simple typist's error--a brain-fart carried over from the top of the page.

That's very possible. I have another possibility as well: The foul-talking "Dan Cooper" from Him's book had cigarette stains on his fingers. This boilerplate at the bottom of the page is for "Dan Cooper" the hijacker. I wonder if on this particular day, this typist went looking in the files for the boilerplate on "Dan Cooper," and just grabbed the info from the foul-talker instead of the hijacker, by mistake. This would be a "conflation" that needs no time travel, and seems completely within the realm. 

Nothing about it seems terribly significant. There are lots of little elements that might pop up and repeat over time. Do you mind if I ask what your interest is in the stained fingers?

Edited by Math of Insects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

I'm not missing that. Perhaps we are using "conflation" differently? This just seems like one thing happened, then years later, after the first thing happened, another thing happened. It is hard to imagine a clearer example of something "linear." 

The only real question is that single addition to the boilerplate in this instance.

One suggestion was a simple typist's error--a brain-fart carried over from the top of the page.

That's very possible. I have another possibility as well: The foul-talking "Dan Cooper" from Him's book had cigarette stains on his fingers. This boilerplate at the bottom of the page is for "Dan Cooper" the hijacker. I wonder if on this particular day, this typist went looking in the files for the boilerplate on "Dan Cooper," and just grabbed the info from the foul-talker instead of the hijacker, by mistake. This would be a "conflation" that needs no time travel, and seems completely within the realm. 

Nothing about it seems terribly significant. There are lots of little elements that might pop up and repeat over time. Do you mind if I ask what your interest is in the stained fingers?

Huh, no idea what your point is. It would require two independent errors at different times and context.

The first conflation would have to be the claim in the Himmelsbach book between the suspect he talked about in the book and Cooper, re cig stains.

The second conflation would have to be years later in the FBI files and completely independent from the first..  nothing to do with Himmelsbach he was long gone from the FBI at this point, another suspect Eugene Cooper would have to be conflated with Cooper...

both cases unrelated would have to have falsely attributed cig stains on fingers/hand of a (different) suspect to Cooper.

It is significant because you have two independent claims that Cooper had cig stains... 

The argument that both were false attribution has no evidence, it is pure speculation,, it may be true anything is possible but it is an opinion with no evidence. It is not unusual for a smoker to have stained fingers.. The fact that there were two independent corroborating claims make it harder to write off as a conflation and error.

The reason it matters is twofold,,  stains indicate a long term smoker and stains were on the right hand.

Share this post


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

 

So, you need two independent conflations...

 

Yes, because what's the alternative? The alternative is that somehow in the tens of thousands of pages of internal memos this hugely significant characteristic of Cooper is only mentioned once and it is mentioned 17 years after the fact. 

We absolutely have more than enough documents to claim that this description contains a mistake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
24 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Yes, because what's the alternative? The alternative is that somehow in the tens of thousands of pages of internal memos this hugely significant characteristic of Cooper is only mentioned once and it is mentioned 17 years after the fact. 

We absolutely have more than enough documents to claim that this description contains a mistake. 

I don't believe we have enough info to draw that conclusion.. it is possible but there is no evidence that either is false and both have to be proven false.

You are using an assumption to prove two independent corroberating pieces of info are false. It just doesn't work that way.

In my view, it is possible but your argument is extremely weak..

If we go down that road then nothing in this case can be accepted...

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

What if I don't agree.. my position is the correct one,,, possible but unproven false.

You don't have any evidence it is false, it is your opinion based on only an assumption.

Another instance..

"Himmelsbach thinks other clues to Cooper being an ex-convict were the 'atrocious foul language' he used in talking to a stewardess and the way he smoked his cigarettes. Cooper was a heavy smoker and was indifferent to the fact that the smoke curled through his fingers and left nicotine stains, a trait Himmelsbach said is common among prison inmates."

It wasn't an error by the the other author,, Himmelsbach believed it.

For it to be false the only explanation would be that there is a doc in Cooper's file that we haven't seen with cig stains falsely attributed to Cooper.

But there is no evidence for that.

THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION IS TAKEN FROM FILE REGARDING WITNESSES' DESCRIPTIONS OF HIJACKER DAN COOPER: WHITE MALE AMERICAN, MID-FORTIES, 6', 170 TO 175 POUNDS, OLIVE COMPLEXION OR MEDIUM TO SWARTHY COMPLEXION, BLACK HAIR, BROWN EYES, AVERAGE TOWELL-BUILT, CIGARETTE STAINS ON RIGHT HAND.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

When is that Himmelsbach quote from?

UPI article..

Interesting,, here is a reference in a book by FBI agent Mike McPheters..  he is referring to Eugene Cooper..

1486737757_ScreenShot2023-04-01at9_01_58PM.png.abb11c775da17aa8158324a6dbe7a3d0.png

191924618_ScreenShot2023-04-01at9_06_32PM.png.40ad263288283f634d64fdc5bede595c.png

From The Real McCoy..  Tina saw yellowish discolorarion on the first two fingers of his right hand,,, that is much more specific.

734287841_ScreenShot2023-04-01at9_17_40PM.png.afdb71167dccf1d14e00bbf1eba26193.png

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Ok, I figured this out...

"Math", my point about multiple conflations being necessary was in the context of a rebuttal to olemisscub's argument..  For his argument to be valid, it requires multiple conflations.. I was not making a universal statement. I was pointing out the weakness in his argument.

Your argument contradicts his argument.. and requires its own analysis.

Evaluating all the evidence we have, it is apparent that a document we have not seen has Tina claiming Cooper had yellowish stains on the first two fingers of his right hand.. since Tina lit his cigarettes and was next to him this is not unbelievable. Clearly, she witnessed him smoke and with which hand. I have always believed that they knew or strongly suspected if he was right or left handed but held that back..

This document is the source of multiple claims about Cooper having cigarette stains on his right hand.

Is it possible that the document has an error.. it is possible but extremely unlikely.

The FBI docs do have errors they are not conclusions but a gathering of information. For this to be an error it would be inconsistent with the typical errors in the files.. it would have to be a mis-attribution rather than a typo or misunderstanding which it typical.

Also, there is no evidence that it is false,, none whatsoever. Without any contrary evidence we have to take it as valid.. if we don't and dismiss it then anything and everything in this case is open to be dismissed without evidence.

So, my conclusion is that it is legitimate based on the known evidence but remain open to the possibility that it could be an error if some new evidence is found.

This case is closed and any further deviation from the judgement may be punishable by a fine or imprisonment or both in accordance with the laws of the Vortex.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to see a pre-NORJAK reference to Cooper's fingers being stained. That's all. The issue with posting those book references is that NORJAK was published before those books and was the only Cooper book out there at the time aside from Tosaw (who never mentions these stains). Thus, The Real McCoy and McPheters could be relying on NORJAK and post-NORJAK media quotes from Ralph talking about the stained fingers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
17 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I just want to see a pre-NORJAK reference to Cooper's fingers being stained. That's all. The issue with posting those book references is that NORJAK was published before those books and was the only Cooper book out there at the time aside from Tosaw (who never mentions these stains). Thus, The Real McCoy and McPheters could be relying on NORJAK and post-NORJAK media quotes from Ralph talking about the stained fingers. 

Stop it, you are acting like Ulis now.

OJ could be innocent too...

How does it get into The Real McCoy from the NORJAK book, when details are completely different.

How does it get into the FBI files years after the NORJAK book and Himmelsbach's retirement. Did the FBI read NORJAK and insert it..

How does McPheters know this information? Did he take it from the book..

Your conflation argument is dead. Your argument that we have all the documents is dead.

 

There is ZERO evidence it was an error in NORJAK and all references come from that error.

That can't be your standard so I assume it is some unconscious bias at work...

 

 

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
16 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

You're really worked up about this. I'd just like to see a pre-NORJAK reference. Then I'll gladly switch sides on this topic. 

I just expected more from you...

You have no valid side on this..

All you have is a baseless opinion.... in this case they are worthless.

If that really is your standard then nothing in this case can be valid, everything is open to opinion only and you have zero credibility..

We might as well be discussing Xenu...

My purpose and goal is to get to the truth..  replacing evidence with baseless opinions is counter productive and a waste of time..

Stuff like this makes me question why I still even post here.

Edited by FLYJACK

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