FLYJACK

This newspaper piece reported that Cooper took some of the crew food ration's with him.. Cooper had requested meals for the crew. Newspaper claims are sometimes not accurate but it makes sense and that isn't the typical error newspapers have. IF TRUE, where did he put the FOOD... the briefcase maybe.

yes, There is no missing mark There is one in the middle of the river if you look close,, Look to the left there are three +'s hanging out there they line up with the ones for the path Those were apparently an error in E/W but N/S lines up. That makes the previous section a bit long but the next one is short and it self corrects. When the section is calculated the speed is consistent. It doesn't mean the plane speeds up it is the marking error. You can tell because the next one is short and by the next one the timing is corrected.

Funny, Ulis said you can't figure out the ground speed from the map.. I got 182.37 k Robert99 est 182.86 k.... and yours is close.. although a different section of the path. You can't clear it up.. the information isn't precise enough to pin it down.. that 8:12 report could have been 8:10.. Some reports had 8:10.. We just can't know for sure. Then, even if you got a time pinned down, you can't pin down the planes location.. We have a minute plus/minus for the event and a minute plus/minus for the N/S flightpath.. 0.5 - 1 mile E/W plus/minus then the chute wind drift potential up to 4-5 miles.. that ends up being a lot of real estate. At the time they didn't really know what happened and filled it in afterwards... so what they said, their perspective and language changed. If the crews reported oscillations ended in a bang, there isn't a time separation between events. It is like saying closing a car door is two separate event times, the swinging it and then the bang closed. Anderson inferred that there were many bumps,, what were those,, another expression for oscillations or what? Unless we get some new info it is just speculation, That is why I believed the 8:09 FDR blob is the key to establish events.. something significant occurred at 8:09 and that time is the most accurate. Any idea what that was? Here is my best guess.. I can't prove it, just by processing all the info. 8:09 Cooper goes to the end of the stairs, fully extended or close, that is the blob.. trim adjust maybe 8:10 Crew reports oscillations (8:12 time stamp) 8:10 - 8:11 my data suggests the plane slowed, probably due to stairs down and drag. 8:11 Cooper jumps causing bang or pressure bump.. 8:11 - 8:12 with stairs back up plane regaining speed.

I did a very detailed analysis right along the flight path from 19:54 through 20:26, a 32 minute stretch... measuring each segment precisely and converting to miles, NM and speed.. Each minute mark was measured and longer 5 minute increments were measured to get a smooth data set as a check. I found that the missing 20:04 time was made up by the adjacent marks, I compared the 19:59 to 20:05 and the radar sweep must have just missed that time. Since each mark can be off, the marks before the missing 20:04 made up for the missing mark by being longer. The missing 20:04 is not relevant. Obviously each of the manual marks is not precise but over the course of the path any deviations get corrected. I followed the path and since it has a plotting error the result isn't exact, but it is very close. The average was 3.49 Miles per Minute or 3.04 NM miles per minute.. I found that the GROUND SPEED from 19:54 to 20:26 averaged 210 MPH or 182.3 NM. Does that sound about right.. for ground speed.. Rough calc/est, 165 KIAS X EST 1.20% = 198 less wind EST 15k = about 183 kn If I did that right the path seems to match NORJAK.. The reason the path is erratic is because it is a minute plot with a 0.5 mile error. It is not really a representative path, it is a smoothed plot. The minute marks were made manually and are not precise. There are only a few major timing mark outliers. 165 is the min control KIAS for the F106, that eliminates the F106 from the flightpath as it would have had to fly at the min along the entire path from 19:54 and minute marks would be far more randomly spaced and variable if the F106 was doing circles or s turns. F106 = busted.

"after 8:12" do you mean 8:12:01 plus... or 8:13:00 plus.. if the report was between 8:10-8:12, you have 360 seconds from 8:10-8:13, the reported oscillation and bump could have occurred within that time. We don't have seconds marked.. are the times rounded up or down or concatenated??? IMO, that 8:09 FDR mark is a significance event... marking something. We have all run into this,, with the imprecise data/comms we can't determine the exact location, IMO, the highest probability is 8:11 plus or minus a minute.

That time stamp in not precise enough... Reviewing Anderson's interview there are some other problems.. He mentions minor oscillations on the gauge, then no more major ones.. (major and minor oscillations) He mentions a final bump, a distinguishable bump, largest bump... (many bumps) At the time the crew wasn't sure what happened all their perceptions of the event were formulated later. My speculation is that there were minor oscillations and major oscillations described, those major oscillations were "bumps" until the final big "bump". In real time the crew wasn't distinguishing between bumps and minor gauge oscillations.. they did later. The 8:09 FDR blob is a significant event.. it seems too early for the "pressure bump" but it might be and the times are off a bit.. But, what if it was Cooper reaching the bottom of the stairs, pushing them down, trim adjustment. Oscillations reported between 8:09-8:11 and jumps at 8:11.. (within a minute time variable)

Now I remember that interview, vaguely, those statements are a fairly recent recall and some out of context. "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. " The interview confirms the other evidence that the crew reported the "bump" late... there was a delay. That undermines the assertion that the bump was after 8:13. Then the bump oscillation sequence becomes moot. The minor oscillations on the gauge started well before. It was 8:11. The recording was analyzed. It may be semantics. Anderson is referring to his gauge oscillations. "Not really and it wasn’t exactly as you describe. These were minor oscillations. We detected on the gauges only. " It is clear there were very "minor oscillations" not felt but seen on the rate of climb gauge before the bump. This was confirmed in the test. "very little" The bump was seen on the pressure gauge. I didn't realize there were two different gauges.. They didn't fully realize it was Cooper.. "We just presumed pretty quickly that it was Cooper fiddling with the aft stairs but we weren’t one hundred percent sure because we were already flying dirty, with throttles up and fighting icing and weather." There were more bumps or one? or were those oscillations? no further MAJOR airflow disruptions. What about minor ones? "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. " That interview is important but it still isn't clear when these guys are are referring to oscillations, fluctuations, disruptions or whatever.. felt or seen on gauges.. Anderson is clearly referring specifically to the minor oscillations on his rate of climb gauge which had been occurring for some time. He states those oscillations ended after the bump. I believe that was not immediate but when the stairs stopped undulating, that may be brief. He also said no more major oscillations,, what does that mean? they were described as minor.. did they continue on his gauge.. were they describing the bump as a major oscillation? The ear plug coming out is from the pressure bump.. an increase in pressure = door closing.. then "we're are getting some oscillations"... bigger ones? minor ones were occurring for a bit..

They are the same thing.. the pressure gauge change was the pressure bump.. the oscillations continued after the bump.. There is no other evidence... what evidence? Do you think the stairs rebound up stop and don't oscillate?

Door was opened much earlier, so not that. It is right here... pressure bump = gauge change Gauge before oscillations Therefore pressure bump before oscillations.

Pressure gauge.. at 8:11,, some reports are 8:13 but those are from inaccurate transmission timestamps, they narrowed it down to 8:11

Sure it is that was when the instruments registered it. There was confusion because they were simultaneous, the pressure bump was the first oscillation.

How do you know the pressure bump didn't occur between 8:10 and 8:12?

That isn't true the doc I posted referenced the pressure bump felt then oscillations.. "My ear plug came out (pressure bump first) and I uh, we're getting some oscillations.. (oscillations after)" I don't agree with your assumptions... We have reports of oscillations and a pressure bump, nowhere is there anything suggesting the pressure bump occurred after the oscillations.

"The oscillations were not a one time event. They happened over a period of time while Cooper made his way down the stairs." How do you know that?

Yes, there has been confusion but I still don't see your argument. Rat is throwing out an estimate decades later.. that isn't a literal fact. Logically, it makes sense that the oscillations continued after the pressure bump not before. Cooper going down the airstairs might cause some slight action if any but little compared to the oscillations after jumping. The stairs wouldn't spring up and stop, they would swing.. "My ear plug came out (pressure bump first) and I uh, we're getting some oscillations.. (oscillations after)" Oscillations caused by the airstairs closing after the unsub departed.. The evidence supports oscillations after Cooper jumped.

I checked the Google Earth measuring tool vs known distances and it is actually quite accurate.. better than I thought. I wasn't even going to convert and show ground speed in the analysis as it wasn't relevant. I added it just to see.. The measurement is ground distance in miles per marked segment minute * 60 = X MPH converted to knots. NORJAK speed was reported to have been lowered to 150 kn IAS.. which can be up to 20% below true airspeed. True airspeed and wind/angle can calculate ground speed. A 150 IAS into a wind could be about 166 ground speed. The ground speed calculations here are probably fairly accurate, however irrelevant here. These ground speeds reflect the map markings not NORJAK's true speed.. DO NOT CONFLATE THESE SPEEDS WITH NORJAK'S IAS or TAS. The minute marks on the map were by hand and not 100% accurate, distances between the minute marks will be off slightly also reflected in the a slight ground speed error. The exercise here was not to calculate NORJAK's ground speed but to ID any large deviation aka shorter segment/lower ground speed which indicates either a gross marking error or the plane slowing down. Since a gross marking error would have to be compensated for in adjacent segments that can be ruled out. The outlier identified here is the 20:10 - 2:11 time period indicating NORJAK slowed down substantially and that timeframe is supported by other evidence. Due to the TBAR money find location and lack of a case resolution everyone wants to change the evidence.. The evidence overwhelmingly supports a 20:10 - 20:11 jump time. Now, how did the TBAR money get into the Columbia R in Spring....

I knew those guys would screw this up.. Didn't I explain it. Is this thing on? Each segment was measured using the exact same method, those segments were converted to a speed which is not accurate because Google Earths tool measuring ground distance isn't entirely accurate, it might be out 10%. It doesn't matter as long as all segments were measured using the same tool they are all out the same %. We can compare them. Those speeds represent a ratio, not the actual speed, a proxy to compare to each other. The significance here is the deviation from the proxy not the proxy/speed. I could have left the speed data off entirely and used distance only, the result would be the same, a significant shorter deviation at 20:10 - 20:11. If the plane was travelling at the same speed the entire time you'd expect the segments to be very close, but when the plane slows down you get a shorter segment, that is what we have..

Yes, the distances were measured in Google Earth, so the ground speed is not necessarily accurate because Google Earth isn't accurate. But since the measuring method was consistent for all segments the deviation from the average exposes the anomaly. The deviation tells you how far above or below the average that segment is. The 20:10 - 20:11 segment is the shortest relative to the others aka the slowest of all the segments. We are comparing the minute segment lengths to each other, the shortest = slowest. It was always thought that the 20:10 - 20:11 segment appeared shorter based on visual, but the marks were made manually so an anomaly could be a marking error but checking the other surrounding segments that isn't the case. If an anomaly was created by a poorly placed mark the neighbouring plots would be seen to compensate, they don't. Where exactly was the plane at 8:11.. My best guess is to take the 8:11 time on the map and go +/- 1 minute. So, 8:10 - 8:12 on the map.. exactly where they thought he jumped. Why do you believe the oscillations occurred before the jump? Everything I have read and processed has Cooper jumping, the stairs go up and cause the pressure bump, effectively the first oscillation,, then the stairs oscillate until reaching their equilibrium. They are simultaneous but the oscillations continue until dissipation. It matches the 20:11 time as well.

Here are some very interesting results of an analysis I have meant to do for while.. I took the flightpath and imported into Google Earth,, then measured the distance between the time marks in miles. The time marks on the map were manually drawn so they are not precise but comparing them may expose an anomaly. The plane did slow down when Cooper jumped. If a manual mark was off you'd expect that to correct on the next mark. When the plane slowed we would see a shorter distance between time marks. We are comparing the averages and deviation. This is not precise but can expose a data outlier. and it did,, there is a large deviation between 20:10 and 20:11 suggesting the plane slowed to about 166 knots/192 MPH vs the average. If one of those marks was just marked off then you'd expect the surrounding marks to compensate and they don't. 20:11 thru 20:13 are significantly below average. We are comparing the deviations, the relationships between the minute marks. The 20:05 start minute mark may be off due to the missing 20:04 mark. It is not proof but the data deviation appears to show Norjak slowed down significantly to about 166 knots/192 MPH between 20:10 and 20:11 while the average speed over the time series was 189 knots/217 MPH. Note, the distance/speeds are not precise but measured the same way. We are looking at the deviation from the average. That deviation may be a poor manual mark or an actual change in speed. The 20:10 - 20:11 deviation suggests a speed reduction. If NORJAK slowed down in this time series it was between 20:10 - 20:11. The speed/distances are not precise but the distances were measured all using the same system so the deviation is what is the key. IMO, the FBI got it right Cooper jumped between 20:10 and 20:11... Legal notice, Georger, Eric Ulis, Robert99 do not have permission to use this post or any information within, or copy this post in any form whatsoever. Everyone else has permission. Copyright March 17, 2021

Georger,, FAIL The money was in BUNDLES... rubber banded bundles of packets. You continue to prove that you do not understand the issue.. The first step is the hardest.. admit you have been wrong for a decade. or keep lying to everyone and yourself.

you can PM here..

Georger can't help himself, he has to lie again... After being exposed for plagiarizing my comment he has to lie with a straw-man and ridicule... Is said the dig image "SUPPORTS" Palmers assertion that the frag at depth was deposited by dig operations,, based on the image, my statement is true. Goerger lied and claimed "CERTIFIED" and "PROVES" which is an untrue claim that he then riducules. This is what Georger does, he is a serial liar, a fraud, an intellectual lightweight who needs to lie... he has even manufactured case evidence.. NEVER EVER EVER TRUST ANYTHING GEORGER claims about the case itself or others. He is a few bills short of a currency packet. Moving on to more important info,, Eric Ulis's TBAR theory busted. I found some very good overhead images of the money spot. By measuring the pixels and comparing them to the 20 ft grid lines marked on TBAR. The money spot measures 34.8 feet from the River Feb 1980. The slope is 10%, that puts the money spot 3.5 feet above the water level. This confirms a previous estimate made from a profile image of TBAR. Comparing the Satellite images the River looks to be the average level which is 2-4 ft. 3.5 ft plus 2-4 ft = 5.5-7.5 ft So, the money spot is at the 5.5-7.5 ft level.. There were reports at the time that the money spot was at the high water line and recently underwater. These reports are consistent with money at a 5.5-7.5 ft level.. Eric claims as fact that ONLY the extreme floods of about 21 ft in June 1972 and June 1974 reached the money spot... he is 100% wrong. In fact, the June 1972 flood max level would have the put the money spot about 14-16 ft underwater. Eric is just a sloppy researcher and thinker, he also falsely claimed the placard was from inside NORJAK. The River level was frequently over the money spot.. I find it difficult to conceive of the money getting driven up to the surface and pushed onto the shore.. But, if the River level was well above the money spot, that spot would effectively be the bottom of the River where the money would have buoyancy and get pushed along the bottom by higher Spring water flow. Money goes into the Columbia as one bundle as it was given to Cooper in Spring gets pushed to its spot which is underwater at the time. It is possible more bundles went into the River but were never found. That is it,, now, how did the money get into the Columbia in Spring when the water level was above about 5.5-7.5 ft.... stay tuned to this channel.

Georger is plagiarizing my comment,, If the serial number from the frag found at depth was not from the 3 packets found by Brian the FBI would know and have used it in their analysis. But here is the dig spot,, I wasn't sure if these people were at the exact money find spot or somewhere else on the beach,, but I can confirm that the stick/stake is the money find spot. The branch on the tree behind matches the branch behind the reporter pointing to the money spot in her report. They changed the stick though. This dig is chaos and supports Palmer assertion that the money frag found at depth was deposited during the excavation process.. and the money spot looks about 30 ft from the River. With a 10% slope that is only about 3 ft above the water level. money spot stick,,, matches top image dig chaos... The FBI had the original Recordak of the bills in physical order not numeric order.. the FBI bill list they released was reordered to be alphanumeric. This is an actual Recordak for the Cooper case displayed by the FBI. There were several.

yup.. serial number 307551 and the date Feb. 21, 1946 are stamped on a parachute found in North Clark County, Wash. as seen in Seattle on Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Georger, you are moving the goalposts and dodging with false arguments.. You still can't admit that Carr was wrong in that statement and you pushed the same false narrative for a decade. It is your version of the Western Flight Path and Placard drift... LET IT GO. Paper vs rubber bands is irrelevant.. The evidence supports paper but it doesn't change the conclusion. The packets of bills were still in 100's. The evidence supports the money going to Cooper in 100 bill count packets.. those packets were rubber banded in random counts into bundles.. Do you disagree? A strap is paper and 100 bills. Ralph Himmelsbach “There were 10,000 twenty dollar bills assembled in straps of 100 bills to a strap and individual straps held together with rubber bands.” at 6:35 of video…