47 47
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, FLYJACK said:

You guys have completely lost it..

I knew it was already in the file, I don't care what other's believed.

I wasn't nit picking.. I was pointing that the colour of the map was white not yellow,, when you read your summary, YOU talk about the yellow map in a way that doesn't make it clear if Spangler was referring to the correct map.

Pure gaslighting. 

Don't turn this back on Cub and I. YOU are the one who decided to A. nitpick a VERY minor detail B. continue to double down on it when everyone agreed it was inconsequential and C. started the ad hominem attacks.

This is exactly why I rarely post here. Toxic nonsense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It wasn't a debate!!! You said you thought it was a certain color but that this was due to lamination. I was curious about it myself. I sought clarification. I supplied what Tom said. It wasn't meant at ALL to challenge you or be like "durrr Flyjack is wrong na-na-na!" This is my whole point about the way you view this case. You take everything that is at all contrary to what YOU think or what YOU say as some sort of personal attack or personal affront. It's bizarre. We all greatly respect your research on the case. I can't speak for others but personally I just wish you were more of a team player and weren't so sensitive. 

It was a "debate" unless they changed the definition of the word.

As I said, I have no problem with you challenging me on it,, I had to go back and find the image as it was years ago that I looked at it.. I appreciate having to go back and confirm my previous conclusion.. I wasn't criticizing you. I was responding to Chaucer's criticism about debating the map colour.

I am not the sensitive one here,,, both you and Chaucer have blown up this minor thing into something it isn't..

I don't need this crap..

 

Share this post


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

Pure gaslighting. 

Don't turn this back on Cub and I. YOU are the one who decided to A. nitpick a VERY minor detail B. continue to double down on it when everyone agreed it was inconsequential and C. started the ad hominem attacks.

This is exactly why I rarely post here. Toxic nonsense.

Chaucer, you have a history of misunderstand context. seriously.. many times

and here you have done it as well.

* When he was done with his drop analysis, he turned over his drop zone map along with the yellow flight path map over to the FBI. Thus, Spangler did not create the yellow flight path map, he simply used that map to create the very first drop zone map - one which we have never seen.

It isn't clear in this passage if you were adding the yellow map term or it was in the discussion with Spangler..

All I did was clarify that the map was actually white not yellow.

Share this post


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

 

As I said, I have no problem with you challenging me on it.

 

But again, it wasn't a challenge. You didn't make a definitive statement about it. You just said that you thought it wasn't actually yellow paper. Your statement made me curious. I asked Tom. I supplied his answer. It wasn't a challenge. It was merely an addition to the conversation, same as what you are saying made you post the SAGE document. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, olemisscub said:

But again, it wasn't a challenge. You didn't make a definitive statement about it. You just said that you thought it wasn't actually yellow paper. Your statement made me curious. I asked Tom. I supplied his answer. It wasn't a challenge. It was merely an addition to the conversation, same as what you are saying made you post the SAGE document. 

Don't be so sensitive,,

I wasn't criticizing you,, and yes you were challenging my claim using Tom's opinion which is fine. It went against my claim, therefore a challenge. It made me go check and fortunately I found the image quickly,, with over 9000 files I am having a hard time finding things I know I have.

My posting the FBI doc supported Chaucer's interview with Spangler that he didn't create the map but obtained it from SAGE. There was no challenge.

 

Something is up with you two...  both of you are way over reacting. Completely off the charts... you guys are perceiving things that aren't there. 

Share this post


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

Don't be so sensitive,,

I wasn't criticizing you,, and yes you were challenging my claim using Tom's opinion which is fine. It went against my claim, therefore a challenge. It made me go check and fortunately I found the image quickly,, with over 9000 files I am having a hard time finding things I know I have.

My posting the FBI doc supported Chaucer's interview with Spangler that he didn't create the map but obtained it from SAGE. There was no challenge.

 

Something is up with you two...  both of you are way over reacting. Completely off the charts... you guys are perceiving things that aren't there. 

FlyJack and others, let me add some comments here and then ask a special favor or FlyJack.

First, the "yellow" map is an enlarged section of the FAA Seattle Sectional Chart.  These sectional charts are updated every six months, and the yellow map shows the height of Mt. St. Helens as 9677 feet. 

Mt. St. Helens exploded a few weeks after the money was found at Tena Bar and later updated sectional charts list Mt. St. Helens height as being 8365 feet. 

So the yellow map is older than the first updated map showing the post-explosion height of Mt. St. Helens and it is newer than the Seattle sectional maps that were in use previous to the one was effective on November 24, 1971.  This assumes that everyone used a chart that was within its effective dates in their work.

In the actual Sectional Charts, built up areas such as Portland and Seattle are indeed yellow in color.  Tanish colors are used to indicate some elevations of the terrain.  Anyone interested in actually making a federal case out of this should acquire a Seattle Sectional Chart and also visit the "FAA.gov" website and download the Aeronautical Information Services "Aeronautical Chart User's Guide".  And actually studying these two items would be quite helpful.

Flyjack, you recently posted a link to Air Force Manual 51-40, dated 1 July 1973.  This manual supersedes Air Force Manual 51-40, Volume 1, dated 1 August 1968, as amended.  I am trying to find a copy of this last document and have been unable to find one on the Internet except for a single copy that is for sale, and I have not been able to determine if it even contains the information that I am seeking.  Even a detailed copy of the index or table of contents would be most useful.

I am also a member of the Insitute of Navigation and have made a search of that organization's archives without success.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack and others, let me add some comments here and then ask a special favor or FlyJack.

First, the "yellow" map is an enlarged section of the FAA Seattle Sectional Chart.  These sectional charts are updated every six months, and the yellow map shows the height of Mt. St. Helens as 9677 feet. 

Mt. St. Helens exploded a few weeks after the money was found at Tena Bar and later updated sectional charts list Mt. St. Helens height as being 8365 feet. 

So the yellow map is older than the first updated map showing the post-explosion height of Mt. St. Helens and it is newer than the Seattle sectional maps that were in use previous to the one was effective on November 24, 1971.  This assumes that everyone used a chart that was within its effective dates in their work.

In the actual Sectional Charts, built up areas such as Portland and Seattle are indeed yellow in color.  Tanish colors are used to indicate some elevations of the terrain.  Anyone interested in actually making a federal case out of this should acquire a Seattle Sectional Chart and also visit the "FAA.gov" website and download the Aeronautical Information Services "Aeronautical Chart User's Guide".  And actually studying these two items would be quite helpful.

Flyjack, you recently posted a link to Air Force Manual 51-40, dated 1 July 1973.  This manual supersedes Air Force Manual 51-40, Volume 1, dated 1 August 1968, as amended.  I am trying to find a copy of this last document and have been unable to find one on the Internet except for a single copy that is for sale, and I have not been able to determine if it even contains the information that I am seeking.  Even a detailed copy of the index or table of contents would be most useful.

I am also a member of the Insitute of Navigation and have made a search of that organization's archives without success.  

I looked online before for the 1968,, without success

There are 3 on ebay,, fairly cheap

https://www.ebay.ca/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313&_nkw=+air+force+51-40+1968&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_odkw=+AFM+51-40&_osacat=0&_oac=1

1968... contents page

s-l1600-11.thumb.jpg.52c441536b44db9a63affd8d960ad475.jpg

image.jpeg.7d8225318e9950d946dd5b640578daf2.jpeg

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

I looked online before for the 1968,, without success

There are 3 on ebay,, fairly cheap

https://www.ebay.ca/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313&_nkw=+air+force+51-40+1968&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_odkw=+AFM+51-40&_osacat=0&_oac=1

1968... contents page

s-l1600-11.thumb.jpg.52c441536b44db9a63affd8d960ad475.jpg

image.jpeg.7d8225318e9950d946dd5b640578daf2.jpeg

 

FlyJack, thanks for making this search.  I need to do a few more calculations and will try to post the results tomorrow.

But the end result appears to be that information that first appears in an Air Force navigation training manual in the 1July 1973 edition of Air Force Manual 51-40 was used in preparing the so-called FBI map.  If this is proven to be correct, then the FBI map as presented on DropZone would have been prepared more than 19 months after the hijacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, thanks for making this search.  I need to do a few more calculations and will try to post the results tomorrow.

But the end result appears to be that information that first appears in an Air Force navigation training manual in the 1July 1973 edition of Air Force Manual 51-40 was used in preparing the so-called FBI map.  If this is proven to be correct, then the FBI map as presented on DropZone would have been prepared more than 19 months after the hijacking.

Are you thinking the map itself is later then 1971 or the hand marking process..

I have the 1971 map and it is the same, the FBI map is actually several maps stuck together then laminated.

The FBI map was prepared using GEOREF with a 1 mile error,, later - in about early 1973 I think the path was redone using computers to a 0.5 mile error..  there was only a slight change.

Share this post


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

Are you thinking the map itself is later then 1971 or the hand marking process..

I have the 1971 map and it is the same, the FBI map is actually several maps stuck together then laminated.

 

Correct, plus we know the provenance of the yellow map. It definitely came from 71. The FBI received it the next day. 

372322665_829850158813507_2765093510240707343_n.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The missing minute mark.

I did a deep analysis of the minute marks,, measuring the distance between and computing speed..  there is some error in the marks so I had to compute the distance and deviation from the mean...  I analyzed the entire flightpath.

The data was clear... the missing mark is between 19:59 and 20:05.. (the green line in pic)

This is a basic summary of the underlying analysis..  the red lines are equal and for 5 seconds. The green line is longer and should represent 6 seconds but there are only 5 seconds marked. The missing mark is in there. it may be due to some sort of rounding I don't know for sure but there is a missing mark in there based on the average speed of travel. The extra distance can't be accounted for due to slight variations in airspeed. It is too large. 

Conclusion, the times written are accurate, that means 20:05 and beyond is accurate. There is no shift in minutes. It is incorrect to move Cooper's LZ one minute further along the path.

1100025586_ScreenShot2023-11-27at8_11_19AM.png.85bd33a2f2c80a3c3ec264560a1e7bd2.png

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

Are you thinking the map itself is later then 1971 or the hand marking process..

I have the 1971 map and it is the same, the FBI map is actually several maps stuck together then laminated.

The FBI map was prepared using GEOREF with a 1 mile error,, later - in about early 1973 I think the path was redone using computers to a 0.5 mile error..  there was only a slight change.

FlyJack, there are posts online here, probably by you, that NWA (meaning Soderlind) had a computer program with the 0.5 mile error capability.

The sectional charts are printed on both sides of a large piece of paper.  The Seattle sectional covers the area from the Canadian border to about 100 miles south of Portland so it would be necessary to paste two of these maps together to have a single map of the area.

Edited by Robert99

Share this post


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

It's a real shame this interview with Tina never took place. Although maybe it took place over the phone or something and it's going to be in one of the upcoming internal files released by the vault. Regardless, I'd love to see the answers to these questions. 

TinaShouldBeAsked.png

Good questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, there are posts online here, probably by you, that NWA (meaning Soderlind) had a computer program with the 0.5 mile error capability.

I don't remember who did it but they had the plots recalculated using a computer instead of the GEOREF hand estimated method. It was late 72 or early 73.

The result was very little change.

Share this post


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

Correct, plus we know the provenance of the yellow map. It definitely came from 71. The FBI received it the next day. 

372322665_829850158813507_2765093510240707343_n.png

Olemiss, please keep in mind that the map mentioned above may not be the same map that we now refer to as the so-called FBI map.

Perhaps the information on the above map was plotted on other charts and maps along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Olemiss, please keep in mind that the map mentioned above may not be the same map that we now refer to as the so-called FBI map.

Perhaps the information on the above map was plotted on other charts and maps along the way.

I have the 1971 map, it matches the so called "FBI" yellow map..

I can tell that it was several sections,, each was plotted individually, they were attached together and then the line was drawn,, at some point it was laminated and that lamination has turned yellow.

But, the "FBI" map matches the original 1971 map. It is from 1971.

I believe based on a careful examination of the joins that the so called "FBI" map may actually be a colour print of the original..  then laminated.

1390828826_ScreenShot2023-11-27at10_51_47AM.png.89e7f3edd82f8d19d03c93c3f1cf08d9.png

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

I have the 1971 map, it matches the so called "FBI" yellow map..

I call tell that it was several sections,, each was plotted individually, they were attached together and then the line was drawn,, at some point it was laminated and that lamination has turned yellow.

But, the "FBI" map matches the original 1971 map. It is from 1971.

But, the "FBI" map matches the original 1971 map. It is from 1971.

and why wouldnt it! ?  The FBI is trying to hide the truth?  ...  from experts?  The height of Mt St Helens fooled everyone .... ?

Edited by georger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Headshape that Robert Gregory picked out

 

GregoryHeadshape.png

A bit distorted angle... but

The shape is between sketch A and B..

 

You got that pic from the EBAY listing...  did you buy the book?

I saw the listing a day after it sold, otherwise I would have bought it.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

A bit distorted angle... but

The shape is between sketch A and B..

 

You got that pic from the EBAY listing...  did you buy the book?

I saw the listing a day after it sold, otherwise I would have bought it.

No. I wish. I even contacted the seller to ask if he had another or where he got it from. I was livid when I saw it AFTER it had sold. I've been religious with looking for one of those on ebay for a solid year now. I guess I got distracted with CooperCon and forgot to check this past month. 

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.

47 47