22 22
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

I believe there was a switch on the main track that diverted cars onto a short piece of train tracks running parallel to the main tracks. This short piece of track was located between the main track and the back of the store.(pretty sure)  In fact I think you posted a pic that showed this switch. This was a while back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, haggarknew said:

I believe there was a switch on the main track that diverted cars onto a short piece of train tracks running parallel to the main tracks. This short piece of track was located between the main track and the back of the store.(pretty sure)  In fact I think you posted a pic that showed this switch. This was a while back.

I'm not the total expert on railroads, but I think side tracks out in the country were more for one train to get out of the way of another. 'Passing sidings' they call them. But there are others, and yes, some of them are for the loading and unloading of cargo. 

UPDATE: I found out the AC in my truck works real good and my cooling system handled it even better. Made a 10-mile off road trip in 105 degree weather up to the spot we're tossing the Cooper/UFO party soon. Temp needle never reached the halfway point with AC going full blast both ways. Now that's GOOD for a 25-year-old truck. You gotta love Japanese tech from the 90's.

Anyway...did a video and a bunch of still shots as a promotional thing and will editing it later and posting to YouTube. I was right. It's the perfect spot. Nice views, although Rainier is blocked by trees, but you can see it close up on a short walk, or an even shorter drive. There is even a natural spot for the stage. I could not believe it. Video later this evening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Rataczak gave a talk on the hijacking in 2012 for NWA... (it was discussed years ago)

This is the summary in the NWA newsletter (link)

http://northwestairlineshistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/1209-newsletter.pdf

and the dvd of the 1.5 hour talk is for sale on ebay, only 4 left.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/303269552131?hash=item469c462003:g:VnQAAOxymiVQ9cgU

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got back from the Skywatch/Cooper Party site today. I did do a video but it's still being edited and processed. Had some minor problems with wind noise, mainly because one whopper of a high pressure system has been moving into the Puget Sound area and the temps are shattering records. The truck did just fine. Headed up that Forest Service road with the AC going full blast and the temperature gauge never went past halfway...and it was over a hundred degrees outside but ice cold INSIDE. :thumbup:

Hard to tell from the pictures but it's perfect for us. Couple of side roads off the main area running maybe a couple of hundred feet and then dead-ending. They're all shaded. A short rise above the main area will be perfect for the stage, and we can run the generator off behind it. 

Video shows the area much better, but for now it's just the pictures. Most of the gear is packed and ready and everyone is excited. The good news is that the weather will be going back to normal by then, according to Weather Underground. Low 80's they say, but at 5,000 feet should be a bit cooler than that. Found out you can't actually get the close up Rainier view from this spot, but another 200 yards up the road it opens up bigger than life. 

Sky1.jpg

Sky2.jpg

Sky3.jpg

Sky4.jpg

Sky5.jpg

Sky6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2021 at 3:55 PM, FLYJACK said:

Winds were from SE near Portland, to land on the North side he would have had to jump South side unless a no pull. Something would have been found there.

 

Wrong, the time is from the crew...  those oscillations ended with a BIG oscillation felt in the cabin aka pressure bump. If they knew the pressure bump was a second event and was 7-8 minutes later they would have acknowledged that at the time.

crewcertain815.jpeg.63f4f831045c2167b577ea5e95e4e8a4.jpeg

 

982629637_fluctuationsfeltFBI23113.jpeg.e9d4649ec18524851fb269dc2e6dc8cb.jpeg

The winds from the SE and the forward throw of Cooper jumping into that wind traveling roughly from the NE would have essentially negated one another. Cooper likely would have fallen basically straight down if a no pull. 

The 8:10 time for the pressure bump is impossible if you take into account the fact that the oscillations themselves weren’t reported until 8:11/8:12. That’s like giving birth and then telling the doctor that you feel labor pains two minutes later. Moreover, Anderson has stated that they delayed in reporting the pressure bump:

After the final "bump" which we felt with our ears, we all discussed it for awhile, waiting for another bump.  It never occurred, so we assumed that was his exit.  But we discussed this among ourselves before notifying NWA.  The truth is, we just didn't know for sure.  I just don't recall how much time lapsed between feeling the final "bump" and reporting it to NWA via radio.  That’s where the uncertainty has come from.  

But later we all thought that final bump was his exit.”

Thus, the crew wasn’t giving an exact time. They were giving us a broad range which I described before because they weren’t sure when the pressure bump happened. Combine that with the questions about the timing of the flight path and you could certainly extend that range even further south. 

The bottom line is that there is uncertainty regarding WHEN Cooper jumped and therefore, uncertainty regarding the drop zone. I believe it is possible that the jump was anywhere from Battleground to the northern bank of the Columbia. Based on the money find, I conclude it was the latter. 

Share this post


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

The winds from the SE and the forward throw of Cooper jumping into that wind traveling roughly from the NE would have essentially negated one another. Cooper likely would have fallen basically straight down if a no pull. 

The 8:10 time for the pressure bump is impossible if you take into account the fact that the oscillations themselves weren’t reported until 8:11/8:12. That’s like giving birth and then telling the doctor that you feel labor pains two minutes later. Moreover, Anderson has stated that they delayed in reporting the pressure bump:

After the final "bump" which we felt with our ears, we all discussed it for awhile, waiting for another bump.  It never occurred, so we assumed that was his exit.  But we discussed this among ourselves before notifying NWA.  The truth is, we just didn't know for sure.  I just don't recall how much time lapsed between feeling the final "bump" and reporting it to NWA via radio.  That’s where the uncertainty has come from.  

But later we all thought that final bump was his exit.”

Thus, the crew wasn’t giving an exact time. They were giving us a broad range which I described before because they weren’t sure when the pressure bump happened. Combine that with the questions about the timing of the flight path and you could certainly extend that range even further south. 

The bottom line is that there is uncertainty regarding WHEN Cooper jumped and therefore, uncertainty regarding the drop zone. I believe it is possible that the jump was anywhere from Battleground to the northern bank of the Columbia. Based on the money find, I conclude it was the latter. 

yeah, I know your argument... It isn't new, everyone has considered it at some point.

 

Winds would not necessarily be negated by the pull... depends on height of the pull.

The crew said 8:10/11...  

The lights of Portland are NOT over the Columbia. That would be North of Vancouver.

Anderson said.. largest bump by far.....  aka many bumps

Ratazcak.. ears popped 8:10

Why do you keep ignoring the evidence?

 

There is just no evidence for it. The money find is not evidence. There can be many ways the money got there but because we can't prove how that uncertainty is now falsely claimed to be evidence of a later jump.

Frankly, I find this argument similar to Eric's western flight path...  it is legit to consider but there is just no evidence for it and you are rejecting contradictory evidence..

At best, it just a speculation with no evidence.

If you find some new evidence, let me know.

 

You keep claiming the FBI got the LZ wrong with no proof... The analysis done in 71/72 had access to more evidence and the fresh memories of the crew that you don't have..

What do you know that they didn't know.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

yeah, I know your argument... It isn't new, everyone has considered it at some point.

 

Winds would not necessarily be negated by the pull... depends on height of the pull.

The crew said 8:10/11...  

The lights of Portland are NOT over the Columbia. That would be North of Vancouver.

Anderson said.. largest bump by far.....  aka many bumps

Ratazcak.. ears popped 8:10

Why do you keep ignoring the evidence?

 

There is just no evidence for it. The money find is not evidence. There can be many ways the money got there but because we can't prove how that uncertainty is now falsely claimed to be evidence of a later jump.

Frankly, I find this argument similar to Eric's western flight path...  it is legit to consider but there is just no evidence for it and you are rejecting contradictory evidence..

At best, it just a speculation with no evidence.

If you find some new evidence, let me know.

 

You keep claiming the FBI got the LZ wrong with no proof... The analysis done in 71/72 had access to more evidence and the fresh memories of the crew that you don't have..

What do you know that they didn't know.

 

I’m not suggesting my argument is novel. On the contrary, Tosaw and Carr both subscribed to it. 

Second, I’ve done the math on the forward throw. Wind would have little or no influence on the fall from 10,000. I encourage anyone to do the same calculations. 

Third, I have never once suggested that the plane was OVER the Columbia. The plane doesn’t have to be over the river for Cooper or the money to end up on the northern banks for reasons I have stated above. 

You keep saying the crew said 8:10/8:11. That’s impossible because that is when they reported the oscillations - not the pressure bump. You also are ignoring the fact that they said it could have been as late as 8:15. That underscores the fact that they didn’t know the precise time of the jump. 

Regarding Anderson, how is that pertinent? The “largest bump by far” would have been the pressure bump, and he states that he isn’t sure when it happened, but that it wasn’t reported until later. There’s no report of a pressure bump at 8:10/8:11 as you claim. 

I still don’t know what evidence I’m “ignoring”. I’m looking at the same 302s, the same transcripts as you. The conclusion I arrive at is that there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding where along the flight path the plane was and when Cooper jumped along that flight path. It’s imprecise. All we have is a range. Based on the information we have that range is 8:13 to 8:17. 8:13 is one minute after the last report of oscillations. 8:17 is when the plane reached the Columbia.

You’re right. By itself, the money find can’t be used as evidence. But when you take the flight path and you add where the money was found, the only logical way to triangulate those two data points is via the river. Either a human being put the money in the water months after the hijacking or it ended up there by natural means. I think my conclusion is more reasonable. Can I prove it? No. But that doesn’t make it wild speculation as you imply.

Lastly, the LZ after the hijacking was based on Paul Soderlind’s calculations. In Chapter 8 of Tosaw’s book, Soderlind reviewed the flight data and came up with an LZ extending to the Columbia - the same conclusion he says he arrived at the night of the hijacking. Agent Carr also questioned the original LZ and suggested moving it farther south. Clearly, I’m the least qualified person to questions the original LZ, but I’m not the only person to do so.

At the end of the day, Flyjack, you have to reconcile the FBI flight path with the money find. How did the money end up miles west of where you believe he jumped? Human intervention? Where’s the evidence? Flow from tributaries? Where’s the evidence? Aliens? Where’s the evidence?

All of this is speculation, and to dismiss my theory as baseless speculation is ironic considering, 

Share this post


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

I’m not suggesting my argument is novel. On the contrary, Tosaw and Carr both subscribed to it. 

Second, I’ve done the math on the forward throw. Wind would have little or no influence on the fall from 10,000. I encourage anyone to do the same calculations. 

Third, I have never once suggested that the plane was OVER the Columbia. The plane doesn’t have to be over the river for Cooper or the money to end up on the northern banks for reasons I have stated above. 

You keep saying the crew said 8:10/8:11. That’s impossible because that is when they reported the oscillations - not the pressure bump. You also are ignoring the fact that they said it could have been as late as 8:15. That underscores the fact that they didn’t know the precise time of the jump. 

Regarding Anderson, how is that pertinent? The “largest bump by far” would have been the pressure bump, and he states that he isn’t sure when it happened, but that it wasn’t reported until later. There’s no report of a pressure bump at 8:10/8:11 as you claim. 

I still don’t know what evidence I’m “ignoring”. I’m looking at the same 302s, the same transcripts as you. The conclusion I arrive at is that there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding where along the flight path the plane was and when Cooper jumped along that flight path. It’s imprecise. All we have is a range. Based on the information we have that range is 8:13 to 8:17. 8:13 is one minute after the last report of oscillations. 8:17 is when the plane reached the Columbia.

You’re right. By itself, the money find can’t be used as evidence. But when you take the flight path and you add where the money was found, the only logical way to triangulate those two data points is via the river. Either a human being put the money in the water months after the hijacking or it ended up there by natural means. I think my conclusion is more reasonable. Can I prove it? No. But that doesn’t make it wild speculation as you imply.

Lastly, the LZ after the hijacking was based on Paul Soderlind’s calculations. In Chapter 8 of Tosaw’s book, Soderlind reviewed the flight data and came up with an LZ extending to the Columbia - the same conclusion he says he arrived at the night of the hijacking. Agent Carr also questioned the original LZ and suggested moving it farther south. Clearly, I’m the least qualified person to questions the original LZ, but I’m not the only person to do so.

At the end of the day, Flyjack, you have to reconcile the FBI flight path with the money find. How did the money end up miles west of where you believe he jumped? Human intervention? Where’s the evidence? Flow from tributaries? Where’s the evidence? Aliens? Where’s the evidence?

All of this is speculation, and to dismiss my theory as baseless speculation is ironic considering, 

EVERYONE has considered it... nobody can support it with evidence. My point is what do you have that nobody else has already considered?

For Cooper to land on the north bank he would have to jump over the Columbia if he pulled early. No evidence was ever found there and it is a well populated area. 

I stated several times the crews time estimate AND posted it so when I read you falsely claim that I am ignoring it you are lying. Don't pull that BS.

The "largest bump by far" means there were more and smaller ones, right... like oscillations. Or what were they?

You are ignoring the crew statements at the time. 

Lights of Portland is NOT over the Columbia River.

The crew wasn't sure what was happening and used the term "pressure bump" in retrospect, that is why it wasn't reported using those exact words.

You have created a circular argument. The crew didn't use the term "pressure bump" at 8:10 so it didn't happen at 8:10. If it didn't happen then, it was later and Cooper landed next to the Columbia. This is flawed logic. The crew applied the term after they had reflected on the event to distinguish the largest bump felt by the crew and when they believed Cooper jumped. The so called "pressure bump" (largest by far) was felt and was seen on instruments as oscillations..  Even the crew confirmed the reported oscillation time was when they believed the pressure bump occurred.

So, if the crew were wrong, the FBI and investigators got it all wrong 50 years ago.. we need evidence for that, not just a random claim.

The TBAR money is not evidence to support a Columbia jump.. Why? because TBAR is an unknown. You can't use an unknown as evidence,,  that is for Ulis.

Everybody considered pushing the LZ more South based on the TBAR money find and nothing being found, this is legit and human nature to explore in theory but there is no evidence. Claiming XYZ considered it is also not evidence... just another logical fallacy.

 

You do have to reconcile the FP and LZ with TBAR, but it needs to fit within the evidence. I have several theories that maintain the FP and LZ and there may be some nobody has even thought of. 

 

I am not dismissing your theory, I am saying that it isn't new, you have added nothing to what many have already considered and like you they have found no supporting evidence. 

Your entire argument is based on stacked assumptions and conjecture while rejecting contrary evidence... So, unless there is something new, I am not convinced by your argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion is getting a bit reductive. 

The facts are this:  the crew reported oscillations at 8:11 and 8:12. The oscillations preceded the pressure bump. Therefore, the pressure bump had to have occurred after 8:11/8:12. That's simply the truth. No one knows exactly when the pressure bump occurred. Hell, the CREW doesn't know when the pressure bump occurred. 

You can't use the contemporaneous crew statements while ignoring the fact that they hadn't reported oscillations at 8:10 let alone a bump. 

Also, you keep wanting to use the terms "pressure bumps" and "oscillations" interchangeable depending on how it suits you. They are two distinct, though correlated, events. Analogous to labor pains and child birth. The crew reported labor pains at 8:12, but the baby hadn't been born yet. Isn't it logical to conclude that the baby was born after 8:12?

We also have to differentiate between the terms "evidence" and "proof". Can I prove that Cooper jumped near the Columbia? No, I cannot. Is there evidence to suggest that possibility? Yes, there is. Meanwhile, if you can provide supporting evidence that Cooper jumped near Ariel while also accounting for the money find a dozen miles west, I'd love to hear it.

Lastly, while the money find can't be used as evidence, it is one of the few confirmed data points in this case. It is perfectly reasonable to use this data point along with others to form opinions. 

I've said my piece, and I have little left to add. Without more information, there will always be uncertainty about this topic. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Although he is still open-minded on the possibility, Tom Kaye at Citizen Sleuths has mentioned that he doubted the condition of the money lent itself well to the idea that it sat out in the elements for nine years before it was found. 

If the money went into the Columbia during the jump, then why didn't anyone find a single scrap of anything else? No other money, no body, no parachute, no briefcase...basically NO NOTHING? B)

Based on the available evidence, the FBI, NWA, the flight crew, and everyone else involved believed Cooper jumped somewhere between Amboy, WA and Battleground, WA. That's a fairly long of swath of territory and I have seen nothing solid yet to dispute that result. Even if he jumped as late as 815, that would still put him near Battleground. It's true there may have been some delay in the crew reporting, but once they landed you have to assume the FBI, as well as Paul Soderlind's team at NWA (a very smart bunch) knew full well that exact, or close to exact times on events, would have to be determined in order to establish both the flight path map, as well as the ground search area. The only mistake, if any was made, was that Cooper probably jumped a bit more south of Pigeon Springs/Ariel than they initially thought. But certainly not all the way down to the Columbia River. He was long gone by then. And to be frank, this could also be the reason why the Seattle FBI later swept the Amboy Chute find under the rug. Maybe they know something that we don't know. 

On a side note, I have received several messages from people living in the Portland/Vancouver area this week inquiring about Cooper. Not about the case, but about any possible events. "We've heard some stuff, but don't know what it is," is the main theme. Some say they thought there was to be a new version of the Ariel Store party, or just asked what might be going on this year since it's the 50th anniversary of the hijacking and all. 

These folks usually find me via Cooper WordPress. I guess with all the illustrated articles there, tagged stuff, etc.

I just tell them about Cooper Con 2021, but make sure they understand I will not be there. Generally, I don't tell them why I won't, because if CC21 does well, I know we will sell a lot of books afterward. A couple of times, when I figured out they lived a long way from Vancouver, yes...I may have played down the idea the convention was worth the trip. One other time I was admittedly tough in my email response. I still think Bruce Smith is going to end up hurting attendance, and that some other people involved in this convention are secretly doing a slow burn about him. He could be the selfish catalyst who is seen to promote Cooper-related hatred on his own website, and causes at least some people to turn away from the convention. That's a personal opinion. He's certainly not helping or looking professional for what's supposed to be a professional, and well-attended event. 

I'm not sure I can honestly support the convention. I know I will make money the more people attend, but I also have morals. It's a tough thing. It's on hold for now. 

It's kind of like when Trump sent out those government checks during the pandemic. I certainly didn't support him, but neither did I tear up the checks. I cashed them, and yes...some of that money went to the July Party. Meanwhile, over at the Mountain News, the crazy folks and the phonies are now claiming that 750-1000 people will show up to CC21, that Bruce has a Master's degree in psychology, and that he was flown down to LA recently for some TV project. Oh, brother....(*laughs*) Now they aren't only lying about me and almost everyone I know, but they even lie about the guy who is hosting their wacko comments. That is just bizarre. 

I don't have time to deal with the Cooper Nuts right now. They are many and legend. ^_^

My personal prediction is that attendance to CC21 will be in the range of 80-120 people. Maybe a bit more due to the anniversary. And that is not bad folks, and is about the same number who have attended all the other conventions on Cooper, all the way back to the original one where Geoff Gray was the organizer and host. It's normal. 

LATE UPDATE: I forgot to mention that when I scouted the July Party site, I whipped out my cell and was able to get four/five bars up there, so I made a call home. Clear as a bell. I could not believe it. Probably because of the 5,000 foot altitude I would think. Cell towers will go line of sight for 25 miles at least. Up that high it is easier to get signal. I found that out on some of my trips to the Olympic Mountains.  

I sent out an email blast to everyone attending telling them that if they had an unlimited data plan, they could tether their smartphone to a laptop and go on the internet that way. And although they wouldn't be doing any online gaming, live updates were possible, and easier using a laptop rather than just their phones. For example, we could do a live update with streaming video at YouTube. There would be buffering for us, but better for anyone actually watching it at YouTube. I directed them to a LiveWire article on how tethering is done. Some replied that they were bringing their laptops to see if it all works. Of course it will. Greg the Techie Guy says so. ^_^

flightmapunmarked.jpg

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


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

This discussion is getting a bit reductive. 

The facts are this:  the crew reported oscillations at 8:11 and 8:12. The oscillations preceded the pressure bump. Therefore, the pressure bump had to have occurred after 8:11/8:12. That's simply the truth. No one knows exactly when the pressure bump occurred. Hell, the CREW doesn't know when the pressure bump occurred. 

You can't use the contemporaneous crew statements while ignoring the fact that they hadn't reported oscillations at 8:10 let alone a bump. 

Also, you keep wanting to use the terms "pressure bumps" and "oscillations" interchangeable depending on how it suits you. They are two distinct, though correlated, events. Analogous to labor pains and child birth. The crew reported labor pains at 8:12, but the baby hadn't been born yet. Isn't it logical to conclude that the baby was born after 8:12?

We also have to differentiate between the terms "evidence" and "proof". Can I prove that Cooper jumped near the Columbia? No, I cannot. Is there evidence to suggest that possibility? Yes, there is. Meanwhile, if you can provide supporting evidence that Cooper jumped near Ariel while also accounting for the money find a dozen miles west, I'd love to hear it.

Lastly, while the money find can't be used as evidence, it is one of the few confirmed data points in this case. It is perfectly reasonable to use this data point along with others to form opinions. 

I've said my piece, and I have little left to add. Without more information, there will always be uncertainty about this topic. 

 

 

Chaucer argues on the DBCooper Forum. He argues on Reddit. He argues on here. He probably does it other places that we don’t know about. Apparently everyone dislikes him. 
 

He says “I’ve said my piece, and I have little more left to add”. 
 

Then stop talking about it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Chaucer said:

This discussion is getting a bit reductive. 

The facts are this:  the crew reported oscillations at 8:11 and 8:12. The oscillations preceded the pressure bump. Therefore, the pressure bump had to have occurred after 8:11/8:12. That's simply the truth. No one knows exactly when the pressure bump occurred. Hell, the CREW doesn't know when the pressure bump occurred. 

You can't use the contemporaneous crew statements while ignoring the fact that they hadn't reported oscillations at 8:10 let alone a bump. 

Also, you keep wanting to use the terms "pressure bumps" and "oscillations" interchangeable depending on how it suits you. They are two distinct, though correlated, events. Analogous to labor pains and child birth. The crew reported labor pains at 8:12, but the baby hadn't been born yet. Isn't it logical to conclude that the baby was born after 8:12?

We also have to differentiate between the terms "evidence" and "proof". Can I prove that Cooper jumped near the Columbia? No, I cannot. Is there evidence to suggest that possibility? Yes, there is. Meanwhile, if you can provide supporting evidence that Cooper jumped near Ariel while also accounting for the money find a dozen miles west, I'd love to hear it.

Lastly, while the money find can't be used as evidence, it is one of the few confirmed data points in this case. It is perfectly reasonable to use this data point along with others to form opinions. 

I've said my piece, and I have little left to add. Without more information, there will always be uncertainty about this topic. 

 

 

You state the facts are this.... then you state assumptions and "truths".. 

They are NOT.

The crew feels a marked increase in fluctuations/oscillations that ended in a "bump", just like the sled test, they reported it at 8:10/11.  The crew said they believed 8:10/11.. Rataczak said ears popped at 8:10.. 

You keep claiming the crew did not report the "pressure bump" at 8:11 so it didn't happen, this is nonsense. The crew didn't use that term at the time as they were trying to sort out what happened.

They also have the comms "he took leave of us"...

Pressure bumps and oscillations are not analogous to labor pains and child birth... The crew said the largest bump by far that means many,, unless they had multiple births your analogy is false. Your claim of logic is busted.

Your error is that you think you understand what the crew means by "pressure bump" vs "oscillations".. the pressure bump was a larger fluctuation/oscillation that was physically felt. This is backed up by the crew statements and times. If was a completely different event minutes later that would have been exposed and the crew would not have claimed the 8:10 time.

The so called pressure bump the crew refers to is the biggest of a series of pressure fluctuations aka oscillations. Anderson said it was exactly the same as the sled test.. when the weight dropped a violent increase in fluctuations...  that matches what the crew reported at 8:10. There were minor oscillations prior. 

You still ignore the facts.

"Lights of Portland" is not over the Columbia or close to it.. it is N of Vancouver.

The crew stated 8:10/11 and believed Cooper jumped further N closer to Merwin. If Cooper jumped near Portland Airport they would know it.

For Cooper to have jumped over/near the Columbia, the sled test was wrong, the FBI/Investigators were wrong and the crew was wrong.. that is a big bar to jump.

 

I have several theories about TBAR... some posted, some not. All maintain the FBI FP, LZ range and Spring entry into the Columbia R and are not contradicted by evidence. None can be proven,, and there may still be an unknown explanation.

Cooper landing next to the Columbia and the money washing into it in Spring is a legit theory but probably one of the weakest ones because it is so contradicted by evidence.. besides IMO, unlikely Cooper would choose to jump over an urban area like Van/Portland virtually over the Portland Airport in a non-steerable chute. It would be the last place he would want to jump. 

So, not backed by evidence, contradicted by evidence and doesn't really make sense....  = weak theory.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Georger, the aft stair-light is activated when the handle is moved from the locked up detent.. not when the stairs move or are lowered.

It is odd, as Tina claimed the red (amber) stair-light came on much later. 

Either Tina is mistaken or Cooper moved the handle from the up and locked detent but didn't get it into the down position. There is a button on the top that needs to be pressed. For Tina to see the light come back on later the handle would have been returned to the up and locked position by Cooper then moved out of the up and locked detent a 2nd time. That might be why Cooper was initially struggling with the stairs.

There are only two lights in the cockpit, a green stairs locked down and an amber for the handle out of the unlocked position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Chaucer and Georger continue to ignore and distort the evidence... 

Anderson said it not me..

"A:    I monitored the gauges and reported to Captain Scott.  We all agreed that the gauges were detecting a disruption of airflow, most likely caused by Cooper testing out the aft stairs.   But we all felt one physically distinguishable "bump" with our ears which came abruptly after we had been monitoring the gauges. We all felt it almost in unison, surprised, "there he goes!"  It was the largest bump by far, an abrupt pressure change.  We all thought he had exited the aircraft at that point, because the gauges never detected any further major airflow disruptions after that ‘thud’. The re-test duplicated the oscillations and the pressure bump exactly. "
 

"It was the largest bump by far",,,,, that means there were many bumps... if there were many bumps then the term "bump" does not refer to a single bump but a series ending with a LARGER bump. The crew is using the term to refer the largest bump in a series of bumps. A series of bumps is not a single event when the door bounces up nearly closed. They are oscillations.

and..

Anderson said it.. He confirmed when the sled test duplicated the OSCILLATIONS and THE PRESSURE BUMP exactly.. He used the term oscillations.

"The re-test duplicated the OSCILLATIONS AND THE PRESSURE BUMP exactly"...

 

That is it, busted.

Further nail in the coffin.

During the test they walked down the stairs and there was "very little change noted on the Cabin Pressure Rate of Change Gauge.

 

littlepresschangewalkstairs.jpg

 

The Gauge reacted violently when the weight was dropped. NOT BEFORE. Not when they walked down the stairs and exactly like NORJAK.

sledtestaa.jpg

 

Conclusion, the "pressure bump" referred to by the crew was the last largest bump in a series of bumps or oscillations which matched the sled drop test exactly.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don’t know if you’re purposefully trying to muddle things at his point.

Are you now saying that the “oscillations” they reported were not actually oscillations but rather “small bumps”? Are you saying that the “larger” bump reported by Anderson is a separate incident from the “pressure bump” that the sled test proved was caused by Cooper leaving the craft? Are you saying that the “oscillations” reported at 8:11/8:12 are not oscillations at all but actually the “larger bump”? 

Frankly, you’ve lost me, and I truly don’t know what your even theorizing here. 

Share this post


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

I honestly don’t know if you’re purposefully trying to muddle things at his point.

Are you now saying that the “oscillations” they reported were not actually oscillations but rather “small bumps”? Are you saying that the “larger” bump reported by Anderson is a separate incident from the “pressure bump” that the sled test proved was caused by Cooper leaving the craft? Are you saying that the “oscillations” reported at 8:11/8:12 are not oscillations at all but actually the “larger bump”? 

Frankly, you’ve lost me, and I truly don’t know what your even theorizing here. 

You are confused, trapped in an a semantic quicksand of your own making...

I am not saying it ANDERSON is. Bumps and oscillations are the same thing. The pressure bump referred to by the crew was just the last largest one.

Read the evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

There was no sharp turn in the FP... this is a red herring.

The "FBI" FP map is plotted points with a 1 mile error in it. 

It is NOT the precise FP but a series of points joined together for rough representation.

I took the plotted points and added in the error then smoothed the path. The sharp turn disappears. 

This isn't necessarily exactly the path but far more representative of a 727 FP than the "FBI" point plotted map...

This smoothed FP is within the "FBI" map error.

Using the "FBI" point plotted map in any analysis is inferior and misleading.

FlightPathsmoothedlight.thumb.jpg.48c665ab0fa4e9a3d57ad22f9fa78883.jpg

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

You are confused, trapped in an a semantic quicksand of your own making...

I am not saying it ANDERSON is. Bumps and oscillations are the same thing. The pressure bump referred to by the crew was just the last largest one.

Read the evidence.

 

I’ve read the evidence. I agree with everything you said. Whether you call it “pressure changes” or “oscillations” or “small bumps”, we know that was Cooper going out on the stairs. Whether you call it a “pressure bump” or a “larger bump”, that was Cooper leaving the plane. Anderson says this and the sled test confirmed this. 

So, what exactly are we even talking about? 

Share this post


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

I’ve read the evidence. I agree with everything you said. Whether you call it “pressure changes” or “oscillations” or “small bumps”, we know that was Cooper going out on the stairs. Whether you call it a “pressure bump” or a “larger bump”, that was Cooper leaving the plane. Anderson says this and the sled test confirmed this. 

So, what exactly are we even talking about? 

So what is the problem. You claim that I and everyone else is confused... I think you are the confused one.

The sled test matched the oscillations and pressure bump exactly AND a man going down the stairs showed very little change on the cabin pressure gauge.

Therefore, the oscillations reported by the crew at 8:10/11 was a series of bumps ending with the largest "pressure bump".. time confirmed by the crew.

 

So, for Cooper to have jumped over the Columbia,, the crew was wrong, the FBI/analysis was wrong and the sled test was wrong. Reminds me of the Western FP...

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

So what is the problem.

The sled test matched the oscillations and pressure bump exactly AND a man going down the stairs showed very little change on the cabin pressure gauge.

Therefore, the oscillations reported by the crew at 8:10/11 was a series of bumps ending with the largest "pressure bump".. time confirmed by the crew.

 

So, for Cooper to have jumped over the Columbia,, the crew was wrong, the FBI/analysis was wrong and the sled test was wrong. Reminds me of the Western FP...

 

OK, so we’ll use your terminology for the sake of argument. There was a series of small bumps which occurred for an extended period of time ending with a large bump. We don’t know for how long the small bumps happened, and we don’t know the time of the large bump.

To suggest that when the crew reported the small bumps they were also reporting the large bump is not supported by Anderson’s statement:

“What we noticed was the pattern of the oscillations was continuing and there was a very minor disruption of the slipstream. Scott said at first he wasn’t feeling anything for sure, then a little later he thought  there was more drag and the nose was deviating a little. When the final bump happened and the oscillations stopped that sealed it. But even then we weren’t sure and we waited before calling anybody.”

So, Anderson confirms that the “pattern of oscillations” continued for an extended period of time. He also differentiates between “bump” and “oscillations”. Lastly, he confirms that they waited before alerting anyone of the final “bump”. How long did they wait? What time did they report the final bump? No one knows. 

If you want to continue to believe that the report of a “pattern of oscillations” or a “series of pressure fluctuations” are the same thing as a “pressure bump” or “larger bump” then go ahead, but I don’t think that’s correct. 

Share this post


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

OK, so we’ll use your terminology for the sake of argument. There was a series of small bumps which occurred for an extended period of time ending with a large bump. We don’t know for how long the small bumps happened, and we don’t know the time of the large bump.

To suggest that when the crew reported the small bumps they were also reporting the large bump is not supported by Anderson’s statement:

“What we noticed was the pattern of the oscillations was continuing and there was a very minor disruption of the slipstream. Scott said at first he wasn’t feeling anything for sure, then a little later he thought  there was more drag and the nose was deviating a little. When the final bump happened and the oscillations stopped that sealed it. But even then we weren’t sure and we waited before calling anybody.”

So, Anderson confirms that the “pattern of oscillations” continued for an extended period of time. He also differentiates between “bump” and “oscillations”. Lastly, he confirms that they waited before alerting anyone of the final “bump”. How long did they wait? What time did they report the final bump? No one knows. 

If you want to continue to believe that the report of a “pattern of oscillations” or a “series of pressure fluctuations” are the same thing as a “pressure bump” or “larger bump” then go ahead, but I don’t think that’s correct. 

There were minor oscillations/bumps on the gauge for some time PRIOR to the 8:10/11 report of oscillations,, they were reporting an increase in the cabin. That increase matched the increase in oscillations/bumps during the sled test per Anderson.

You are conflating the terms and events.

That event was replicated exactly per Anderson when the sled was dropped, very little change with a man going down the stairs,,  case closed.

The gauge reacted "violently" only when the sled was dropped exactly like Norjak.

He says it...

"The re-test duplicated the OSCILLATIONS AND THE PRESSURE BUMP exactly"...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaucer, you have this screwed up.. not me and everyone else.

Even Rataczak reported that his ears popped (pressure bump) at 8:10

You fail to recognize that Anderson's statements, Rataczak's statements and the sled test contradict your assertion.

Share this post


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

There were minor oscillations/bumps on the gauge for some time PRIOR to the 8:10/11 report of oscillations,, they were reporting an increase in the cabin. That increase matched the increase in oscillations/bumps during the sled test per Anderson.

You are conflating the terms and events.

That event was replicated exactly per Anderson when the sled was dropped, very little change with a man going down the stairs,,  case closed.

The gauge reacted "violently" only when the sled was dropped exactly like Norjak.

He says it...

"The re-test duplicated the OSCILLATIONS AND THE PRESSURE BUMP exactly"...

 

 

No, I haven’t screwed up anything. You are confusing terms and cherry-picking statements to prove your point. 

The statements from the crew all point to a series of oscillations, fluctuations, etc. happening and that those concluded with one final pressure bump. The reports all state that the “oscillations” were an on-going, continual event (“he’s fiddling with the stairs”, “he’s doing something with the stairs”) There’s no indication that they were report a singular event. The sled test confirmed that the pressure bump was caused by Cooper leaving the craft. It did not confirm that Cooper left the craft, there were a series of oscillations, and then a pressure bump. You have the chronology ass-backwards.

The fact remains that the oscillations are NOT the same thing as the pressure bump, and the oscillations were reported at 8:11/8:12 per the transcripts. Thus, the pressure bump - if was reported - was reported some time AFTER that. 

One more time: the oscillations/fluctuations/small bumps, etc. are NOT the same thing as the pressure bump/large bump. 

Whether my theory that Cooper ended up on the north bank of the Columbia is irrelevant. The above are facts of the case. 

 

Share this post


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

 

No, I haven’t screwed up anything. You are confusing terms and cherry-picking statements to prove your point. 

The statements from the crew all point to a series of oscillations, fluctuations, etc. happening and that those concluded with one final pressure bump. The reports all state that the “oscillations” were an on-going, continual event (“he’s fiddling with the stairs”, “he’s doing something with the stairs”) There’s no indication that they were report a singular event. The sled test confirmed that the pressure bump was caused by Cooper leaving the craft. It did not confirm that Cooper left the craft, there were a series of oscillations, and then a pressure bump. You have the chronology ass-backwards.

The fact remains that the oscillations are NOT the same thing as the pressure bump, and the oscillations were reported at 8:11/8:12 per the transcripts. Thus, the pressure bump - if was reported - was reported some time AFTER that. 

One more time: the oscillations/fluctuations/small bumps, etc. are NOT the same thing as the pressure bump/large bump. 

Whether my theory that Cooper ended up on the north bank of the Columbia is irrelevant. The above are facts of the case. 

 

You are wrong.

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.

22 22