FLYJACK

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yup, he just scribbled on the sketch... I have a different version than was posted.. Hard to tell but looks like added shoulders? thicker hair, maybe wider, something with nose and perhaps neck..

Not exactly,, more accurately there is a six minute span based on that distance/speed but with only five segments. 2 of those segments are far too long. That suggests the plots in that section are not equal minute marks. I can only speculate. There nothing that says all these marks were plotted at exactly equivalent minute marks, we have been assuming that. It may be that they recorded the plots noted with times and the other marks are only meant to track the path and not necessarily minute increments. I suspect this,, The segments vary far too much where there are no times marked. There is some marking position error on the map as lat.long was manually marked on it so I don't know how much or if that plays a role. The segments are too far apart right before 20:05 and too close together at Portland. In other words.. the unmarked plots represent the path and the time marked plots are accurate. There are unmarked plots that are twice the distance of others. The plane didn't reduce speed by half. I think the Soderlind 23 DME at 22:22 and the Harrison :22 reports are accurate.. Isn't DME a straight line,, so the plane is almost 2 miles up as well so isn't DME an angle.. not 23NM along the ground. IMO, the 8:18 was not accurate, perhaps the writer glanced at a clock or watch and read the hands wrong,, a few minutes after the 3 instead of after the 4 mark.. that is a guess. But, I have been working on something regarding the marks and path around Portland,, they are too close together..

YOU are misrepresenting a general statement by Tom. He did not say the sketch was exclusively Gregory and there is no evidence that it was.

Nope, not even close It doesn't say that sketch 1 was entirely Gregory,, Sketch 2 was the stews, including Tina who said she never saw his face. Sketch 4 was stews and passengers.. and Sketch 1 and 4 are very close if you account for the "line art" characteristics. The outlier is sketch 2... What influence did Tina have if she didn't see his face??

He worked at a paint shop so he knew colours... Russet is a reddish brown and can range to almost black. That image was head shape only,,, not the details and other features. The shape isn't far off the sketch.

The shape, not the details. Better angle..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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..

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.

You questioned my assertion using the claim from Tom... nothing wrong wth that. Point I was making was that YOU kept the map colour debate going. The map colour is irrelevant other than clarifying Chaucer's summary. Something is wrong wth you guys ...

Double down on what? I remembered that Spangler had already said he obtained it from SAGE and dug up the file.. Your interview confirmed it.. What is your problem. You two want a cookie?

Get a life, I wasn't criticizing you, I was pointing out that you kept the discussion going about the map colour.. You are losing it.