DB Cooper

[CooperNWO305 146]

10 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Well, the one on the left is obviously the Bing sketch and he used it as a template. Spreckel merely adjusted the width of the forehead one-sixteenth of an inch (according to the agent).

 

Are these pics of Catalano, Cooper, and Murphy in the 302s or are these scraped from the web? Are all of these 302s in one Vault release? 

[olemisscub 466]

2 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Are these pics of Catalano, Cooper, and Murphy in the 302s or are these scraped from the web? Are all of these 302s in one Vault release? 

The Catalano and Al Cooper photos are just random pics that I found of those men, but the Donald Murphy pic (far right) actually is the same photograph that they saw.

The pic below is the Catalano photo they used for the photo spreads. I’ve FOIA’d for a high quality version of it and also FOIA’d for the photo that they used for Al Cooper. FBI approved those FOIA’s, so maybe I’ll get them in five years…haha 
 

[Robert99 37]

11 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Sure, there is some variability/delay with the 8:22 time.. 

but there are two 8:22 times noted for the 23 DME and we don't know the time source for the 8:18 time notation, just speculation..

The 8:22 time is close to matching the flight timing,, the 8:18 is the outlier, both can't be correct.

but I am working on something regarding the timing and location around Portland.. that may alter the location and times,, It doesn't affect N of Portland.

FlyJack, both the 8:22 and 8:18 times are correct if you understand what they are referring to.

Again, the airliner reported over the ARINC radio system, which Harrison and other NWA personnel were listening to, that it was 23 DME south of what would have to be the present day Battleground VORTAC at 8:18 PM.  The airline crew was reporting their actual position at that time.

The ARINC ground station also received that information at 8:18 PM.  The ARINC ground station had to take that radio information, format it, and type it into the ARINC teletype system and sent it over that system at 8:22 PM.  

At about three nautical miles per minute, the airliner was actually about another 12 DME miles south of the Battleground VORTAC (or about at 35 DME miles) at 8:22 PM.

To understand the above, just compare the times for the first two position reports the airliner made after taking off from Seattle.  Times in the Seattle ATC radio transcripts are about two minutes earlier than the times that are listed for the ARINC teletype messages being sent.  This is no fluke; all of these times are accurate to the minute.

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, both the 8:22 and 8:18 times are correct if you understand what they are referring to.

Again, the airliner reported over the ARINC radio system, which Harrison and other NWA personnel were listening to, that it was 23 DME south of what would have to be the present day Battleground VORTAC at 8:18 PM.  The airline crew was reporting their actual position at that time.

The ARINC ground station also received that information at 8:18 PM.  The ARINC ground station had to take that radio information, format it, and type it into the ARINC teletype system and sent it over that system at 8:22 PM.  

At about three nautical miles per minute, the airliner was actually about another 12 DME miles south of the Battleground VORTAC (or about at 35 DME miles) at 8:22 PM.

To understand the above, just compare the times for the first two position reports the airliner made after taking off from Seattle.  Times in the Seattle ATC radio transcripts are about two minutes earlier than the times that are listed for the ARINC teletype messages being sent.  This is no fluke; all of these times are accurate to the minute.

That is not correct,,,  The plane was not at 23 DME at 20:18.. it was close to 20:22 at 23 DME. It was not at 35 DME at 20:22.

23 DME at 20:22 was reported in two places,, the 20:18 DME was reported by one person in the Harrison notes.. However, there are other inconsistencies on the times reported in those notes..

But, I am working on something and can prove that the marks from about Portland South are not equal minute marks, they can't be as the distance is too short, the plane wasn't that slow. Reconstructing the path based on distance/speed and time 23 DME is about 20:22.... not 20:18. At 20:18 the plane was at about 9-10 DME which is just W of the Portland Airport.

The 20:18 noted time at 23 DME is an outlier unsupported by any other information.. 

20:22 at 23 DME is supported by other information.. 

Therefore 20:18 at 23 DME is just incorrect. 

To have the 23 DME at 20:18 all the times listed on the map from the very start have to be out by four minutes... there is no evidence for that.

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 37]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

That is not correct,,,  The plane was not at 23 DME at 20:18.. it was close to 20:22 at 23 DME. It was not at 35 DME at 20:22.

23 DME at 20:22 was reported in two places,, the 20:18 DME was reported by one person in the Harrison notes.. However, there are other inconsistencies on the times reported in those notes..

But, I am working on something and can prove that the marks from about Portland South are not equal minute marks, they can't be as the distance is too short, the plane wasn't that slow. Reconstructing the path based on distance/speed and time 23 DME is about 20:22.... not 20:18. At 20:18 the plane was at about 9-10 DME which is just W of the Portland Airport.

The 20:18 noted time at 23 DME is an outlier unsupported by any other information.. 

20:22 at 23 DME is supported by other information.. 

Therefore 20:18 at 23 DME is just incorrect. 

To have the 23 DME at 20:18 all the times listed on the map from the very start have to be out by four minutes... there is no evidence for that.

 

FlyJack, there is plenty of evidence for my previous post and I pointed that evidence out to you.  All you have to do is check it out.

On your comments about the time marks south of Portland please read the following carefully and it applies to the time marks north of Portland.

First, we need to discuss radars.  The antenna on radars that are typically used for enroute air traffic control make a complete rotation ever 10 seconds or 6 times per minute.

That means that the radar operator, depending on what he sees, could have 6 different locations for an aircraft for each minute.  It also means that the time hacks plotted on a radar chart are not necessarily exactly one minute (or 60 seconds) apart.

For instance, one time hack might actually be for 12:06:00 minutes and the second one for 12:07:50 minutes but they could both be shown on the chart as 12:06 and 12:07 (or it could be rounded up to 12:08).  It all depends on who is doing the charting.

But the assumption that a minute is missing in the plotting is nonsense.  The charting person just didn't provide a time hack for the missing minute.

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, there is plenty of evidence for my previous post and I pointed that evidence out to you.  All you have to do is check it out.

On your comments about the time marks south of Portland please read the following carefully and it applies to the time marks north of Portland.

First, we need to discuss radars.  The antenna on radars that are typically used for enroute air traffic control make a complete rotation ever 10 seconds or 6 times per minute.

That means that the radar operator, depending on what he sees, could have 6 different locations for an aircraft for each minute.  It also means that the time hacks plotted on a radar chart are not necessarily exactly one minute (or 60 seconds) apart.

For instance, one time hack might actually be for 12:06:00 minutes and the second one for 12:07:50 minutes but they could both be shown on the chart as 12:06 and 12:07 (or it could be rounded up to 12:08).  It all depends on who is doing the charting.

But the assumption that a minute is missing in the plotting is nonsense.  The charting person just didn't provide a time hack for the missing minute.

This is not correct... 

The marks on the map were from Sage not your typical radar. Many of the marks about Portland South are well less than 3 NM between so they are not equal minute marks. We can't count the marks as minutes.. except where the numbers are written, those are very consistent from 20:05 to Portland..

I calculated on the map the time based on distance/speed and DME 23 is at 20:22, not 20:18,, if you want 20:18 to be at DME 23 then you need to shift all the numbers right back to the start of the path 4 minutes. There is no evidence for that. It does not matter what the reported times were the map tells us DME 23 is about 20:22...

This is important,, each plot has an error built in but they do not accumulate so over the longer distance any slight error gets corrected by following plots, essentially.

I measured each increment and calculated the speed, it was consistent at about 3.1 NM  if I recall. It was just over 3 NM.. Now, I measured deviations from the mean over sections and the entire path and two areas were way off,, the 6 seconds before 20:05 was too large, it was marked as 5 segments. If they were minute marks the plane sped up 17% only in that section, it was slowed down. Some of those segments are well over the planes speed. AND plots near Portland were too close which would mean the plane slowed way way down over Portland,, it didn't..

So, the plots are not actually minute increments where they are not labelled.

But, the disagreement is the 20:18 vs 20:22 at DME 23,,,  for 20:18 to be at 23 DME every number marked on the path has to be off by 4 minutes and there is no evidence for that.. On the other hand, all the evidence supports 23 DME at 20:22...

There is no evidence that shifts all the numbers noted from the start 4 minutes. Since, 20:22 is noted twice for DME 23 and that is correct based on the map, it is the correct one. 

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 37]

19 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

This is not correct... 

The marks on the map were from Sage not your typical radar. Many of the marks about Portland South are well less than 3 NM between so they are not equal minute marks. We can't count the marks as minutes.. except where the numbers are written, those are very consistent from 20:05 to Portland..

I calculated on the map the time based on distance/speed and DME 23 is at 20:22, not 20:18,, if you want 20:18 to be at DME 23 then you need to shift all the numbers right back to the start of the path 4 minutes. There is no evidence for that. It does not matter what the reported times were the map tells us DME 23 is about 20:22...

This is important,, each plot has an error built in but they do not accumulate so over the longer distance any slight error gets corrected by following plots, essentially.

I measured each increment and calculated the speed, it was consistent at about 3.1 NM  if I recall. It was just over 3 NM.. Now, I measured deviations from the mean over sections and the entire path and two areas were way off,, the 6 seconds before 20:05 was too large, it was marked as 5 segments. If they were minute marks the plane sped up 17% only in that section, it was slowed down. Some of those segments are well over the planes speed. AND plots near Portland were too close which would mean the plane slowed way way down over Portland,, it didn't..

So, the plots are not actually minute increments where they are not labelled.

But, the disagreement is the 20:18 vs 20:22 at DME 23,,,  for 20:18 to be at 23 DME every number marked on the path has to be off by 4 minutes and there is no evidence for that.. On the other hand, all the evidence supports 23 DME at 20:22...

There is no evidence that shifts all the numbers noted from the start 4 minutes. Since, 20:22 is noted twice for DME 23 and that is correct based on the map, it is the correct one. 

 

FlyJack, the time hacks are supposed to be for the ground speed. If you actually check out the time hacks between the Malay Intersection and Portland, you should note that in a one-minute period the airliner travelled 3 nautical miles but in the very next one-minute period as plotted the airliner travelled 6 nautical miles.  This is nonsense.

There are a number of reason for the air and ground speed to vary north of the Malay Intersection.  Remember that the airliner slowed down at Cooper's request.  But from the Malay Intersection on to Reno, the airspeed was essentially constant although the ground speed varied.

All believable evidence indicates that the winds aloft at 10,000 feet were constant and from the southwest (245 degrees).  However, as the airliner turned to the southeast at the Malay Intersection and then to the south at Portland, the headwind component of the winds aloft changed so the ground speed increased very slightly between Malay and Portland and then decreased very slightly between Portland and the point where the airliner turned to the east directly toward Reno.  The ground speed would increase slightly after the turn toward Reno.

And for the record, I stand by everything I have written about the times, winds aloft, air speeds, ground speeds, etc., since 2014.

[FLYJACK 654]

27 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, the time hacks are supposed to be for the ground speed. If you actually check out the time hacks between the Malay Intersection and Portland, you should note that in a one-minute period the airliner travelled 3 nautical miles but in the very next one-minute period as plotted the airliner travelled 6 nautical miles.  This is nonsense.

There are a number of reason for the air and ground speed to vary north of the Malay Intersection.  Remember that the airliner slowed down at Cooper's request.  But from the Malay Intersection on to Reno, the airspeed was essentially constant although the ground speed varied.

All believable evidence indicates that the winds aloft at 10,000 feet were constant and from the southwest (245 degrees).  However, as the airliner turned to the southeast at the Malay Intersection and then to the south at Portland, the headwind component of the winds aloft changed so the ground speed increased very slightly between Malay and Portland and then decreased very slightly between Portland and the point where the airliner turned to the east directly toward Reno.  The ground speed would increase slightly after the turn toward Reno.

And for the record, I stand by everything I have written about the times, winds aloft, air speeds, ground speeds, etc., since 2014.

Essentially, you are just repeating what I have already said.

We are in agreement on the plot spacing. Most others believe they are intended to be 1 minute increments and have created theories based on that.

What I have done is calculated with speed/distance on the map that DME 23 is about 20:22 and NOT 20:18..  

I was originally responding to Chaucer who used the spacing anomaly to shift all numbers down by 1...  that is not correct and further DME 23 is about 20:22.

You claimed DME 23 is 20:18, it is not, that time does not fit the path/time.

 

[Robert99 37]

7 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Essentially, you are just repeating what I have already said.

We are in agreement on the plot spacing. Most others believe they are intended to be 1 minute increments and have created theories based on that.

What I have done is calculated with speed/distance on the map that DME 23 is about 20:22 and NOT 20:18..  

I was originally responding to Chaucer who used the spacing anomaly to shift all numbers down by 1...  that is not correct and further DME 23 is about 20:22.

You claimed DME 23 is 20:18, it is not, that time does not fit the path/time.

 

First, let me first correct the "2014" in my post above.  The date should be "2009" which was 14 years ago.

The 8:18 PM (or 20:18) time is a valid data point for reasons that have been explained numerous times.

The limited time and location data available, plus the low quality of that data, for the flight path in Washington and Oregon does not permit the assumptions that you are making.

In effect, you are dismissing valid data because it does not fit into your assumptions.

The proper way to operate is to determine what the valid data is telling you and then work from there.

[FLYJACK 654]

8 hours ago, Robert99 said:

First, let me first correct the "2014" in my post above.  The date should be "2009" which was 14 years ago.

The 8:18 PM (or 20:18) time is a valid data point for reasons that have been explained numerous times.

The limited time and location data available, plus the low quality of that data, for the flight path in Washington and Oregon does not permit the assumptions that you are making.

In effect, you are dismissing valid data because it does not fit into your assumptions.

The proper way to operate is to determine what the valid data is telling you and then work from there.

20:18 is not valid.. the plane can't be at 23 DME at 20:18. Your "reason" is invalid.

The only way to make it work is to shift all numbers from the start 4 minutes, there is no evidence to do that. Further, 20:22 is accurate for 23 DME based on the map independent of the reports. It is clear 20:22 is the right one.

It can't be both, even with comm delays, one is correct and one is wrong.

[Robert99 37]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

20:18 is not valid.. the plane can't be at 23 DME at 20:18. Your "reason" is invalid.

The only way to make it work is to shift all numbers from the start 4 minutes, there is no evidence to do that. Further, 20:22 is accurate for 23 DME based on the map independent of the reports. It is clear 20:22 is the right one.

It can't be both, even with comm delays, one is correct and one is wrong.

FlyJack, you and Olemiss need to do some actual analysis of the times and flight paths.  You simply cannot claim that 20:22 is correct based on the so-called FBI chart.

To claim that 20:22 is correct you have to claim that the flight crew could not read a simple DME number from their instrumentation, that George Harrison could not read a clock at the time the flight crew transmitted their DME location, and that the ARINC ground station could instantly type that information into their teletype system and push the send button.

All of this has been discussed at great lengths here for the last 10+ years.  You have got to stick with the facts and you are not doing it. 

[georger 197]

3 hours ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, you and Olemiss need to do some actual analysis of the times and flight paths.  You simply cannot claim that 20:22 is correct based on the so-called FBI chart.

To claim that 20:22 is correct you have to claim that the flight crew could not read a simple DME number from their instrumentation, that George Harrison could not read a clock at the time the flight crew transmitted their DME location, and that the ARINC ground station could instantly type that information into their teletype system and push the send button.

All of this has been discussed at great lengths here for the last 10+ years.  You have got to stick with the facts and you are not doing it. 

I am a rank amateur in this but having read and trying to digest all of these debates over the years, you99 seem to be insisting/arguing that all people and instruments-communications in the flight path system were in perfect synch with each other or should have been - and they weren't!  Or, that everyone and every component of the flight tracking system were in synch, when they weren't. You keep asking for perfection when it did not exist because it could not exist !

Moreover you ignore facts the largest of which is the NWA flight path probability map which attempted to predict a drop zone for Cooper. The best anyone could achieve at the time was an estimate of where the drop was based on the best estimate of the flight path of the plane. You do not accept the basic Air Force tracking and plotting of flight 305. That's fine. You never will accept it but that does not require that others will have a different point of view! 

This is a clash of personalities and methods vs a real problem with the flight path!

Edited November 30, 2023 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

3 hours ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, you and Olemiss need to do some actual analysis of the times and flight paths.  You simply cannot claim that 20:22 is correct based on the so-called FBI chart.

To claim that 20:22 is correct you have to claim that the flight crew could not read a simple DME number from their instrumentation, that George Harrison could not read a clock at the time the flight crew transmitted their DME location, and that the ARINC ground station could instantly type that information into their teletype system and push the send button.

All of this has been discussed at great lengths here for the last 10+ years.  You have got to stick with the facts and you are not doing it. 

This is not true.. you are making false assumptions.

I have done a comprehensive analysis of ALL data and 20:18 doesn't fit,, the plane would have to be travelling  20 knots faster average from DME14 SEA... 20:22 fits all data.

Edited November 30, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Chaucer 103]

There is no evidence that George Harrison was listening in on the phone patch in the 8:18 to 8:22 time frame, nor that he was taking notes during the hijacking. He may very well be the Unknown note-taker, but that's conjecture.

Three other men were taking notes: Bob Lowenthal, Carl Griffin, and Stuart McClelland. In speaking with NWA personnel working at Sea-Tac that night, including a man working in the office directly across from Flight Dispatch, that all of those named men were there together, and all were listening in on the ARINC phone patch. They were not elsewhere reading the teletype.

Also, by most accounts it takes no more than a minute or so to type and send through teletype. Again, I have spoken to former ARINC personnel who confirmed this. 

The bottom line is that if the crew gave their "23 DME" report at 8:18, it would not have taken 4 minutes for it to be typed in shorthand and then sent and received. Further, we don't even have any evidence that ARINC was even providing teletype services on the phone patch. The only teletype we have seen came from NWA, not ARINC and that ended shortly after 8:20. 

 

[Chaucer 103]

I posted this back in September after my interview with Len Camp, senior directly at NORAD:

This symbology would have then been translated into GEOREF and then into longitude and latitude along with the corresponding timestamps. These timestamps would be down to the tenth of a second.  The time frame of the computer is roughly 15 seconds with three sub-frames of about 5 seconds each. He considers it very likely Spangler chose the exact times spaced about a minute or apart to keep the clutter down on the map. Thus, it is highly likely that the radar plot points expressed in red Xs are exact down to within plus/minus 5 seconds. This means that if between 8:00:05 and 7:59:57, Spangler would have chosen 7:59:57 because it is closest to the round 8:00. This is significant regarding the timing of the map plot points.

I'm open to the idea of the "missing minute" being explained by rounding the times. I've yet to see a satisfying explanation of that.

[Chaucer 103]

On 3/10/2012 at 5:16 PM, Hominid said:

Following is a position plot for an aircraft flying due south at a constant ground speed:

Min
Lat

0 -  +

---  

---

---  +

---  

5 -  

---  +

---  

---  

---  

10-  +

---  

---  

---  +

---  

15-  

---  +

---  

---  

---  +

20-  

---  

---  +

---  

---  

25-  

---  +

---  

---  

---  +

30-  

---  

---  +

 

Notice that the vertical spacing of the crosses is not constant. But, the distances covered in equal time periods are all the same if speed is constant. Without a solid understanding of what you see, you could erroneously conclude from this that the ground speed for the plotted positions could not be constant. But it is constant.

The latitudes are calculated from a constant speed of 191 knots starting from a latitude of .13 minutes. The plot would be similar for most starting positions and ground speeds. The plot has the "jumpy" spacing irregularities for the same reason as the flight path plot from the FBI has them.

If you don't believe the plot is for a constant ground speed, or if you want to have a better understanding of how the spacing irregularity comes about, calculate a string of positions for yourself and plot them using one minute of latitude per text line space as I did.

To make it easy for you, one knot is one minute of latitude per hour. So take your speed in knots and divide by 60 to get the minutes of latitude covered per minute of time. Calculate distance (latitude) covered in one minute, two, three, etc. Then plot the positions. But don't use a ground speed that is an exact multiple of 60 knots, for this is the one condition for which the spacing will have no irregularities. And, if you use a ground speed that is close to an exact multiple, you may have to fly quite a few minutes before the irregularity occurs.

 

Note the above post from Hominid back in 2012.

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, Chaucer said:

I posted this back in September after my interview with Len Camp, senior directly at NORAD:

This symbology would have then been translated into GEOREF and then into longitude and latitude along with the corresponding timestamps. These timestamps would be down to the tenth of a second.  The time frame of the computer is roughly 15 seconds with three sub-frames of about 5 seconds each. He considers it very likely Spangler chose the exact times spaced about a minute or apart to keep the clutter down on the map. Thus, it is highly likely that the radar plot points expressed in red Xs are exact down to within plus/minus 5 seconds. This means that if between 8:00:05 and 7:59:57, Spangler would have chosen 7:59:57 because it is closest to the round 8:00. This is significant regarding the timing of the map plot points.

I'm open to the idea of the "missing minute" being explained by rounding the times. I've yet to see a satisfying explanation of that.

I can't explain the extra space between the marks before 20:05 or the ones too short about Portland south.. 

but there are two things...

If you take the point 14 DME SEA (19:40) and 23 DME PDX,, 

The distance measured along the path is 137 NM

At 20:22 it is 42 min.  137/42 = 3.262 * 60 = 195.72 NMH average ground speed

At 20:18 it is 38 min. 137/38 = 3.61 * 60 = 216.6 NMH average ground speed

Air speed after takeoff was about 170 and ground was about 205.. a 35 headwind,, that is another story.

We know plane slowed for Cooper's jump..

From 20:05 to 20:15 the timing marks based on distance are very accurate to the minute, perhaps that section was requested.

2005 - 2015 = 31.42 NM

31.42 NM / 10 = 3.142

3.142 * 60 = 188.52 ground speed

Cooper's jump speed was noted and tested as about 150 air speed.. 

188.52 ground was about 153 air speed. less 35 wind

This is consistent.

 

Going back to the 20:18 vs 20:22 time at DME 23 PDX..

For 20:18 the average ground speed of 216.6 is too high especially considering they slowed the plane down.. that means they would have to travel faster than 216.6 initially.

However,, an average ground speed of 195.72 is right in the sweet spot. It is an combination of the initial 205 speed and the 188.52. They slowed the plane to 188.52 ground or about 153 air speed, matching Cooper's exit speed.

The 20:18 time requires the plane to be going far too fast (20 k faster) to cover that distance. 

20:22 fits. Any slight variation in wind along the path or slight key in delay of times does not compensate for the 20 k excess speed at 20:18, it is the outlier.

Edited November 30, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 37]

18 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I can't explain the extra space between the marks before 20:05 or the ones too short about Portland south.. 

but there are two things...

If you take the point 14 DME SEA (19:40) and 23 DME PDX,, 

The distance measured along the path is 137 NM

At 20:22 it is 42 min.  137/42 = 3.262 * 60 = 195.72 NMH average ground speed

At 20:18 it is 38 min. 137/38 = 3.61 * 60 = 216.6 NMH average ground speed

Air speed after takeoff was about 170 and ground was about 205.. a 35 headwind,, that is another story.

We know plane slowed for Cooper's jump..

From 20:05 to 20:15 the timing marks based on distance are very accurate to the minute, perhaps that section was requested.

2005 - 2015 = 31.42 NM

31.42 NM / 10 = 3.142

3.142 * 60 = 188.52 ground speed

Cooper's jump speed was noted and tested as about 150 air speed.. 

188.52 ground was about 153 air speed. less 35 wind

This is consistent.

 

Going back to the 20:18 vs 20:22 time at DME 23 PDX..

For 20:18 the average ground speed of 216.6 is too high especially considering they slowed the plane down.. that means they would have to travel faster than 216.6 initially.

However,, an average ground speed of 195.72 is right in the sweet spot. It is an combination of the initial 205 speed and the 188.52. They slowed the plane to 188.52 ground or about 153 air speed, matching Cooper's exit speed.

The 20:18 time requires the plane to be going far too fast (20 k faster) to cover that distance. 

20:22 fits. Any slight variation in wind along the path or slight key in delay of times does not compensate for the 20 k excess speed at 20:18, it is the outlier.

OMG!!!  

Chaucer, you apparently don't have the slightest knowledge of knots, nautical miles, miles per hour, statute miles, indicated airspeed, ground speed, head winds, tail winds, or anything else aeronautical.

I have posted on all of these over the years, but the people who need to get the FAA publications on aircraft navigation, weather, etc., apparently don't feel the need to know about anything related to those subjects before pontificating on them.

What Chaucer has posted above, is basically nonsense.

I am not a member of the Cooper universe, at least the one that is beyond Pluto, and have other matters on the front burner.  Nevertheless, I will go over the whole navigation thing again as time permits.  But I want to post some things on the GEOREF, or whatever it is called.

This matter is definitely not closed.  

Edited December 1, 2023 by Robert99

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, Robert99 said:

OMG!!!  

Chaucer, you apparently don't have the slightest knowledge of knots, nautical miles, miles per hour, statute miles, indicated airspeed, ground speed, head winds, tail winds, or anything else aeronautical.

I have posted on all of these over the years, but the people who need to get the FAA publications on aircraft navigation, weather, etc., apparently don't feel the need to know about anything related to those subjects before pontificating on them.

What Chaucer has posted above, is basically nonsense.

I am not a member of the Cooper universe, at least the one that is beyond Pluto, and have other matters on the front burner.  Nevertheless, I will go over the whole navigation thing again as time permits.  But I want to post some things on the GEOREF, or whatever it is called.

This matter is definitely not closed.  

It wasn't Chaucer, it was my post.. and it is correct.

How can people take you seriously if you can't read.

Instead of your typical bloviating with generalities.. and dodging anything specific..

Where is it wrong. Go ahead,,

Conclusion is 20:18 at 23 DME needs a 20 k higher average speed and that does not fit the evidence.

What you have done for over a decade is created your own path to fit the 20:18 error.

Ground distance along the path from 14 DME SEA to 23 DME PDX is measured in NM.

The air speed varied between about 170-150 knots.

The wind about 35 k..

Edited December 1, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 37]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

It wasn't Chaucer, it was my post.. and it is correct.

How can people take you seriously if you can't read.

Instead of your typical bloviating with generalities.. and dodging anything specific..

Where is it wrong. Go ahead,,

Conclusion is 20:18 at 23 DME needs a 20 k higher average speed and that does not fit the evidence.

What you have done for over a decade is created your own path to fit the 20:18 error.

Ground distance along the path from 14 DME SEA to 23 DME PDX is measured in NM.

The air speed varied between about 170-150 knots.

The wind about 35 k..

FlyJack, I will respond to this as time permits.

[FLYJACK 654]

7 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, I will respond to this as time permits.

No, you tell me right now what you think I got wrong...

You just made the claims, back them up.. 

If I got something wrong then I'll fix it, but you don't get a free pass to trash my post with no explanation. 

You have a history of this,, 

What number is used incorrectly??

[georger 197]

1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, I will respond to this as time permits.

Odds are, nobody believes you. It is long beyond the point where dodging and weaving works, R99. So take all the time you want.

Edited December 1, 2023 by georger

[Robert99 37]

6 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

No, you tell me right now what you think I got wrong...

You just made the claims, back them up.. 

If I got something wrong then I'll fix it, but you don't get a free pass to trash my post with no explanation. 

You have a history of this,, 

What number is used incorrectly??

Basically everything.  I'll start at the very beginning again and build from there.

So calm down.  I'll stick to facts and let anyone who wants to rush to judgment today waste their own time, but they are not going to waste any more of mine.

[Robert99 37]

6 hours ago, georger said:

Odds are, nobody believes you. It is long beyond the point where dodging and weaving works, R99. So take all the time you want.

Georger, you are doing the "dodging and weaving".

Do you finally understand why water runs downhill?

[FLYJACK 654]

53 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

Basically everything.  I'll start at the very beginning again and build from there.

So calm down.  I'll stick to facts and let anyone who wants to rush to judgment today waste their own time, but they are not going to waste any more of mine.

Name one incorrect number..

Of course what you will do is reiterate your completely unfounded theory that the plane went straight over TBAR to be at DME 23 PDX at 20:18,, and shortening the path would almost work but it only reduces the ground distance by 8 NM and unfortunately there is no evidence for the alternate flight path.. then you have to ignore other evidence.

So, don't bother.

Edited December 2, 2023 by FLYJACK