47 47
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

On 8/5/2019 at 3:19 PM, The Cooper Vortex said:

Our latest episode is out now. James Cook, an expert on the Zodiac Killer, and I discuss why there are theories linking the two cases and if there is any evidence to support it.

https://thecoopervortex.podbean.com/e/db-cooper-is-not-the-zodiac-killer-james-cook/

Enjoy!

I gave this one a listen today as I was driving to St. Louis. I enjoyed this one a lot. I follow the Zodiac case as well, though not as much as Cooper. Very enjoyable, thanks.

Share this post


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

Parachutes..

The card in the back chute left on the plane was s/n 60-9707, the date May 21 1971 matches both Hayden chutes.

The chute returned to Hayden is a different s/n 226.

Which chute did Cooper take..  neither of Hayden’s.. one was returned to him and the other was left in the plane.

Cooper must have taken one of Cossey’s. If Cossey had one returned, it was either his chute that was never sent to the plane or they sent him Hayden’s which was left on the plane. << This is possible as Cossey became very upset and defensive when asked about the chute and Hayden.

but, Cooper must have taken one from Cossey, one of Hayden’s was left on the plane and the one returned to him.

They must have sent one from Hayden and one from Cossey to the plane.

 

That theory would stand to reason. If the s/n's are different then they're different. Also, I can't imagine that the FBI would give back a rig that was actually used (evidence) in the case (which includes the ones left on the plane).

But a couple of questions...

Is it possible that the s/n's or the data cards were erroneously mixed up with the front-mount reserve's?

And, If your theory is correct, does that affect what is known about the chute that Cooper jumped with? I keep coming back to the idea of Cooper jumping a non-steerable chute and how that would affect his chances of success in the jump. If your theory is correct, is it possible that that is erroneous information?

 

Edited by dudeman17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dudeman17 said:

That theory would stand to reason. If the s/n's are different then they're different. Also, I can't imagine that the FBI would give back a rig that was actually used (evidence) in the case (which includes the ones left on the plane).

But a couple of questions...

Is it possible that the s/n's or the data cards were erroneously mixed up with the front-mount reserve's?

And, If your theory is correct, does that affect what is known about the chute that Cooper jumped with? I keep coming back to the idea of Cooper jumping a non-steerable chute and how that would affect his chances of success in the jump. If your theory is correct, is it possible that that is erroneous information?

 

The FBI files state the chute info came right from the card found inside the chute left on the plane so no card mix up,, and the card with Hayden's returned chute matches that one.

 

What it means is Cooper jumped with Cossey's chute. Initially, Cossey was the FBI go to for chute info then it was revealed that Hayden supplied the chutes so Cossey lost credibility. 

They both claimed to have supplied the Cooper chutes and it became a mess. This sorts it out.

Cossey called it an NB6 sometimes it is called and NB8.

non-steerable 28 ft 

cosseychutesagegreen.jpeg.d167d3dce8a42a3befcb3cf86ae8ac57.jpeg

 

Share this post


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

Didn't realize you were keeping score. Most of my electronic and some gear I take on these wilderness trips is in the office closets upstairs. We also have computers there...sometimes I take a break and check email, etc. Hope you don't mind. :)

About the chutes: I think the most important point on them is establishing which one Cooper jumped with. And we should stop saying Cossey 'owned' certain chutes. He did not own any of the chutes. They were the property of Sky Sports in Issaquah. At least that is my understanding. 

We aren't talking about the Issaquah front chutes.

Both of Hayden's back chutes are accounted for, one was found on the plane and one was returned to him.. they aren't the same date or S/N. The packing dates matched as both were packed on the same date. That confirms they are both Hayden's.

So, Cooper used another back chute,, Cossey's. He claimed he sent back chutes from his house.

Share this post


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

Well...packing is generally done for the upcoming trip..(funny I have to justify everything I do for certain people) so I think we are faced with a conundrum here. When I interviewed Hayden (almost two hours) HE said Cooper used the NB6/8 to jump and that it belonged to him. Said the other main was returned to him, the one now housed at the WA State History Museum. Why would he lie about that? He had no motivation to lie and wasn't looking for notoriety. Very unassuming guy. 

Cossey 'claimed' he sent chute(s) from his house. Is there a verification on this in FBI files that someone contacted him in that 3-hour (or so) window on the ground and actually went to his house in Woodinville? Remember....Cossey has told media previously he owned Cooper chutes but this claim has not been proven, and has been actively disputed. He is known to have lied to media regarding the Amboy chute find in 2008, and said it was a joke. The basic record says the cops were dispatched to pick up and deliver both the money, and two chutes from Sky Sports. The Detlor report doesn't mention a fifth chute and only refers to Cossey as the guy who packed the chutes, and that he could ID them if necessary. 

Despite possibly incorrect serial number recordings by the Reno agents...how many chutes were physically present on the plane when it landed in Reno? We know the non working reserve was missing. If you say 'two chutes were found, but one was opened,' then the Detlor report is most likely accurate. I understand that you have said that ONE chute was not taken to the jet by the FBI in Seattle...and that is how you account for the fifth chute delivered to Sea Tac. If this is so, why would the FBI hold onto that chute for years if it never reached the hijacker? There are many questions here. 

When presentations or releases of evidence have been made by the FBI to the public, or the physical evidence being released to Citizen Sleuths, nothing has ever been mentioned regarding a fifth parachute. There have been hundreds of news articles, a dozen TV shows, several good books done on Cooper. None of them mentioned one chute brought to Sea Tac but not given to Cooper. 

There is also something else, something that Hayden would have no reason to invent because he had already gotten his chute back from the FBI:  Hayden told me that the two chutes he provided to Northwest Airlines were done on a rental arrangement, and that he was paid for that rental by the airline. He also confirmed that the Detlor report on the chutes was accurate, at least the part describing the two he owned. He had no information on the ones from Sky Sports other than what he read in the paper. And this may not mean anything, but he was not a fan of Earl Cossey. He wouldn't elaborate much on that, but I got the idea he was in dispute with Cossey regarding the chute Cooper actually jumped with. 

On a side note, Hayden said that he bought both of his chutes from the same place at the same time and never had any intention of using either one. Says he basically bought the cheapest working chutes he could find that would pass the new sport flying rule, but would never have jumped from a plane. Says he would have tried to crash land before doing that. 

If your theory is based even partially on honesty between Hayden and Cossey, I have to believe Hayden's version of events. 

Have you submitted this theory to Bruce Smith? There is no love lost between us, but he is pretty familiar with the chute circumstances and has interviewed Norman Hayden in person. My interview was two phone calls over a two day period. If not Smith, anyone else with a good familiarity on this subject? I would like to hear other opinions on this question. 

You seem to not have a full grasp of this..

read Bruce's article.. even Hayden wonders if they procured two back chutes from Cossey and his two.

https://themountainnewswa.net/2011/10/25/db-cooper-case-heats-up-again-with-controversy-over-parachutes/

Share this post


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

I have seen that article and read it previously. If you are asking which version of events comes closest to the truth, I'm going with Norman Hayden every time. Hayden had no motivation to lie about anything, and the fact he couldn't remember one or two small points after forty plus years could be moot. Cossey, on the other hand, has been known to lie to the media occasionally. Hayden's the guy who didn't take advantage, and generously donated his chute to the WA State History Museum. Cossey is the guy who liked to jack the media around occasionally. It was a judgment call on my part. 

Tell you the truth, I don't know if it will EVER be sorted out completely. One thing about Bruce's articles is that he will sometimes admit, 'Well...the documents from the FBI support that...' and then go off on a conspiracy tangent trying to explain why it may not actually work. He's hard to gauge, although he was doing better work ten years ago I think. 

If there's one thing I DO know...it's time for a vacation:) I can't wait to bail town on Thursday. Too much work, too much of everything, time to actually PRODUCE something while I am out there in the wilderness. 

My official announcement on this project was made public at Quora and other sites today. You can find it HERE

You haven't grasped the subject. 

You have created a strawman. There is no contention Hayden is lying.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
12 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Rather than quoting over whole sections with a music video, why don't you fill in the blanks from this list below. Maybe this will explain your position better. Just name where the chute came from, how it was used, and where is it now. 

Chute 1:  Chute Cooper jumped with.

Chute 2: Non working reserve chute. Not found. Certified missing from aircraft.

Chute 3: Pink belly pack reserve chute investigated by Citizen Sleuths. (Disposition known. FBI still in possession.)

Chute 4: Backpack chute belonging to Hayden, now in museum. 

Chute 5: Unaccounted for, disposition unknown. 

Before you answer, or try to explain these chutes, remember something. Basically, you are agreeing that Hayden owned two of the chutes, okay. And we know only one was returned to him, okay. If Hayden owned a second chute that was NOT used by the hijacker...then WHY would he not ask for it to be returned as well? His main point with the FBI in his request that his chute be returned (and it was a successful request) was that the chutes were merely a rental to Northwest Airlines. So why didn't he ask for both chutes back? 

From the Deseret News article, December 2007, interview with FBI Agent Larry Carr:

Do you see the problem here? Cossey claims he provided chutes himself, but doesn't realize the non working reserve had been given out by Sky Sports until the next day. 

Also...the article states it was Sky Sports, and NOT Cossey who supplied the chest packs. 

The FBI report by Detlor matches this story, saying two mains came from Hayden, two reserves from Sky Sports. There is no mention of anyone going to Cossey that night for chutes. NONE. 

The one thing I would try to find out is if Cossey was an instructor...(this is where other instructors, or anyone who knew Cossey personally would help) is whether it is more likely that an instructor at a dropzone would keep his personal jump gear stored at the DZ, rather than at his home. In any case, there just isn't a bit of evidence to support a fifth parachute going to Sea Tac that night. And if there WAS a fifth chute, and it wasn't used, why didn't Hayden ask for it to be returned? What you might be looking at here is a bad reference to a number by some Reno FBI agents who wouldn't know a parachute from a big tent. 

You have this all mixed up,

 

The two front chutes from Issaquah are irrelevant. You continue to conflate the front and back chutes.. even though I have explained it. Hayden's opinion is irrelevant. Cossey's opinion is irrelevant. They both made reasonable assumptions with the info they had, those assumptions are not facts. You are using Hayden's assumption as a fact.

 

Last time..

Ignore the two front chutes from Issaquah. They went on the plane and there is no dispute with them. We are only concerned with the back chutes.

Two similar back chutes were sent from Hayden. Both packed by Cossey the same date.

1) Packed by Cossey May 21/71 manufactured 1960 S/N 60-9707. This was left on the plane confirmed by card found in chute.

2) Packed by Cossey May 21/71 manufactured 1957 S/N 226. Confirmed by packing card. This was returned to Hayden then went to museum.

 

If we have both of Hayden's chute accounted for then Cooper took another back chute.

 

The FBI described the the chutes that went to the plane and only ONE matches Hayden's, the other is the NB6/8 that matches Cossey's chute.

 

What happened,,,

Hayden sent in two similar back chutes.

Cossey sent in two back chutes from his home. (not the front ones)

 

They grabbed one from Hayden and one of Cossey's and forwarded to the plane. This may have been intentional or a legitimate mix up??

Hayden's chute (S/N 60-9707) was left by Cooper and Cossey's NB6/8 was taken.

The other Hayden chute (S/N 226) sent in but was not forwarded to the plane was returned to him.

The other chute Cossey sent in but was not forwarded to the plane was returned to him.

 

Once you get this then read Bruce's article everything makes sense.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

 

If NEITHER of Hayden's chutes were used, and we already know the FBI has only ONE chute currently in their possession, (the pink parachute)...

Then why didn't Hayden ask for BOTH of his chutes to be returned? In his interview, he claimed Cooper used one of his chutes and the other was returned. He was pretty adamant about having that chute returned to him. Why would he just ignore the other? 

Either Cossey was lying, or Hayden was lying. Now you are claiming that a total of SIX parachutes were actually sent to SeaTac, but only four went to the plane. Okay...

None of the evidence that mentions Cossey says he owned any of the chutes, only that he packed them. 

Cossey, to my knowledge, has never told media he had a chute returned to him from SeaTac unused. He was interviewed by phone and in person dozens of times over the years. 

Neither has Hayden ever said HE had a chute returned to him from SeaTac. In addition, Hayden still claims Cooper jumped with HIS chute, and the other was eventually returned after he finally had a lawyer send a letter to the FBI in WA DC. His story is supported by the Agent Detlor document. 

On top of all that, you have no evidence that the cops actually went to Cossey's home on the night of the hijacking, although they talked to him later. The Sky Sports evidence is clear that Sky Sports only sent TWO chutes out that night, and both were reserves...no backpacks. This means they would HAVE to go to Cossey in person. He lived clear out in Woodinville, which is some distance from the SeaTac airport. And...that the FBI was able to obtain his name and address, contact him, and get out there and back in a relatively short time. It's true that Woodinville and Issaquah are about the same distance from SeaTac (Woodinville probably a little farther) but Issaquah is a straight shot from the I-90 freeway. Woodinville would take a little longer.

First mention of Cossey in any reports by the FBI is referenced as being AFTER the hijacking. There is no evidence showing anyone actually spoke to Cossey in person until afterward. There is no report about chutes saying police went to his house the night of the hijacking. Issaquah and Woodinville are also on opposite ends of the Puget Sound. 

Between Norman Hayden and Earl Cossey...only COSSEY is known to have jacked interviewers and media around occasionally with his claims regarding the chutes over the years. 

Maybe you should present the Reno document again, since that seems to be the crux of your theory. You should understand that your theory not only adds two parachutes to the ones delivered, but ONE ADDITIONAL TRIP to do it, since Woodinville is north and west of Seattle, and Issaquah is south and west of Seattle. You have not just added extra chutes to the mix, but an extra trip by the police to the OPPOSITE end of Puget Sound. And nowhere is such a trip referenced in the record. Not a single interview, book, FBI doc, nothing. 

You are asking people to believe quite a lot here, you know. 

 

 

1 We know the FBI has at least one chute, we don't know how many they have.

2 Hayden assumed Cooper used one of his chutes, so he only expected one returned.

3 There are FBI references to Cossey owning the chutes. Since the FBI info is contradictory that isn't a factor.

4 Cossey has claimed he had a chute returned, he thought it was the one left one the plane. Another possibility is that, in error, Cossey was given Hayden's chute that was left on the plane. That may explain his defensive behaviour.

You have to look at this from Cossey's and Hayden's perspective, neither knew the other had also sent in back chutes so they both assumed the two chutes that went to the plane were theirs.

5 Cossey sent the chutes in by cab. Cops didn't go to his home.

6 Cossey did make conflicting statements but his statements are not necessary to show that the two Hayden chutes are accounted for and of the two back chutes described by the FBI, only one matches Hayden's. Cossey's statements here are actually irrelevant.

7 There is no extra trip by police.

 

The fact is the packing card found in the back chute left on the plane doesn't match the packing card found in the back chute returned to Hayden but the packing dates match. That means Cooper did not take either of Hayden's chutes.

 

I am not asking people to believe anything, the evidence is clear, Cooper did not use either of Hayden's back chutes. So, which chute did he use?? We can't prove he used Cossey's but there isn't really any other explanation. He didn't use Hayden's.

 

The FBI refers to Cossey as the packer and sometimes owner. The FBI notes demonstrate confusion about the chutes.

 

 

cosseychuteowner.jpeg.939c53c6fa12ea255131bb4c25355634.jpeg

 

Hayden got back a 1957 S/N 226 matching the one Bruce saw. The card found in the back chute left on the plane shows a 1960 S/N 60-9707

parachutereturnedhayden.jpeg.f5325fec9f27b1fa859cf880e69ce8d9.jpeg

2128791833_cosseychuteownercopy.jpeg.0798e46cb5b85292346cc512689e6b7c.jpeg

cosseychuteown.jpeg.4b540aed05ba4c17a91ce6fff910880c.jpeg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wind:

Claiming the SSW wind was a fact and known is borderline insanity.

The FBI admitted it was an estimate based on two assumptions

1 - the wind at Portland and Salem was the same as the LZ and the Placard find location.

2 - the wind data was averaged over an hour.

 

The wind at 8:30 at Portland was 180 deg S.

LewisShot8.jpg.dd8f539746368b639dde361d1a77133c.jpg.1b35e2c714c6d283eb438ae61ed4c31a.jpg.16b3f069e3d6916c35faa63ead3c8e64.jpg

 

The problems with the FBI assumptions are obvious, Portland and Salem are far from the LZ and Placard find so using it as a proxy is extremely unreliable. Winds change within miles. Averaging the winds over an hour is not reliable either, they can change within minutes. We don't have the wind data at the LZ or Placard find at the precise time so using SSW winds are a guess.

 

windmappnw.jpeg.bcce88210a0bea5703c5d447ef2f2d62.jpeg

 

Wind map variability.

https://a.atmos.washington.edu/~ovens/wxloop.cgi?sfc_wa+24

 

Winds at Toledo at 8 PM were S. 

toledowind8pm.jpeg.f63eff84eb2eee0f064628d638f751c8.jpeg

 

 A South wind spins the LZ.. 

20380southwind.jpg.0c75e60b068e06fbe6c5590a52d37c99.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I never noticed this before,,

"According to him a high wind was blowing at Merwin Dam last night. At about 11:30Pm there was a burglary of a grocery store located roughly 10 miles South of the dam. Survival rations were taken including beef jerky, cigarettes, gloves, etc. The person who broke in was wearing military type boots with a corregated sole."

 

Average walking speed is 3.1 mph, if it was Cooper he could have walked 9-10 miles in the three hours between landing and the store break in. In other words, it matches the LZ south of Merwin.

 

storebreakin.jpeg

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The initial search area came from NWA and the crew..

We are now expected to reject the corroboration from the crew, the air force, the chase pilots, Boeing, NWA and controllers to invent an alternate flight path to move the plane over Tina Bar to explain the money find..   nonsense. 

 

Nov 26.

"The crew of the above airline has now spotted a possible area for this suspected departure of the
hijacker to be over Merwin Lake, near Woodland, Washington.

A search is now being conducted by helicopter and ground crews working out of the Woodland Police Department."

 

crewlz.jpeg.683664505701b662e224e794efb8e9e8.jpeg

Share this post


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

I never noticed this before,,

"According to him a high wind was blowing at Merwin Dam last night. At about 11:30Pm there was a burglary of a grocery store located roughly 10 miles South of the dam. Survival rations were taken including beef jerky, cigarettes, gloves, etc. The person who broke in was wearing military type boots with a corregated sole."

 

Average walking speed is 3.1 mph, if it was Cooper he could have walked 9-10 miles in the three hours between landing and the store break in. In other words, it matches the LZ south of Merwin.

 

storebreakin.jpeg

They claim "military style".. probably based on the corrugated sole matching a footprint.

There are/were slip on ankle boots/shoes with corrugated soles...

I have an old pair of Doc Martins like that with "military style" corrugated soles but look like regular shoes.

 

Also,, I received the big Penny's catalog and there are no men's ties in it. That suggests the tie was purchased in store 1964/5 not via mail order... If Cooper purchased the tie he was in the US at that time.

There are lots of shoes/boots in the catalog,, I'll have to check those.

 

It may be what is called a "service shoe/boot"

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wind in Seattle, SSE at 8PM...

Averaged winds at Salem and Portland were used as a proxy for wind direction.. this is a guess for the LZ and Placard find location, it is not a fact.

Salem, Portland and Seattle are too far from the LZ/Placard to have any confidence.

 

 

windseattle.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DFS346 said:

Attached are summaries of NOAA data on upper-level winds at Seattle, Gray AAF and Salem on or around 11.24.1971, plus data for Portland in November 1972 (no data available for November 1971).

72793 1971-11 weather aloft.xlsx

74207 1971-11 weather aloft.xlsx

72698 1972-11 weather aloft.xlsx

72694 711124 weather.xlsx

The problem is the data for the identified "LZ" and placard find location for the 8 to 8:12PM time frame isn't available.

The FBI estimated the wind using Portland and Salem average winds from 8-9.. Portland and Salem are too far away and using an average over an hour is too vague.

Best data shows winds shifting between SSE to SSW... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

EU wrote.. 

"I sent Cliff Ammerman a copy of the yellow FBI Flight Path map and asked him to review it and let me know if it looked right to him. He called me this morning about the map and said he “would not argue with this track.” In other words, that it may well be correct."

 

Can we end the western flight path nonsense already..

 

Flight path came from SAGE..

sagepath.jpeg.c5d9cee51ad991824e89640a5a5e05be.jpeg

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

EU wrote.. 

"I sent Cliff Ammerman a copy of the yellow FBI Flight Path map and asked him to review it and let me know if it looked right to him. He called me this morning about the map and said he “would not argue with this track.” In other words, that it may well be correct."

 

Can we end the western flight path nonsense already..

 

Flight path came from SAGE..

sagepath.jpeg.c5d9cee51ad991824e89640a5a5e05be.jpeg

 

Very dishonest and misleading. Below is my entire post:

I sent Cliff Ammerman a copy of the yellow FBI Flight Path map and asked him to review it and let me know if it looked right to him. He called me this morning about the map and said he “would not argue with this track.” In other words, that it may well be correct.

Naturally, I asked him how this all adds up given the comments about turning south east of Kelso and the T-33 not changing headings as it trailed at least five miles behind 305.

Cliff explained to me in great detail how this all works.

First off, he did say that he thought 305 turned south (or SW according to the FBI map) before Battle Ground. But he explained to me that on his radar screen back in 1971, targets resembled an equal (=) sign. And, that the location of the target would actually be located somewhere on that equal sign line which was not very precise.

Cliff stated that this equal sign would align itself perpendicular to the radar station that the data was coming from. Therefore, as the target is moving, the equal sign is ever so slowly realigning itself relative to the radar station that the radar data is coming from.

In addition, he stated that the further away the target is from the radar station the bigger the equal sign gets. In other words, the precise location of the jet is more uncertain.

Cliff told me that his display utilized radar data from a station near Salem, OR. Moreover, that the scale of his screen was probably 150 miles because he was covering two sectors. What this meant was that at the point where 305 was handed off to him, north of Teledo, the equal sign represented a line about 15 miles long. In other words, he would know that the jet was somewhere along that 15-mile-long line.

He stated that as the jet continued south and got closer to the Salem radar site the equal sign would get smaller—in other words, more precise. He estimates that the equal sign measured between 5 to 8 miles wide around the PDX area. What this means is that 305 could have been anywhere along this 5 to 8 mile long equal sign line at that point. Consider, that the orientation of the equal sign display near PDX would be essentially northwest to southeast.

Therefore, looking at his radar display, he could not target precisely where the jet was located. Rather, he had a general idea. Also, he stated that given the 150-mile scale that he was on, he would not notice a change in 305’s direction unless it was something that was held for a little while.

All of this means that the T-33 could have stayed on a consistent heading of 160 even though 305 itself was making turns here and there as depicted on the yellow map. Moreover, that he would not notice these turns on his radar screen. Again, the equal sign target display on his screen would simply show 305 heading south with the T-33 trailing behind.

I asked him about the problems of knowing whether 305 stayed within V23 proper given that the equal sign target display is actually longer than the entire V23 corridor is wide at certain points. He said that what they would normally do is notify the pilots if the center of the equal sign display got to the outer edge of the Victor airway. But, in fact, that the jet may actually already be a few miles out of the airway or a few miles within the airway. In other words, the system was not very precise.

Cliff and I discussed the map and he stated that regardless of who put it together that he would think that they would have to use an array of radar data from different sites to be as accurate as possible. In particular, he stated that Portland Tower radar should be pretty precise because the scale they were working with was probably 40 miles as opposed to the 150-mile scale he was working with.

All of this said, I have a hard time believing the Air Force contacted Portland Tower, or any other non-military radar facility, to get their radar data to craft the flight path. That said, perhaps they did.

Nonetheless, we are faced once again with the $64,000 question: How exactly did the Air Force plot this flight path and with what data? After all, the path they plotted is very precise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EJU said:

Very dishonest and misleading. Below is my entire post:

I sent Cliff Ammerman a copy of the yellow FBI Flight Path map and asked him to review it and let me know if it looked right to him. He called me this morning about the map and said he “would not argue with this track.” In other words, that it may well be correct.

Naturally, I asked him how this all adds up given the comments about turning south east of Kelso and the T-33 not changing headings as it trailed at least five miles behind 305.

Cliff explained to me in great detail how this all works.

First off, he did say that he thought 305 turned south (or SW according to the FBI map) before Battle Ground. But he explained to me that on his radar screen back in 1971, targets resembled an equal (=) sign. And, that the location of the target would actually be located somewhere on that equal sign line which was not very precise.

Cliff stated that this equal sign would align itself perpendicular to the radar station that the data was coming from. Therefore, as the target is moving, the equal sign is ever so slowly realigning itself relative to the radar station that the radar data is coming from.

In addition, he stated that the further away the target is from the radar station the bigger the equal sign gets. In other words, the precise location of the jet is more uncertain.

Cliff told me that his display utilized radar data from a station near Salem, OR. Moreover, that the scale of his screen was probably 150 miles because he was covering two sectors. What this meant was that at the point where 305 was handed off to him, north of Teledo, the equal sign represented a line about 15 miles long. In other words, he would know that the jet was somewhere along that 15-mile-long line.

He stated that as the jet continued south and got closer to the Salem radar site the equal sign would get smaller—in other words, more precise. He estimates that the equal sign measured between 5 to 8 miles wide around the PDX area. What this means is that 305 could have been anywhere along this 5 to 8 mile long equal sign line at that point. Consider, that the orientation of the equal sign display near PDX would be essentially northwest to southeast.

Therefore, looking at his radar display, he could not target precisely where the jet was located. Rather, he had a general idea. Also, he stated that given the 150-mile scale that he was on, he would not notice a change in 305’s direction unless it was something that was held for a little while.

All of this means that the T-33 could have stayed on a consistent heading of 160 even though 305 itself was making turns here and there as depicted on the yellow map. Moreover, that he would not notice these turns on his radar screen. Again, the equal sign target display on his screen would simply show 305 heading south with the T-33 trailing behind.

I asked him about the problems of knowing whether 305 stayed within V23 proper given that the equal sign target display is actually longer than the entire V23 corridor is wide at certain points. He said that what they would normally do is notify the pilots if the center of the equal sign display got to the outer edge of the Victor airway. But, in fact, that the jet may actually already be a few miles out of the airway or a few miles within the airway. In other words, the system was not very precise.

Cliff and I discussed the map and he stated that regardless of who put it together that he would think that they would have to use an array of radar data from different sites to be as accurate as possible. In particular, he stated that Portland Tower radar should be pretty precise because the scale they were working with was probably 40 miles as opposed to the 150-mile scale he was working with.

All of this said, I have a hard time believing the Air Force contacted Portland Tower, or any other non-military radar facility, to get their radar data to craft the flight path. That said, perhaps they did.

Nonetheless, we are faced once again with the $64,000 question: How exactly did the Air Force plot this flight path and with what data? After all, the path they plotted is very precise.

You have been falsely claiming Ammerman supported your you alternate flight path nonsense..

Now, you are forced to admit he accepts the FBI flight path and somehow others are dishonest.

 

Dishonesty is claiming the wind direction is a fact, contrary to the FBI files and data. FACT.

Dishonesty is claiming that the placard came from NORJAK is a fact, FBI walked back the Sheriff's claim. FACT.

 

The flight path came from SAGE, you'd know that if you did something as simple as reading the FBI files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Eric Ulis still fails basic logic and reasoning.. and claims everyone else is full of "it". We have gone over these things and Eric just ignores the facts that don't fit his narrative.

 

He says..

"1) Nothing has ever been found in the FBI search area or along the FBI Flight Path as one would expect after 48 years.
2) The placard was found WEST (upwind) of 305 according to the FBI Flight Path.
3) The money was found on Tena Bar which is no where near the FBI search area or flight path.
4) Captain Scott states the jet was 10 miles west of where the FBI was searching and he flew west of Portland.
5) The FBI Flight Path appears erratic and includes some questionable turns, for example, the very sharp turn around the west end of PDX.

In closing, one thing I can say with certainty is that the evidence doesn't lie. It cannot be wrong. The placard was found west of the FBI Flight Path, the money was found on Tena Bar, and nothing has been found in the FBI search area (or near it) after nearly 48 years."

 

1) Finding nothing in the flight path isn't evidence that the flight path is wrong. The jump time along the flight path is debatable.

2) The placard was not confirmed to be from NORJAK. Eric knows this, the FBI walked back the assertion from the Sheriff. Further, it doesn't match known 727 emergency placards and wasn't noticed missing in Reno when plane inspected. That placard coming from NORJAK is unlikely. But let's assume it was. Eric and Robert99 Nicholson persist in ignoring the facts and running with assumptions they both claim are facts. The SW wind was an estimate, the FBI admits that they averaged the winds from Salem and Portland over an hour to get SW wind as a proxy for the LZ, THEY ADMIT THIS. Portland and Salem are far from the placard find and using an average is imprecise. Data shows winds from Seattle, Portland (8:30) and Toledo were S.. (winds were shifting)  The plane being on the "FBI" flight path and a S wind puts the placard exactly where it was found. A S WIND AT PLACARD FIND CONFIRMS THE FLIGHT PATH. The winds were shifting between SSE and SSW. To claim as a fact the winds at the placard find were SW is either intellectually dishonest or extremely ignorant. To then use the placard as evidence for a massive coverup and alternate fight path is ridiculous. A rational thinker would instead conclude that the wind direction estimate was slightly off (Placard) and that seems to be the case looking at all available data. What is more likely the wind estimate is off at the placard find or the crew, NWA, the FBI, the Air Force, Portland radar, the chase pilots and Boeing are all wrong and continue to engage in a cover up. A rational thinker would conclude that this has potential implications for the LZ, Cooper's drift may have been impacted by a S wind rather than the estimated SW wind..

3) The TBAR money could have got to TBAR many ways that don't involve moving the flight path. Just because we don't know or can't prove how the money got there doesn't mean it couldn't have.

4) NORJAK did fly West of downtown Portland, the search area was expanded to the Columbia.

5) The flight path is plotted with a 0.5 mile error either side.

 

Evidence doesn't lie, of course not but Eric has invented his own evidence by elevating assumptions to facts. The placard was not confirmed from NORJAK, the wind was just an estimate, an inaccurate remote proxy. Finally, absence of evidence (in flight path) is not evidence of absence (plane in flight path). The critical thinking and mental gymnastics here are self serving and amateurish.

Challenging overwhelming facts with weak assumptions is poor reasoning at best, elevating assumptions to facts is intellectually dishonest.

 

BTW,, I am all for challenging assumptions and even some facts but it is a heavy lift to move the flight path, weak assumptions here aren't even close. Eric has no facts here. His tell is that he ridiculed and attacked me when I pointed out that he is representing assumptions as facts, his narrative is not born from evidence it is the goal. He repeatedly ignores reality, he has to, it destroys his argument. Perhaps he is unaware of his own bias.. whatever,, the alternate flight path idea is dead and Eric is 98% confident Sheridan Peterson was Cooper no matter what. I am 100% confident Eric is wrong, he has no case, he has patched together old info with weak assumptions. His "research" is a joke. IMO

 

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