10 10
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

(edited)

Now at YouTube:  Second in a series of three videos shot in the Olympic Mountains this month about certain issues in the Cooper case. This one is a six-minute informational video on the latest updates to 'Into The Blast,' the first-ever dramatic feature film on the hijacking. Movie is scheduled for release in 2021. The final in this series tells the story of how Eric Ulis managed to trash the biggest Cooper event ever planned for the Northwest...simply by agreeing to host it. (The final video will be released in a few weeks.) Ulis, the host of 'Cooper Con 2019,' agreed to host a combination event and then decided it was better for him if it never happened. He then rented a theater in Vancouver, WA and invited people to come there instead. In the opinion of AB of Seattle staff, it was a dirty trick indeed...and without any real headliners to attract the public, will probably only garner a few attendees. Ulis would have been smarter to follow through with the original plan, the one he agreed to in group emails seen by quite a number of people. After learning the TRUE story about all this, at least one of Eric's scheduled speakers is having a crisis of conscience. I also discovered recently that an email campaign from a few people in Cooperland contributed to the whole thing, and that Eric supported this effort. This resulted in a rather lame 'Cooper Con' alone, which will probably be attended by fewer people than he thinks. I don't have a problem with Cooper Con itself, but deliberately trashing another event by agreeing to host it and then doing nothing is probably the biggest disservice ever done to Cooper fans. Here at Adventure Books, the staff sees Ulis as little more than a DB Cooper huckster. 

 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 6:39 PM, FLYJACK said:

Wind in Seattle, SSE at 8PM...

Averaged winds at Salem and Portland were used as a proxy for wind direction

Data on upper level winds at Seattle, Gray AAF, Portland and Salem are available from NOAA.

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)

In 1971, ASR2 radar would show two aircraft as separate entities at a range of ten miles if the aircraft were at least 600 feet apart. At max range, or about 150 miles, accuracy is less, but nowhere NEAR what EU claims. If radar was as inaccurate as he says, passenger jets would crash into each other on a regular basis. During this same year, the slightly improved ASR7 was coming into existence and it was even a bit MORE accurate. If a different system was being used by PDX, then ground clutter would be eliminated, but it is still the same concept. I will assume that 305 also had its transponder turned on. This enables the aircraft to be tracked by both primary and secondary radar systems. 

Here is an article about radar from the Feb 1971 issue of Flying magazine that explains it well enough for even a novice like me to understand (most of it anyway). I would also remind EU that 305 was being tracked by more than one radar source, and that everyone involved in tracking the flight had ample time to prepare to do so. And once they got the military to turn on the SAGE system for them, it was party over. Jet was pinpointed within meters in any direction. 

You can find the article in Flying magazine (describes the basics) HERE. 

The term 'SAGE' (semi-automatic ground environment) radar gets tossed around a lot in the Cooper case. But people don't appreciate how accurate (and deadly to an enemy) it really WAS. It cost more than the Manhattan Project to do, it WORKED beyond its inventors wildest dreams, and on Cooper Night there were TWO of them in the Northwest, one in Portland, one in the Seattle area. It's a complicated story, and very underappreciated. When they brought in SAGE to track Cooper, you can forget any idea that they didn't know exactly where 305 was the entire time. 

Quora question on 'How accurate is ATC radar?'  Response: 

Quote

 

"In general, the further the range that a radar needs to look, the slower it rotates. An airport surface radar may rotate as fast as twice per second, long range en-route radars can go as slow as once per 12 seconds. For typical TMA / TRACON use, 5 seconds would be in the right ballpark, for en-route 8 seconds will be about right.

The accuracy depends on the type of antenna, whether it is primary or secondary radar, and the distance of the aircraft from the radar head. The accuracy of the distance measurement are not so much affected by the range, and varies from about 5 meters to 300 meters..."

Radar, when a good system is working properly and free from most interference and ground clutter, is pretty accurate even at 100 NM. In the measurements given below, the single 'M' refers to METERS, not miles. (I don't claim expertise on radar, but after some simple research, even I was able to figure out that under normal conditions, ATC radar is fairly accurate. I believe the units shown below are the ones installed on aircraft, not used by ATC. The ATC stuff is better, I would assume. 

In any event, a claim that a passenger jet being tracked by radar sources within a reasonable range could be 'off' by miles in either direction is patently ridiculous. This is DOUBLY true when that aircraft is put under the watchful eye of SAGE, as well as ATC and a couple of military aircraft. Forgettaboutit. 

Some results of radar units are indicated in the following table as example:

radar unit accuracy in bearing accuracy in range accuracy in height
BOR–A 550 < ±0.3° < 20 m  
LANZA < ±0.14° < 50 m 340 m ≈ 1150 feet (at 100 NM)
GM 400 < ±0,3° < 50 m 600 m ≈ 2000 feet (at 100 NM)
RRP–117 < ±0,18° < 463 m 1000 m ≈ 3000 feet (at 100 NM)
MSSR-2000 < ±0.049° < 44.4 m  
STAR-2000 < ±0.16° < 60 m  
Variant < ±0.25° < 25 m  
Edited by RobertMBlevins

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
(edited)

Frankly, I get a kick out of Eric over at the Cooper Forum trying to explain how SAGE radar and multiple other radar sources could be off by miles on Flight 305's position. He does ignore the facts on basic radar and SAGE quite a bit. 

Also, his website on the boat tours now claims he ran several tours on the last weekend of June and that all of them were sold out. Frankly, I doubt this was the case. Maybe the first tour of the day. Maybe. 

Frankly, I'm surprised Shutter and the Gang at Cooper Forum put up with him. 

As far as the convention he forced into reality at the Kiggins Theater by trashing the BETTER event...well...now he wants to charge money to attend. Just like he wanted to charge money to search the area north of Tina Bar at Ridgefield refuge and Bachelor Island. I can tell him from experience after running four straight years of 'Cooper stuff' at the Auburn Ave Theater each August...it ain't easy to get bodies in the doors willing to pay an entrance fee when you don't have some headlners to attract the public. Especially on the biggest shopping weekend of the year. 

At the Auburn Ave Theater, Gayla Prociv would stand there in the lobby offering free food and soft drinks, bottled water, etc to anyone who walked in the door. There was no entrance fee. Still...most people just looked at the Cooper displays in the lobby and then left. Without a hook, it's hard to get peoples' interest in staying for the whole event. Eric's version of a convention is more like a small gathering of the same people who spend most of their time preaching the same old stuff to the same old people they've interacted with on the internet for years. It's a mutual back-slapping society and little else. Frankly, it sounds boring. If Eric is satisfied with that, and wants to call it a public event, well...okay. But actually having the public attend in numbers is what a real public event is all about. He had his chance for that this year and blew it...IMHO. I also heard later that several of the same people who support his upcoming (yawn) event at the Kiggins Theater went on an email campaign to the organizers of the Portland event...mostly saying bad things about yours truly. Whaddya want? It's Cooperland. I wasn't surprised. I went along along with Jim Brunberg's idea to ask Eric to host, and to help schedule the programs and speakers, but I also told him it was a risk. Guess I was right on that. 

But like I have said previously...people sometimes get the events they deserve. Now you are stuck with Eric's version, which means you pay, and no headlners to boot. Not me. I'm headed to San Diego this year to visit my mother in law and to do the zoo and the museum again. :) 

 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Raise your hand if you still believe the FBI's 'by a preponderance of the evidence' explanation on the Amboy chute discovered in 2008. I actually spoke to an official FBI spokesperson about this issue on the phone, as well as receiving a couple of emails from the same source. (I don't see any hands going up, which is understandable.)

This person admitted to me (both phone and by email) that the ONLY person OUTSIDE of the FBI who was actually allowed to examine the chute in person was Earl Cossey. All other opinions the FBI got regarding that chute were done strictly by telephone. TELEPHONE. 

In addition, you can find in news articles that the Seattle FBI said they were sending that chute up to their own lab on a Wednesday for analysis. But it was the very next day when they piled it into a government car and dumped it in Cossey's driveway for a look. He is quoted via several sources as saying he 'wrote it off in less than ten seconds,' and his main claim was that he could see it was made of SILK, and not nylon...and that's how he knew it wasn't Cooper's. That silk claim has been roundly discounted by almost every chute expert who saw the public pictures. In addition, Cossey thought it was funny to play a joke on reporters and told one of them it WAS Cooper's. That reporter was nearly fired from his job. 

So where does that leave Cossey's claim? Nowhere. Did the FBI's lab in Seattle actually put the Amboy chute under a microscope? No. They dismissed via Cossey's ten-second analysis by the following Tuesday morning. What does the Seattle FBI tell you today when you inquire on the disposition of the same chute they dismissed more than ten years ago?

"We can't discuss it. It's evidence in an ongoing case..."

Go figure. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins
Dates corrected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

(You will have to approach someone like Bruce Smith or one of the other people at the Cooper Forum for this information. Come on, be realistic. After some of the things you have posted, you can't really expect me to work with you or provide you with information. You might do the same thing to Mitchell. I can't be responsible for that.)

Update For Everyone Else:  I am still under *some* pressure to nominate someone from the general DB Cooper community to take the job that Bruce Smith refused. This means being added to the production team for the upcoming Cooper film, someone who will be named as a consultant on certain details regarding the shooting script. (mainly to ensure accuracy on a few parts between the time Cooper boards until he jumps, because much of this is historical record and not guesswork)

I have one person in mind already (he has expressed interest and I believe he can be trusted), but I am allowed to nominate TWO people in total. $30,000 from the film budget has been allotted for this. The job pays $15,000 on contract, but it does not increase to 30K if it ends up only one person signs for this opportunity. The other 15K would go back into the general film budget. It does NOT go to me. 

Let's be realistic here. This isn't really a tough job. What the producers are really looking for is to add one or two people to the film credits, listing them as 'associate producers' and with their name and credentials in Cooperland in the credits. Their main job would simply be to review about 20-30 pages of the shooting script for historical accuracy, and you would get some help on this from me personally anyway. The bottom line is that you would examine that portion of the script and look for obvious historical errors by the main screenwriter. For example, if you saw the script had Captain Scott walking back to talk to Cooper, you would point out that this did not happen, or if the script says it was Flo Schaffner who went outside to pick up the Cooper chutes. Frankly, it ain't that tough a job. 

This job also requires you to sign a confidentiality agreement (as I did) saying you will NOT reveal any portion of the script, who or what companies are making the film, (unless they do it themselves FIRST with a public announcement) or name names of any production staff. Violation of this agreement would void your contract with the film companies and you will NOT be paid. 

Payment is made on what's called 'First Day of Production Shooting,' and is done by a third-party company who pays all the bills for the movie. This is common practice in Hollywood, and was established long ago to prevent producers from raising money for a movie...and then bailing off to Mexico with the funds, for example. 

Bruce Smith refused the job, saying he would only deal with the producers directly and not speak to me about anything. The producers were made aware of this situation and removed his name from consideration. This assignment, this particular job on the film is not up to THEM...nor do they make the decisions about it. It is part of MY contract with the film companies. Besides....I have partial control over the script and anyone assigned to the consulting jobs on it would HAVE to work with me anyway. Why? Because the movie is based not only on the Blast book, but our extensive files on Kenny, some of which have not been made public. 

I tried to explain this to Smith, but got nowhere. So the job is still open. 

Anyone interested should contact me either by PM or directly at adventurebooksofseattle AT Gmail. But don't bother unless you are serious and can keep your mouth shut per the confidentiality agreement you will be required to sign. 

WARNING:  If you come on board the production staff...you will be hated by certain members of Cooperland. That goes with the job. So consider these things very carefully before you even THINK about doing this. I will tell you this much:  Movie is coming, whether some people hate it or not, like it or not...whatever. Trust me. It is coming. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Look...you are going about this the wrong way. This is 2019 and people CAN be found. You just have to know who you are looking for, and be willing to blow a few bucks to find out. There are search and identify sites galore, but the one that REALLY works...since I have used it several times and is not baloney...is US Search. Not USA Search, but US Search. They will tell you everything. 

To get good results, you need two things. First, the approximate age of the person you are seeking information on. Second, at least the state where they live. City is better, but if you have their approximate age, state will work. 

Here is the link to the site that actually WORKS for these things. Don't waste your money on Intelius or any of those outfits. If you are going to drop money on this stuff, at least go to the one that has the least baloney behind it. Tina probably won't even open your mail, if you go that route. Mitchell...he might. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I will assume your post is a joke. In my humble opinion, Ulis is a hustler in the Cooper case. He seeks glory and The Big Payoff, but he aligned himself with the wrong people and was a day late and a dollar short. I have said that publicly in a couple of videos. But I don't think he had anything to do with Cossey...and Meyer Louie (because of his new job) will have no more to do with Cooperland. Meyer isn't a bad guy. He just has a short fuse for baloney. The last time I saw him was when he talked me into doing that welfare check on Bruce Smith. We had coffee afterwards and he said he was getting out of the Cooper Thing permanently. 

Truth be told, so am I the very minute they make an announcement on the upcoming film. Of course, I'm sure I will have SOME duties related to that until it is released, but then I am bailing the Great NW for southern California. To retire from everything...and go back to what I WAS doing prior to October 2009....the moment I decided to contact Skipp Porteous about the Geoff Gray article on Christiansen. Frankly, I would like that life back. Turns out I don't need the money from the movie anyway, although it is nice. (My folks are rich and my sister and I are their only living relatives) So sooner or later, (hopefully later) I will have to deal with all that. 

There IS such a thing as the Cooper Curse. It can take your life in a direction you never expected. I can't decide if it would have been better had I NOT contacted Skipp. But I suspect it would have been more fun had I NOT contacted him. It's complicated. For one thing, except for the Escape Velocity anthology, I haven't written another sci-fi book since I contacted Skipp and sometimes I wonder about that, whether it was worth it. I have edited a ton of other writers' books, but somehow found I no longer had the time to do my own. It is regrettable. My last one is shown below, and the one I did just prior to it. Seems like another life, another century.  
 

13backlargewebfinal.jpg

13frontlargewebfinal.jpg

coronasoftcover2.jpg

FinalpreviewEVcover.jpg

Before Cooper came along...I was doing just fine. B|

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Cooper Vortex said:

New episode of The Cooper Vortex out today. DB Cooper was a Frogman with Matt L'Hommedieu. Matt is a former US Navy Seal, Air Force PJ, and smokejumper.

 

Enjoy!

 

https://thecoopervortex.podbean.com/e/db-cooper-was-a-frogman-matt-lhommedieu/

Thanks for the first good post of the day. I'll check it out on my way to Virginia on Wednesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 5/5/2019 at 6:46 AM, FLYJACK said:

All the wind data shows the winds from the ESE/SSE to S around 8 PM. In line with the flightpath.. the data also suggests it was the virtually the same same direction at all alt levels but increased at elevation.

The fact that the FBI used wind data from Portland is puzzling because NOAA archives show no radiosonde (IGRA) data from Portland between June 1956 and October 1972. I contacted NOAA and they said that if data for Portland were missing, Salem was the replacement site. Data for Salem station are available for 11.24.1971 at 1600 PST and show winds at 10,492 feet AMSL from 200 degrees at 38.9 knots. Data for SEATAC station are available for 11.24.1971 at 0700 PST but show winds only up to 4000 feet AMSL, at which level the wind was from 210 degrees at 34.0 knots. 

711124-25 72694 Salem weather.xlsx

71124 72793 SEATAC weather.xlsx

Edited by DFS346
correcting time reference of NOAA data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing much to report today. I got one official application for the consulting job on the movie from someone I don't know. He sent me some nice weather balloon data, none of which I have any idea on how to read. Seems like a nice person though. 

What the movie producers are really looking for is someone who knows the ins and outs of the historical record between the time Cooper boards until he was last seen by a member of the flight crew. Bruce Smith was probably the best for this job, which is why I nominated him for it, and asked him to do it. He refused the job, which is his perfect right, so I am still looking. There's plenty of time to recruit someone for the job, though. They probably won't begin production shooting for another 18 months or so, I heard. 

I do have another person in mind, but at present we have a difference of opinion regarding a certain issue that I can't discuss publicly. I am considering approaching Geoff Gray as well. He would be my second choice behind Smith. One of the BIG problems is the confidentiality agreement. Cooperland, as everyone knows, is occupied by well-meaning people...some of whom couldn't be trusted to dump water from their boots if the instructions were printed on the bottoms. B| 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Late Night News:  The consulting job on the Cooper picture has been FILLED. No other details will be made public, unless they are done by the production companies. Production staff have been made aware of my choice and they were happy with it.

(I'll bet they were. Even surprised ME this person agreed to do it.) 

Enough said. So don't ask. :) I won't be bringing this up again anyway. My sincere thanks to the few people who sent me emails with their interest, though. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harrison notes confirm transcript... Cooper's initial demand was airstairs lowered in flight.

Airstairs down on takeoff is a red herring, it came up during negotiations with the crew to get Tina off the plane.

 

aftstairlwrdinflight.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

RE: Chutes..

 

This document describes the observation of two "olive drab green" back chutes. No bleepers?

Then describes the two Hayden chutes with burp sacks.. #1 tan and #2 olive drab green. With burp sacks.

That indicates four back chutes involved (before the two back chutes were sent to the plane)

 

 

4backchutes.jpeg

Edited by FLYJACK

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
10 10