DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 654]

7 hours ago, Chaucer said:

I've recently spoken with a gentleman who was a SAGE radar operator in the early 70s and later became a senior director at NORAD. He gave me the full scoop on SAGE, the data used to calculate the USAF flight path map, and the process that went into its development. 

We no longer have to guess or speculate. 

I'll be sharing what he had to say as soon as I can type is all up.

SPOILER ALERT:  The Western Flight is DOA if it was ever alive to begin with. 

That has been a black hole of knowledge...

The data had to be converted to GEOREF to manually plot the map. The military uses MGRS.. or lat/long..

[Chaucer 103]

I discussed GEOREF specifically with him.

SAGE recorded the longitude and latitude in GEOREF coordinates which then could be used to plot manually. 

So, in NORJACK, Flight 305 might be recorded as "from Hawkeye beacon, 305 3100 at 10". This track would then be manually plotted, read as a GEOREF coord or lat/long, then manually inputted in the AN/FSQ-7 Combat Direction Central.

All of this data would be printed out on IBM cards and then manually plotted on an aeronautical map - sometimes in real time. 

Obviously, this is the crib notes version. I''ll provide more detail soon. 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Chaucer

[FLYJACK 654]

42 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

I discussed GEOREF specifically with him.

SAGE recorded the longitude and latitude in GEOREF coordinates which then could be used to plot manually. 

So, in NORJACK, Flight 305 might be recorded as "from Hawkeye beacon, 305 3100 at 10". This track would then be manually plotted, read as a GEOREF coord or lat/long, then manually inputted in the AN/FSQ-7 Combat Direction Central.

All of this data would be printed out on IBM cards and then manually plotted on an aeronautical map - sometimes in real time. 

Obviously, this is the crib notes version. I''ll provide more detail soon. 

GEOREF is less accurate,,, the Spangler map was later updated with lat/long using a computer to be more accurate..

So, the SAGE raw data must be more accurate than GEOREF, in other words GEOREF was only used to present it on a physical map with the plotted points. GEOREF isn't a typical military system, they use MGRS which is similar. 

 

[Robert99 37]

On 8/24/2023 at 8:27 PM, FLYJACK said:

This is very very interesting....

I found a comment written last year by a retired AF Major Gary Larson..

He was given all the data and asked by the FBI to compute a DZ for Cooper..

NO, IT WASN"T ANYWHERE NEAR CLE ELUM.

I did a quick search and kept getting the cartoonist.. but there was one possible hit in Minnesota..

 

Chaucer and others need to read the "D.B. Cooper Connection" section in FlyJack's post above.

Major Larson plainly writes, "The finding of ransom money in the Columbia River falls within the outlines that I provided to the FBI agent back in the early 1970s."

Since others are claiming that Larson and Spangler came up with the same flight path, they are saying that the above comment also applies to Spangler.

Consequently, Chaucer's claim that the Western Flight Path is DOA is nonsense.

I never cease to be amazed at how some people on this site can so easily ignore proven facts to push their own silly agenda.

[FLYJACK 654]

3 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

Chaucer and others need to read the "D.B. Cooper Connection" section in FlyJack's post above.

Major Larson plainly writes, "The finding of ransom money in the Columbia River falls within the outlines that I provided to the FBI agent back in the early 1970s."

Since others are claiming that Larson and Spangler came up with the same flight path, they are saying that the above comment also applies to Spangler.

Consequently, Chaucer's claim that the Western Flight Path is DOA is nonsense.

I never cease to be amazed at how some people on this site can so easily ignore proven facts to push their own silly agenda.

We don't know if Larson recalculated the flightpath, that would be an assumption at this point.

He took all the data and calculated an updated DZ,, now, did he just use the 1973 computer updated path or have anything to do with creating it??

What we know is that the updated path in 1973 was very close to Spangler's with a small area outside requiring searching.

So, the updated computer generated path was close, we just don't know if Larson had anything to do with it.

[olemisscub 466]

1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

 

Major Larson plainly writes, "The finding of ransom money in the Columbia River falls within the outlines that I provided to the FBI agent back in the early 1970s."

 

He's describing a piece of land very broadly to a national audience 50 years after the fact. It's unlikely he remembers any specifics and even if he did it's unlikely he'd be dropping names like "La Center" or "Ariel" or "Orchards" in a national publication when he's just speaking generally about an area. Plus it sounds like he's speaking north to south, not east to west. 

[georger 197]

18 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

He's describing a piece of land very broadly to a national audience 50 years after the fact. It's unlikely he remembers any specifics and even if he did it's unlikely he'd be dropping names like "La Center" or "Ariel" or "Orchards" in a national publication when he's just speaking generally about an area. Plus it sounds like he's speaking north to south, not east to west. 

Precisely!  We dont know what he meant by: "The finding of ransom money in the Columbia River falls within the outlines that I provided to the FBI agent back in the early 1970s."  ...  and until that is known there is no point in people's knee-jerk reactions.

I went back and checked my Maj Dawson notes to see if his comments intersect with any of this - but apparently not.

Im guessing Edwards will be all over this!  I wish people would just wait and stay out of the way before declaring anything ... which they wont !  The last thing we need at this point is people rushing to judgement.

Larson could be referring to the Columbia water flow basin, to a specific area, to reclamation conducted in the Columbia Basin related to Tena Bar, ... or something else. There are many options he may have had in mind.  

Did Tosaw know about Larson or consult with him? Was Larson one of Tosaw's sources?  

Edited August 26, 2023 by georger

[Robert99 37]

58 minutes ago, georger said:

Precisely!  We dont know what he meant by: "The finding of ransom money in the Columbia River falls within the outlines that I provided to the FBI agent back in the early 1970s."  ...  and until that is known there is no point in people's knee-jerk reactions.

I went back and checked my Maj Dawson notes to see if his comments intersect with any of this - but apparently not.

Im guessing Edwards will be all over this!  I wish people would just wait and stay out of the way before declaring anything ... which they wont !  The last thing we need at this point is people rushing to judgement.

Larson could be referring to the Columbia water flow basin, to a specific area, to reclamation conducted in the Columbia Basin related to Tena Bar, ... or something else. There are many options he may have had in mind.  

Did Tosaw know about Larson or consult with him? Was Larson one of Tosaw's sources?  

I certainly hope that someone will give Dr. Edwads the phone number for Larson.

Tosaw's book does not have an index, and the lack of one is a crime against humanity in my opinion, so I am not going through the entire book just looking for Larson's name.

However, starting on page 107 of his book, Tosaw describes his contacts with Soderlind.  In summary, both Tosaw and Soderlind believed that Cooper could have landed in the Columbia River and they were not referring to the east/west section of the river. 

In fact, the airliner would have crossed the east/west section of the river in less than four seconds.  They were referring to the north/south section of the Columbia River, on which Tena Bar is located, which the airliner would have been tracking down for several minutes.

If the airliner was on the Western Flight Path, Cooper would have had to be a no-pull to land in the Columbia of close to it.  If he landed in the east/west section of the river he would have had to be a no-pull or have jumped over downtown Portland.

If Georger is claiming that I am jumping to conclusions, then he is speaking with a forked tongue.  I developed what is now known as the Western Flight Path in 2009 which was 14 years ago.  And Georger has been well aware of that since then.

[Robert99 37]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

He's describing a piece of land very broadly to a national audience 50 years after the fact. It's unlikely he remembers any specifics and even if he did it's unlikely he'd be dropping names like "La Center" or "Ariel" or "Orchards" in a national publication when he's just speaking generally about an area. Plus it sounds like he's speaking north to south, not east to west. 

Larson plainly stated that finding the money at Tena Bar was compatible with the flight path that he calculated.

And basically, the only way that the money could get to Tena Bar is if the airliner was on the Western Flight Path and that Cooper was a no-pull.

The Western Flight Path has been discussed at length on this web site since 2009 and on Shutter's web site.  Anyone interested in it should check out the dozens or maybe hundreds of posts on this subject.

[Chaucer 103]

3 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Chaucer and others need to read the "D.B. Cooper Connection" section in FlyJack's post above.

Major Larson plainly writes, "The finding of ransom money in the Columbia River falls within the outlines that I provided to the FBI agent back in the early 1970s."

Since others are claiming that Larson and Spangler came up with the same flight path, they are saying that the above comment also applies to Spangler.

Consequently, Chaucer's claim that the Western Flight Path is DOA is nonsense.

I never cease to be amazed at how some people on this site can so easily ignore proven facts to push their own silly agenda.

In ten years, you haven't even found evidence in favor of the WFP,  let alone proof.

You have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to undermine the accepted USAF flight path, but have never once provided a shred of evidence in favor of the WFP.  It's all assumptions, speculation, implication, and opinion with a dose of conspiracy theory. It's also telling how defensive you get without even knowing what my information is. You have lost all impartiality. 

Now, I think we have the information to plug all the holes you have tried to exploit for your own ends. I know that may create cognitive dissonance for you, and I apologize in advance. 

[georger 197]

1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

Larson plainly stated that finding the money at Tena Bar was compatible with the flight path that he calculated.

And basically, the only way that the money could get to Tena Bar is if the airliner was on the Western Flight Path and that Cooper was a no-pull.

The Western Flight Path has been discussed at length on this web site since 2009 and on Shutter's web site.  Anyone interested in it should check out the dozens or maybe hundreds of posts on this subject.

the only way that the money could get to Tena Bar is if the airliner was on the Western Flight Path   ???

Nonesense.  

The only way Georger could have been born is if R99 was his father!

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by georger

[georger 197]

1 hour ago, Chaucer said:

In ten years, you haven't even found evidence in favor of the WFP,  let alone proof.

You have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to undermine the accepted USAF flight path, but have never once provided a shred of evidence in favor of the WFP.  It's all assumptions, speculation, implication, and opinion with a dose of conspiracy theory. It's also telling how defensive you get without even knowing what my information is. You have lost all impartiality. 

Now, I think we have the information to plug all the holes you have tried to exploit for your own ends. I know that may create cognitive dissonance for you, and I apologize in advance. 

Pardon me but .... we dont know WHAT THE FUCK WE HAVE! 

HOLD ON TO YOUR HORSES AND THE SAME FOR THE MOST CREDENTIALED HUMAN ON THE PLANET - r99 !

Good grief.   Take a breath.      Slow down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!                One thing at a time .....     Christ on a crutch!

Edited August 26, 2023 by georger

[Chaucer 103]

51 minutes ago, georger said:

Pardon me but .... we dont know WHAT THE FUCK WE HAVE! 

HOLD ON TO YOUR HORSES AND THE SAME FOR THE MOST CREDENTIALED HUMAN ON THE PLANET - r99 !

Good grief.   Take a breath.      Slow down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!                One thing at a time .....     Christ on a crutch!

That's why I used the word "think" lol

[Robert99 37]

2 hours ago, Chaucer said:

In ten years, you haven't even found evidence in favor of the WFP,  let alone proof.

You have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to undermine the accepted USAF flight path, but have never once provided a shred of evidence in favor of the WFP.  It's all assumptions, speculation, implication, and opinion with a dose of conspiracy theory. It's also telling how defensive you get without even knowing what my information is. You have lost all impartiality. 

Now, I think we have the information to plug all the holes you have tried to exploit for your own ends. I know that may create cognitive dissonance for you, and I apologize in advance. 

Chaucer, your great big ego is fully on display here.

Where and what is this "accepted USAF flight path" that you mentioned?  Is it the so-called "FBI flight path"?

Also, I don't do conspiracy theories.

[Robert99 37]

5 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

That's why I used the word "think" lol

I "think" you are going to need a lot of towels to wipe something off your face in due time.

[Chaucer 103]

You don't do conspiracy theories? Then why do you go on and on about "redactions"? Why do you continually imply that the FAA and/or FBI is covering something up?

The Western Flight Path exists because you decided "a plane wouldn't fly that way", and you have spent the last ten years using logical fallacies and unsubstantiated cloak and dagger cover ups involving mysterious redactions and feeble attempts to put some teeny tiny doubt in the USAF flight. 

If I'm wrong, then provide some real evidence, some real data, some document, some real witness statements that prove a WFP. You want me to wipe egg off my face, start right now. 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Chaucer

[Robert99 37]

5 hours ago, Chaucer said:

You don't do conspiracy theories? Then why do you go on and on about "redactions"? Why do you continually imply that the FAA and/or FBI is covering something up?

The Western Flight Path exists because you decided "a plane wouldn't fly that way", and you have spent the last ten years using logical fallacies and unsubstantiated cloak and dagger cover ups involving mysterious redactions and feeble attempts to put some teeny tiny doubt in the USAF flight. 

If I'm wrong, then provide some real evidence, some real data, some document, some real witness statements that prove a WFP. You want me to wipe egg off my face, start right now. 

Chaucer, if you have any aeronautical qualifications why do you refuse to list them?  Anyone with even a limited knowledge of how air traffic control worked in the 1971-time frame can compare the Seattle ATC radio transcripts with the Oakland ATC radio transcripts and tell that the Seattle transcripts have been redacted.

The FAA and the FBI have those unredacted transcripts.  The FAA was required to keep those unredacted transcripts and the FBI is the agency that won't release them for some unknown reason.  And for the record, neither the FAA nor the FBI has ever denied the existence of the unredacted Seattle ATC transcripts.

The Western Flight Path has been discussed at length here for the last 14 years.  I look forward to your providing "some real evidence, some real data, some document, some real witness statements" that prove your own theories on the flight path assuming you have any in the first place.

In the meantime, I suggest you start stocking up on those towels.

[olemisscub 466]

10 hours ago, Robert99 said:

The Western Flight Path has been discussed at length here for the last 14 years.  I look forward to your providing "some real evidence, some real data, some document, some real witness statements" that prove your own theories on the flight path assuming you have any in the first place.

That's not how this works. You are the one suggesting an alternative to the established facts of the case as we know them, thus it is YOUR burden to provide contradictory evidence, not ours. 

 

[Chaucer 103]

10 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Chaucer, if you have any aeronautical qualifications why do you refuse to list them?  Anyone with even a limited knowledge of how air traffic control worked in the 1971-time frame can compare the Seattle ATC radio transcripts with the Oakland ATC radio transcripts and tell that the Seattle transcripts have been redacted.

The FAA and the FBI have those unredacted transcripts.  The FAA was required to keep those unredacted transcripts and the FBI is the agency that won't release them for some unknown reason.  And for the record, neither the FAA nor the FBI has ever denied the existence of the unredacted Seattle ATC transcripts.

The Western Flight Path has been discussed at length here for the last 14 years.  I look forward to your providing "some real evidence, some real data, some document, some real witness statements" that prove your own theories on the flight path assuming you have any in the first place.

In the meantime, I suggest you start stocking up on those towels.

Classic dodge to my direct request. 

Also, an excellent example of the Shifting The Burden of Proof fallacy. The person supplying the new material or theory or who challenges the status quo is responsible for the supporting evidence. Attempting to disprove one theory doesn't make another theory true.

 

[Robert99 37]

28 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

That's not how this works. You are the one suggesting an alternative to the established facts of the case as we know them, thus it is YOUR burden to provide contradictory evidence, not ours. 

 

Just what are the "established facts as we know them"?  And just who established those "facts"?  I think you have as much of a burden to prove your claims as anyone.  Otherwise, you are just accepting something that someone else claims.

For your information, there are probably not more than five provable "facts", based on present information, related to the flight path from Seattle to the point where the airliner gave its DME distance from what is now known as the Battleground VORTAC.

There are some other odd things about the flight path segment mentioned above that have not been discussed on this forum or any other.  Maybe Chaucer has figured them out since he claims to have ALL the information on the subject.  

In the meantime, I am sure that you will stick with your "established facts".

Good luck!

[georger 197]

3 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Just what are the "established facts as we know them"?  And just who established those "facts"?  I think you have as much of a burden to prove your claims as anyone.  Otherwise, you are just accepting something that someone else claims.

For your information, there are probably not more than five provable "facts", based on present information, related to the flight path from Seattle to the point where the airliner gave its DME distance from what is now known as the Battleground VORTAC.

There are some other odd things about the flight path segment mentioned above that have not been discussed on this forum or any other.  Maybe Chaucer has figured them out since he claims to have ALL the information on the subject.  

In the meantime, I am sure that you will stick with your "established facts".

Good luck!

You always divert and misdirect or ignore the issues!  One issue you ignore completely is, TBar is a sand bar!!!  How do things generally wind up on sand bars. Items found on sand bars do not generally fall from the sky ... without a volcano eruption nearby!

When you and Ulis try and link the money at TBar to the flight path of the plane, that by itself is an exceedingly low probability option compared to the more common explanations for how things commonly get on sand bars next to rivers. Even moving the flight path over Tena Bar does not accomplish what you claim! So you add: 'water flows down hill' to accomplish the impossibility of Money on flight 305 suddenly landing ON ... where you want it.

Your claims add up to a nursery rhyme. Nursery rhymes and  Conspiracy theories (redacted transcripts) are not logical "science".  

Edited August 27, 2023 by georger

[Robert99 37]

1 hour ago, georger said:

You always divert and misdirect or ignore the issues!  One issue you ignore completely is, TBar is a sand bar!!!  How do things generally wind up on sand bars. Items found on sand bars do not generally fall from the sky ... without a volcano eruption nearby!

When you and Ulis try and link the money at TBar to the flight path of the plane, that by itself is an exceedingly low probability option compared to the more common explanations for how things commonly get on sand bars next to rivers. Even moving the flight path over Tena Bar does not accomplish what you claim! So you add: 'water flows down hill' to accomplish the impossibility of Money on flight 305 suddenly landing ON ... where you want it.

Your claims add up to a nursery rhyme. Nursery rhymes and  Conspiracy theories (redacted transcripts) are not logical "science".  

Georger, this is just more of your nonsense.  I have not ignored any issues.  I know what Tena Bar is like since I have been there several times and so has Ulis as well as Josh Gates.

You have not been to Tena Bar but are now trying to represent yourself as an "expert" on it and the surrounding area.

There is absolutely no way that the money found at Tena Bar could have come from the mainstream of the Columbia River by natural means.  How it could have gotten there has been discussed here at length for more than 10 years.  Anyone interested in the matter can look up those posts.

GEORGER, NEITHER THE FAA NOR THE FBI HAS DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNREDACTED SEATTLE ATC RADIO TRANSCRIPTS!

Only people without any qualifications to speak on the matter claim that the unredacted transcripts don't exist.

[olemisscub 466]

1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

Only people without any qualifications to speak on the matter claim that the unredacted transcripts don't exist.

What are expecting to find in these transcripts? 

[FLYJACK 654]

On 7/6/2022 at 1:02 PM, FLYJACK said:

Teletype log redactions were exclusions of non Flight 305 Northwest Airlines traffic..

The redactions were not hiding anything.

 

Seattle teletype edits aka redactions were NOT PERTAINING to NORJAK.

 

Subject of Transcription

Air-Ground communications "pertaining to" the incident to Northwest Airlines Flight 305

 

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by FLYJACK

[georger 197]

5 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Georger, this is just more of your nonsense.  I have not ignored any issues.  I know what Tena Bar is like since I have been there several times and so has Ulis as well as Josh Gates.

You have not been to Tena Bar but are now trying to represent yourself as an "expert" on it and the surrounding area.

There is absolutely no way that the money found at Tena Bar could have come from the mainstream of the Columbia River by natural means.  How it could have gotten there has been discussed here at length for more than 10 years.  Anyone interested in the matter can look up those posts.

GEORGER, NEITHER THE FAA NOR THE FBI HAS DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNREDACTED SEATTLE ATC RADIO TRANSCRIPTS!

Only people without any qualifications to speak on the matter claim that the unredacted transcripts don't exist.

GEORGER, NEITHER THE FAA NOR THE FBI HAS DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF UFO's, ALIENS, OR GIANT APE MEN AND WOMEN AKA BiGFEET.  THE FAA AND FBI HAVE NO STAKE IN MOONMEN HARVESTING TOMATOES .... ON SATURN!

Edited August 28, 2023 by georger