FLYJACK

So, this is actually a completely different argument... and has its own problems.. I don't have the patience to unwind those problems.. I suggest you guys scrap your theories and start from scratch and build a new one that actually fits within the evidence. You guys are wasting time with this nonsense.

Like all definitions you need context... the context here is clear, I have explained it and even resorted to a crude image.... It isn't noise and deflection, it is an absurd theory that doesn't fit the evidence from a person who can't understand what a plane's path is.. there is no discussion with people who can't understand a simple definition. The plane could have taken many many path's to Reno that didn't go where they ultimately went..

G, it is very clear in this context that the path is the course for the plane,,, of which there are dozens and dozens possible to Reno... Kamkisky's theory is that there was ONLY ONE path that the plane could take,,, and Cooper knew it so he didn't demand. indicate or confirm one.. THIS IS COMPLETE BS, there is NOT one path,,, in fact the one they took was the worst one because it went over populated areas.. There are other problems,,, Cooper knew the weather was bad and visibility poor, he had no expectation that he could see the terrain, lights or markers. So, he didn't know the path they would take and didn't know if he would be able to see the ground to determine his position. That indicates is LZ was Ad Hoc,,

Nonsense.. You have the strawman.... still claiming South is a path.. lunacy. You have no ideas if he knows the terrain or could even see it.. You claim to know what he wanted... you make it up. and then claim I am struggling with a "path"... what a joke. Your theory is a mess...

I never misused "path" you did... Finally, South is a direction not a path.... amazing. My theory has assumptions, that is self evident... it fits within the evidence and solves some issues yours does not. You presented no facts to dispute it.. and claimed yours was better,, it isn't. You critique or challenge theories with facts not wild speculation.. like Cooper would have done X if Y.. nonsense.. It is provably false, you claimed Cooper knew that there was ONLY one path the plane could take so he didn't have to direct the plane to a path, it could only go to Portland, that is FALSE.. the foundation of your argument is false... the rest is layers of assumptions.. Your process of analyzing these things is poor, you just make up too much stuff that is not reasonably likely or inferred by evidence... with this approach you can support or reject anything... all theories are not created equal. Tell somebody else,, I don't want to hear it anymore.. you didn't even understand what a path is because your argument relied on only one single possible path. I told you dozens of times South is not a path.... didn't matter.

Still makes no sense... but I believe Rat when he claimed he said "mark your shrimp boat" or something similar.. not recorded anywhere of course.. He isn't known to lie and hasn't embellished elsewhere.. He said it or something close IMO... but it doesn't matter.. Cooper jumped right around 8:11.. It is super high bar to move that FP or times more than the minuter error...

Seriously, you don't know what a path is.. A path is a specific course... could be an airway or not... your entire argument is based on Cooper knowing the ONLY path the plane could take to Reno was V23 so he didn't have to ensure it... completely false.. SOUTH IS NOT A PATH... get that in your head.. There are many dozens or more paths to Reno... I don't want to hear that nonsense anymore.. To defend your argument you attack my theory.. That isn't how logic works.. my theory could even be false and yours still fails.. And your theory fails because it has two big flaws,, it requires layers of assumptions and doesn't fit the evidence.. No, your theory is not simpler. STOP WASTING MY TIME WITH THIS NONSENSE. I am actually trying to solve this thing.. and I am very close....

It could be IF he had the right gear and could see the terrain and know where he was... He had a non steerable bailout rig,, wind unknown at his jump spot and unlikely he could see the terrain,, possibly some lights.. He did not know the path the plane would take.. Cooper targeting terrain is very unlikely in those conditions.. only if he knew where he was and could read the ground. Both are unlikely. A jump with a non-steerable bailout rig with potential 6mi drift could have up to a 113 sq mi landing area... that is if he targeted a spot..

Yes you did agree with his theory, you even claimed south was a path... One of the dumbest things I have heard on this forum... It isn't crying wolf because his silly idea doesn't agree with my theory that is your ignorance.. his theory is flooded with made up assumptions and rejected by the evidence. some paths are designated airways but they didn't have to take a designated airway,,, even V23 was 10 miles wide... Taking V23 going over populated areas with a bomb on board wasn't the best idea, they seriously consider a coastal route to Reno which has a designated airway.. and to go to those large California cities Cooper rejected they did not even have to take the coast.. Kamkisky has so many layers of speculation/assumptions that the theory is useless.. and it doesn't fit the evidence. Kamkisky argues (falsely) V23 was the only route South to Reno they could have taken and Cooper (falsely) knew they had to take it.. therefore he jumped where he had planned the entire time using the lights of Battle Ground. It is all made up and doesn't fit the evidence or any reasonable inferences.. Then he claims a false equivalency, attacking my theory, since I can't prove my theory then his is true or legitimate... This is an abuse of basic logic.. and people use this flawed thinking often in this case.. It is become very apparent that many do not understand basic logic... you need it to process theories and evidence..

Nope, you argument is that he jumped exactly where he planned to using the lights of Battle Ground.. Now you move the goal post and claim his LZ is much larger.. just anywhere South.. that doesn't fit your Battle Ground narrative.. You have been claiming his LZ was pre-planned. The evidence shows that he had no pre-knowledge for the location of the plane and he never asked, confirmed or demanded it.. There is no evidence he could see the lights of Battle Ground, used it as a marker or even knew it was Battle Ground.. There is no evidence he intentionally targeted a flat spot beyond the forest. South is not path no matter how many times you claim it.. there are dozens or more paths to Reno that go South.. Many paths go south to Reno.. This is an absurd claim... Flying over a populated area with a potential bomb is arguably the worst path.. There is no evidence Cooper only wanted the plane heading South. There is no evidence Cooper chose Mexico as a ruse to jump early. Cooper DID NOT demand the plane fly to Mexico City nonstop.. it could refuel anywhere in Mexico.. He did not negotiate South to Portland. He got the wrong chutes, more robust but less accurate and a higher risk of injury. He did change the jump configuration,, airstairs down inflight then on takeoff then inflight. Cooper never gave a path or a restriction... this bizarre coastal jump thing you keep claiming makes no sense.. He rejected large airports that did not require a coastal route,, The crew seriously discussed a coastal route to Reno and we have no evidence Cooper was even aware of that. So, you claim he would have stopped them if they did, You don't know that and you don't know if he could have known. You just keep making up nonsense. It is really simple,, his LZ was ad hoc, it was not pre-planned.. if you are jumping an LZ isn't a southern region of a State..

Not when you consider the fact that he had no direction or knowledge for the planes location. It isn't less complicated, it requires layers of assumptions.. I have a theory for an original plan that both fits the evidence and resolves some issues that are unexplained.. it doesn't make it true.. but to claim my theory is a waste of time and yours is worthwhile is an absurd position and detrimental to the advancement of the case. The difference is your theory relies entirely on speculation and does not fit the evidence.

That is complicated here,, Jumping with a non steerable bailout rig is not accurate at all with potential drift,, maybe up to a 6 mile radius or 113 sq mile area... that is if he targeted a spot. Than the fact that he didn't know where he was going to be means there was no LZ other than the general southern Washington.. I consider a targeted LZ within a few mile radius... If the plane took the coast south, he would have jumped there...

The point is his LZ was ad hoc... it was not targeted,,, that is about it. If it was targeted he would have directed, ensured or confirmed the planes position. If it was ad hoc then he had another original plan and that can be pursued..

But you have made that up,, you have no idea if that is true, no evidence, not even a reasonable inference...

Not exactly,,, the stair discussion from the crew started earlier because they wanted to get Tina off but the exact time Cooper agreed to lowered inflight is key.. But sure the "refuelling stop" is more accurate in this context.

So, he changed his plan, but it was in his plan,, OK.. I can only speculate on his original plan but the evidence is clear, he did not target his LZ because he had no knowledge and made no attempt to direct or know the planes location beforehand.. It is that simple. Kamkinky's argument is made of endless assumptions.. and DOESN'T fit the facts.. The plane could have headed on various path's to Reno. He didn't get the stairs open when he wanted. He put the back chute on after refuelling negotiations. He wanted stairs lowered on takeoff after Reno was in play.. Three similar behaviours.. this seems to be a characteristic.. He didn't push back against "no" knapsack.. He didn't push back against getting bailout rigs.. He didn't push back about the range limitations..

Huh,, changing to Reno is a change in plan.. So, yes Reno was a factor in Cooper altering his plan.. Things changed after Reno... It is a reasonable logical inference.. It isn't even necessary... Cooper had ZERO expectation and made no effort to ensure his LZ,,,, His LZ was not a targeted plan.

It means he changed his initial demands,,, the airstairs, the (Reno) destination and the knapsack. His initial plan was altered... I suppose you can assume his initial plan was to jump randomly whatever path the plane took, but that is a bit ridiculous... and was not Kamkinsky's argument..

It still isn't clear in the files if the crew first suggested airstairs lowered on takeoff or Cooper did but he did change his demand from lowered inflight.. then finally back and Tina to lower them.

He changed his demand to airstairs lowered on takeoff,, he also put on the parachute after negotiations..

His plan changed when Reno was in play... to jump as soon and feasible... the specific location was Ad Hoc... If the plane was 40 miles West or 20 miles East he would have jumped there.. Bottom line is his LZ was not targeted or pre-planned... His initial plan is unknown, I have a theory that fits the facts but that is debatable.

You assume could see that particular terrain, knew it well, knew the plane would be there and it was a targeted jump... your argument is all made up...

Your argument is a mess.... it lacks consistency, reason, accuracy and evidence. It is a bad guess.. and does nothing to advance this case.

Ridiculous,,, South isn't a path.. it isn't a course.. especially in this context as there are many paths to Reno.. The plane could have been anywhere,, he did not target an LZ,,, he couldn't have. As for going back to where he started.. no evidence that was intentional. He jumped 20-25 miles before PDX... The plane could have gone down the coast to Reno... and it would have been a better choice to avoid populated areas.. It was ad hoc,, he did not target that LZ.. It is that simple. He let others determine the path and his LZ...

Stupid analysis with errors and assumptions... You fail to recognize that he did not know where the plane would be and rely on the most absurd premise that South is a path... South has dozens or more paths.. Simple.. He didn't know the path the plane would take and jumped when he could before landing in Reno... He did not target an LZ.... it was ad hoc.. That fits the evidence. Your theory is layered with assumptions errors and rejected by the facts.