snowmman

Oh sure. A lot. Georger would point out that's probably why I'm sensitive to the idea, whether I realize it or not. Work. Wife. People I need to do something hard for me. People I like or want to be like. People that are the only path to something I really want. Does that map to similar reasons in skydiving? (edit) I guess part of the Quade thing, is that he doesn't moderate. I'm not asking him too. I don't know about others. The Quade effect is just random. It doesn't mean anything. I guess that's my thought. Why does anyone think the Quade effect means anything? I'm not sure what he's doing, so I'm not sure why he needs thanks. So it seems like sucking up.

To be honest with everyone, and myself: I really am just here because I'm curious about this Cooper thing, and 377 was a nice guy. I went thru the list before, and I know I don't really give a damn about anyone, and rightly so, no one should about me. I managed to stay away for a couple months there on my own, and was proud of myself. I wish quade would just ban me and get it over with. What do I have to do? can't I just write something like "this = 1000 insults". I do think it's funny how much you guys kiss Quade's butt. I have this image of skydivers as people who kiss a lot of butt. Really. But DZ.com is not skydiving. It can't be.

? We're communicating? Are you saying my response proves your comment about reasoning, somehow?

Hi Jerry. If you want to question my reasoning techniques, I can't answer unless you spell out the question. i.e. what reasoning technique are you questioning? Or do you not care about a response? Either is ok.

Since 377 replied, maybe it's worth posting the detail in case people don't follow links. I'm really curious if this was what Earl Cossey had done to the rig. I'll post the text and photos from page 434 of (one of)Poynter's book(s). I think if you scroll (at the link), on page 436- it has instructions and closeups for making the mod. Note I'm not sure if later editions of this book, or similar books, dropped the mention of this mod. This was there in 1984. http://books.google.com/books?id=BKTuTXrXQu0C&pg=PA434&lpg=PA434 The Parachute Manual: A Technical Treatise on Aerodynamic Decelerators by Dan Poynter (Paperback - May 1984) page 434 The ripcord is mounted on the left inboard side on emergency parachutes to protect the handle, assuring against accidental activation. While this may be a problem to the pilot, it is not to the sport jumper who is more conscious of, and familiar with, his parachute. The positioning of the ripcord may be a little thing to the experienced jumper but it is an important one to the novice. Many students begin to roll or pitch head down on the pull and this is not only discouraging, it is a terrifying experience. The scared student is now held back and made to repeat the experience over and over again until he either masters the problem or quits. Disappointed in his progression and scared of the activity, he often leaves. The advantages of the outboard pull are many: Stable Pull With the outboard pull, the jumper has less of a tendency to pitch head down since he reduces his upper body drag less and does so for a shorter period of time, i.e. with the cross chest pull, he must pull his upper control surfaces (arms) in further (across his chest) and the pull takes longer since his arms must travel further. The novice's tendency to plunge head down during the pull often increases tension and fear which results in a poorly controlled "snatch" at the ripcord. This only heightens his problems as it increases his fear of the pull. With the right hand arrangement, there is less tendency to roll toward the pull. The novice is in a new element and his choices with the cross chest pull are limted, with both being unsatisfactory. If he places his left arm over his head (to increase upper body drag and, therefore, lessen the forward pitch) while reaching for the ripcord with his right hand, he loses lateral stability, and may roll to one side. If he comes in with a two handed pull, he not only sacrifices lateral stability, he plunges head down as well. Even after the best training, a student may leave one arm out as he reaches for his ripcord. With the cross chest pull, this almost certainly results in a barrel roll, while with the outboard pull, chances are, he will only waver somewhat. The head down plunge is often countered by the experienced jumper by bending his legs at the knees. Few students are even aware of their leg positioning: they don't know if their legs are bent, straight, together or apart because they can neither feel nor see them. As every parachutist knows, instability is a major contribution to malfunctions. But it may not be too clear as to just why. Recent high speed photo coverage of some dummy drops revealed some interesting deployment sequences. The dummy tumbled as it was pushed from the door of a Cessna 180. The container opened and the revolving dummy "launched" the still folded, sleeved canopy into the air. The lines completely unstowed and the locking flap opened BEFORE the sleeve even unfolded. The frame by frame study revealed how simply the assembly might take a hitch upon itself or the canopy might emerge into the airstream in an unusual manner. Needless to say, a stable position leads to orderly deployment which increases reliability. And who should need to have his chances increased more than the student? The outboard mounted ripcord lends itself to an easier pull because the jumper is able to exert more leverage PUSHING AWAY from the shoulder than PULLING ACROSS the chest. Should a two hand pull be required with the right hand outboard pull (not as likely as with the cross pull), the difficulty is not increased since the ripcord is only 1 3/4" farther from body center. (3 pics from page 434. note rh pull3 is the normal cross pull, not the mod)

Fair enough. Thanks. I'd offer the same, but I don't think you'd value it from me. But it's there.

About as much as 90% of your own posts. Erroll. Grab some skill. 100% of my posts are worthless. Although if I'm a troll, you proved otherwise. Any reply is a success for me, loss for you.. Who's more f*ed? me, or you by responding?

Okay, I can't let Jerry's comments about moms go by any more. Now I'm sure Jerry cares about moms a lot. But I know a bunch of women that are moms. And if they were posting in a forum on DB Cooper, the last thing that they would take as a compliment, in that context, would be "and it's obvious you're a great mom"..especially if they themselves rarely bring it into the conversation. I mean, I'm sure Orange1 is a great mom, but WTF does that have to do with anything here? Am I just missing something here? Orange1 do you have any reaction when Jerry says that your momness means something core about you? straighten me out. I may be clueless.

You're missing the story. Obviously the FBI must have investigated Waugh. It appears that it may be true that details of the Vietnam HALOs weren't declassified until 1995. It would be good if anyone reading has first hand knowledge of that and when the stories started being told. The story here that should be written is "When did the FBI investigate Waugh, and why did they clear him?" Right? I mean, nothing else would make sense, like "he was never investigated" or something like that.

I read here that Mike Pelkey and Brian Schubert who first jumped El Cap, did it in 1966 with TU-7 mod on a 28' canopy.... http://www.johnnyutah.com/mikepelkey.html "We were both jumping 28-foot TU-7 mains and 24-foot reserves. The fancy parachute, Paracommander, designed especially for sport jumping, had been around for a couple of years but neither of us had one. We both also wore full jump suits, paratrooper boots, and helmets." (edit) or here. Plus pic attached http://www.baseclimb.com/sports/basejumping

they jumped with modified t-10 canopies. 7 gore TU. (hmm..maybe I should find a pic of that mod???) (edit) I don't think we have detail on the rig used with those canopies? Other than the pics I posted of the guys rigged up before the HALO jump. We've covered the parachute issue to death. We didn't get perfect information from Ckret, and there's some debate about a 28' canopy fitting well in the NB-8. But I think we're saying the NB-8 had a 28' unmodified C-9 canopy, white. I didn't go back in the thread, but that's my recollection. Others? There is a lot to read if you want to read about the testing that was done stateside for HALO, and what REAL HALO guys stateside were doing in that time frame (altitude records, oxygen etc.) There was a good site I ran into with some nice b/w pics from the 60s of the teams at Fort Bragg. The important thing to remember: While Waugh did a HALO jump in Vietnam, he didn't come thru the program in Fort Bragg as a HALO guy..the Vietnam guys straight up acknowledged they weren't the best HALO guys in the world at that time. Comments?

Preview video of the DB show is now available at National Geographic...I told them to put it up tonight for Orange1: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/the-skyjacker-that-got-away-4375/Overview#tab-Videos/06955_00

Benjamin felt a nose nuzzling at his shoulder. He looked round. It was Clover. Her old eyes looked dimmer than ever. Without saying anything, she tugged gently at his mane and led him round to the end of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written. For a minute or two they stood gazing at the tarred wall with its white lettering. "My sight is failing," she said finally. "Even when I was young I could not have read what was written there. But it appears to me that that wall looks different. Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be, Benjamin?" For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran: ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

Bruce reported: "National Geographic dumps local authors from DB Cooper documentary" Hmm. I thought it was correlated to my posting about the problem with assassinations: you have to be willing to take out the assassination team also. No matter. Just means I have to fine tune The Model.

from the Boeing article (recent) "Exceeding Tire Speed Rating During Takeoff" http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_02_09/pdfs/AERO_Q209_article04.pdf there is a nice graphic on takeoff angles for all Boeing jets, including 727. on 727-200, says 7 to 9 degrees, changing to 14 degrees at 35 feet. (obviously it can vary) Says recommended rotation rate is 2 to 3 degrees per second, with the target liftoff altitude reached in 3 to 4 seconds. see attached. In contrast, look at the MD-11 (last in the graphic) (edit) I guess it's a tire speed issue because of what they show on page 5 of the article "A 747-400 taking off with a rotation rate that is 1 degree per second slower than normal can result in a 4 to 6 knot liftoff speed increase" ..so they're looking at ground speed at liftoff.

So you're saying the Da Nang video we reviewed, where they took off with the stairs down, doesn't count because someone was standing on them? Why do we care about stair damage anyhow? it's a rathole anyhow. Like most Cooper stuff, there's little reason to debate (we've touched on everything possible already)

If Cooper had jumped with the tie still on, what would we have theorized that meant? So by taking it off, does it mean the opposite of jumping with it? Or do we just ignore the tie? I'm not sure why people mention shoes so much. I thought we agreed we have no idea what kind of shoes Cooper wore. I constantly lose track of why Cooper was not an expert. I guess there's the stairs thing. I guess he wasn't a stair expert. So that makes him a bumbler all together, I guess. I wonder, if his behavior around the stairs actually reveals knowledge. If I was nervous about not knowing for sure whether the stairs would open in flight, I'd push for taking off with the stairs down. Isn't that the rational thing to do? I'm glad Ckret has kept track of why Cooper was a bumbler. I forget all the time.

re: Orange1's comments on assassinations... Have people been reading the recent stuff on the CIA special project that was kind-of-in-flight-but-not-really, that Cheney ordered not to be revealed to Congress..i.e. assassination teams? There's all sorts of leaks happening now. What was really funny was comments that they basically shut it down not for moral, ethical, legal or other reasons, but because they had basic problems with insert and extraction strategies...like what do you do with the shooter? I died laughing. Here you have bureaurcrats pretending to talk about illegal assassinations, and acting serious, but they can't even brainstorm about it effectively. It's like a bunch of lame folks with a budget. They can't even recognize their biggest problem. If you pay someone (someone is getting paid. Only if you convince a true psycho, would someone do it for free)...to shoot other people, in a black operation..what do you do with the shooter 30 years later? Criminals, I think, realize this. (like druglords). It only works if you're willing to assassinate anyone involved, including the bureaucrats. Or like the stories of killing people involved with the pyramids, to protect info about secret rooms. Hey if Jo wants to get a great conspiracy, read all the books about Ted Shackley...the "Blond Ghost" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Shackley google books sample: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Ted%20Shackley%22%20cia There's your direct JMWAVE/Laos CIA station chief connection. Wilson was connected to him too. What's amazing is his photos..such a nerdy looking guy: http://images.google.com/images?q=%22Ted%20Shackley%22%20cia Dirtiest player I've run into in my readings so far...although I think some of the CIA stuff in Laos was just incompetence..i.e. you can make up conspiracy/execution that didn't exist. I think a lot of Vietnam was warriors just giving it their best in the "only good war" that was going on at the time...i.e. lots of independent actions, loosely organized. You always have to remind yourself, that organizations of people are only so effective. Like a helicopter. ...a flying bucket of parts, loosely connected. Here's something that has no relation to anything that I just liked reading..a SF review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Deepness_in_the_Sky

Skyjack71: "Did you know that there are people like me who can change a conversation right in the middle of a subject" On the other hand, there are people that can't or won't change the conversation. I guess both skills are useful. Kind of like being able to operate a paintball gun with either hand. (I wasn't kidding when I was calling Tom K. Triggerman...did you notice how fast he operated the trigger, and how his upper body gently swayed side-to-side. while firing, so he could spray paint around the obstacles between him and his target?) Actually in Billy Waugh's book, Billy talks about an operation where his buddy, who was rescuing him, had his fingertips shot off, and the buddy lamented he now wouldn't be able to fire his weapon...there were under NVA fire and things were very bleak. Waugh joked (he was shot up and immobile, prone) that he'd have to shoot with the other hand. (edit) skyjack71's Old Timers joke was good!

If one has a goal of gathering information, you might 1) talk directly 2) talk indirectly 3) talk randomly 4) not talk Does this thread use any or all of the above? Or other techniques? Social engineering? Trojans? Backdoor hacks? Or does no information get gathered here? Or is all the information low value, so that it doesn't matter? I guess I'm trying to model the posters who seem to argue for goals that seem to be information based, accumulating towards a final goal.

Skyjack71 said: "randon thoughts" Obviously, I'm assuming you meant "radon thoughts" because of the radioactivity connection.

Orange1 said: "Even if it would be fun seeing how the forecasts thrown out by the model panned out in due course" See, the thing is, use of The Model is already in operation. Sluggo obviously acts based on his mental model. Everyone does. Georger is another one. I can't envision a model of Jerry's behavior at all, so kudos to Jerry for opaqueness. People post with content that implies they are acting based on a mental model of expected behavior, which is based on prior posts and other knowledge. Just because the Model isn't formally stated, doesn't mean people don't have one. Their behaviors belie that.

Another thought that nags at me: There is an assumption we can theorize about motivation behind behavior. That's problematic, since we can always say someone doesn't understand their motivation. So any postulated motivation can be rationalized? Or maybe just a possible set. Big enough set though, to cause difficulty. Maybe the allure of the thread is that it's self-affirming. Because of all these issues, there's no way for anyone to be wrong. We are all, individually, always right. Also musing about the difference between a troll and normal conversation. What are the tests to apply to differentiate?

I don't have anything to add to the conversation. But I was wondering about this notion of being able to predict the frequency and/or content of posts, based on the short term history of posts in the thread. It's an interesting theory. The thread is long enough now that it could be backtested. i.e. do posts from any one poster have a predictable frequency? Does the content depend on a reaction to the posts of others, and which? and to what extent? It's possible the theory is true for some posters. And that posts from some are random. The interesting question: does the post content and rate depend mainly on the contents of the thread (which backtesting might help reveal) or does it depend on events or variables outside the thread? I think it does depend on stuff outside the thread, extending beyond the thread's title. That's what creates the illusion of randomness. Why do I say backtest? Well it's gauged to intrigue Orange1, which of course is a primary goal here.

On the other hand, an alternate point of view would be what I've long accepted: There is no argument to win here. i.e. the experience is all there is...i.e. no goal or endpoint. Talking about your point of view being implicit... maybe we just always condition anything with syad and thesaptabhangi "in some ways it is" "in some ways it is not" "in some ways it is and it is not" "in some ways it is and it is indescribable" "in some ways it is not and it is indescribable" "in some ways it is, it is not and it is indescribable" "in some ways it is indescribable" If you're got me figured out and can predict my responses, why do you even bother posting to me, or answering anything I post? In my version of the forum, my posts make sense. In your version, with goal-oriented, argument-winning as a metric and expected motivation for others, why bother with my posts at all? What goal does that service for you? On the one hand you argue "low value" for me, but on the other hand your actions say something else. Isn't this the standard thing men accuse women of? i.e. say one thing but mean another? (while in actuality, men do it all the time, they just want women to follow the men rules for how it's done)