DB Cooper

[snowmman 3]

Quote

Quote

I was musing about why you might have remembered the WA trip so well.(edited)
I think you don't want to flesh out the details more, because every detail makes it sound less like Duane the Skyjacker.

Questions you are asking are personal and not for a forum - so far I have been an open book but this is going too far. I think I have given FAR more DETAILS than necessary. ARE you wanting to know the most intimate details of our marriage?

If you were a writer doing a book you might be entitled to answer to the details of our lives, but considering this is a public forum - You have stepped over the line.

You've injected your personal life into a criminal case. I don't believe there's any legal line I've crossed. 377 can advise if I've come close to any libel issues. I believe I can do a lot. I can pay your friends for information. But there's no reason to. There's nothing to the Duane show. Why are you shocked? What code of conduct am I violating? I'm just interested in the Cooper case. Don't care about anything else.

[georger 197]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If Rataczak and others could see the lights of Portland
Cooper could see them too! He knew where he was at
in general terms and bailed.

Not necessarily. Your statement seems to imply that Rataczak and Cooper had an equal view which they did not. Rataczak is sitting at the front of the plane with a near 180 degree view in front of him. Cooper is either looking out side windows, which gives you little indication of what is in front of you. Or he is standing at the backstairs giving no indication at all of what is in front of him.

But again to know where you are in "general terms" on a plane, if you know the route doesn't require seeing anything.

Agreed. If Cooper was standing on the stairs just after it
passed Lake Merwin, he'd probably see the lights on the Lake Merwin Dam right? So he'd have a general feel of a couple minutes since then.

Sluggo has talked about compasses and the BTG vortac turn. But just waiting a couple minutes since he saw Lake Merwin would be pretty accurate. I think Cooper had a watch since he dictated time boundaries (5:00) and complained about elapsed time (fuel truck)

The lights on Merwin Dam have been highlighted by some of the TV shows on youtube.

REPLY> Oooooops you are right. Cooper had retinosa
pigmentosa. Its in the transcript!

[georger 197]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If Rataczak and others could see the lights of Portland
Cooper could see them too! He knew where he was at
in general terms and bailed.

Not necessarily. Your statement seems to imply that Rataczak and Cooper had an equal view which they did not. Rataczak is sitting at the front of the plane with a near 180 degree view in front of him. Cooper is either looking out side windows, which gives you little indication of what is in front of you. Or he is standing at the backstairs giving no indication at all of what is in front of him.

But again to know where you are in "general terms" on a plane, if you know the route doesn't require seeing anything.

REPLY> I knew some one would say this. All he has to do is look out the windows, the cabin is dark. Or out
the back of the aircraft at the direction of skyglow.
He knows Vancouver and Portland are coming up. He
knows the area.

The way you worded your initial statement isn't always true. If you are approaching a city straight on in an airplane the flight crew is going to see the glow and subsequently the lights before a passenger does. Given the likelihood of clouds that night the fact that Cooper likely had his back to the city, and my experiences that flying at night you get less "night glow" than driving when approaching a city, It isn't as certain as you are trying to make it out to be.

REPLY? it is as certain as i am not an eskimow riding a camel in brazil! But I must be. Im here!

[georger 197]

Quote

Quote

I was musing about why you might have remembered the WA trip so well.(edited)
I think you don't want to flesh out the details more, because every detail makes it sound less like Duane the Skyjacker.

Questions you are asking are personal and not for a forum - so far I have been an open book but this is going too far. I think I have given FAR more DETAILS than necessary. ARE you wanting to know the most intimate details of our marriage?

If you were a writer doing a book you might be entitled to answer to the details of our lives, but considering this is a public forum - You have stepped over the line.

REPLY> This has turned crazxy again and Im outta here.

[377 21]

Georger,

Relax, ignore "lines". This forum is free speech at its best. I haven't seen anything on this forum even during the Quade repression era that would give rise to a solid defamation/libel suit. Damages have to be proven by the plaintiff and what provable non speculative quantifiable damages arise out of anything said here, even if malicious and untrue?

Fire away. It's open season here. You add a lot of value on this forum. Don't let ruffled feathers chase you off.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[low_pull1 2]

I found the following terminology used to sell an older parachute on Craigslist. seems that Cooper mentioned "back pack" .... what group of users of gear says "Back Pack" Airforce? Army? Pilots? did skydivers use terminology such as back pack to describe a rig??

"Air Force Back Back Type Parachute Great Price Also Have Vintage One - $325"


here is the link
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sgv/clt/743359161.html

[snowmman 3]

Quote

I found the following terminology used to sell an older parachute on Craigslist. seems that Cooper mentioned "back pack" .... what group of users of gear says "Back Pack" Airforce? Army? Pilots? did skydivers use terminology such as back pack to describe a rig??

interesting low_pull1. I followed your thinking and looked on ebay. Here's a vendor with big selection of rounds in NB6-like containers? (it looks to me of no skill)

This vendor uses the phrase "Back Pack Parachute" and "Back Pack Type" all over the place. Check this url out. There's a boatload of rigs there. Seat, Back and Chest.

Chest rigs are called "Chest Pack". Seat rigs are called "Seat Pack" or "Seat Type". Back rigs are called "Back Pack". There's an NB-8 there with a 28 foot canopy. ($1200)..

So talking about your phraseology, I'm wondering if pilots familar with emergency chutes, would use the "Back Pack" kind of phrase???? (military pilots say)

http://stores.ebay.com/Flyboy-Plus-Aviation-Etc_Parachutes_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZQ2d1QQfsubZ8541007QQftidZ2QQtZkm

NB6 is for sale here
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/US-Navy-NB6-Parachute_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742Q2em153Q2el1262QQcategoryZ26440QQihZ005QQitemZ150080385359QQtcZphoto
$1200

HEY THIS NB6 HAS A 28 FT CANOPY!
Mills C-9 28 Foot Canopy - Date of MFG May 1995
New, Never Used. In Original Pack
Placed in Service 1/4/07
Parachute Certified 1/4/07
Good for bail-out speeds up to 150 MPH

[Orange1 0]

Quote

I want to clairfy things about my trip to WA in Oct. I am not going there to present Proof,

OK so... when you said you were going to "prove" (your term) something to Ckret, you didn't really mean it?

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

I've been wondering why the apparent plan for a night jump was considered a bad idea.

The insane thing would have been to plan a day jump. Increases the odds of getting caught dramatically? Unless it's someplace way in the middle of nowhere with no possibility of chase planes.

Shouldn't we say "nite jump means smart", "day jump means stupid".

How did we get to nite jump = stupid?

Dunno about the "stupid" aspect, but it was shown pretty clearly, as I recall, that Cooper meant to make the jump before it got dark - so he may not have been prepared for a night jump (or a night out in the WA woods at that time of year?)

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

A good story will hold up when all aspects of the story are revealed, not just cherry picked details.

Just thought that sentence bore repeating

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[snowmman 3]

Quote

Quote

I've been wondering why the apparent plan for a night jump was considered a bad idea.

The insane thing would have been to plan a day jump. Increases the odds of getting caught dramatically? Unless it's someplace way in the middle of nowhere with no possibility of chase planes.

Shouldn't we say "nite jump means smart", "day jump means stupid".

How did we get to nite jump = stupid?

Dunno about the "stupid" aspect, but it was shown pretty clearly, as I recall, that Cooper meant to make the jump before it got dark - so he may not have been prepared for a night jump (or a night out in the WA woods at that time of year?)

Hi Orange1. I thought Cooper wanted everything on the ground by 5:00. So I would think he wouldn't be able to have a planned jump before 5:30? I thought that someone posted info showing twilight by 5:30 at that time of the year there?

Can you summarize why you think Cooper meant to make the jump before dark? I'm not sure what information you're using?

(edit) Post 998 of the previous thread had this info from jose9878

A tid-bit more info to support my previous post;

U.S. Naval Observatory
Astronomical Applications Department

Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for Seattle, King County, Washington (longitude W122.3, latitude N47.6):

Wednesday
24 November 1971 Pacific Standard Time

SUN
Begin civil twilight 6:52 a.m.
Sunrise 7:27 a.m.
Sun transit 11:56 a.m.
Sunset 4:25 p.m.
End civil twilight 4:59 p.m.

MOON
Moonset 9:45 p.m. on preceding day
Moonrise 12:31 p.m.
Moon transit 5:40 p.m.
Moonset 11:01 p.m.
Moonrise 12:51 p.m. on following day

Phase of the Moon on 24 November: waxing crescent with 41% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.

First quarter Moon on 25 November 1971 at 8:37 a.m. Pacific Standard Time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Census Bureau map of Seattle area

*Civil twilight is defined to begin in the morning, and to end in the evening when the center of the Sun is geometrically 6 degrees below the horizon. This is the limit at which twilight illumination is sufficient, under good weather conditions, for terrestrial objects to be clearly distinguished; at the beginning of morning civil twilight, or end of evening civil twilight, the horizon is clearly defined and the brightest stars are visible under good atmospheric conditions in the absence of moonlight or other illumination. In the morning before the beginning of civil twilight and in the evening after the end of civil twilight, artificial illumination is normally required to carry on ordinary outdoor activities. Complete darkness, however, ends sometime prior to the beginning of morning civil twilight and begins sometime after the end of evening civil twilight.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

Hi Orange1. I thought Cooper wanted everything on the ground by 5:00. So I would think he wouldn't be able to have a planned jump before 5:30? I thought that someone posted info showing twilight by 5:30 at that time of the year there?

Can you summarize why you think Cooper meant to make the jump before dark? I'm not sure what information you're using?

Hi snowmmmmmmman.... i'll need to go back and find it - i think ckret argued it quite well at one point - but that will take some time ...give me a while!

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[Sluggo_Monster 0]

Hi all,

I have been following the thread as best I could in my absence and made few post, so forgive me if I am way behind.

There has been a lot of discussions on the flight path and how the data was derived. I’m afraid I can’t shed a whole lot of light on that question, but maybe I can provide some info that helps illuminate the path slightly.

I have posted (on my web site) the instructions that came with the LZ map you have all seen. I was previously prohibited from posting it because the redactions were incomplete and some of the individual’s names could be read. I have since improved the redactions and been given permission to post. (Thanks Ckret!) To see them Go HERE.

As I said, there is nothing earth-shattering here, but it is at least something factual rather than rumor and myth.

I also posted the .PDF and JPEG files of the 1:100,000 and 1:250,000 USGS Vancouver maps on the “Other Evidence” page. {Caution: these are HUGE files}

Maybe, Ckret will favor us with some more stuff from his “little box of goodies” soon.

Thanks to all,

Sluggo_Monster

One other thing: I sent a private e-mail to SafecrackingPLF about two or three weeks ago and did not receive a response. I do not know what the story is.

Web Page
Blog
NORJAK Forum

[snowmman 3]

whew, nothing gets said directly round here.

The new info Sluggo posted about the '72 LZ map creation gives us info to resolve it's correlation to the '71 map.
It also gives us information about creating a new LZ from '71 map, because it includes error information (besides the known 2004 error)

The key paragraph is

"The north-south span of possible jump positions is a product of the radar position tolerance of +- .5 mile, and the communication tolerance of +-1 minute"

So this tells us, with reasonable certainty, that the '71 map probably doesn't have any 1 minute variance built into it, for comparing to the transcripts. That's good. It should be "real time".

It also tells us that the reason there's an apparent "too early" drift line...i.e. to account for the perceived error tolerances.

But here's another mistake, I think. The 8:11 predicted jump time already had 1 minute taken away for transcript log delay, right? The log reported the oscillations at 8:12.

So by including another -1 minute variance, they're double counting the communications lag? And I'm not sure why they would go both ways on the communication lag. The lag between real event and log is such that the real event is always before. It can't be after the communication log, unless there is some skew in the local time printed. Maybe that's it?

Maybe they should have used -2 minutes to 0, for the variance due to transcript printing. (edit) I suppose the net effect of what they did, achieved that? weird.

In any case, my point D apparent "doesn't make sense" compared to the '71 map, seems to be a product of a number of errors or fuzzy use of variances
(it also reinforces that drawing 3 lines was silly, due to the fuzziness of the data, and that zones should have been drawn)

But it seems reasonable to just assume the '71 map is correctly marked with real time.

I welcome others analysis of these issues around the '71 and '72 map comparisons. (time).

I think when we creat a new LZ, we probably don't care about the oscillations in the transcript. We're probably mostly going from the "time to bump" from the 2005 comment from Cooper...So we can almost ignore all this transcript delay wishy-washy prediction. (edit) or not? cause the 2005 comment is in the logs? so we do have to account for transcript delay?

The jump point seems to be be around 2015, with the visibility of the "portland suburbs" being the stronger identifier, compared to the bump delay after cooper's 2005 communication (transcripts)

We do need to factor in radar tolerance of +-.5 miles in the LZ prediction though?

(edit) and I guess we're willing to say Cooper didn't cross the Columbia based on other pilot testimony on the bump. So maybe the jump point is between 2013 and 2015 or so. (real time, after the 2004 error is corrected)

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

I've not heard a sensible train theory.

YOU HAVEN'T? You would make it complicated In 1971 - trains had more stops then they do to day.

Just inside of Vancover that train slowed down a lot - what for I don't know. (maybe a crossing or repairs to an over-pass).

Do you remember the statement Duane made when he pointed out the tracks near the cabin on the river??????? I do. But the funny thing that isn't where he got off a train, but where he got on a train.

After he left the hiding area away from the DZ and much further East than they were looking for.

He took the boat to the cabin across from the airport. This 2 or 3 days later -maybe more. He had walked out in the opposite direction when he landed - he had to get out of the seach zone.

He locates himself and his targets (points of direction and location) -the weight of all of the stuff is too much. He buries the suit and the chute at the tower donning the overalls in the shed. He then walks out and down the power lines and pipe lines to a known location in the S.E section, that he can take refuge and make a contact with someone (I feel I know who this someone was).

He made sure that when he broke into a couple of residences that he only took what he needed so that it would not be missed (food) - or appear to have been broken into. At one of the residences he broke into he made a desparate phone call (bet those people wondered for yrs who made that call - because he left no evidence of a break-in.)

He gets to the marina and takes the boat till he spots the airport tower and the sets the boat loose down the river in gear.

He set that boat off about 3 football lenghts West of the airport and below the cabin and the shed on the Vancouver side - he has to hide the money to come back for it later...he takes part of it with him. Now he has to get out of town and it is several days later - his food is scarce...but he has survived in solitary for days with only bread and water before,

There is only one way to get out of there without being seen. He has watched the train slow down and has learned its schedule - he knows that train is going to Seattle. That is where he is to meet his party. He left a car in the Vancouver area, but he is afraid to go back to get it - was probably stolen anyway - left in a field or parking spot just off of the old 500 or a highway that goes near it on the N. side and not too far from the airport in that area...his intended DZ.

Perhaps the friend he called picked the car up if it was register in his or her name or called a repair shop to pick it up - claiming auto problems. With a family member living in the area - both had a legitimate reason to be in the Vancouver area.

Question guys - how many of you think I fabricated that story and how many think maybe I am revealing something I have never told before? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Did I lead this forum to this point or was it accidental?

Go ahead and make this sound ridiculous - the truth is sometimes so simply that it is not seen or heard until Simple Simon jumps over the candlestick.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I was musing about why you might have remembered the WA trip so well.(edited)
I think you don't want to flesh out the details more, because every detail makes it sound less like Duane the Skyjacker.

Questions you are asking are personal and not for a forum - so far I have been an open book but this is going too far. I think I have given FAR more DETAILS than necessary. ARE you wanting to know the most intimate details of our marriage?

If you were a writer doing a book you might be entitled to answer to the details of our lives, but considering this is a public forum - You have stepped over the line.

You've injected your personal life into a criminal case. I don't believe there's any legal line I've crossed. 377 can advise if I've come close to any libel issues. I believe I can do a lot. I can pay your friends for information. But there's no reason to. There's nothing to the Duane show. Why are you shocked? What code of conduct am I violating? I'm just interested in the Cooper case. Don't care about anything else.

Would someone please explain to me how I accused Snowmman of libel or if I even mentioned legal issures? Ckret is the ONLY one I have an axe to grind with and that regards something he said on National TV. and never retracted.

As for Ckret I have never asked for more than an apology which I never got regarding his statement on TV about my knowledge of the DNA.

I agree with Georger - this is just going too far - Snowmman taunts me - there is no reason for his continued brazen questions - seems we are making a turn backwards. Manner have taken a back seat.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[low_pull1 2]

"back type" or what ever cooper used to ask for the rigs...must have been from a certain "
group" Airborn type? if a civilian would have asked,,,,, would have been a "piggy back" type??? or ??

what did the non military jumpers call these back type rigs?

[snowmman 3]

Quote

"back type" or what ever cooper used to ask for the rigs...must have been from a certain "
group" Airborn type? if a civilian would have asked,,,,, would have been a "piggy back" type??? or ??

what did the non military jumpers call these back type rigs?

hey low_pull1...I think we reviewed Cooper's language on this now that I'm thinking about it...he just said "back" and "front" right? I know in looking at the transcripts that ?Scott? or someone on the 305 end? apparently introduced the "pack" word...but that may be confusing us..i.e. they introduced their phraseology, but I think ckret told us that Cooper just said "back" and "front"...?? I think?

So maybe there's nothing we can glean from this..I think we went over this already..don't exactly remember.

[snowmman 3]

I've been re-reading the latest "LZ map.jpg" that sluggo added to his site, from Ckret, that has the info about the '72 map.
(attached)

Interestingly it uses a proportional font. I suspect done on a IBM Selectric Composer. The combined +- symbol seems to vary, probably an double strike character. Would verify that it was typed, even though font is atypical for the era.

But the main point: it has this new info describing what the plot was based on, among other stuff:
"- Time correlation from the above USAF radar and from the NWA communications network tape recording"

Sounds like maybe they had an audio recording of the radio traffic? i.e. they weren't just working from the transcripts like we were? Unless they're talking about a paper tape record of the TTY output. But "tape recording" sounds like audio tape.

If this is true, than an audio tape should not have any TTY printing/communication delay?

I guess I don't know what this means. It's just interesting because now the idea of some kind of "network tape recording" has been introduced, when the '72 map was created.

They say they used altitude and air speed from the flight recorder. I suppose not for adjusting the flight path, but for computing the drift lines. That seems to answer another question I had.

[Ckret 0]

The logs posted were transcribed from tapes, the only log not transcribed is the TTY log.

[Ckret 0]

Two front chutes and two back chutes were Coopers words to Schaffner

[snowmman 3]

Quote

The logs posted were transcribed from tapes, the only log not transcribed is the TTY log.

ah got it yes. forgot. They say that in those transcripts. But the oscillations comment comes from the TTY log.

They mention tapes, but they don't mention the TTY log in that page you forwarded. (edit) at least they don't say "TTY log"...

(edit) they do mention, on reading again, that the jump time is from "the recorded communication from the flight".

so I guess that is the TTY log.

There's no information from the audio tapes that was used for the '72 DZ prediction right? it's just flight path (radar), altitude/air speed (flight recorder) and predicted jump time...then the various canopy drift/free fall estimates, and wind measurements.

So there was no reason for them to mention the tapes. Agreed?
(edit) unless: they were synchronizing time using between the audio tapes and the radar..maybe that's it.

[Sluggo_Monster 0]

Quote

Sounds like maybe they had an audio recording of the radio traffic? i.e. they weren't just working from the transcripts like we were? Unless they're talking about a paper tape record of the TTY output. But "tape recording" sounds like audio tape.

If this is true, than an audio tape should not have any TTY printing/communication delay?

On the transcripts we have discussed (since February) the Seattle ATC portions are marked with “Reel Numbers” and have a statement to the effect: “… a true copy of the original recording.”

I think it is clear that those transcripts were taken from an audio tape. It is page 89 through page 106 that were taken from the TTY output.

The Reno and Oakland ATC transcripts were probably from audio tapes as well, but have no statement indicating such.

Quote

They say they used altitude and air speed from the flight recorder. I suppose not for adjusting the flight path, but for computing the drift lines. That seems to answer another question I had.

???????????????? I don't understand this statement.

Sluggo_Monster

Web Page
Blog
NORJAK Forum

[snowmman 3]

Quote

They say they used altitude and air speed from the flight recorder. I suppose not for adjusting the flight path, but for computing the drift lines. That seems to answer another question I had.

???????????????? I don't understand this statement.

Sluggo_Monster

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

Lake River flows N.

Quote

I'm not looking at any maps when I try to find out the flow behaviors of Lake River.

I have already quoted a Clark County employee, Ron Wierenga, on the bidirectional flow of Lake River, which is seasonal. I had quoted the specific months it reverses, based on this County public works guy's powerpoint.

If you prefer "locals" as somehow being more informed, then I'll quote the Rosemere Neighborhood Association, which lobbied about flushing channel issues at Vancouver Lake.

After having been on the computer and the telephone (talking to WA state officials) most of the day and having communicated one more time with those who live in Wa and know what they are talking about I will leave you this comment about the Vancouver Lake area and ALL of those many posts you have made regarding this:

The statements below have been condensed and edited

Quote

Officials and life long residents state that they will concede that there might be some backflow from Salmon Creek into Vancouver Lake. That's possible, depending on tide and all...

BUT, there's still ZERO connection from Vancouver Lake to Columbia River, if there were, then the neighborhoods wouldn't be so pissed off about backflow would they? Why? Because the backflow would just exit into the Columbia anyway.

There's NO CHANNEL between the Lake and the Columbia EXCEPT via Lake River.

I cannot copyright this because it come from other sources.