snowmman

the wind is changing, so it's not going to be perfect. But can you answer the question "Is the data consistent with steady 80 knot headwinds, or more consistent with the data we have from the FBI" I've been looking at the winds aloft report from PDX at various times this year, and it would have to be quite a storm to have 80 knot winds at 10k feet, from what I can see. (the 80 knot report is from 14k anyhow so you can't use it directly) The historical archives do have surface wind conditions at PDX that day. I'm not sure why we continue to debate that. ALTHOUGH: we aren't even in agreement on what locale we need to discuss when we talk about wind. There is weather data in the transcripts, especially around SeaTac? I think? I think another angle on all this, is how Himmelsbach is in no way the big investigator he portrays himself as. The real story of Cooper is how everyone; press, FBI, Cooperites like Georger, immediately fall into telling bullshit stories..i.e. everyone wants to say stuff that's not true. Himmelsbach only followed up tips that were called in. He did no investigation. There is no data that says there was an investigation. (edit) By way of example, it's pretty clear the FBI didn't put together a list of jumpers from '60s-era jump clubs. Even Ckret gets caught up in the bullshit angle. It's amazing he threw out his ADD engineer thing as almost fact, with no data.

Here's a serious question no one answered for me. The transcript indicates air speed at various times. Rataczak's air speed was changing over time, so we don't really know the air speed at all of the critical times. We know the ground speed from measuring the legs at 1 minute intervals, assuming direct line between each point. Since it probably wasn't a direct line, the speed could be slightly more. In any case: using the transcript's indicated air speed, and the ground speed, then the wind direction/speed, should be resolvable right? If I was a pilot like Sluggo, I would have had an opinion about this early on. Am I missing something? Wikipedia tells me: "True airspeed (TAS) is the speed of an aircraft relative to the airmass in which it flies Indicated airspeed will differ from true airspeed at air densities other than some reference density. Air density is affected by temperature, moisture content, and altitude." Was the reported air speed, true air speed, or indicated? (was it compensated appropriately by instruments?) Can we guesstimate the wind because we know the ground speed and indicated air speed? (Which Bohan didn't know?)

"Snowman found flight skeds for NWA. Maybe old flight skeds exist for the Continental flight that day." I don't just have flight schedules. I have all of them. Why do I have all of them? So no one else can see them. Ask yourself "why has no one mentioned the flight schedules before" And why did Flight 305 stop in Missoula? And why did it start in Washington, D.C.? Jo knows: the conspiracy. There is at least a 10 part series that can be written for the masses on Cooper. Like I said, we have to jumpstart the economy. During a depression, people love this stuff. Remember the velodrome craze? Lance Armstrong has it right. He's going to be huge again. (edit) I was thinking of important details. A new one we uncovered was that they dug up Duane's dog. I would hate that future generations would have to rediscover that on their own. It needs to be published. I know this a little insensitive, Jo, but it is an important piece of data, since the question of burial in the yard was raised, and we didn't know what kind of searching had been done. Luckily, now we know.

In 1981, a monk hijacked an Aer Lingus jet demanding that the Pope release the Third Secret of Fatima. It was not revealed until 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Secrets_of_Fatima The details of that hijack are murky and perhaps part of the coverup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aer_Lingus from wikipedia "In 1981, an Aer Lingus flight from Dublin to London was hijacked and diverted to Le Touquet - Côte d'Opale Airport in France. While authorities negotiated with the hijacker by radio in the cockpit, French special forces entered the rear of the aircraft and overpowered him. None of the passengers or crew were injured during the hijacking. The official record shows the reason as: One hijacker demanded to be taken to Iran. Plane stormed/hijacker arrested. Duration of the hijacking: less than 1 day. While various media reports indicated that the man, a former Trappist monk, demanded that the Pope release the third secret of Fátima." On 11/24/09, assuming the appropriate cash is placed in escrow, I will be placed in the killer North Woods of WA. Three days later, I will emerge, meeting an appropriately garbed hot babe. It is then, that I will reveal the Third Secret of the Washougal. And that's the story.

What's really funny, is how during the Bush years, Ckret naturally fell into the same kind of fear-mongering-as-joke way of interacting with the public. Bruce: I would write the real terror story, that points out how unsafe aviation still is. That Cooper was bullshit. 4 others jumped and survived, and that it's still possible to find a jet you could jump out of. And if you wanted to really fuck things up, simultaneous attack of all 21 ARTCC radar sites would do it. See, it's beautiful, we can talk about anything. That's what the newspapers are dying. It's all about the web. Hey the first thing any new Cooperite gets accused of is: "You're writing a book".... it's like there's a bunch of people obsessed with people's motives. Next it's "Hey you're FBI/CIA/NSA" Next it's "you're stupid, Cooper is stupid, everyone is stupid except me, the only one who can parse the data" Last is "Jo is stupid and I am smart" Georger is the best at that last one.

Bruce, Here you'll hear the opinions of a bunch of fat old men, regurgitating the same old tripe that's been regurgitated for 30 years, and sounded all data-like when they do so. (you just saw it). Rather than writing another piece of crap, just write the simple story 1) the "FBI" was here, and never identified a current DZ. They won't and can't because there's no data that says Cooper jumped in the woods. Therefore there's no data that says he obviously died because of the conditions of the DZ. 2) There is no "scientific" story to be written because there is no data that has good provenance. 3) Any theory anyone has is as speculative as the next. No one knows where the fuck he jumped, where he landed, what happened to the body or chute, or how the money got to Tena Bar. That's the story. Everything else is bullshit. Now if you want other info about nuclear weapons, flight paths for hijacking Piper Cherokees to Mexico, uranium, gold bars etc. I can help. By posting here, you just got put on a terrorism watch list. You can tell by looking at the "ads by Google" above. You'll see terrorism related stuff. That means you're on the list. Jo Weber is here, and may have more details about the DZ for you though.

SafecrackingPLF said "Hate to be the party pooper again, but this is patently false. #1 & #3 are impossible" Hey safe, are you saying #1 is impossible based on the Rataczak interviews or ??? could you outline the case for #1 being impossible. (it may seem obvious to you and you might think it should be to me, but I've learned that I can never tell the train of thought people are following) Seriously, just summarize your thoughts on #1 being impossible (landing in Columbia) (edit) good thoughts go out to Marquis and the others.

georger said: "And to think the Great Snowbird MISSED the Tacoma angle altogether! Shame. " I did. I'll admit it. What's the Tacoma Angle?

We'll have to wait for Tom to give us more on just what H. said, but from the little snippets Tom posted: 1) Did Himmelsbach really never talk to Rataczak until way,way after he retired? (one or both of them) 2) Ckret has told us there are Rataczak interviews where Bill talks about how they were before the Columbia (unclear how Bill knew) when they felt the bump, and how they could see the suburbs of Portland (or whatever it was he said) when they felt the bump. So there must be some kind of critical "bump" related interview of Rataczak. That Ckret is quoting. But we don't know by who. We don't know when it was done. Was it done before the drop test? Would they have zeroed in on "bump" details before the drop test? Maybe. Did they go back and interview Rataczak again after the drop test? Or just rely on Anderson's interpretation of "sameness" and maybe consult the transcripts for "oscillations" or maybe not read the Rat interview about "bump". I had speculated before that the people who created the original DZ map just didn't have all the data (interviews etc). Ckret has speculated that it was more about misinterpretations of data. Without seeing more background on this Rat/Bump interview info, even that might be of unknown provenance? Mainly because even Himmelsbach seems to be stepping away from talking to Rataczak. If Himmelsbach was not "all over" Rataczak and the bump issue, you'd think all of his personal theorization about DZ is fairly weak. What am I missing? Himmelsbach and Jerry seem closely aligned from what we know so far. I'm very curious about why Tom seems to think Jerry has new info. It would be very good if he did.

377 said: "Snow, you seemed to be digging very deep on local radar info from the 1971 era. Find anything more?" I'm not looking any more, because part of me thinks that it's a good example of how we pretend, as a group, to have looked at a lot of stuff, when we really haven't. And we pretend to know stuff we really don't. That one line in the ARTCC transcript could mean nothing, or give us a little to think about. I was surprised Sluggo didn't jump on it, minimally asking "does it mean anything". So: I'm not looking down that way any more. The questions from the group at Vancouver/Portland now, raising questions about the flight path etc (It's funny how even with the FBI, represented by Himmelsbach, that they are all definitive when they have secret data, but once you start analyzing it, they say "hell we don't know, we didn't really do any work in the past anyhow".) The thing to remember, is that Tom K is gathering some first hand info, especially from Himmelsbach. We'll have to analyze it for correctness, though. It will have it's own errors, like everything we have. For instance, it's easy to say "Oh we don't know if the time stamps are correct in the transcripts". That's always been a question: about how synchronized the various sites were on time, and whether there were adjustments the FBI did or not. In any case: when we get all the claims of fuzziness (new claims) we can process it by comparing events in the transcripts and looking for discrepancies in time. So: like always, we can't just assume because people start saying dramatic stuff, now, for some reason, that it's more true or less true. Just more wood in the fire. Good stuff, but keep it all in perspective. I'm really interested in the Himmelsbach angle. He's a storyteller. Be good to get more data out of him. He may be a big mythmaker. Don't know.

Tell Jerry that being nice is a two-way street. Tell him to reflect on his behavior/attitude. I'll reflect on mine. It's all about shared goals. If there are none, then it's a free-for-all, rightly. If there are some, it's not. The only one who's nice for the sake of being nice is 377. Latest bird is the GeoEye-1. First pic came in Oct, 2008. Can take photos at a resolution of 41 cm. They're only letting Google get 50 cm resolution right now, because of government restriction. But that's just a matter of time. Remember how they scrambled the GPS sigs to reduce resolution? And how multiple telescopes can be used to increase resolution. 300 PHds here working on combining low res images to create higher res. GeoEye-2 launches 2011-2012 with 25cm resolution. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/geoeye-1-super.html Regardless of the rumor I am starting now, there is no CIA money involved in either Google or Satellite Imaging Corporation. Duane's niece works at the latter. Robert David Steele is a liar. http://www.satimagingcorp.com/satellite-sensors/geoeye-2.html

Tom: I'm not sure if you've grabbed all the photos that were posted from 1980, to this thread. For instance there is the AP photo that shows the tractor and backhoe that was used to dig the deep trenches. There was more than one trench, confirmed in news video from 1980. I posted snaps from the 1980 news video showing the multiple trenches. They were in odd locations. Can you find out from H. if more money scraps were found as news articles state? They quoted both H. and other FBI agents. The overhead shot of people searching in 1980 you may have seen before. It's before the backhoe was brought in to dig the trenches. I don't believe H. supervised the search/digging. Did he? What did H. do anyhow over all the years? I didn't reattach the vid snaps from 1980. They show the surface sand conditions though and profile of the beach, and are useful for that reason. Hopefully you already grabbed those or I can dig them up again. (edit) the first one has a little more resolution at the AP site (you can get it there today). I shrunk it for size a bit (limit here) (edit) note in the first photo there is a film or video camera in the foreground..news camera?. You can see the mike on top of the camera. We've not seen this footage. (edit) note in the 2nd photo they had a random dog on the beach (in the water). I think just with the students. Zero maintenence of the evidence area!

Tom said: "Tena is virtually destroyed with 3 feet of sand gone everywhere." We've been force-fed a theory by Ckret, based on FBI paperwork, that the only way clay layers could have arrived on Tina Bar was from the dredging. That always sounded like bullshit. Get a feel for whether you think all the layering in the pictures from the 1980 could have occured due to natural redeposit (even before 1971) or movement due to heavy machinery. The difficulty is we know heavy machinery was used for moving sand all around that beach area, in 1974 after the dredging (and maybe yearly after that) Ask about the dredging Fazio does every year now to get their sand. Ask where it comes to shore and how they move it to the sand piles visible in the sat images. Do they use heavy machinery on the beach? did they in the '70s? And to satisfy Jo, find out if the squarish house with the composition shingles is the Fazio house. And the Denny's is actually not bad for breakfast ...must realign satellites to image Tom at the Columbia tomorrow..

Thanks for the update. It IS always better when someone speaks for himself. (edit) Tom said:"Had dinner with Ralf H tonight. Great guy and good talker. He said he never got to interview guys like Rataczak until he flew over for his retirement. He reiterated that Rat thought they were further east but this was at his retirement. " Interesting that the retirement story involves Rat now, not Scott. H. flew to Rat's retirement? Is that where the "east" story came from? Rat's retirement? Rataczak retired June 28, 1999 per http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-62476554.html Didn't the "east" story start before that? H. mentions the Washougal in the Norjak book. Just speculating about wind at that time. The article that we think mistakenly quoted H. as saying it was Scott at H's retirement in 1980 says this: (in fact you can see this story has it as west): "The costly searching near Ariel was wasted, Himmelsbach said. Remarkably, he said this revelation occurred to him in 1980 when, on the day of his retirement, Capt. Scott paid him a courtesy visit. They got to talking, and Scott let drop that the jet was traveling west of where the FBI believed it had been. No one with the agency has ever offered an explanation as to how such a goof could have gone undetected for nine years." If you talk to Himmelsbach, quiz him on this, i.e. did he change his story over the years or what? Can't understand. (above is per http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/scams/DB_Cooper/7.html i.e. the Trutv article, written by David Krajicek sometime after 2003, not sure when. (he has bibliography here: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/scams/DB_Cooper/12.html not sure of which article was the source of the quote above) (edit) If you want to be a peckerhead, ask H. if he bought the Beech in 1973. Tell him a crazy whuffo is curious.

as in bring the other Snowmman back? don't understand. Are you asking me for something? uranium, gold, ponzi scheme, beer, drugs, panties, hookers, ?? Take ur pick. Or I could just shut up. There's only one reference to me in the post above. Problem. Correct.

georger said: "I feel a bit strange posting for someone that isnt even here!" Yes. I feel stranger reading it. Why are you posting for Tom? Please don't post for Jo. Hey, you know I was thinking about Jo. Even though she's a bit loopy, we've all hung with crazy women before. At least Jo is direct, mostly, in what she says. I mean, I knew nothing about the Duane thing before I came here, and although it took time, we basically got her point of view from her. She had some thoughts, and she said them. She does a lot else too, that's a pain, but you got to give her credit for saying her mind. (i.e. not delaying it till the Fall Report)

You are definitely correct. The machines are cool. Tom's background is very cool and very impressive. But what's more important, is that it doesn't matter. TV is not DZ.com. It's like this fake "we lie so you'll watch the commercials" world. (nor are politicians, FBI, real). So which liars do we support, and which do we try to send down in flames? Doesn't matter if we fail, the effort is what matters. Hey I found a Blackwater low altitude air drop video on youtube, like they were advertising their services. Exactly like the old Air America video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2-gB2jyXao&feature=related It's like everything old, is new again. So with machines: who's the dog, who's the ball and who's the machine? Jerry doesn't need anyone to play with his ball http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PcL6-mjRNk Reminds me: The only important question. Which club has all the hot babes? (edit) Another thought. I think there's not enough emphasis on calling the flight path data "physical evidence". If it has no provenance, let's establish that and throw it out. If it has provenance, then it's physical evidence, just like radar gun in court for a speeding ticket. Get Tom K on the next stage show holding up the flight path and browsing thru FBI files to prove it's provenance. I'll tune in and buy whatever Viagra is on the commercial. If the flight path has no provenance: we're off to races again.

Got them laughing. We all know how the news outlets have been the targets of hoax stories before. They got a good laugh when I told them "Tom Kaye" was not the guy's real name. And that he was a paintball guy. Funny! Good one!

looked for interesting things to snap in the king5 video. not much. One good snap that I think is a new vid of the back of the tie, but may be from footage king5 didn't use before. I snapped and rotated it so the tie is vertical. There is, I believe, an evidence tag, and maybe writing on the tie from the FBI. We've seen this before in the other video (although poorly). I can't make out any of the evidence tags (better elsewhere but didn't snap). I think the yellow writing looks like ?40 AAA. The white evidence tag is on the narrow part of the tie. I've been trying to find a good pic of the "keeper" on the tie back. It's more visible here. That must be where it says J.C. Penney. (edit) mind glitch. probably not. see other tag. You can see the rear seam in this snap also. I don't know how far a tie would float, in the Columbia or otherwise. (edit) Oh I forgot there's a label on the narrow part of the tie (attached) maybe that's the one that says J.C. Penney. Can't tell.

377 said: "I just got kicked out of one DBC secret club Snow, so don't feel alone in your failure to join the in crowd. Popularity is fickle. Some of us just don't have the right stuff. " The CIA found that distributing Viagra was useful for getting tribal chiefs to align with them in Afghanistan. Really. Old guys, lots of young wives. It really worked (search google news) Here's the thing about infilitrating secret groups, 377. They are always strapped for funds. FBI always knew that. With my $200k book advance, I am the big swinging dick. Just have to decide which groups get which funds. Just have to wait and see who PMs first. (edit) Hey in that King5 report Sluggo posted, it mentions a new Fall Report. (I guess it replaces the March Report) Looking forward to it! Any info is good info in the Cooper case, like 377 says. "The Cooper researchers say they've already de-bunked some myths about the Cooper case, but they won't go public with specifics until their research is complete, likely in the fall."

I've been mulling over whether the story georger told about the money find (basically a Denise extension) was true or false. If true, where did he get it? I suddenly realized there is new evidence in the video just released. We know georger and TomK have a connection. This has been posted about before. However, we now know that TomK and Brian Ingram have made contact, since they were physically both in that fishing video, in the same place. I don't know if they were in the room together looking at photos (apparently the Oregonian) Minimally, they've gone fishing together. People do tell stories to each other while fishing. It's possible there's a thread between georger, TomK and Brian Ingram, thorough which this story passed. Just speculating. Anyone with more info, chime in.

I've discovered evidence of secret clubs, i.e. this post: "See, snowmman, there are a lot of secret clubs on this forum. The requirement for membership is: BUILD TRUST. Both in what you say and what you do." Apparently they are trust-based. Trust-based, or affinity ponzi schemes can be very successful. If anyone has any inside knowledge of these clubs, or can infiltrate them, please PM me. They may be writing books, for instance.

This is just a single test, and not in the area we're interested in, but it's interesting. Chart is attached at bottom. The absolute numbers are less interesting than the claim that the relative difference between surface and flow at 12 feet down, were similar in other locales...They mean a fairly linear decrease in channel velocity with depth. Seems like good data. http://seattlecentral.edu/qelp/sets/011/011.html Current velocities were measured on a number of transects across the Columbia River in Washington State, to understand how velocity varies within a channel. The velocity at any point in a river is controlled by a number of factors, including the river's slope or gradient, roughness of the channel bed, turbulence of the flow, depth of the river, etc. Typically, water moves faster away from the bed of the river, where obstacles create drag and turbulence. The highest velocity overall is usually in the deepest part of the channel, just below the surface. Knowing the average velocity in a channel is extremely important when calculating river discharge, the volume of water flowing past in a given amount of time. The data on velocity versus depth in the channel were acquired at a station below Grand Coulee Dam at a distance of 13 feet from the edge of the river. The depth of the Columbia River at this spot was about 12 feet at the time of measurement. Velocities were measured at various heights in the water column. These data show a regular decrease of velocity with increasing depth in the river, as might be expected. The data are fairly linear, with a high correlation coefficient. Other locales show a similar decrease in velocity with depth, though often with much more scatter, and without the fairly monotonic behavior exhibited by this example. Reference: Savini, J. and Bodhaine, G. L. (1971), Analysis of current meter data at Columbia River gaging stations, Washington and Oregon; USGS Water Supply Paper 1869-F.

I just did a quick search, and although Safe discussed float issues and tests, I don't think he ever posted results. Can anyone find Safe's results he's referring to? (edit) Believe I found it Mar 31, 2008 SafecrackingPLF said: "Individual stacks of cash can only float for about 10 minutes and 30 seconds. Sunken cash at the bottom of the river will not float its way miraculously to the top for a sand bar deposit. You took care of that one." Details of the test apparently not reported. (edit) Also on Mar 11,2008, SafecrackingPLF said: "One single pack can only float for 10 minutes and 25 seconds."

Could have saved himself some time by reading my posts, but that's why I don't visit this board anymore. People have their mind's made up without having any evidence to disagree. Money does float, but it just doesn't float for very long (it's a matter of minutes) and this floatability makes a huge difference in figuring how far the money could have traveled. Good luck Hi SafecrackingPLF. Why was Tom playing with a single bundle? It looked like classic bad science on TV. What was I missing? We've been wondering if these Tom shows are really just stage shows to get Cooper tips phoned in, but there was no phone-in message on that show. Does anyone know why that show was on the news? (edit) oh p.s. Safe. Don't blame the Tom show on this forum. Tom doesn't talk about his experiments here. They're created in secret. Apparently there's a parallel secret club that some posters are members of. Admission requirements are unclear. (edit) It doesn't apply here but single bills float a long time. There was a case in Japan recently. I'll find the link. (edit) here it is. Picture attached of the money being dried. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/28/asia/AS-ODD-Japan-River-of-Money.php Mar. 28, 2007: Police used fishing nets and their hands Wednesday to scoop up 2.7 million yen (US$23,000; €17,230) in mysterious cash floating down a Japanese river, an official said. A passer-by notified police after seeing the bank notes drifting down the Sakai River on the border between Tokyo and Kanagawa prefecture, a Tokyo police official said on condition of anonymity, citing protocol. Police managed to catch 270 soggy 10,000-yen (US$85; €64) bills, Japan’s biggest denomination, the official said. Police are still investigating how and why the money was dumped.