smokin99 0 #28101 December 4, 2011 I'm open-minded but skeptical regarding Marla's story. First, I'll have to admit that the picture of him was intriguing, but I quit paying close attention to Marla with her account of him having a Dan Cooper comic pinned to his wall. Where's evidence that he was able to read a comic book in French? OK - maybe he just liked the title, but then there's that idea that an 8 yr old would remember that when all that blood and hijacking talk was going on - I just don't see it. The comic book memory just seems to be too conveniently aligned to recent "finds". Got that hinky meter dial about to explode. So that said.....I would have to do some additional reading and construct a timeline to be sure ....but another one of my problems is that her statements (as reported by various news accounts) seem to fine-tune as she goes along. LD and Dewey left to go turkey hunting, yet she overheard them planning a hijacking and doing something with "expensive" walkie-talkies. I might be wrong (see disclaimer above) but seems I remember the walkie-talkie bit was added after the initial reports. Regardless, when they returned with LD all bloody and stuff she overheard them say that all their money troubles were over since they hijacked this plane - whoopeee - yet she also says that she finds out later thay they lost the money. Optimistic crooks - I'll give em that. Her accounts about her conversations with her dad shortly after the hijacking and then before he died seemed to get more detailed as she went along. Also, before her father dies, she has him telling her about how LD lost the money, how he was injured. So why not bring all this up before now? Again - just seems that all of this is coming out conveniently aligned to a time when DB would be garnering some extra publicity - what with that anniversary thing and all. Her accounts of what happened to LD changed. One account says they never saw him again, another says they did. He supposedly stayed in the same general area, I think - Did no one in the family ever see him again or just Marla's family? Any evidence that he has any history of being in a parachute? A biggie - that is one of that factors that comes up in relation to other contenders like Duane, Mel, and Jaime's dad. Maybe it doesn't let anyone off the hook for being DB, but, imho, it's significant. In the picture of him he looks kind of short (I know he's sitting down but I'm talking about foot to knee, length of thigh and trunk). No, I didn't measure and I know that pictures can be deceiving. Are there NO other pictures of him in existence? So how tall was he? What kind of car were they driving? Were they wearing their hunting clothes when they left? Who else was at the house for Thanksgiving? Were LD and Dewey and dad the only siblings alive? Any other wives there? Any other kids there? Anyone else remember the bloody shirt, walkie-talkies, and talks of hi-jacking? Seems like if someone showed up on Thanksgiving day all bloody after a hunting trip everyone would know about it. And it would probably be talked about from then on - "Remember the Thanksgiving ol Dewie and LD got into that fight with the turkey?" Wonder why we haven't heard from LD's immediate family? News reports say they are out there. Any record of that VA hospital visit shortly after the hijacking? What was it for? Is the FBI still using Windows Vista? Why would the fingerprint thing take so long? What we have been led to believe about military fingerprints? Is it true or not that they would be on file somewhere? Do they purge those military files if they are taken? If we are to believe Marla, why is the FBI changing stance - now willing to rely only on a picture - when the witnesses reportedly have given a hesitant nod to other people as well? Why is he no longer believed to have died in the jump? Why has their psychological profile changed? Is all of this based on a picture and an 8 year old's stated memories? Just naggin questions. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #28102 December 4, 2011 Is the FBI still using Windows Vista? Quote ...Ouch! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
377 21 #28103 December 4, 2011 Smokin99 wroteQuoteIs all of this based on a picture and an 8 year old's stated memories? Yep. Sheridan Peterson, who has a lot more provable Cooper skills than LD was only ruled out by a DNA test. LD has been ruled out on DNA, has no provable Cooper skills (unless surveying is one) yet the FBI allegedly is still pursuing him as a suspect. What's the reason for the difference in evidentiary criteria? Hot blonde. Can that explain it? 3772018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjack71 0 #28104 December 4, 2011 Deathray is NOT Knoss. Knoss is a bad boy, but he is NOT Deathray.Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smokin99 0 #28105 December 4, 2011 Quote Quote Quote With all the recent interest in the Cooper case and this thread, I felt it was time to make an introductory video. You’re welcome. http://youtu.be/UBCa-N7z_uM I will also "pat myself on the back" as I have found the following facts. Does anyone else see the hidden message aimed toward smokin99 in Farflungs latest video homage. It is all so obvious, I can not believe I did not see it sooner. In the Gilligan's Island theme song, Smokin99's DZ Avatar is displayed for all to see while coincidentally (or is it?) the song croons out "Mary Ann". Does anyone see where this is going? Well....of course not...you need to see this old post (Sep 24, 2009, 11:25 AM Post #13117 of 29336) first to tie it all together. However looking back may be a waste of time (personal observation) so I condensed the source here: Snowmman asks the age old question - Ginger or Mary Ann. Farflung responds; ***....... PS- Mary Ann!! And he's so hunk(y). I'm swooning here. I'm just glad he didn't use the Brady Bunch theme song. He might have made me Jan.....that would've sucked... Marla Marla Marla..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yZHveWFvqMbut....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arfuller 0 #28106 December 4, 2011 Quote "...camping under the flight vector." Did Deathray tell you how to do this? Please illuminate the rest of us as to how this can be done. Would the flight path to Reno be drastically different than one to Mexico? When DB said Reno was good, did he have reason to believe it would be very different? Don't forget that he identified landmarks to the stewardess. If he didn't feel they were headed in the right direction he could have changed his demands. He may well have recognized landmarks that he didn't point out. The point is he wanted to go over a specific area, or Canada, Japan, New York or somewhere else would have been just as good. Another thought. He was requiring them to fly at 10,000 ft. There are some high mountains to the east and may have limited the choice of flight paths.The Money Connection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert99 37 #28107 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuote "...camping under the flight vector." Did Deathray tell you how to do this? Please illuminate the rest of us as to how this can be done. Would the flight path to Reno be drastically different than one to Mexico? When DB said Reno was good, did he have reason to believe it would be very different? Don't forget that he identified landmarks to the stewardess. If he didn't feel they were headed in the right direction he could have changed his demands. He may well have recognized landmarks that he didn't point out. The point is he wanted to go over a specific area, or Canada, Japan, New York or somewhere else would have been just as good. Another thought. He was requiring them to fly at 10,000 ft. There are some high mountains to the east and may have limited the choice of flight paths. Keep in mind that Cooper did NOT specify a flight path. However, the flight path to Reno was basically the same as the flight path to Mexico until the airliner turned toward Reno in northern California (after getting south of a mountain range that presented problems to it at that altitude). But based on other considerations, it appears that Cooper intended to jump just south of Seattle. He wanted to take off with the rear stairs unlocked, which means that he would not have had those problems lowering the stairs. And there is no reason to believe that he wanted to be at 10,000 feet when he jumped. So if Cooper had a choice, he would probably have jumped within a few minutes of leaving Seattle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arfuller 0 #28108 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote "...camping under the flight vector." Did Deathray tell you how to do this? Please illuminate the rest of us as to how this can be done. Would the flight path to Reno be drastically different than one to Mexico? When DB said Reno was good, did he have reason to believe it would be very different? Don't forget that he identified landmarks to the stewardess. If he didn't feel they were headed in the right direction he could have changed his demands. He may well have recognized landmarks that he didn't point out. The point is he wanted to go over a specific area, or Canada, Japan, New York or somewhere else would have been just as good. Another thought. He was requiring them to fly at 10,000 ft. There are some high mountains to the east and may have limited the choice of flight paths. Keep in mind that Cooper did NOT specify a flight path. However, the flight path to Reno was basically the same as the flight path to Mexico until the airliner turned toward Reno in northern California (after getting south of a mountain range that presented problems to it at that altitude). But based on other considerations, it appears that Cooper intended to jump just south of Seattle. He wanted to take off with the rear stairs unlocked, which means that he would not have had those problems lowering the stairs. And there is no reason to believe that he wanted to be at 10,000 feet when he jumped. So if Cooper had a choice, he would probably have jumped within a few minutes of leaving Seattle. How do you know that would have put him in the area he wanted? If he wanted to jump really early after taking off would he have waited to send the stewardess forward?The Money Connection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert99 37 #28109 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote "...camping under the flight vector." Did Deathray tell you how to do this? Please illuminate the rest of us as to how this can be done. Would the flight path to Reno be drastically different than one to Mexico? When DB said Reno was good, did he have reason to believe it would be very different? Don't forget that he identified landmarks to the stewardess. If he didn't feel they were headed in the right direction he could have changed his demands. He may well have recognized landmarks that he didn't point out. The point is he wanted to go over a specific area, or Canada, Japan, New York or somewhere else would have been just as good. Another thought. He was requiring them to fly at 10,000 ft. There are some high mountains to the east and may have limited the choice of flight paths. Keep in mind that Cooper did NOT specify a flight path. However, the flight path to Reno was basically the same as the flight path to Mexico until the airliner turned toward Reno in northern California (after getting south of a mountain range that presented problems to it at that altitude). But based on other considerations, it appears that Cooper intended to jump just south of Seattle. He wanted to take off with the rear stairs unlocked, which means that he would not have had those problems lowering the stairs. And there is no reason to believe that he wanted to be at 10,000 feet when he jumped. So if Cooper had a choice, he would probably have jumped within a few minutes of leaving Seattle. How do you know that would have put him in the area he wanted? If he wanted to jump really early after taking off would he have waited to send the stewardess forward? After losing the argument with the co-pilot about taking off with the stairs unlocked, Cooper needed to keep the stewardess with him to help him lower the stairs. If the stairs had been unlocked at take off, the stewardess could have verbally instructed him on the rest of the lowering process and then gone forward sooner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arfuller 0 #28110 December 4, 2011 That may be, but the timeline I have shows a light going off in the cockpit indicating the stairwell unlocked at 8:02. Mucklow was sent up at 7:42. The crew was afraid that Cooper would jump and the bomb would go off afterwards.The Money Connection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #28111 December 4, 2011 After losing the argument with the co-pilot about taking off with the stairs unlocked, Cooper needed to keep the stewardess with him to help him lower the stairs. If the stairs had been unlocked at take off, the stewardess could have verbally instructed him on the rest of the lowering process and then gone forward sooner. Quote When did Cooper rig the money, prior to tale-off or after? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites arfuller 0 #28112 December 4, 2011 QuoteAfter losing the argument with the co-pilot about taking off with the stairs unlocked, Cooper needed to keep the stewardess with him to help him lower the stairs. If the stairs had been unlocked at take off, the stewardess could have verbally instructed him on the rest of the lowering process and then gone forward sooner. Quote When did Cooper rig the money, prior to tale-off or after? It was after. I think Mucklow might have caught a glimpse of that when she was entering the cockpit.The Money Connection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Robert99 37 #28113 December 4, 2011 QuoteThat may be, but the timeline I have shows a light going off in the cockpit indicating the stairwell unlocked at 8:02. Mucklow was sent up at 7:42. The crew was afraid that Cooper would jump and the bomb would go off afterwards. The same 7:42 message that says the stewardress in now in the cockpit also states that the aft stair light is on (presumably meaning on the flight engineer's panel). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Robert99 37 #28114 December 4, 2011 QuoteAfter losing the argument with the co-pilot about taking off with the stairs unlocked, Cooper needed to keep the stewardess with him to help him lower the stairs. If the stairs had been unlocked at take off, the stewardess could have verbally instructed him on the rest of the lowering process and then gone forward sooner. Quote As the stewardress was going to the cockpit, Cooper instructed her to draw the first class curtain across the aisle. As she did that she got her last glimpse of Cooper and said that he appeared to be tieing a tether from the money bag (which was apparently on the floor) to his waist. She was in the cockpit by 7:42 as noted in the TTY transcripts. So the last time she saw Cooper he had the parachute on and was in the process of rigging the money bag to his waist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28115 December 4, 2011 QuoteThat may be, but the timeline I have shows a light going off in the cockpit indicating the stairwell unlocked at 8:02. Mucklow was sent up at 7:42. If your "timeline" says that, you should consider all info in it to be SUSPECT. The message logged at 7:42 indicates the "stew" was already at the cockpit, then "he can't get the stairs down," then "we now have an aft stair lite on." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28116 December 4, 2011 Quote 7) Rataczak cited all these things in his interview with Porteous, saying the crew actually knew WHEN Cooper jumped, but not WHERE he would land, since there was no way for them to determine when he would pull the ripcord. Immediate pull, more drift. Freefall pull, less drift. So this is, what, second hand interpretation of someone about what they thought Rataczak said? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28117 December 4, 2011 And Hannah has some kind of tech background to enable her to understand what she's hearing? Was that transcription proofed by someone with such background? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites smokin99 0 #28118 December 4, 2011 Quote And Hannah has some kind of tech background to enable her to understand what she's hearing? Was that transcription proofed by someone with such background? ?? Why would Hannah need a tech background (in what?) to transcribe English words from a recorded conversation between the co-pilot and a private detective? How do we know that the person that transcribed the original logs had a technical background? I'm thinking now of medical transcribers and legal transcribers - Most now have a course in terminology - but knowing how to spell something and even its definition is still a long way from knowing what it means in context, but they transcribe all day long. ETA_ Okay - we must have cross - posted. I see what you were getting out now - but I'd still bet the conversation was pretty generic since it was between a pilot and lay person (for want of a better word)? Plus one might even assume that transcriptions are signed off on after review (yeah, right) Besides - I'm sure someone on here would be more than happy to ask the guy if he said what she said he said. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28119 December 4, 2011 Quote You really have to have things spelled out for you. The interview was recorded. The results were transcribed by Hannah Kanew. She has been with Sherlock since 1995, I believe. If you are asking if this was the first time Hannah had put a recorded interview to paper...no. She's done this many times before for Sherlock. She's a pro at it, and it's part of their business. She's second-in-command at Sherlock. A transcriber can be an expert at transcribing but be useless at transcribing technical things. People, even transcribers, hear what they think they hear. If a transcriber was presented a recording in an unfamilar language, the transcriber would type all kinds of things that weren't in the actual speech. Same with things regarding any kind of technology. No, I'm not asking how many times or how long Hannah has transcribed. She could do it for a lifetime and not be qualified to transcribe info related to any particular technical topic. It's like, writing for ever doesn't qualify one to write about aerodynamics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28120 December 4, 2011 Quote ?? Why would Hannah need a tech background (in what?) to transcribe English words from a recorded conversation between the co-pilot and a private detective? How do we know that the person that transcribed the original logs had a technical background? I'm thinking now of medical transcribers and legal transcribers - Most now have a course in terminology - but knowing how to spell something and even its definition is still a long way from knowing what it means in context, but they transcribe all day long. You're right. They get a lot of training about the terminology and what the words mean. I don't mean that Hannah should have been an engineer, technician or scientist. I've had transcribers who were so specifically for electronics topics. A fast typist can transcribe a lot. But, if the end product matters, the person needs to understand the words. I'm reminded of some court transcripts. Expert, certified transcriber. Yet, things get in the transcript that differ from what was actually said. If the end product matters, it has to be checked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyjack71 0 #28121 December 4, 2011 I think we have 2 posters in this thread who are fishing for Marla. One contacted me months ago about an old friend of his father who he thought was Cooper. He was actually on a fishing expedition. I see this in retrospect and if I am wrong I apologize up front. We corresponded in PM's and regular emails - he never provide his real name. Now I believe this man was one of the OKIEs supporting Marlabecause the only name the man would provide me with was Art as the first name of the OLD friend his father knew. Now we have an Art fishing for details in the thread - perhaps co-incidence and if so I apologize up front. These guys I think are using the thread to source the story they are trying to sell to the FBI and to do a Book/Movie with Marla. If there is indeed a $1,000,000 reward as stated in a prior post, that is motive enough for the fabrication of a Cooper story. I spoke to the FBI (yes, I actually got to speak to someone) about some information I am providing them, information that might help the FBI wash Marla out of Agent Eng's life. The information does NOT involve the above discussion and I cannot tell anyone what I disclosed to the FBI. It is up to the FBI to research the information and disclose it. If the information along with the beginning of this post about the Okies is correct then Agent Curtis Eng will be vindicated. Guys this is not a "tease" and it is solid information I provide to the FBI. It does NOT indicate Weber was Cooper and is NOT about Weber directly. It comes from NO one on this thread, but from solid information which can be proved or disproven by the FBI. I think Marla and her Okies have been Hoaxed only because of my recall ability. If the FBI validates what I told them - the Cooper Saga sadly will continue. Whatever will be will be. I sing that song over and over in my head - it consoles my heart and soul. Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites arfuller 0 #28122 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteThat may be, but the timeline I have shows a light going off in the cockpit indicating the stairwell unlocked at 8:02. Mucklow was sent up at 7:42. If your "timeline" says that, you should consider all info in it to be SUSPECT. The message logged at 7:42 indicates the "stew" was already at the cockpit, then "he can't get the stairs down," then "we now have an aft stair lite on." I was going by the National Geographic reenactment. It says at 7:42 Mucklow is ordered into the cockpit. They show the door to the rear is closed. She looks back as she enters the cockpit and thinks she sees him attaching the money to himself. Then at 8:02 a light comes on in the cockpit saying the aft stairwell is open. That's all I know about it. Actually they say the light indicates the stairway is deployed.The Money Connection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28123 December 4, 2011 Robert, I can accept most of what you say (over and over here on the thread) about what Anderson and Rataczak "testified," and definitely re. significance of the light going off momentarily. If they did say all of it, they made a couple of mistakes. When the light came on, the crew would not have felt ear popping or pressure change in the cockpit. It's not physically possible. AND, the later flight test demonstrated that opening the stair caused pressure change that was barely perceptible by instruments but not felt at all. The 7th point misses an important point. I think the crew probably did know when Coop jumped. But we see no evidence that they marked the exact time. AND, knowing when he jumped does not mean they knew WHERE he jumped, which is a much larger obstacle than the drift uncertainty since we do have some wind data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28124 December 4, 2011 Quote I was going by the National Geographic reenactment. There's your problem. Don't believe anything you see on TV programs or in the movies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites arfuller 0 #28125 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuote I was going by the National Geographic reenactment. There's your problem. Don't believe anything you see on TV programs or in the movies. I stand corrected.The Money Connection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 Next Page 1125 of 2541 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 47 47 Go To Topic Listing
arfuller 0 #28112 December 4, 2011 QuoteAfter losing the argument with the co-pilot about taking off with the stairs unlocked, Cooper needed to keep the stewardess with him to help him lower the stairs. If the stairs had been unlocked at take off, the stewardess could have verbally instructed him on the rest of the lowering process and then gone forward sooner. Quote When did Cooper rig the money, prior to tale-off or after? It was after. I think Mucklow might have caught a glimpse of that when she was entering the cockpit.The Money Connection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Robert99 37 #28113 December 4, 2011 QuoteThat may be, but the timeline I have shows a light going off in the cockpit indicating the stairwell unlocked at 8:02. Mucklow was sent up at 7:42. The crew was afraid that Cooper would jump and the bomb would go off afterwards. The same 7:42 message that says the stewardress in now in the cockpit also states that the aft stair light is on (presumably meaning on the flight engineer's panel). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Robert99 37 #28114 December 4, 2011 QuoteAfter losing the argument with the co-pilot about taking off with the stairs unlocked, Cooper needed to keep the stewardess with him to help him lower the stairs. If the stairs had been unlocked at take off, the stewardess could have verbally instructed him on the rest of the lowering process and then gone forward sooner. Quote As the stewardress was going to the cockpit, Cooper instructed her to draw the first class curtain across the aisle. As she did that she got her last glimpse of Cooper and said that he appeared to be tieing a tether from the money bag (which was apparently on the floor) to his waist. She was in the cockpit by 7:42 as noted in the TTY transcripts. So the last time she saw Cooper he had the parachute on and was in the process of rigging the money bag to his waist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28115 December 4, 2011 QuoteThat may be, but the timeline I have shows a light going off in the cockpit indicating the stairwell unlocked at 8:02. Mucklow was sent up at 7:42. If your "timeline" says that, you should consider all info in it to be SUSPECT. The message logged at 7:42 indicates the "stew" was already at the cockpit, then "he can't get the stairs down," then "we now have an aft stair lite on." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28116 December 4, 2011 Quote 7) Rataczak cited all these things in his interview with Porteous, saying the crew actually knew WHEN Cooper jumped, but not WHERE he would land, since there was no way for them to determine when he would pull the ripcord. Immediate pull, more drift. Freefall pull, less drift. So this is, what, second hand interpretation of someone about what they thought Rataczak said? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28117 December 4, 2011 And Hannah has some kind of tech background to enable her to understand what she's hearing? Was that transcription proofed by someone with such background? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites smokin99 0 #28118 December 4, 2011 Quote And Hannah has some kind of tech background to enable her to understand what she's hearing? Was that transcription proofed by someone with such background? ?? Why would Hannah need a tech background (in what?) to transcribe English words from a recorded conversation between the co-pilot and a private detective? How do we know that the person that transcribed the original logs had a technical background? I'm thinking now of medical transcribers and legal transcribers - Most now have a course in terminology - but knowing how to spell something and even its definition is still a long way from knowing what it means in context, but they transcribe all day long. ETA_ Okay - we must have cross - posted. I see what you were getting out now - but I'd still bet the conversation was pretty generic since it was between a pilot and lay person (for want of a better word)? Plus one might even assume that transcriptions are signed off on after review (yeah, right) Besides - I'm sure someone on here would be more than happy to ask the guy if he said what she said he said. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28119 December 4, 2011 Quote You really have to have things spelled out for you. The interview was recorded. The results were transcribed by Hannah Kanew. She has been with Sherlock since 1995, I believe. If you are asking if this was the first time Hannah had put a recorded interview to paper...no. She's done this many times before for Sherlock. She's a pro at it, and it's part of their business. She's second-in-command at Sherlock. A transcriber can be an expert at transcribing but be useless at transcribing technical things. People, even transcribers, hear what they think they hear. If a transcriber was presented a recording in an unfamilar language, the transcriber would type all kinds of things that weren't in the actual speech. Same with things regarding any kind of technology. No, I'm not asking how many times or how long Hannah has transcribed. She could do it for a lifetime and not be qualified to transcribe info related to any particular technical topic. It's like, writing for ever doesn't qualify one to write about aerodynamics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28120 December 4, 2011 Quote ?? Why would Hannah need a tech background (in what?) to transcribe English words from a recorded conversation between the co-pilot and a private detective? How do we know that the person that transcribed the original logs had a technical background? I'm thinking now of medical transcribers and legal transcribers - Most now have a course in terminology - but knowing how to spell something and even its definition is still a long way from knowing what it means in context, but they transcribe all day long. You're right. They get a lot of training about the terminology and what the words mean. I don't mean that Hannah should have been an engineer, technician or scientist. I've had transcribers who were so specifically for electronics topics. A fast typist can transcribe a lot. But, if the end product matters, the person needs to understand the words. I'm reminded of some court transcripts. Expert, certified transcriber. Yet, things get in the transcript that differ from what was actually said. If the end product matters, it has to be checked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyjack71 0 #28121 December 4, 2011 I think we have 2 posters in this thread who are fishing for Marla. One contacted me months ago about an old friend of his father who he thought was Cooper. He was actually on a fishing expedition. I see this in retrospect and if I am wrong I apologize up front. We corresponded in PM's and regular emails - he never provide his real name. Now I believe this man was one of the OKIEs supporting Marlabecause the only name the man would provide me with was Art as the first name of the OLD friend his father knew. Now we have an Art fishing for details in the thread - perhaps co-incidence and if so I apologize up front. These guys I think are using the thread to source the story they are trying to sell to the FBI and to do a Book/Movie with Marla. If there is indeed a $1,000,000 reward as stated in a prior post, that is motive enough for the fabrication of a Cooper story. I spoke to the FBI (yes, I actually got to speak to someone) about some information I am providing them, information that might help the FBI wash Marla out of Agent Eng's life. The information does NOT involve the above discussion and I cannot tell anyone what I disclosed to the FBI. It is up to the FBI to research the information and disclose it. If the information along with the beginning of this post about the Okies is correct then Agent Curtis Eng will be vindicated. Guys this is not a "tease" and it is solid information I provide to the FBI. It does NOT indicate Weber was Cooper and is NOT about Weber directly. It comes from NO one on this thread, but from solid information which can be proved or disproven by the FBI. I think Marla and her Okies have been Hoaxed only because of my recall ability. If the FBI validates what I told them - the Cooper Saga sadly will continue. Whatever will be will be. I sing that song over and over in my head - it consoles my heart and soul. Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites arfuller 0 #28122 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteThat may be, but the timeline I have shows a light going off in the cockpit indicating the stairwell unlocked at 8:02. Mucklow was sent up at 7:42. If your "timeline" says that, you should consider all info in it to be SUSPECT. The message logged at 7:42 indicates the "stew" was already at the cockpit, then "he can't get the stairs down," then "we now have an aft stair lite on." I was going by the National Geographic reenactment. It says at 7:42 Mucklow is ordered into the cockpit. They show the door to the rear is closed. She looks back as she enters the cockpit and thinks she sees him attaching the money to himself. Then at 8:02 a light comes on in the cockpit saying the aft stairwell is open. That's all I know about it. Actually they say the light indicates the stairway is deployed.The Money Connection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28123 December 4, 2011 Robert, I can accept most of what you say (over and over here on the thread) about what Anderson and Rataczak "testified," and definitely re. significance of the light going off momentarily. If they did say all of it, they made a couple of mistakes. When the light came on, the crew would not have felt ear popping or pressure change in the cockpit. It's not physically possible. AND, the later flight test demonstrated that opening the stair caused pressure change that was barely perceptible by instruments but not felt at all. The 7th point misses an important point. I think the crew probably did know when Coop jumped. But we see no evidence that they marked the exact time. AND, knowing when he jumped does not mean they knew WHERE he jumped, which is a much larger obstacle than the drift uncertainty since we do have some wind data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28124 December 4, 2011 Quote I was going by the National Geographic reenactment. There's your problem. Don't believe anything you see on TV programs or in the movies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites arfuller 0 #28125 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuote I was going by the National Geographic reenactment. There's your problem. Don't believe anything you see on TV programs or in the movies. I stand corrected.The Money Connection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 Next Page 1125 of 2541 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 47 47 Go To Topic Listing
Robert99 37 #28113 December 4, 2011 QuoteThat may be, but the timeline I have shows a light going off in the cockpit indicating the stairwell unlocked at 8:02. Mucklow was sent up at 7:42. The crew was afraid that Cooper would jump and the bomb would go off afterwards. The same 7:42 message that says the stewardress in now in the cockpit also states that the aft stair light is on (presumably meaning on the flight engineer's panel). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert99 37 #28114 December 4, 2011 QuoteAfter losing the argument with the co-pilot about taking off with the stairs unlocked, Cooper needed to keep the stewardess with him to help him lower the stairs. If the stairs had been unlocked at take off, the stewardess could have verbally instructed him on the rest of the lowering process and then gone forward sooner. Quote As the stewardress was going to the cockpit, Cooper instructed her to draw the first class curtain across the aisle. As she did that she got her last glimpse of Cooper and said that he appeared to be tieing a tether from the money bag (which was apparently on the floor) to his waist. She was in the cockpit by 7:42 as noted in the TTY transcripts. So the last time she saw Cooper he had the parachute on and was in the process of rigging the money bag to his waist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28115 December 4, 2011 QuoteThat may be, but the timeline I have shows a light going off in the cockpit indicating the stairwell unlocked at 8:02. Mucklow was sent up at 7:42. If your "timeline" says that, you should consider all info in it to be SUSPECT. The message logged at 7:42 indicates the "stew" was already at the cockpit, then "he can't get the stairs down," then "we now have an aft stair lite on." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28116 December 4, 2011 Quote 7) Rataczak cited all these things in his interview with Porteous, saying the crew actually knew WHEN Cooper jumped, but not WHERE he would land, since there was no way for them to determine when he would pull the ripcord. Immediate pull, more drift. Freefall pull, less drift. So this is, what, second hand interpretation of someone about what they thought Rataczak said? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28117 December 4, 2011 And Hannah has some kind of tech background to enable her to understand what she's hearing? Was that transcription proofed by someone with such background? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites smokin99 0 #28118 December 4, 2011 Quote And Hannah has some kind of tech background to enable her to understand what she's hearing? Was that transcription proofed by someone with such background? ?? Why would Hannah need a tech background (in what?) to transcribe English words from a recorded conversation between the co-pilot and a private detective? How do we know that the person that transcribed the original logs had a technical background? I'm thinking now of medical transcribers and legal transcribers - Most now have a course in terminology - but knowing how to spell something and even its definition is still a long way from knowing what it means in context, but they transcribe all day long. ETA_ Okay - we must have cross - posted. I see what you were getting out now - but I'd still bet the conversation was pretty generic since it was between a pilot and lay person (for want of a better word)? Plus one might even assume that transcriptions are signed off on after review (yeah, right) Besides - I'm sure someone on here would be more than happy to ask the guy if he said what she said he said. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28119 December 4, 2011 Quote You really have to have things spelled out for you. The interview was recorded. The results were transcribed by Hannah Kanew. She has been with Sherlock since 1995, I believe. If you are asking if this was the first time Hannah had put a recorded interview to paper...no. She's done this many times before for Sherlock. She's a pro at it, and it's part of their business. She's second-in-command at Sherlock. A transcriber can be an expert at transcribing but be useless at transcribing technical things. People, even transcribers, hear what they think they hear. If a transcriber was presented a recording in an unfamilar language, the transcriber would type all kinds of things that weren't in the actual speech. Same with things regarding any kind of technology. No, I'm not asking how many times or how long Hannah has transcribed. She could do it for a lifetime and not be qualified to transcribe info related to any particular technical topic. It's like, writing for ever doesn't qualify one to write about aerodynamics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28120 December 4, 2011 Quote ?? Why would Hannah need a tech background (in what?) to transcribe English words from a recorded conversation between the co-pilot and a private detective? How do we know that the person that transcribed the original logs had a technical background? I'm thinking now of medical transcribers and legal transcribers - Most now have a course in terminology - but knowing how to spell something and even its definition is still a long way from knowing what it means in context, but they transcribe all day long. You're right. They get a lot of training about the terminology and what the words mean. I don't mean that Hannah should have been an engineer, technician or scientist. I've had transcribers who were so specifically for electronics topics. A fast typist can transcribe a lot. But, if the end product matters, the person needs to understand the words. I'm reminded of some court transcripts. Expert, certified transcriber. Yet, things get in the transcript that differ from what was actually said. If the end product matters, it has to be checked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyjack71 0 #28121 December 4, 2011 I think we have 2 posters in this thread who are fishing for Marla. One contacted me months ago about an old friend of his father who he thought was Cooper. He was actually on a fishing expedition. I see this in retrospect and if I am wrong I apologize up front. We corresponded in PM's and regular emails - he never provide his real name. Now I believe this man was one of the OKIEs supporting Marlabecause the only name the man would provide me with was Art as the first name of the OLD friend his father knew. Now we have an Art fishing for details in the thread - perhaps co-incidence and if so I apologize up front. These guys I think are using the thread to source the story they are trying to sell to the FBI and to do a Book/Movie with Marla. If there is indeed a $1,000,000 reward as stated in a prior post, that is motive enough for the fabrication of a Cooper story. I spoke to the FBI (yes, I actually got to speak to someone) about some information I am providing them, information that might help the FBI wash Marla out of Agent Eng's life. The information does NOT involve the above discussion and I cannot tell anyone what I disclosed to the FBI. It is up to the FBI to research the information and disclose it. If the information along with the beginning of this post about the Okies is correct then Agent Curtis Eng will be vindicated. Guys this is not a "tease" and it is solid information I provide to the FBI. It does NOT indicate Weber was Cooper and is NOT about Weber directly. It comes from NO one on this thread, but from solid information which can be proved or disproven by the FBI. I think Marla and her Okies have been Hoaxed only because of my recall ability. If the FBI validates what I told them - the Cooper Saga sadly will continue. Whatever will be will be. I sing that song over and over in my head - it consoles my heart and soul. Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites arfuller 0 #28122 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteThat may be, but the timeline I have shows a light going off in the cockpit indicating the stairwell unlocked at 8:02. Mucklow was sent up at 7:42. If your "timeline" says that, you should consider all info in it to be SUSPECT. The message logged at 7:42 indicates the "stew" was already at the cockpit, then "he can't get the stairs down," then "we now have an aft stair lite on." I was going by the National Geographic reenactment. It says at 7:42 Mucklow is ordered into the cockpit. They show the door to the rear is closed. She looks back as she enters the cockpit and thinks she sees him attaching the money to himself. Then at 8:02 a light comes on in the cockpit saying the aft stairwell is open. That's all I know about it. Actually they say the light indicates the stairway is deployed.The Money Connection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28123 December 4, 2011 Robert, I can accept most of what you say (over and over here on the thread) about what Anderson and Rataczak "testified," and definitely re. significance of the light going off momentarily. If they did say all of it, they made a couple of mistakes. When the light came on, the crew would not have felt ear popping or pressure change in the cockpit. It's not physically possible. AND, the later flight test demonstrated that opening the stair caused pressure change that was barely perceptible by instruments but not felt at all. The 7th point misses an important point. I think the crew probably did know when Coop jumped. But we see no evidence that they marked the exact time. AND, knowing when he jumped does not mean they knew WHERE he jumped, which is a much larger obstacle than the drift uncertainty since we do have some wind data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hominid 0 #28124 December 4, 2011 Quote I was going by the National Geographic reenactment. There's your problem. Don't believe anything you see on TV programs or in the movies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites arfuller 0 #28125 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuote I was going by the National Geographic reenactment. There's your problem. Don't believe anything you see on TV programs or in the movies. I stand corrected.The Money Connection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 Next Page 1125 of 2541 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 47 47 Go To Topic Listing
Hominid 0 #28115 December 4, 2011 QuoteThat may be, but the timeline I have shows a light going off in the cockpit indicating the stairwell unlocked at 8:02. Mucklow was sent up at 7:42. If your "timeline" says that, you should consider all info in it to be SUSPECT. The message logged at 7:42 indicates the "stew" was already at the cockpit, then "he can't get the stairs down," then "we now have an aft stair lite on." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hominid 0 #28116 December 4, 2011 Quote 7) Rataczak cited all these things in his interview with Porteous, saying the crew actually knew WHEN Cooper jumped, but not WHERE he would land, since there was no way for them to determine when he would pull the ripcord. Immediate pull, more drift. Freefall pull, less drift. So this is, what, second hand interpretation of someone about what they thought Rataczak said? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hominid 0 #28117 December 4, 2011 And Hannah has some kind of tech background to enable her to understand what she's hearing? Was that transcription proofed by someone with such background? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smokin99 0 #28118 December 4, 2011 Quote And Hannah has some kind of tech background to enable her to understand what she's hearing? Was that transcription proofed by someone with such background? ?? Why would Hannah need a tech background (in what?) to transcribe English words from a recorded conversation between the co-pilot and a private detective? How do we know that the person that transcribed the original logs had a technical background? I'm thinking now of medical transcribers and legal transcribers - Most now have a course in terminology - but knowing how to spell something and even its definition is still a long way from knowing what it means in context, but they transcribe all day long. ETA_ Okay - we must have cross - posted. I see what you were getting out now - but I'd still bet the conversation was pretty generic since it was between a pilot and lay person (for want of a better word)? Plus one might even assume that transcriptions are signed off on after review (yeah, right) Besides - I'm sure someone on here would be more than happy to ask the guy if he said what she said he said. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hominid 0 #28119 December 4, 2011 Quote You really have to have things spelled out for you. The interview was recorded. The results were transcribed by Hannah Kanew. She has been with Sherlock since 1995, I believe. If you are asking if this was the first time Hannah had put a recorded interview to paper...no. She's done this many times before for Sherlock. She's a pro at it, and it's part of their business. She's second-in-command at Sherlock. A transcriber can be an expert at transcribing but be useless at transcribing technical things. People, even transcribers, hear what they think they hear. If a transcriber was presented a recording in an unfamilar language, the transcriber would type all kinds of things that weren't in the actual speech. Same with things regarding any kind of technology. No, I'm not asking how many times or how long Hannah has transcribed. She could do it for a lifetime and not be qualified to transcribe info related to any particular technical topic. It's like, writing for ever doesn't qualify one to write about aerodynamics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hominid 0 #28120 December 4, 2011 Quote ?? Why would Hannah need a tech background (in what?) to transcribe English words from a recorded conversation between the co-pilot and a private detective? How do we know that the person that transcribed the original logs had a technical background? I'm thinking now of medical transcribers and legal transcribers - Most now have a course in terminology - but knowing how to spell something and even its definition is still a long way from knowing what it means in context, but they transcribe all day long. You're right. They get a lot of training about the terminology and what the words mean. I don't mean that Hannah should have been an engineer, technician or scientist. I've had transcribers who were so specifically for electronics topics. A fast typist can transcribe a lot. But, if the end product matters, the person needs to understand the words. I'm reminded of some court transcripts. Expert, certified transcriber. Yet, things get in the transcript that differ from what was actually said. If the end product matters, it has to be checked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjack71 0 #28121 December 4, 2011 I think we have 2 posters in this thread who are fishing for Marla. One contacted me months ago about an old friend of his father who he thought was Cooper. He was actually on a fishing expedition. I see this in retrospect and if I am wrong I apologize up front. We corresponded in PM's and regular emails - he never provide his real name. Now I believe this man was one of the OKIEs supporting Marlabecause the only name the man would provide me with was Art as the first name of the OLD friend his father knew. Now we have an Art fishing for details in the thread - perhaps co-incidence and if so I apologize up front. These guys I think are using the thread to source the story they are trying to sell to the FBI and to do a Book/Movie with Marla. If there is indeed a $1,000,000 reward as stated in a prior post, that is motive enough for the fabrication of a Cooper story. I spoke to the FBI (yes, I actually got to speak to someone) about some information I am providing them, information that might help the FBI wash Marla out of Agent Eng's life. The information does NOT involve the above discussion and I cannot tell anyone what I disclosed to the FBI. It is up to the FBI to research the information and disclose it. If the information along with the beginning of this post about the Okies is correct then Agent Curtis Eng will be vindicated. Guys this is not a "tease" and it is solid information I provide to the FBI. It does NOT indicate Weber was Cooper and is NOT about Weber directly. It comes from NO one on this thread, but from solid information which can be proved or disproven by the FBI. I think Marla and her Okies have been Hoaxed only because of my recall ability. If the FBI validates what I told them - the Cooper Saga sadly will continue. Whatever will be will be. I sing that song over and over in my head - it consoles my heart and soul. Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arfuller 0 #28122 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteThat may be, but the timeline I have shows a light going off in the cockpit indicating the stairwell unlocked at 8:02. Mucklow was sent up at 7:42. If your "timeline" says that, you should consider all info in it to be SUSPECT. The message logged at 7:42 indicates the "stew" was already at the cockpit, then "he can't get the stairs down," then "we now have an aft stair lite on." I was going by the National Geographic reenactment. It says at 7:42 Mucklow is ordered into the cockpit. They show the door to the rear is closed. She looks back as she enters the cockpit and thinks she sees him attaching the money to himself. Then at 8:02 a light comes on in the cockpit saying the aft stairwell is open. That's all I know about it. Actually they say the light indicates the stairway is deployed.The Money Connection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hominid 0 #28123 December 4, 2011 Robert, I can accept most of what you say (over and over here on the thread) about what Anderson and Rataczak "testified," and definitely re. significance of the light going off momentarily. If they did say all of it, they made a couple of mistakes. When the light came on, the crew would not have felt ear popping or pressure change in the cockpit. It's not physically possible. AND, the later flight test demonstrated that opening the stair caused pressure change that was barely perceptible by instruments but not felt at all. The 7th point misses an important point. I think the crew probably did know when Coop jumped. But we see no evidence that they marked the exact time. AND, knowing when he jumped does not mean they knew WHERE he jumped, which is a much larger obstacle than the drift uncertainty since we do have some wind data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hominid 0 #28124 December 4, 2011 Quote I was going by the National Geographic reenactment. There's your problem. Don't believe anything you see on TV programs or in the movies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arfuller 0 #28125 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuote I was going by the National Geographic reenactment. There's your problem. Don't believe anything you see on TV programs or in the movies. I stand corrected.The Money Connection Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
