23 23
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Anybody can cherry-pick. Here is the FULL quote of what I said. It is easy to sit there in anonymity as you do and say whatever you wish. No problem, but it takes much more character and substance to put your name behind what you say, or behind an investigation, as it were. 

Until you decide to do that, you will always be Amateur Night. 

Have you ever solved anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

 

23 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

 

If you are asking me if I solved the Cooper case, my answer is that NO ONE has done that yet. But I still yet may be right about KC, despite your blanket protestations about him. That remains to be seen. 

If you are asking if I solved anything else, sure I have. Nothing earth-shaking, but I am not easy to fool either. 

 

The answer is NO, you haven't solved anything.

So who are you to criticize anybody.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

Actually....

When you asked the 'have I solved anything' question I was just trying to be polite. I think my work on the Cooper case speaks for itself. The still-public report that has gone over 400,000 downloads to date...the 55 articles at Newsvine...the second best selling book on the Cooper case in history...kind of like that. 

I don't like to brag about it. But there it is. If you are asking for solves beyond that, I suppose the answer is yes. 

I don't mean to criticize you (too much) but if you want to be taken seriously you will have to become (wait for it now) a REAL person, not just a house nuisance who happens to carry a thing that raises up cars. 

That was a joke. It might take you a moment to get it. ¬¬

KC was not Cooper. He doesn't match the evidence or the profile.

That isn't an opinion, that is the evidence.

Make a list of the Cooper facts and profile,, go ahead and compare it to KC.

I have already posted more facts that match Hahneman than even exists for KC,,

I have a list and KC barely registers.

 

Downloads means nothing. You haven't solved anything. You can't even get the parachute issue straight.

You bragged about your superior credentials,

"You don't know everything Flyjack. I have done a couple of articles on the history and good-or-bad concepts of the death penalty in America. One of them got a half million views and was endorsed by a couple of anti-capital punishment groups. The Newsvine site no longer exists, but I later reproduced the article here: (Ten Good Reasons to Stop Executing People in the United States) So I am pretty familiar with the rules and how they have worked over the years. Probably...it seems...better than some law enforcement groups realized back in the 70s. A couple of the items in the article are dated only because the article originally appeared in 2009." 

 

You also said I was misinformed, the DOJ, US Attorney, Prosecutors and FBI were all wrong... they were correct.

but you were wrong about the statute and the SOL.. and you STILL won't admit it.

You just fail to accept the facts and there is just no productive discussion with people who can't accept reality.

You have no track record of any success, you get most things wrong because you have proven you are not good at processing complex information.

You also said this..

"You don't have shit for evidence. You never did. At least I was intelligent enough to release a public report with illustrations, a book, and several videos to back up my stuff. You have less than zero going."

Obviously, you don't know that, you just made it up.. It is an assumption you make because I won't post my research for you. It is completely false and a good example for how you think. You don't know what I have but make false claims anyway. This is not the behaviour of somebody seeking the truth.. it is the behaviour of somebody who is feeling threatened.

 

Blevins, I don't want to discuss this with you anymore,, it is a waste of time.. just noise. I proved you wrong and you still won't accept it. Clearly, you are immune to facts.

I am trying to write something up and it is extremely difficult and complex. I hate writing.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
20 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

That is the opinion ONLY of an unknown person. You. One of many opinions regarding KC. 

Here is another:

Question to Seattle FBI in 2013: Was Kenneth Christiansen eliminated as a suspect in the Cooper hijacking?

Answer from same source: No, he has not been eliminated as a suspect in the case. 

As you can see, there are different opinions by different people, and I value theirs more than yours...because THEIR opinions come with a source. These opinions and statements came to me PRIOR to our releasing the full version of our report on Kenny to them. 

Meaningless drivel.

I am looking at the facts, it is not an opinion.

Write up a list of for the Cooper profile, then compare KC..  virtually no match.

Do it.. if you think he matches, prove it. You won't because he doesn't. I was even shocked how poorly he matched.. as a Cooper suspect he is a joke.

Strip away the noise and list just the Cooper facts and profile, point form.

McCoy matches better and he wasn't Cooper.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

I may do that the minute you decide to present a single witness against Fred Hahneman, and answer those other questions about his viability as a suspect. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. 

My stuff is already out there.

The articles.

The report.

The book.

What do YOU have? Oh, yeah. I forgot. You don't even have a name. B) Amateur Night all the way. Let us know when you decide to step up to the Big Leagues. 

These are people like Bruce Smith, Tom Kaye and his team, Geoffrey Gray, Martin Andrade Sr. and Jr, hell...even Eric Ulis. At least he tried to toss a couple of conventions. You? Nobody knows who you are. You have no history, yet put yourself up as The Expert on All Suspects in the Cooper Case. I'll bet you haven't done a single interview or presented one solid piece of evidence. 

When you decide to put on the Big Boy pants and step up to the plate for real...let us know. 

Blevins, you are dodging.. 

Hahneman has nothing to with Kenneth Christiansen not matching the evidence. I don't have anything to do with KC not matching the evidence.

You are employing a straw-man tactic to deflect because you know KC doesn't match the evidence. Your personal attacks are childish and irrelevant.

This is simple, you write down the Cooper evidence/profile then compare it to KC..

 

I have already done this list and Hahneman is a near perfect match while KC is a disaster.

You won't do it because you know KC will fail miserably and be exposed as poor suspect.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Rataczak heard and felt an oscillation and commented... a bump is felt.

RATACZAK stated that approximately 5 to 10 minutes after the last contact with subject at 8:05 p.m., they
heard and felt an oscillation of the aircraft and commented at the time that he could have departed, causing the unusual vibration since there had been no change in flight altitude, speed or any other external force which would account for this sudden oscillation. They telephoned the company representative, PAUL  Soderlind in Minneapolis shortly there-after, and stated that the oscillation, which could have been the hijacker's departure, would have occurred between 8:05 p.m. and their call to Soderlind 5 or 10 minutes later, the exact time woud be recorded in the company log.

RATACZAK stated that they had not yet reached Portland proper but very definitely in the suburbs or immediate vicinity thereof.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

I don't make conclusions or assumptions based on a list of possibly inaccurate information. It's like saying you believe aliens visited certain Bible characters because the Bible sort of says so. 

I could go on. The report went over fifty pages for a reason. I was even able to establish a motive for the crime. 

But...even after all of that (and much more) I could not pin the hijacking on these two with an absolute certainty, and in the book I tell readers that. I do listen to opinions regarding these men's guilt, but mostly they come to me from people who have an actual identity, and I tend to respect those opinions more than one coming from someone without an identity...like you, for example. 

It is very possible after all these years that it will be impossible to name Cooper with an absolute certainty. I have accepted that. Maybe it's KC. Maybe it's Fred Hahneman. Maybe it's someone who has never been a suspect. I don't dismiss any of these possibilities. But if you want to pin the hijacking on Fred Hahneman, you are going to need much more than some assumptions from a list. Anytime you think this is easy, forget it, because it is not. You can't pin it on Hahneman simply by researching the internet and using a Magic List. You will have to find witnesses, establish whether or not Hahneman had an alibi for 11/24/71, and find out why...although the Feds had him on ice for a dozen years in the pen...why YOUR thoughts on him are so much different than their conclusions. Twelve years is a long time, and it must have occurred to the FBI when Hahneman hijacked that jet to Honduras...that he could be Cooper. 

I only have one main problem with Hahneman being Cooper, beyond the thing where they had him in custody for a dozen years. And that is the modus operandi used by both Cooper and Hahneman. They are SO much different. Cooper was generally polite and was careful before the hijacking to ensure he got to the airport without revealing his identity. (Hahneman was quickly identified after HIS hijacking.) Hahneman was a mean, angry SOB who brought a gun and wasn't afraid to use it, at one point shoving it into the belly of a passenger and telling him to sit back down. He put a noose over the pilot's neck when they had to transfer to another jet. It goes on. The crimes had similarities, but on some points they were very different. I don't count him out completely, but I don't think he looks good for the Cooper caper. On the other hand, maybe you will come up with some hard evidence and witness testimony on Hahneman in the future that will prove he was Cooper. 

 

Exactly, if you reject the facts of the case then you can make anybody into Cooper..

I made a list of Cooper facts/profile and suggest you do as well so you can do an objective analysis.

You can't claim KC is Cooper without matching him to the evidence. 

You know I have already said I am not making the case for Hahneman here and now. You make a conclusion from assumptions garnered from a few media reports, they aren't in context are misleading and incomplete, I have much more accurate direct information. Often the media is used for propaganda.

Cooper was who he was no matter what I say or you say about any suspect. 

You keep trying to make me responsible for Hahneman, that is a straw-man, he was or wasn't Cooper irrespective of what I do or don't say.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Rataczak heard and felt an oscillation and commented... a bump is felt.

RATACZAK stated that approximately 5 to 10 minutes after the last contact with subject at 8:05 p.m., they
heard and felt an oscillation of the aircraft and commented at the time that he could have departed, causing the unusual vibration since there had been no change in flight altitude, speed or any other external force which would account for this sudden oscillation. They telephoned the company representative, PAUL  Soderlind in Minneapolis shortly there-after, and stated that the oscillation, which could have been the hijacker's departure, would have occurred between 8:05 p.m. and their call to Soderlind 5 or 10 minutes later, the exact time woud be recorded in the company log.

RATACZAK stated that they had not yet reached Portland proper but very definitely in the suburbs or immediate vicinity thereof.

A few things…

First, Rataczak later told Carr that it was 10 to 15 minutes after last contact. So, we have a pretty ambiguous range to start.

Second, the 302s state that the original drop zone and search area in the vicinity of Merwin Dam was based entirely on the pilot report of oscillations in conjunction with radar data. There is no mention of Paul Sonderlind’s notes or the company log ever being used by the FBI to develop the dropzone. In fact, Sonderlind is hardly mentioned in the 302s.

Third, Anderson was interviewed a few years ago and stated that the crew waited “for some time” to report the pressure bump - that it wasn’t immediate. How long they waited is uncertain. One minute? Three? Five?

Fourth, at no time in the transcripts or interviews does any of the crew indicate that they thought Cooper had left the plane. In fact, the crew tried to call him in the back at 10:38 and again at 10:46. When the plane landed, Scott searched the rear and obviously found nothing. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence that the crew knew or assumed he jumped in 8:09 to 8:12 time frame - or at any time for that matter. They didn’t even know what the bump meant exactly until January 1972  when they did the sled test. 

Fifth, the anecdote (which again, doesn’t appear in any 302s) about Rataczak declaring “I believe our friend has taken leave of us.” does not happen between 8:09 and 8:12. It did not occur until 11:13, according to the transcripts, when the crew radioed the tower in Reno and said, “…be advised that, uh, we apparently, uh, our passenger took leave of us somewhere between here and Seattle…”

Lastly, it is hard to imagine anyone describing Ariel, Battleground, or even Orchards as “the suburbs or immediate vicinity” of Portland - especially in 1971 when that area was much less populated and much more rural than it is now. Nevertheless, it’s possible they could see the city glow through the clouds, but I would hazard a guess that any accurate determination of exactly where they were would be nearly impossible given the visibility. 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, Chaucer said:

A few things…

First, Rataczak later told Carr that it was 10 to 15 minutes after last contact. So, we have a pretty ambiguous range to start.

Second, the 302s state that the original drop zone and search area in the vicinity of Merwin Dam was based entirely on the pilot report of oscillations in conjunction with radar data. There is no mention of Paul Sonderlind’s notes or the company log ever being used by the FBI to develop the dropzone. In fact, Sonderlind is hardly mentioned in the 302s.

Third, Anderson was interviewed a few years ago and stated that the crew waited “for some time” to report the pressure bump - that it wasn’t immediate. How long they waited is uncertain. One minute? Three? Five?

Fourth, at no time in the transcripts or interviews does any of the crew indicate that they thought Cooper had left the plane. In fact, the crew tried to call him in the back at 10:38 and again at 10:46. When the plane landed, Scott searched the rear and obviously found nothing. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence that the crew knew or assumed he jumped in 8:09 to 8:12 time frame - or at any time for that matter. They didn’t even know what the bump meant exactly until January 1972  when they did the sled test. 

Fifth, the anecdote (which again, doesn’t appear in any 302s) about Rataczak declaring “I believe our friend has taken leave of us.” does not happen between 8:09 and 8:12. It did not occur until 11:13, according to the transcripts, when the crew radioed the tower in Reno and said, “…be advised that, uh, we apparently, uh, our passenger took leave of us somewhere between here and Seattle…”

Lastly, it is hard to imagine anyone describing Ariel, Battleground, or even Orchards as “the suburbs or immediate vicinity” of Portland - especially in 1971 when that area was much less populated and much more rural than it is now. Nevertheless, it’s possible they could see the city glow through the clouds, but I would hazard a guess that any accurate determination of exactly where they were would be nearly impossible given the visibility. 


 

Ive wondered about that myself - suburbs of Portland. Strangely enough, nobody has bothered to ask Rataczak what 'surburbs' means to him. He's the one who made the statement, and of course he was speaking as a pilot from a pilot's perspective. Suburb is tantamount to periphery - ie not the center one is moving toward. My grandmother lived at Vancouver and she referred to Portland as the 'center' of the 'city'. I just find it strange R was never asked to explain. Maybe people understood what he said and meant!

 

 

Edited by georger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, Chaucer said:

A few things…

First, Rataczak later told Carr that it was 10 to 15 minutes after last contact. So, we have a pretty ambiguous range to start.

Second, the 302s state that the original drop zone and search area in the vicinity of Merwin Dam was based entirely on the pilot report of oscillations in conjunction with radar data. There is no mention of Paul Sonderlind’s notes or the company log ever being used by the FBI to develop the dropzone. In fact, Sonderlind is hardly mentioned in the 302s.

Third, Anderson was interviewed a few years ago and stated that the crew waited “for some time” to report the pressure bump - that it wasn’t immediate. How long they waited is uncertain. One minute? Three? Five?

Fourth, at no time in the transcripts or interviews does any of the crew indicate that they thought Cooper had left the plane. In fact, the crew tried to call him in the back at 10:38 and again at 10:46. When the plane landed, Scott searched the rear and obviously found nothing. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence that the crew knew or assumed he jumped in 8:09 to 8:12 time frame - or at any time for that matter. They didn’t even know what the bump meant exactly until January 1972  when they did the sled test. 

Fifth, the anecdote (which again, doesn’t appear in any 302s) about Rataczak declaring “I believe our friend has taken leave of us.” does not happen between 8:09 and 8:12. It did not occur until 11:13, according to the transcripts, when the crew radioed the tower in Reno and said, “…be advised that, uh, we apparently, uh, our passenger took leave of us somewhere between here and Seattle…”

Lastly, it is hard to imagine anyone describing Ariel, Battleground, or even Orchards as “the suburbs or immediate vicinity” of Portland - especially in 1971 when that area was much less populated and much more rural than it is now. Nevertheless, it’s possible they could see the city glow through the clouds, but I would hazard a guess that any accurate determination of exactly where they were would be nearly impossible given the visibility. 


 

I posted that to point out that the oscillation was felt,, aka pressure bump. Oscillations were seen on the gauge and both seen and felt as bumps.

First, Carr also stated and it is true that information closer to the event is the most accurate.

Second, Soderlind was involved according to Rataczak. He said he was a genius and figured out the LZ (NWA DVD). He was listening in and they pinpointed an area which was later confirmed with more data. There were slight revisions over time.

Third, which report, Rataczak said he got on the horn right away. Unfortunately, we don't have that comm.

Fourth, false, there are interviews with Rataczak who was flying the plane by hand that they could see the lights of Portland and Cooper was gone by then (Gryder). Rataczak He said.. the exact quote. "about 28 miles North of Portland he (Cooper) jumped out of the airplane" (NWA DVD). 

Fifth, It isn't an anecdote, in the NWA DVD he repeated it.. Rataczak said he got on the horn to air traffic control "our friend just took leave of us” “mark it” (That comm had to be logged and used in the DZ analysis)

Lastly,, The crew knew were Portland was and PDX/Battleground Vortac would have been a significant position marker for the crew, they would have known if Cooper jumped before or after the plane passed that point. Also, that was just before they made a slight turn. They all believed it was before. So, there is really no way Cooper jumps beyond Battleground. The most accurate timestamp for a bump is the 8:09 bob on the FDR, if we accept the 8:18 position that puts the plane right about Heisson and that is right about 8:12 on the flightpath map. The problem is all the different event times are not synchronized so there is a variablity.

Putting all the evidence together that we have, the highest probability jump zone is around Heisson and decreases toward Battleground but there is virtually no chance Cooper jumps beyond PDX/Battleground Vortac. 

If you want to claim the bump wasn't Cooper jumping that is another argument, but very weak.

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

I was able to place both KC and his friend Bernie Geestman's whereabouts the week of the crime. I was able to establish that KC gave a $5,000 cash loan to Geestman's sister Dawn Androsko only five months after the hijacking, when KC had absolutely NO way at that time to do such a loan. Yet he did. And Geestman was the go-between for that loan. Meanwhile, Androsko ID's the tie clip as one belonging to Kenny. Geestman's niece testifies she saw Kenny creating the phony bomb just two weeks prior to the crime.

These are all lies told to you by liars. Pretty simple. Also, we've all seen the photo of you and your new girl now. How many times do you need to post it? It has nothing to do with Cooper.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
41 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Hey ding-dong...you realize of course that we sent this information to both the Seattle FBI and main HQ in Washington, DC. Right? With both Skipp Porteous' and my name on it, right? With the addresses and known contact information on all of these people included....right?

Do you think we would do that if it was a pack of lies?

No, I do not think you would have done that IF YOU KNEW that they were lies. But, just because you don't think they are lies, does not mean they are not lies. 

A woman can remember seeing KC make something 40 some years ago, and can also recall that it happened shortly before the hijacking. I can recall several things from my childhood, but to put those things in chronological order in relation to certain other events...no way. 

So yes, I'm calling bullshit on her story. And you would do the same if it were in regards to a suspect other than Kenny.

Edited by ParrotheadVol
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the tie clip is a bit of a red herring..

There are 2 tie tack holes, one very significant, that suggests the tie was usually worn with a tie tack and the alligator clip was a last minute addition...  

from https://citizensleuths.com/tie-clip.html

 Fig. 3 Tie tack holes found on Coopers tie. Note permanent depression surrounding hole on right.

There were very few of these marks indicating that the current tie clip was not removed and replaced very often. The permanent depression left in the tie, by the now absent tie tack, suggested that a single tie tack was present on the tie for an extended period of time.

Share this post


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

I posted that to point out that the oscillation was felt,, aka pressure bump. Oscillations were seen on the gauge and both seen and felt as bumps.

First, Carr also stated and it is true that information closer to the event is the most accurate.

Second, Soderlind was involved according to Rataczak. He said he was a genius and figured out the LZ (NWA DVD). He was listening in and they pinpointed an area which was later confirmed with more data. There were slight revisions over time.

Third, which report, Rataczak said he got on the horn right away. Unfortunately, we don't have that comm.

Fourth, false, there are interviews with Rataczak who was flying the plane by hand that they could see the lights of Portland and Cooper was gone by then (Gryder). Rataczak He said.. the exact quote. "about 28 miles North of Portland he (Cooper) jumped out of the airplane" (NWA DVD). 

Fifth, It isn't an anecdote, in the NWA DVD he repeated it.. Rataczak said he got on the horn to air traffic control "our friend just took leave of us” “mark it” (That comm had to be logged and used in the DZ analysis)

Lastly,, The crew knew were Portland was and PDX/Battleground Vortac would have been a significant position marker for the crew, they would have known if Cooper jumped before or after the plane passed that point. Also, that was just before they made a slight turn. They all believed it was before. So, there is really no way Cooper jumps beyond Battleground. The most accurate timestamp for a bump is the 8:09 bob on the FDR, if we accept the 8:18 position that puts the plane right about Heisson and that is right about 8:12 on the flightpath map. The problem is all the different event times are not synchronized so there is a variablity.

Putting all the evidence together that we have, the highest probability jump zone is around Heisson and decreases toward Battleground but there is virtually no chance Cooper jumps beyond PDX/Battleground Vortac. 

If you want to claim the bump wasn't Cooper jumping that is another argument, but very weak.

 

 

First, I agree with Carr (and you) that information provided closer to the event is more accurate. To my knowledge, both the “5 to 10 minutes” and “10 to 15 minutes” statements were made both to Carr decades after the event. I may be wrong on this, and if you could clarify that would be great.

 

Second, regardless of Rat’s statements (again, decades after the event) Sonderlind is hardly mentioned in the 302s, and all official FBI documentation indicate that the jump spot was formulated from a combination of the comms and the radar data. The comm that was used specifically was the one where Rat indicated they were experiencing oscillations and his ear piece fell out. Sonderlind was certainly involved, and was certainly a genius, but there is no evidence that he wrote down the time of Cooper’s jump or that his notes or the company log was used in creating the drop zone. This anecdote from Rat comes decades later, and as we agree, statements made closer to the event are more accurate. If we really want to complicate things, Tosaw claims in his book that Sonderlind extended the jump zone to the Columbia. 

Third, Anderson and Rat disagree. Rat says he reported it immediately. Anderson states that they waited to report it because they weren’t sure what it meant and wanted to know if they would experience it again. 

Fourth, again, you are relying on Rat’s statements which as you pointed out aren’t as accurate as contemporaneous evidence. An examination of the 302s and transcripts indicate that the crew was not certain if Cooper was still on the plane or not. Even Tina radioed back that for Cooper to put up the stairs because they were about to land. The Harrison notes indicate that the crew had “decided not to contact him till near Reno”. Then, of course, they try to radio him in the back at 10:36 and 10:48. This doesn’t seem to be behavior of a flight crew that believes he jumped out of the aircraft hours earlier. 

Fifth, it is an anecdote which is defined as a “short story about a real event”. Rataczak made this claim in the DVD. It does not appear in the 302s. It does not appear in any FBI interviews with the crew. It is a story Rat decided to share decades later. I’ll refer to our agreement that statements made closer to the event are more accurate. More likely, this story originated from the statement that I referenced earlier made at 11:13 to Reno Tower. 

Lastly, it’s quote possible that the crew knew they were near the BTG/PDX VORTAC. But that’s not what Rat is stating here. He is stating that they were in “the suburbs of Portland or the immediate vicinity.” Ariel, Battleground, and Orchards would not be considered “suburbs of Portland” the “immediate vicinity” IMO. And again, they weren’t even sure what that bump meant exactly until January - regardless of what time it occurred. 

It seems that you are relying on various statements made by Rataczak decades removed from the actual event rather than on the FBI documentation. A clear-eyed examination of the FBI docs and transcripts reveal the following:

1. No statement from Rataczak about “taking leave of us” exists except at the end of the flight. 

2. The timing of the jump was based on the crew report of “oscillations” correlated with radar data. Sonderlind’s notes in the company log are never even hinted at as being part of the reconstruction. 

3. The crew was unsure if he jumped, let alone when. 

I’m glad we can agree that documentation closer to the time of the incident is more accurate than statements made decades later. 

Enjoy the new year!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, Chaucer said:

First, I agree with Carr (and you) that information provided closer to the event is more accurate. To my knowledge, both the “5 to 10 minutes” and “10 to 15 minutes” statements were made both to Carr decades after the event. I may be wrong on this, and if you could clarify that would be great.

 

Second, regardless of Rat’s statements (again, decades after the event) Sonderlind is hardly mentioned in the 302s, and all official FBI documentation indicate that the jump spot was formulated from a combination of the comms and the radar data. The comm that was used specifically was the one where Rat indicated they were experiencing oscillations and his ear piece fell out. Sonderlind was certainly involved, and was certainly a genius, but there is no evidence that he wrote down the time of Cooper’s jump or that his notes or the company log was used in creating the drop zone. This anecdote from Rat comes decades later, and as we agree, statements made closer to the event are more accurate. If we really want to complicate things, Tosaw claims in his book that Sonderlind extended the jump zone to the Columbia. 

Third, Anderson and Rat disagree. Rat says he reported it immediately. Anderson states that they waited to report it because they weren’t sure what it meant and wanted to know if they would experience it again. 

Fourth, again, you are relying on Rat’s statements which as you pointed out aren’t as accurate as contemporaneous evidence. An examination of the 302s and transcripts indicate that the crew was not certain if Cooper was still on the plane or not. Even Tina radioed back that for Cooper to put up the stairs because they were about to land. The Harrison notes indicate that the crew had “decided not to contact him till near Reno”. Then, of course, they try to radio him in the back at 10:36 and 10:48. This doesn’t seem to be behavior of a flight crew that believes he jumped out of the aircraft hours earlier. 

Fifth, it is an anecdote which is defined as a “short story about a real event”. Rataczak made this claim in the DVD. It does not appear in the 302s. It does not appear in any FBI interviews with the crew. It is a story Rat decided to share decades later. I’ll refer to our agreement that statements made closer to the event are more accurate. More likely, this story originated from the statement that I referenced earlier made at 11:13 to Reno Tower. 

Lastly, it’s quote possible that the crew knew they were near the BTG/PDX VORTAC. But that’s not what Rat is stating here. He is stating that they were in “the suburbs of Portland or the immediate vicinity.” Ariel, Battleground, and Orchards would not be considered “suburbs of Portland” the “immediate vicinity” IMO. And again, they weren’t even sure what that bump meant exactly until January - regardless of what time it occurred. 

It seems that you are relying on various statements made by Rataczak decades removed from the actual event rather than on the FBI documentation. A clear-eyed examination of the FBI docs and transcripts reveal the following:

1. No statement from Rataczak about “taking leave of us” exists except at the end of the flight. 

2. The timing of the jump was based on the crew report of “oscillations” correlated with radar data. Sonderlind’s notes in the company log are never even hinted at as being part of the reconstruction. 

3. The crew was unsure if he jumped, let alone when. 

I’m glad we can agree that documentation closer to the time of the incident is more accurate than statements made decades later. 

Enjoy the new year!

 

Carr's statements are completely irrelevant for this issue.

Soderlind did the LZ analysis and came up with the LZ map. 

You discount him erroneously.

sodmap.jpeg.abca3a1428fd2593d39d0bbfb5bca546.jpeg

 

The "took leave of us" report from Ratazcak was also in newspaper reports over throughout the years. So, it isn't something recent he made up. Nov 26, 1971, hijacker took leave.. 25 miles North of Portland.. basically the same thing he said in the 2011 NWA DVD. 

rataczaktookleave.jpeg.8fab6b02c22e76b2d97f6dce8861ddae.jpeg

 

DATE: Sunday, November 24, 1996              TAG: 9611250051
SECTION: HORIZON                  PAGE: 1    EDITION: METRO 
DATELINE: PORTLAND, ORE.
SOURCE: MICHAEL TAYLOR SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE

At 8:12 p.m., ``we felt a little bump and the air pressure changed,'' Rataczak said.

``I got on the radio to air traffic control and said, `I think our friend just took leave of us. Mark the point on your radar.'''

 

Anderson reported that they reported the incident after some time but there may have been more than one report, they had comms with different parties. Rataczak said he reported it to ATC but here he also reported it to Solderlind at NWA. We don't have the "take leave" report but the FBI and Soderlind sertainly did when they calculated the LZ.

ratcallsod.jpg.5919ce66adf97caae2f58c9de3ec89f5.jpg

You don't know what is meant by a "suburb", that is just an assumption. I read the "suburb" comment as the point when he talked to Soderlind.

It is a fact that the crew knew when the passed the PDX/Battleground Vortac and that would been a marker in time. They would have known if the bump was before or after that marker and they said before. Ratazcak who was manual flying and making that turn thought Cooper jumped up closer to Merwin. 

So, I am not relying on statements made by Ratazcak decades later, those are corroborated by earlier statements. I am taking in the totality of evidence. 

1. The statement does exist form him in 2011 and going back years in news reports.\

2. Just incorrect, Solderlind was named by Rataczak and he is named in the 302's. Jan 9, he made the detailed analysis/map after the sled test that is in the 302's as well.

3. The crew was unsure if he jumped because they could not confirm it but they suspected that is why they reported it.

 

The flaw in your argument is that you don't appreciate the that FBI files are not complete. We only have a fraction of the information available to the FBI, so it is a high bar to claim they got it wrong. 

Put all the pieces together there is no way Cooper jumped/bump at/near the Columbia, there is zero evidence for it and you need to completely discredit Ratazcak to make it work. All the evidence supports a jump/bump between Merwin and Battleground.

 

BTW, because the FDR was the most accurate timestamp, that bob at 8:09 is when the jump/bump occurred,, the trick is figuring out exactly where the plane was with all the confounding unsynchronized timestamps.. It had to be between Merwin and Battleground. My top spot is Heisson.

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Good stuff, FJ!

You were the one who first mentioned Rat’s comments to Carr, so I responded. Glad you agree they are irrelevant.

I’m not saying Soderlind wasn’t involved in the reconstruction of the flight path or the landing zone. My point is that there is no evidence that Rataczak made the “took leave of us” as the plane passed over southern Washington State, and no evidence that Soderlind’s notes or company log were used in that reconstruction. Saying so is just assumption and conjecture on your part, and not based in any known documentation. Rat DID say …”our passenger took leave of us somewhere between here and Seattle…” at 11:13. That’s is likely were this urban myth came from. 

It’s also important to recognize that Soderlind provided an LZ extending to the river to Tosaw. If this is true, then how does this fit into your narrative? 

As far as newspaper articles? You are the best researcher on the case. The elite of the elite. I’m shocked you would rely on news media reports - which are notoriously inaccurate - to support your argument. I found an article in which that quote is attributed to Scott when he returned to the cockpit after checking the rear of the aircraft. If the 302s can’t be trusted, how can news articles?

If Rat did say “Our friend took leave of us. Mark it” sometime around 8:11 and Soderlind wrote down the time, then why is that never mentioned in the 302s? Why does the FBI repeatedly state that the 8:11 time for the jump comes from a correlation of the report of the oscillations with radar data? Why does Rataczak state the time was 8:13, not 8:09? 8:11? 8:12? The reason should be a clear to an expert on the case like you:  it either didn’t happen or happened later (11:13 to Reno Tower) and changed over the decades.

Also, the crew never reported that Cooper had jumped or left the aircraft. It’s not in the 302s. It’s not in the transcripts. Not in the FBI’s interviews of the crew.  Quite the opposite. The comms and the behavior of the crew indicate their confusion and their assumption that Cooper was still aboard. There would be no reason at the time to believe the pressure bump = Cooper jumping. That wasn’t confirmed until the January sled test. 

To be clear, this discussion is independent of my belief of a jump closer to the Columbia. This is about verifying secondary and tertiary sources against primary ones. You’re a smart guy. The smartest researcher in this case. No one comes close to you. Frankly, I’m surprised you would engage in rank speculation and assumption like this based upon zero evidence. You’re so much better than this. 

Edited by Chaucer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
42 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

Good stuff, FJ!

You were the one who first mentioned Rat’s comments to Carr, so I responded. Glad you agree they are irrelevant.

I’m not saying Soderlind wasn’t involved in the reconstruction of the flight path or the landing zone. My point is that there is no evidence that Rataczak made the “took leave of us” as the plane passed over southern Washington State, and no evidence that Soderlind’s notes or company log were used in that reconstruction. Saying so is just assumption and conjecture on your part, and not based in any known documentation. Rat DID say …”our passenger took leave of us somewhere between here and Seattle…” at 11:13. That’s is likely were this urban myth came from. 

It’s also important to recognize that Soderlind provided an LZ extending to the river to Tosaw. If this is true, then how does this fit into your narrative? 

As far as newspaper articles? You are the best researcher on the case. The elite of the elite. I’m shocked you would rely on news media reports - which are notoriously inaccurate - to support your argument. I found an article in which that quote is attributed to Scott when he returned to the cockpit after checking the rear of the aircraft. If the 302s can’t be trusted, how can news articles?

If Rat did say “Our friend took leave of us. Mark it” sometime around 8:11 and Soderlind wrote down the time, then why is that never mentioned in the 302s? Why does the FBI repeatedly state that the 8:11 time for the jump comes from a correlation of the report of the oscillations with radar data? Why does Rataczak state the time was 8:13, not 8:09? 8:11? 8:12? The reason should be a clear to an expert on the case like you:  it either didn’t happen or happened later (11:13 to Reno Tower) and changed over the decades.

Also, the crew never reported that Cooper had jumped or left the aircraft. It’s not in the 302s. It’s not in the transcripts. Not in the FBI’s interviews of the crew.  Quite the opposite. The comms and the behavior of the crew indicate their confusion and their assumption that Cooper was still aboard. There would be no reason at the time to believe the pressure bump = Cooper jumping. That wasn’t confirmed until the January sled test. 

To be clear, this discussion is independent of my belief of a jump closer to the Columbia. This is about verifying secondary and tertiary sources against primary ones. You’re a smart guy. The smartest researcher in this case. No one comes close to you. Frankly, I’m surprised you would engage in rank speculation and assumption like this based upon zero evidence. You’re so much better than this. 

You need to reread my post above, it decimates your theory.

I don't rely only on news reports, they just corroborate over time Rataczak's personal account. Your straw-man attack is disingenuous.

There were two "jump" reports made, one to ATC and one to Soderlind.

The 302 I posted shows that Soderind was called and involved right away.

 

Your argument has no evidence, you rely on discrediting and casting doubt on Ratazcak, Soderlind and the FBI with far less info than they had,, then there is the FDR 8:09 bob and the fact that the crew would know when they passed the PDX/Portland Vortac and if they were over the Columbia...

Overcoming that is a real heavy lift... and you have provided nothing

I refuted your claims with evidence and you just ignore it.. 

Clearly, you aren't interesting in building a conclusion from the evidence.

Unfortunately that is very common in this case.. and you just won't advance intellectually in this case until you park your ego. That isn't just me, everyone thinks that about you.

 

It now looks, as expected like you are now trying to shift your failed argument to claim the bump was not the jump... that way you can ignore the evidence.

Good luck with that one.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

You need to reread my post above, it decimates your theory.

I don't rely only on news reports, they just corroborate over time Rataczak's personal account. Your straw-man attack is disingenuous.

There were two "jump" reports made, one to ATC and one to Soderlind.

The 302 I posted shows that Soderind was called and involved right away.

 

Your argument has no evidence, you rely on discrediting and casting doubt on Ratazcak, Soderlind and the FBI with far less info than they had,, then there is the FDR 8:09 bob and the fact that the crew would know when they passed the PDX/Portland Vortac and if they were over the Columbia...

Overcoming that is a real heavy lift... and you have provided nothing

I refuted your claims with evidence and you just ignore it.. 

Clearly, you aren't interesting in building a conclusion from the evidence.

Unfortunately that is very common in this case.. and you just won't advance intellectually in this case until you park your ego. That isn't just me, everyone thinks that about you.

 

It now looks, as expected like you are now trying to shift your failed argument to claim the bump was not the jump... that way you can ignore the evidence.

Good luck with that one.

What a very strange reply. 

I have no theory to “decimate”. I’m merely pointing out that you are relying on statements from Rataczak made years and even decades after the event - of which there is no documentation and assuming - again without documentation - that this statement was recorded by Soderlind and assuming - again without documentation - that Soderlind’s written record of this alleged statement was used to pinpoint the time of the jump. That’s an unsound way to conduct an investigation, and I expect better from you since you are the best at his. 

Regarding strawman? What strawman am I attacking exactly? I provided factual evidence in the form of 302s and transcripts in comparison to your rank speculation and specious reasoning.

There were no reports of “jumps” in this case. Not one. Not two. Not 100. No reports of jumps. This is false regardless of how many times you repeat it. 

Again, I’m not arguing that Soderlind wasn’t involved. Of course he was involved. But there’s no evidence that he recorded Rat’s alleged  “leave of us” comment and used that to develop the LZ.

My argument uses nothing but documented evidence directly from the 302s and transcripts. Anyone paying attention can see that. You are the one making leaps of logic and engaging in speculation. If you wanted to use evidence to support your argument, you’d post a 302 stating that Rataczak said “Our friend has taken leave of us. Mark it.” If you wanted to use evidence to support your argument you’d find a document where Soderlind wrote that down in the company log. If you wanted to use evidence to support your argument, you’d locate a 302 where the FBI states that Soderlind’s notation of the time indicated by Rat was used to create the time of the jump. Why haven’t you? Because you can’t. You accuse me of the exact behavior that you exhibit. 

Your attempt to gaslight everyone and make me think my argument has no evidence while yours does has failed.  Try a different tactic. It makes you look desperate. 

Here are the facts:

1. No official documentation exists that Rataczak stated “I believe our friend has taken leave of us. Mark it.” At the time of the jump.

2. There is no evidence that the crew immediately reported this event to Soderlind.

3. There is no evidence that Soderlind used this alleged time notation to reconstruct the landing zone.

4. There is no evidence that the crew ever reported that the HJ had “jumped” or left the aircraft prior to 11:13 in Reno.

If you would like to abandon your ad hominem arguments and provide evidence that refute these facts, go ahead. It should be easy for you. 

You’re the best researcher in the this case. 

Have a terrific night. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

What a very strange reply. 

I have no theory to “decimate”. I’m merely pointing out that you are relying on statements from Rataczak made years and even decades after the event - of which there is no documentation and assuming - again without documentation - that this statement was recorded by Soderlind and assuming - again without documentation - that Soderlind’s written record of this alleged statement was used to pinpoint the time of the jump. That’s an unsound way to conduct an investigation, and I expect better from you since you are the best at his. 

Regarding strawman? What strawman am I attacking exactly? I provided factual evidence in the form of 302s and transcripts in comparison to your rank speculation and specious reasoning.

There were no reports of “jumps” in this case. Not one. Not two. Not 100. No reports of jumps. This is false regardless of how many times you repeat it. 

Again, I’m not arguing that Soderlind wasn’t involved. Of course he was involved. But there’s no evidence that he recorded Rat’s alleged  “leave of us” comment and used that to develop the LZ.

My argument uses nothing but documented evidence directly from the 302s and transcripts. Anyone paying attention can see that. You are the one making leaps of logic and engaging in speculation. If you wanted to use evidence to support your argument, you’d post a 302 stating that Rataczak said “Our friend has taken leave of us. Mark it.” If you wanted to use evidence to support your argument you’d find a document where Soderlind wrote that down in the company log. If you wanted to use evidence to support your argument, you’d locate a 302 where the FBI states that Soderlind’s notation of the time indicated by Rat was used to create the time of the jump. Why haven’t you? Because you can’t. You accuse me of the exact behavior that you exhibit. 

Your attempt to gaslight everyone and make me think my argument has no evidence while yours does has failed.  Try a different tactic. It makes you look desperate. 

Here are the facts:

1. No official documentation exists that Rataczak stated “I believe our friend has taken leave of us. Mark it.” At the time of the jump.

2. There is no evidence that the crew immediately reported this event to Soderlind.

3. There is no evidence that Soderlind used this alleged time notation to reconstruct the landing zone.

4. There is no evidence that the crew ever reported that the HJ had “jumped” or left the aircraft prior to 11:13 in Reno.

If you would like to abandon your ad hominem arguments and provide evidence that refute these facts, go ahead. It should be easy for you. 

You’re the best researcher in the this case. 

Have a terrific night. 

 

 

1. I never argued there was an official documentation from Rataczak,, I even stated there wasn't  = straw-man.

2. There is evidence Rataczak called Soderlind, I posted the 302.. you are just wrong.

3. I also posted the 302 where Solderlind stated he used his notes,, you are wrong again.

4. Rataczak's said he reported it to ATC in 2011, earlier news reports corroborated it. Aslo, the 302 corroborates him telling Solderlind.. so strike 3,,,

Either you didn't read my post or you are pretending not to.

The evidence is there, if you choose to ignore it well that confirms everything.

 

I have been at this Cooper thing for a few years and I have never seen anybody completely ignore the evidence posted for them as egregiously as this...  not even Blevins.

 

Share this post


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

I never claimed to be an expert on the finer details of the Cooper case itself. At the time I started investigating Christiansen (with Skipp Porteous' assistance of course) I didn't know any more than the average NW person about Cooper. 

You don't ignore evidence, but you DO ignore sensible questions that might threaten your vision of Fred Hahneman possibly being Cooper. 

You have a demonstrated history of ignoring evidence and not admitting when you are proven wrong..

If you reject all the witness testimony then there isn't much left and almost anybody can be made into Cooper. Your KC case relies on casting doubt on all the evidence, not a positive argument.

Your SOL argument was structured and flawed exactly the same as Chaucer's. Both were not a positive argument in that there was no evidence to support. Both relied on casting doubt on the counter argument.  A very weak position. Both claimed everyone was wrong with no evidence to support it. 

And Blevins you still haven't admitted you were wrong on the SOL.. 

but you have nothing on Chaucer.. that is epic level denial.. I have never seen anything like it in this case.

Go back and look at his argument, then my response. I refuted all of it with facts and he just ignores it as if it doesn't exist then employs a straw-man and a passive aggressive tactic to discredit me. 

So, to maintain his opinion he needs to shift his argument to claim the "bump" was not Cooper leaving the plane.

Some of you need to be right or win a debate more than uncovering the truth.. 

This case is incredibly complex with a massive amount of information to process to come up with the truth. If the truth is not your primary goal, the VORTEX will destroy you.

Your denial maybe goes to 5, but Chaucer goes up to 11.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

23 23