FLYJACK

Maybe it does get sent.. maybe not.. nobody knows.. and it doesn't matter. Either way the result is the result. Do you think they would update the sketch and only use age and complexion feedback from witnesses,, ignore all other input. If they are updating the sketch they are taking all feedback. They used KK5-1 as a basis, so what, it resembles that guy in the hat image some liked. Stews said B was better and the FBI said it was better. What do you know that they don't...

You are creating a red herring.. several actually. The sketch was redone regardless of Farrell's error. We know, they wanted to address complaints including age and complexion, they involved many witnesses over time with back and forth feedback.. Farrell's potential error is irrelevant for the final product.. You are imagining causation. You really think they would ONLY incorporate witness suggestions ONLY restricted to complexion and age.. That is nuts.

Not buying it. I just posted where the stews said B was better. The FBI said B was better. They went through a comprehensive feedback process of creating an updated sketch so everything is incorporated in it. KK5-1 is irrelevant... Even if it was an error by Farrell it doesn't change the result. There is no causation. Sketch A is ridiculous, it looks nothing like the witness descriptions. It is garbage. IMO, it was rushed and the stews.. Flo is flakey.. Tina is being deceptive.

Back to the map... The original map is several pieces.. if you look here you can see a join. The horizontal line with the hash marks.. WASH is cutoff and the "20:10" notation is partially under the attached piece. This matches the 1971 maps. So, the marks and times were written on it the separate map pieces, then they were attached together before the path was drawn.. and because Boeing made a colour negative and copies of the map,, and the join appearance it is likely that this "yellow" laminated map is a colour print, not the original.

I don't believe that is true about Farrell and the Cary sketch,, it isn't causative. They were doing an updated sketch with many witnesses regardless. It is coincidental. They got complaints about sketch A and pursued a more accurate representation. If the contradictions were equivalent, you could argue the earlier is more reliable,, but then why not argue the original sketch is more valid than sketch A.. it looks closer to sketch B... Sketch A is the outlier. The process was more comprehensive for sketch B vs A and the FBI concluded it is the best/accurate likeness they could get. But, sketch A seems to have been dominated by the stew interview in Minn... perhaps one stew dominated... a quick job,, it is ridiculous.. way too young, nose way too small, hair wrong, eyes irrelevant, androgynous.. Sketch B involved more witnesses over more time and back and forth... The process was different. They are not equivalent. There are no redeeming qualities in sketch A. IMO, It should be ignored.

Sketch A is no good.. it was bad from the get go and threw off the case tainting the public with a bad image.. even the very first sketch is closer to sketch B. It doesn't even look human. The nose is far too small, toss that out,, the hair is wrong, toss that, the lips were criticized and changed, the eyes are unreliable as he wore sunglasses most of the time. Take out those things and not much left. FBI, Sketch B best likeness. Sketch B more accurate.. Stews.. B better.

Flo later said the sketch didn't really look like him.. and so did Hal Williams.. never did look just like him (He may be referring to sketch A?) https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/11/25/All-in-black-during-the-day-of-polyesters-and-plaids/3918375512400/

I watched it,,, overall good job, I disagree on a few points.. Sketch B is the most accurate. If Farrell got the date/image wrong it is irrelevant. It is LIZ - KNEE not LIN ZEE and HA NA MAN not HIGH NA MAN IMO, Tina did see Cooper's face.. she was being deceptive about not seeing his face. It wasn't only Cooper's complexion that was described as latin.. features were also. The FBI used 5' 8" as min height but on occasion went under that for a compelling suspect. I think the "yellow" map may be a colour print of the original from Boeing, Could this be referring to the original map.. the lamination has turned yellow and if it is a print (from above FBI file) the original marker may have been "dark" green. If not what map is this??

Nope.. wrong answer

and when Tina described Cooper's face for the Bing sketch then later claimed she never saw his face straight on... What does that indicate??

In the Unsolved Mysteries episode Flo said the composite never really looked like him. The hair does not.. the face does not.. So, confidence in the sketch is sketchy... Cooper was unmemorable.

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.

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??

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..

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.

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??