4 4
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Saw this posted by EU:

Four nautical miles from a maximum 10,000 foot exit? Assuming Cooper pulled and deployed within a thousand feet of exit, this leaves him about 500 seconds max to cover four miles at 18 feet a second or so of drop. (Full deployment at 9,000 feet divided by 18 feet a second drop comes to roughly 500 seconds, and the area Cooper landed is NOT at sea level.) That is approximately 50 mph sideways in drift. Must have been a hell of a storm, and he would have undoubtedly been killed. I'm a definite whuffo, but even I figured that out by crunching some numbers. 

EDIT: Expert parachutist '377' has been quoted saying drop from 10K would result in no more than a mile of drift in any direction before Cooper reached the ground. Just saying. 

(Have to get to the job today, but I will check in this evening. Now I have a senior high school kid with metal detectors who wants to show for the search. From Vancouver. He was approved, although I had to speak to his parents. It's nice to have some young people involved in such an old case, I have to admit.)

The bottom line is that we're going to look, despite the naysayers, and everyone will have a lot of fun. This time we are sparing no expense or effort to make sure this happens, although our chances of finding any evidence are admittedly small. No one seems to care about that particularly. It's a meeting of minds, a meeting of fans, and made for people to enjoy themselves. Those are the main things here. You can be there, or you can be square, although it's okay to be square as well. :)

Your math is incorrect.

18 feet per second means it takes him 555 seconds to drop from 10K to sea level. In the same time he drifts 4.6 SM. That puts his crosswind component at 29.8 MPH. Depending upon where he would have landed in that area the elevation is about 300 feet. Moreover, the data suggests a wind speed of approx 32 KTS at 10K.

Share this post


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

Do you see 'Campsite 2' area? That is maybe sixty feet in diameter. You can walk back up the road and over to Campsite 1 in just a few minutes. This is not a picture of an area encompassing square miles, but a pretty close blowup. And we will refine the search areas after we get onsite. It will be discussed Friday afternoon and into the evening among everybody after we set up camp. Search doesn't begin until Saturday morning. 

It will be easier to do all this after we take a look at the area in person. I know what I'm doing to a certain extent, but input will come from other participants when we get there, no doubt. But first we have to get there and check out the terrain. None of us have actually been there before. 

Nothing has been 100% established on the search areas, because my suggestions are based on pictures from space satellites. We will probably go out a quarter mile in all directions, maybe a bit more, from the central point starting from the placard location. That's known within fifty feet. To save time, we may concentrate on areas not recently logged. 

You take what you have, you do the best you can. I doubt we will find anything, but everyone will have fun trying, that is pretty much guaranteed. B|

EDIT: Yes, it's true I don't agree with R99's assessment that Flight 305 was actually six or more miles WEST of the official flight path. Even the location of the placard supports this view to an extent. That would be an easy way to explain the Tina Bar money, of course. But the answer to that money is most likely a bit more complicated than just moving the airliner a few miles. I have pointed out that if ATC, or even SAGE radar was SO inaccurate...airliners would be crashing into each other all the time. We won't even count the two military jets shadowing the flight. They knew where it was at all times, but had to keep doing big 'S' turns because 305 is so slow. Anyone can use a flight simulator program to magically change the facts, but that doesn't mean those efforts result in actual facts. 

The comment about airliners crashing into each other all the time is also a false equivalency.

The issue is not whether SAGE or any other radar can plot an aircraft in relation to other aircraft in real time. Rather, the issue is reconstructing the plot points and radar data days later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to understand why people are questioning some of your assumptions. A lot of people say there was a 'big storm' with heavy winds on the evening of Cooper's jump. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Ground level wind at 8PM according to PDX were actually no greater than 8MPH, according to the historical weather record. Besides, I was living in WA on the day of the hijacking, and 17 years old. I can assure you there was no storm. It was misty rain off and on all day, with light winds. Nothing more. We kept close track of the weather at my place, since my family were farmers at that time. It was easy to remember that, because we sat around the TV for the next few hours watching everything play out on the local news.

Have you ever asked any skydivers whether they drifted almost five miles from their jump point from 10,000 feet? That's 25,000 feet of drift on a 10K foot jump. Seems a bit excessive to me, especially jumping a round. Nearly twice the height of Mt. Rainier. Skydivers feel free to speak up here. My math is correct. I gave Cooper the first 1.000 feet to pull and deploy fully. And some reports say the airliner was at around 7,600 feet, not 10K. 

 

 

Weather1.jpg

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, those are surface winds. Winds aloft are usually higher, sometimes a lot higher.

While modern 'square' canopies have a fair amount of forward 'drive', it's not uncommon to get pushed backwards by a strong wind. For example, my Sabre2 170 (which is considered 'pretty big and slow') has a 'full flight' forward speed somewhere around 20 mph. I've been in lots of situations where I have little or no forward ground speed when pointed into the wind. We intentionally get out of the plane upwind so that we get 'blown back' to the landing area. Or we 'land out' and hitch a ride back to the DZ. 


There's also a jump called a 'cross country'. The jumper goes well upwind, gets out and pulls immediately. You then 'ride the wind' all the way back. Ten miles is a long one, but not unknown for the right wind conditions. Again, that's with a square that has decent forward speed, but for Cooper to drift 4 or 5 miles (presuming he pulled right away) isn't unrealistic.

Here is the current winds aloft forecast for Green Bay. There isn't much wind up on top today, but some days, you can se 30 or 40 mph at 6k or 9k. 

http://www.usairnet.com/cgi-bin/Winds/Aloft.cgi?location=GRB&Submit=Get+Forecast&hour=06&course=azimuth

Share this post


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

First off, those are surface winds. Winds aloft are usually higher, sometimes a lot higher.

While modern 'square' canopies have a fair amount of forward 'drive', it's not uncommon to get pushed backwards by a strong wind. For example, my Sabre2 170 (which is considered 'pretty big and slow') has a 'full flight' forward speed somewhere around 20 mph. I've been in lots of situations where I have little or no forward ground speed when pointed into the wind. We intentionally get out of the plane upwind so that we get 'blown back' to the landing area. Or we 'land out' and hitch a ride back to the DZ. 


There's also a jump called a 'cross country'. The jumper goes well upwind, gets out and pulls immediately. You then 'ride the wind' all the way back. Ten miles is a long one, but not unknown for the right wind conditions. Again, that's with a square that has decent forward speed, but for Cooper to drift 4 or 5 miles (presuming he pulled right away) isn't unrealistic.

Here is the current winds aloft forecast for Green Bay. There isn't much wind up on top today, but some days, you can se 30 or 40 mph at 6k or 9k. 

http://www.usairnet.com/cgi-bin/Winds/Aloft.cgi?location=GRB&Submit=Get+Forecast&hour=06&course=azimuth

True, the data for the winds aloft increased speed at elevation. However, the wind data from the FBI was consistent in direction. So, wind same direction but increasing at elevation.

But, the wind direction they used was an average of Salem and Portland between 8-9PM. The Placard left the plane around 8:05 and Cooper assumed around 8:09/11..

The winds near 8 PM were actually from the ESE and shifted to S and then SSW. 

The FBI ASSUMED SSW winds for the area Cooper jumped. The placard found right under the flightpath doesn't indicate a radically different flightpath, it indicates that the FBI wind estimate of SSW was wrong for that location.

I would be quite amazing for the Placard found years later to fly through the wind 5+ miles and land exactly under the wrong flightpath.. not to mention all the evidence from the FBI, ATC, Boeing, NorthWest, Air Force, chase plane pilots would have to be wrong.

IMO, the alternate Western flightpath argument is based on 1 false assumption, THE WIND direction at that location and time.

 

Winds were an estimate.. based on both Salem and Portland AND averaged over an hour timespan.

The winds weren't known, they were a guess. They assumed SSW but near 8 PM they were ESE..

 

WINDESTIMATE.jpeg

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

Do you see 'Campsite 2' area? That is maybe sixty feet in diameter. You can walk back up the road and over to Campsite 1 in just a few minutes. This is not a picture of an area encompassing square miles, but a pretty close blowup. And we will refine the search areas after we get onsite. It will be discussed Friday afternoon and into the evening among everybody after we set up camp. Search doesn't begin until Saturday morning. 

It will be easier to do all this after we take a look at the area in person. I know what I'm doing to a certain extent, but input will come from other participants when we get there, no doubt. But first we have to get there and check out the terrain. None of us have actually been there before. 

Nothing has been 100% established on the search areas, because my suggestions are based on pictures from space satellites. We will probably go out a quarter mile in all directions, maybe a bit more, from the central point starting from the placard location. That's known within fifty feet. To save time, we may concentrate on areas not recently logged. 

You take what you have, you do the best you can. I doubt we will find anything, but everyone will have fun trying, that is pretty much guaranteed. B|

EDIT: Yes, it's true I don't agree with R99's assessment that Flight 305 was actually six or more miles WEST of the official flight path. Even the location of the placard supports this view to an extent. That would be an easy way to explain the Tina Bar money, of course. But the answer to that money is most likely a bit more complicated than just moving the airliner a few miles. I have pointed out that if ATC, or even SAGE radar was SO inaccurate...airliners would be crashing into each other all the time. We won't even count the two military jets shadowing the flight. They knew where it was at all times, but had to keep doing big 'S' turns because 305 is so slow. Anyone can use a flight simulator program to magically change the facts, but that doesn't mean those efforts result in actual facts. 

Robert,

Do you have access to a drone?

It would be amazing if you could get elevated drone shots of the Placard area...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Flyjack found a newspaper showing the area was searched twice...

 

Ray Mathis, FBI spokesman in Seattle said, agents in the past have twice searched the area in which the placard was found. both he and Nelson said there were no further plans to conduct any additional searches. 

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/20784821/man_finds_boeing_airplane_placard_that/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2019 at 10:17 AM, FLYJACK said:

 

Found something interesting.. 

 

Finally,,  After carefully analyzing the Cooper money in a video in slow motion, I am convinced that the stack has a piece of rubber band attached to the top bill. My theory is that the 3 packets arrived as one bundle, the rubber bands holding the packets together in a bundle deteriorated and the 3 packets slightly separated. The sides of the money packets was completely gone so there is no way the rubber bands were “intact” or “around the packets”, they “crumbled to the touch”..

Downloading and running the video in slow motion it is clear that the object which appears to be a rubber band fragment is under the plastic covering the money attached to the money and not a reflection. 

The takeaway, 

The rubber band was one third from the end, that suggests two were used.

It appears to be a medium wide rubber band. Some are thinner some thicker.

 

Tom Kaye tested a single narrow band for one packet.

 

Two medium thick rubber bands suggests they were holding a bundle of packets and not individual packets of 100 bills.

This is very important as the dominant narrative has been that the packets arrived on TBAR independently and that restricts the means by which they could have arrived.

The 3 packets arriving on TBAR as one bundle is a game changer. FBI agent Pringle also claimed the money was from one bundle.

 

 

rubberbandcoopermoney.jpeg.49095b0c1b22064f1efb142524662ad5.jpeg

 

 

 

 

 

 

After doing more work on the bills,, I have concluded that there is definitely NO rubber band in the image.. it is definitely under the plastic but it is part of the design on the bill.

I still believe the 3 packets arrived in a single rubber banded bundle.

 

 

 

coopercashonebundle.jpeg

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the suggestions from both Shutter and Flyjack, especially from Flyjack concerning whether we have access to a drone. 

Answer: No, I do not have a drone but I will keep it in mind. 

I already knew the FBI had previously searched the area as well, without results, although they probably didn't use metal detectors. I have examined the Google 3D map numerous times over the last couple of months. 

I think some of you are missing the main point of the get-together. We don't expect to find anything, although there is always a chance. But to a degree, the search is secondary to why everyone is showing up. People aren't coming because I'm planning on asking them to tramp hill and dale in a search that has very little chance of results. 

They're coming for the other reasons as well. I can't really explain this to you. How can I explain if you haven't attended one of our campouts? We're hanging out. We're doing Cooper stuff. We're taking pictures and video. Someone is doing a podcast. It's a gathering of fans and some known folks in Cooperland. BBQ and movies on the big screen out in the middle of nowhere. Conversation and camaraderie, just like the other times.

Oh, yeah...and we're going to spend some time running around with metal detectors. That's all I can tell you. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, mrshutter45 said:

Basically, you are using metal detectors that you believe the FBI didn't use and searching outside the flight path. got it. 

We're still working on it, you know. It's still a bit over two months until the campout. Final decisions on search areas will be completed on site. It is a group effort. 

Truth is, we will check out the area after we set up camp, assess our maps, and make our choices based on the terrain, and the results of our discussions on Friday afternoon/evening. We search on Saturday and Sunday. I can tell you we will most likely work outward from the center of the location of the placard find, since that is a known starting point. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mrshutter45 said:

lol, okay.

If you are going to plan a search in the area where the placard was discovered, it takes more than Google Maps, although they help. Trust me on this. Everybody involved needs a look in person. 

We will meet, set camp, examine the area, look at the maps, make decisions onsite.

Here's the basic plan. It's no big deal. We look in the blue arrow areas. 

SimpleVersion4Shutter.jpg

This plan is subject to modification, once we look around the terrain first...B| I always said it was more a gathering of Cooper folk than anything else. That's the truth. I like to call it a Vacation With Options. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mrshutter45 said:

Correct. are you troubled with the tear? 

The placard looks precisely the same. With the person holding the placard it enables the right side to sag down which more fully displays the tear. With the placard affixed to the backing it cannot sag and the full length of the tear is not completely visible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mrshutter45 said:

Correct. are you troubled with the tear? 

 

the edges, the lettering positions, top right corner shape.. 

Lower left edge and lettering doesn't match.

The "N" and "A" in "HANDLE" look different.

The "I" edge for the "IT" is different

The words "AFT AIRSTAIR" is different, it is condensed/shifted and doesn't line up the same with words above.

On the "In Search Of Placard" The "A" starts in line with the right edge of the "H" above, the ending "R" ends in line with right edge of the "D" above.

In the known "real" one they are all shifted right 

 

you can see how far the word "AIRSTAIR" encroaches well under the "D" above..

Also, see the "AFT" under the T is shifted slighlty.

 

The alignment of "EMERGENCY" and "HANDLE" look off slightly as well.

 

 

 

image018.jpg

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The I is hidden in the background. I thought that as well. I don't think the fonts are different either. it would be silly to have everything correct down to the cuts and tears and use a different font. the picture is from an old show with horrible resolution when it was posted on You Tube. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mrshutter45 said:

Perhaps this will help you. I marked the map showing basically where things are. the wind and path, along with your location...2121365873_locationcamp.png.35a448cb538678c9e1836f5187a03ce2.png

Your map is actually done very well. I have printed this up and included it in a folder of map images that I will be taking along to Castle Rock. 

Took me a while to get the point of the map, I guess. Thanks. 

This whole search idea is new to everybody. I'm going to consult with Weyerhauser beforehand and see if they can give me a history of logging in the area. Anything in the immediate area that has remained UN-logged since prior to 1978 might get a bit more attention. 

NOTE: Three people have been dropped from the group. They voiced protests they couldn't do target shooting and wanted to bring weapons anyway. Weyerhauser would not like that at ALL. I promised them no guns and no campfires. (By late June, fire restrictions would probably be in place anyway.) However, we are allowed to bring an 'artificial' campfire as long as its propane-powered. I have two five gallon tanks and some folks are bringing more. These propane-powered fire pits are like gas fireplaces. They use that stone you see in gas fireplaces, except the stone is contained within a big bowl. This will have to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's exactly the same.

The picture with the placard being held shows the placard slightly curved which causes a little shadowing. Plus the picture is shot more from an angle. In addition, the close-up of the placard affixed to the background is also slightly warped given the closeness of the placard to the camera. All of that said, it is precisely the same. Unreal.

Share this post


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

It's exactly the same.

The picture with the placard being held shows the placard slightly curved which causes a little shadowing. Plus the picture is shot more from an angle. In addition, the close-up of the placard affixed to the background is also slightly warped given the closeness of the placard to the camera. All of that said, it is precisely the same. Unreal.

No it isn't look at word AIRSTAIR it doesn't match the position.. it ends under the "D" on the real one. 

 

go back and look at the full vid in slo mo, they don't match. They aren't the same.

placardalign.jpeg.5d23d63be1996a4aadb89c8629fd8883.jpeg

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

It's exactly the same.

The picture with the placard being held shows the placard slightly curved which causes a little shadowing. Plus the picture is shot more from an angle. In addition, the close-up of the placard affixed to the background is also slightly warped given the closeness of the placard to the camera. All of that said, it is precisely the same. Unreal.

Are you guys trying to say the placard discovered by Hicks is a fake or something? The storage location of this evidence today is moot (I'm assuming its somewhere in the files of the Cowlitz County Sheriffs Office)...yes, moot...UNLESS the placard was a total hoax. If it WASN'T a hoax, then its only two purposes today would be:

A) Help establish the general validity of the flight path north of Lake Merwin. 

B) Create a starting point for (most likely useless :)) searches of the immediate area of the find for possible other evidence. 

Ordered a big pack of 9V Duracells from Amazon. I just KNOW some people will forget to bring enough batteries. 

EDIT: I'm just trying to understand the purpose of this discussion on the two different photos of the placard, and whether you believe something isn't quite right, or that the whole thing may have been a hoax. Let's face it...if it WERE a hoax, I would drop the Castle Rock search idea in a heartbeat and go somewhere else in June. Sponsoring this search idea won't break our bank, but it's not cheap either. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
4 4