georger

The data coming from the radar site came in \ icrements of .088° (1 4096th of a full circle) for azimuth and .25nm for range. If the likely errors were more than two times these values, the designers would simply have decreased the resolution of the data. There is no point in transmitting data to a precision of 1 if the data is only accurate to 8, for example. The direction center at McChord could have smoothed the data to get better accuracy. But the coordinate data used to plot the FBI plot didn't necessarily take full advantage of the accuracy of the data the airforce had available. The data from which the plot was made was rounded to whole minutes of latitude and longitude. So the actual accuracy of the plots is ±.5 minutes of latitude and longitude. This was the source of the incorrect info about the '72 searchzone map to the effect that the accuracy was ±.5 nautical miles (should have been .5nm for N-S, but .347nm for E-W). The flightpath range is only .7 nautical miles wide. The positions are quite reliable within the limits of the rounding errors, but better accuracy would be very helpful. Unfortunately, the system that produced the data didn't need any better. All they needed was to be able to get planes close enough to see "bogies" visually or on their own radars. The times are a bit more problematic. Two questions about yours above: (1) What was the sweep rate (or pulse rate) of the radar; so that resolution is a function of time (expressed in) increments of time? Any idea? (2) How did their resolution change as a function of distance/time ? Any idea? How do your values above change with time and distance as they apply to 305 progressing from SEA to say PDX ? Note* I am NOT suggesting their radar data changed significantly with distance or time/distance ... its just when I talked to R2 "he" brought up the issue of distance and resolution (of their signal?), being less at Portland than it had been earlier, so I asked him "what's the significanve ? - what are you saying" and he never really explained except he seemed to want me to understand resolution was less the further south 305 had flown. So I finally just asked him: are you saying radar resolution was not accurate enough for positional fixes as the plane neared PDX, and replied quickly: "No Im not saying that". I'm just saying the radar resolution was weaker near Portland than it had been earlier". We never did get that cleared up and I dont know why he even brought it up! This is the same person Robt99 refers to. ps* Im going to wait for comments about the money find until this discussion has arrived at an opening.

Not sure what is going on or what this is all about but there is no 'script' on my part about anything or with anyone. Hmmmm. Guess I will figure this out later. To Robt99: I had no plan for a long dissertation on the dredging. Not sure what you have in mind or expect, from me? Tonight? Oh! Far had asked about previous research on dredging along the Columbia (last night) and I said I would come back and say more tonight - that was my only plan, if anyone cares? But no script made for it ... IN FACT THE ONLY REASON IM HERE is I have a break and a moment, have been at Tom's website which I see has been highly revised since the last time I was there. I went to Toms site looking for his comments about print bleeds (exact stacking of bills) but could not find anything about that? Maybe I need another pair of glasses but I cant find it - does anyone knows where it is exactly, under MONEY, under Tina Bar, maybe he removed that Sasquatch? If anyone knows post a note here. I will be back later tonight. Carry on! IO really would like to find Toms exact comments about his socalled print-exact lineup btwn bills - if its even on his website? I want to know what "bills" he's talking about ??? The three bills he received originally (sent by Carr), other bills he looked at in Seattle .... WTF are you talking about Tom!? I hope you are not using a sample of 3 bills as representative of all the bundles, all the cash, what are you talking about? G.

The luminaries on the thread who are stumbling over themselves to embrace the "official" flight path need to explain exactly which "official" flight path they are talking about. Do you agree with the flight path shown on the FBI maps, the one where the controller has told several people that the airliner flew "right down the centerline of V-23", the one shown on some illustrations (which may or may not be "official") and supported by some people on this thread indicating the airliner passed east of Portland, the segmented circle bypassing Portland on the west side shown on the FBI maps, or whatever? In addition to specifying a actual flight path, rather than just a generic "official" one, please indicate the locations of the radar(s) that were used to determine the claimed flight path, the accuracy of the radar(s), how the positions shown were determined, and where on god's green earth those times shown on the FBI charts came from. If you are fortunate, you will come up with an "official" flight path that is several miles wide (right or left of the flight path centerline) and maybe pinpoint the airliner's position within plus or minus five miles along that flight path for a given time. But don't rely on the times and positions on the "official" FBI charts for reasons that were explained elsewhere years ago. And while you are at it, please explain the segmented flight path on the west side of Portland, its purpose, and who dreamed up the idea of doing it that way. I have never met a pilot who would do something like that under the conditions the airliner was operating at that time. If you don't know how to navigate, and Blevins for one apparently doesn't based on his 30 day wandering in the wilderness less than 10 miles from the point where he left an Interstate Highway, then check the FAA publications web page. You will probably be able to download a free publication on the subject. If all else fails, let me know and perhaps I can help you find a suitable publication. But at the present time there is no high quality data extant for the actual flight path and times along that flight path from about 20 nautical miles south of Seattle until the airliner is near the Fort Jones VORTAC in northern California. To answer Georger's specific question, and he and I have discussed this subject privately before, the answer is probably yes. And the best time to check would be after flooding above a certain elevation. This implies that the money impacted on land and stayed in the money bag for a substantial period of time and gradually "leaked" out when the flooding reached its elevation. Robert99 Beautiful. I will reply to Farflung tomorrow. I have things yet to finish tonight and a ball game at 11:00 tomorrow. Nice post! I think you got the 'drift' of what was trying to say. Spoils placed 'over' something already in place would tend to lock it in until such time as erosion exposes it again, and there are ways to test that thesis. That's one scenario. Had something arrived at TBar early and not been covered over, then it might erode out rather quickly with any flood event. Its a matter of selecting between the options - based on evidence 'which applies to that problem'. One usual route is to look at chemistries, including chemistries of dredge spoils in particular. And Far is dead on. There was a lot of research on dredge spoils including at Tena Bar, before 1980. More to come.

Had the dredge spoils never been put on Tena Bar would the monies have been found there at all, over months.

Will U be on Board or sitting in the middle of the woods trying to keep warm looking for Cooper's booty. It is TIME to put a stop to ALL of this Are you asking liddle ole ME ? Me on board or sitting in the middle ... trying to keep warm ... looking for Cooper's booty/bones ??? Yes dear. I did post saying there is activity at the ole Bar. I have no current planes to go up there. Ok? Are you going there? And who in hell told you!? Or did you guess? [Im betting youcalled someone right? Confess it!] Please answer Shutters post.

Come on. Half the time people re-post and re-quote material on this thread so much it can be tough to figure ownership. This one's yours, right? Besides, I used names in that last post. 'Georger', 'Smith'. Didn't see your name. YES, at the top of the post! where you direct the post too! this is between you and George.....keep it that way You admittedly have a "THING" for me. Dont start up with Shutter. Pick on Farflung! Get over yourself. Thing for you? Don't make me laugh. If you continue on that track, I will post up your 'Top 25 Insults and Name-Calls.' I got nothing against Shutter. He goes ballistic over a subject line. As if no one here has ever reposted a subject line with a different subject... Farflung? I got no problem with him. At least he has a sense of humor. Hey Dude! We are busy with the subject of this thread. Solve your own problems for a change. STOP INTERUPTING!

Back to Cooper: Quote Getting back to Cooper > if R sees lights on his right he's east of V23, as per Jo ? if as Ckret said: 'we could see the lights of Portland coming up' then they are conceivably right on V23 headed straight to PDX ?? Thats one discrepancy between the two reports: Interviewer vs. Ckret. I forget if Ckret called and talked to Rataczak? (this thing has become jumbled in my mind). ????????????? If he's west of V27 then what? No interview makes sense, ie fits? Let me throw one more thing out- Farflung referred to construction on Hayden Island. Bet he thinks we all forgot that. Nohhhhh! If 305 crosses near Hayden Island, then is Farflung happy?

Come on. Half the time people re-post and re-quote material on this thread so much it can be tough to figure ownership. This one's yours, right? Besides, I used names in that last post. 'Georger', 'Smith'. Didn't see your name. YES, at the top of the post! where you direct the post too! this is between you and George.....keep it that way His name isn't 'George'. It's Jerry. And half the time no one reads the subject line anyway. Are you an English teacher by any chance? You admittedly have a "THING" for me. Dont start up with Shutter. Pick on Farflung! Get over yourself.

Come on. Half the time people re-post and re-quote material on this thread so much it can be tough to figure ownership. This one's yours, right? Besides, I used names in that last post. 'Georger', 'Smith'. Didn't see your name. YES, at the top of the post! where you direct the post too! this is between you and George.....keep it that way Correction: Its between Blevins and Blevins!

Mee too!

There are a number of free online photo processing websites - some will make layered transparencies, merge two photos, etc. One is this: http://www.iaza.com/index-ln.html#

From Interviewer of Rat Interview No.3: quote: "Rataczak says they didn’t really know their exact location but he did see lights from his position on the right which he later explained meant he ‘was seeing either Portland or Vancouver coming into view.’ That is where Agent Carr gets his quote, I think. That is in the file notes." so basically it was broken clouds as I showed allowing some light to come through? I would rather have it straight from Rataczak himself. That's the bottom line for me. Either he did or he didn't. And he wasn't alone in the cockpit. Why this has become so 'unknown' is totally beyond me, except perhaps that the crew thought Cooper had already bailed, in which case we are talking about an event (crossing the Columbia) which happened further south and later in time, in which case seeing the light of Vancouver-Portland might not be a big deal - ? I just dont know - Im speculating. But my quote from the interview is real and documented (in hand in black and white on paper, signed, sealed, and delivered).

that is true, but pretty close in my book, didn't Rataczak or Scott claim they couldn't see the city lights? I doubt they would lock him up after this long and given his age.... From Interviewer of Rat Interview No.3: quote: "Rataczak says they didn’t really know their exact location but he did see lights from his position on the right which he later explained meant he ‘was seeing either Portland or Vancouver coming into view.’ That is where Agent Carr gets his quote, I think. That is in the file notes."

These isophotes (contour lines) of mine are a common technique: 2d pixel density "graphs" in the x-y axis after binning pixels in the photo or graphic examined. The result are numerical files which can be compared. Fits files. But Blevins has a valid point; the same point everyone has addressed through the years, ie. the reliability of the FBI sketch(es). Every sponsor of a candidate has used that hedge. Ckret tried to address it, to no avail of course as Blevins is quick to exploit. But it was Blevins brought this all up citing the Porteous overlays and a "perfect match" between FBI sketch and Kenny photo; then Blevins schleps the other direction criticising sketches vs photos! Its just another example of his redirections even when it is him starting the whole discussion - its just more anarchy he can derail the thread with. That said, I would take dna or finger prints over sketches any day! Nobody has ever addressed the lack of a match for any of the finger prints found. That fact may indicate Cooper was never in any place where he was finger printed for his prints to wind up 'in the system'. Were all employees of Boeing and NWO finger printed, automatically upon employment? We assume all military were printed and would be in 'the system' ? I always felt Ckret left many holes in explaining the print dilemma ? And I dont recall he ever came right out and said: 'There were holes in the system Cooper could have fallen through...' Of 52+ prints found I dont recall Ckret even saying 'some of the prints were matched' ... maybe I missed that, but one would think out of 52+ prints some got identified and matched up ? All the FBI had to do was ask known passengers to give their prints for comparison. I seem to remember Snowmman even asking Ckret about this, but it just never got addressed with so many other posts happening atthe time. Jo for one was posting reams each day here, just as she still does - every time Ckret would come back he would comment it was taking him hours to read and catch up! Funny.

Yours are the same questions Ive had about KC's age in these photos - Anyone can do an overlay - lots of free software on the net to do that. Its not rocket science. Also something Bruice asked about years ago, never address by RMB either, quote at Mountain News: BruceSmith49 says: September 6, 2011 at 1:46 pm "It is my understanding that Christiansen continued to fly with NWO for twenty years after the Cooper incident, which makes his being DB improbable. Further, I suspect that KC found a way to monetize his twice-monthly trips to Asia in ways that had nothing to do with skyjacking an airplane. I’ve encouraged the investigators and authors who write about KC to look more comprehensively at their suspect, but they seemed more fixated on Hollywood than Tokyo." Of course we know now that Blevins is only trolling here (to disrupt) so we're never going to get any of these questions answered, just more trolling. KC should probably be boycotted ... to save the thread.

But YOU say the sketch is soooo accurate it may as well be a photograph. I'm not sure what erroneous logic you based that on. If you got it from Mr Spock, I'll go with it. I kind of like him. Otherwise no. . What (I think) we are ALL saying Mr. Blevins, is it is YOU who brought it all up! You are the one said Skipp and Decoded had an overlay of KC and THE SKETCH which was identical. Didnt you bring this up and say this? Shall I find your post? Do I have to - Farflung responded, Shutter responded, and YOU referred everyone to Skipp Porteous saying you wouldnt waste you time with this - BUT IT WAS "YOU" WHO BROUGHT IT UP! Cant you keep track of your own posts? What perversion leads to to start such charades and abuse the forum? The only misscommunication here is you. You post read quote: "They used some type of software to create a transparent image of Christiansen's face based on his 1970 passport picture. Then they did the same thing with the sketch picture. When they overlaid the transparent pic of KC with the sketch at the same scale, they matched perfectly. Except for the hair, of course. " Are you now denying you even made the remarks? Why did you make these remarks in your post if they are meaningless? How is it this forum keeps missunderstanding everything RobertMBlevins does and says? Or! Am I talkng to two different people in two time zones and the other doesn;t know what the other said and did - ?????????????????????????????? How many posters use your account Blevins ? How many Blevins are there?

precisely. No surface or profile in the one is congruent with the other. These are two different people with two different anatomies. (Blevins is trying to pass off) LOL...who IS the OTHER person in your Magic Comparison? You are truly funny sometimes. The sketch cannot be considered anything more than a guide, and based on different configs from the FBI's facial catalog. You keep confusing it for a real human being. Is plain common sense just lacking in your case? Even if you came up with a suspect and matched him up to the sketch exactly using your Super-Duper Acme Inc Imaging Format, it means absolutely nothing without other evidence. Using your techniques comparing a work of art to a real person is comparing apples to oranges. The sketch is an artist-created composite...wait for it now...based on SEVERAL DIFFERENT descriptions from SEVERAL DIFFERENT witnesses. You DO grasp this concept, correct? It's a known fact that Flo, Tina, and Alice disagreed on details about what the hijacker looked like. Same with the passenger witnesses. But YOU say the sketch is soooo accurate it may as well be a photograph. I'm not sure what erroneous logic you based that on. If you got it from Mr Spock, I'll go with it. I kind of like him. Otherwise no. In cases where a composite is distributed to the public, most of the time if they catch the guy he does resemble the sketch to a degree. But very seldom does the actual person look exactly like the composite. This is where you get confused, since you are assuming the sketch as a Real Person. Your Anthro 101 pics don't prove a thing. For that matter, neither does the overlay. Both, as I said, are interesting, but they aren't really evidence. You do make me laugh sometimes. I'll give you that. whatever - I sometimes wonder if you arent just jerking everyone around for the perverse pleasure of it. Because nobody who can still talk and walk and drive a car is as stupid as you present?

precisely. No surface or profile in the one is congruent with the other. These are two different people with two different anatomies. (Blevins is trying to pass off)

(This post was edited by RobertMBlevins on Oct 25, 2012, 9:56 PM) Repeat: The sketch is a sketch. An artists' rendition. Not a real person. Compare two photographs for best results. A: There are no photographs of DB Cooper! WIH are you talking about? A: You are saying a sketch of a box and a photo of the same box are different in some crucial way? It is YOU claiming the FBI sketch is a sketch of Kenny. You say based on "photo" recognition software Skipp used. YOU are the one using the sketch with a claim! It is YOU claiming the sketch and the photo are identical, not me! You seem confused. You can call all the names you wish. There is a definite resemblence between the sketch and the photo of Christiansen. You can't do a skull reconstruction on a sketch and call it official. It's a composite from the different descriptions given by the witnesses. You've been looking at it so long, you believe it's an actual photograph of the hijacker. A: What is the resemblance you see and claim? Be specific. You could add to that the fact that all three stews selected different combinations from the FBI's Facial Identification Catalog. I never said I believed the overlay created by Porteous and company 'proved' KC was the guy, you know. I just said they did this. You want details on how? Ask him yourself. I wouldn't call him an idiot, though. He probably won't respond to you if you do. If you want to see the display itself, and where the clear overlay is placed over the photo of Christiansen, you'll have to watch the Decoded episode. Check History Channel 2. They're running it this week a few times. A: I dare you to post the overlay here ! A: Get real Blevins. We all realize the FBI sketch is a best guess, but it is YOU claiming the sketch and the Kenny photo are the same! You can;t have it both ways Blevins: claim the sketch and photo are identical, then find fault with the sketch saying the sketch and the photo are NOT the same. MAKE UP YOUR MIND AND STICK TO ONE POSITON OR THE OTHER! You are working both sides, as usual. Your cheesy multicolor picture display doesn't disprove KC as the hijacker any more than the overlay proves he WAS. They are both interesting, but that's all. I'd be more inclined to listen to you on this if the witnesses had agreed on what the hijacker actually LOOKED like, but as we know, the witnesses barely agreed on anything. A: That is your version of the events. Ckret says the witnesses did agree! Then you actually use the sketch saying its identical to your KC photo; then you say the sketch is faulty. MAKE UP YOUR MIND. YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS … A: Cheesy picture display? My display is factual evidence. Where’s yours? I seriously doubt you even know what you are looking at. Where is your background in physical anthropology or anatomy, or digital graphics? Your lack of education is your disability and I fail to notice anything in any presentation youve ever made, that makes up for your lack of skills/knowledge. Your whole presence in the DB Cooper case may be a desparate act of compensation, on your part, especially given the fact you are on notice as having criticised 'educated people' since the first day you took root here. You have advertised your bias with every post youve ever made at Dropzone... with the plea 'the American public will understand'. I think not! Software does not vote, as you would like! Chasing your tail on this kind of pseudo-science is a waste of time. You want to find out who Cooper was? Dig up evidence. Interview people. Find someone with the ultimate key to the case. Truth is, after more than 5,000 posts and a few years posting here, you are no closer to discovering the truth then when you first arrived. A: Chasing my tail? Yours is the pseudo-science. Your inability to operate on a scientific level with anything, is your tail-chasing problem, and nobody else’s. You should have quit while you were ahead, to save face. And yeah...I think it COULD be difficult to estimate someone's true height inside the confines of an airline cabin. A: Really! That again? Blevins get yourself an “asshat” and just wear it. This is crazy on your part. And an insult to your cat... One bit of evidence for you: The witnesses on the plane were all over the place on that one, too. If you want the quotes again, I can provide them. "If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..." Marilyn Monroe A: I don’t need any more of your socalled quotes which you think fit the conclusions you want. Let’s just say that your version of reality varies signifi- cantly from that of Ckret, the FBI, and a host of other witnesses, and you sir have never seen one FBI file about anything! You cannot document anything you say – all you have is a forum where you can troll and spread your baloney 500 miles deep 5-20 times a day, in endless repetition … you make Jo Weber look like a Rhodes Scholar! The time has arrived when it is best to leave someone like you into the hands of people who can deal with you effectively, because any more time spent on you is useless and retroproductive. You are a circus act and an idiot. And in the circus, they would only employ you to pick up elephant poop, which I guess is what you actually do (dayjob). No wonder! Poop in - poop out. I sympathise. Dont ever give up your dreams...

Georger and his picture efforts comparing KC to the sketch: One is a sketch of a person's face. The other is an actual photograph of a person. They sort of look alike to me Bullshit my good man ShamWow! What do you take us for!? What is the difference between a photo of a box and a sketch of a box. They are ALL BOXES! It's 2d "congruence", and in 3d it's 3d congruence of zones, whether sketch or photo - yes! This aint Adventure Books circus science! Optical illusions in airplane cabins and now sketches versus photos, supposedly of the same box! Give us a break Vinny. Sell it to the Eskimows. Any idiot can see - these are not the same skulls much less faces. Its Physical Anthro 101. If I were you I would go back to claiming the FBI sketch was wrong - you got more mileage out of that versus faking software identification claims -

YOU MAY HAVE HIT THE SHAMWOW ON THE HEAD - HE MADE IT UP ? His orginal post is partial evidence. Take a good look at 'leaning pizza Cooper' leaning toward the truth - gimmick? Versus a corrected Cooper image square, eyes at same level as KC's ... We went through this already, and with Duane photos before that. Then Blevins arrives on these shores with a sales pitch and no food for the winter?

Guess it was a joke. Look...this is all I know from Porteous about the overlay you saw on Decoded: They used some type of software to create a transparent image of Christiansen's face based on his 1970 passport picture. Then they did the same thing with the sketch picture. When they overlaid the transparent pic of KC with the sketch at the same scale, they matched perfectly. Except for the hair, of course. . "with the sketch at the same scale, they matched perfectly." Yepper! Well we all have software - I have some software too! And last but not least the isophotes of all major facials zones on both subjects which, quoting Blevins: "they matched perfectly." Do yous know what an isophote is? Why dont the isophotes match Mr. B;levins!? Do you know how facial reognition software works? I am sure Skipp must have been using completely different photos than you present here - yes? Because your photos presented dont match in any way, shape or form but are of two different types of facial proportions and lines - like a bull's head vs a horses head - yes? Its elementary my Dear Watson. And as plain as the nose on your face.

Problem: This assumes the hijacker was planning to jump and land in the middle of nowhere. Peaks and mountains and forests. I don't believe that was the original plan. Remember: They delayed the hijacker in Seattle until well after dark. My personal opinion is that Cooper had absolutely no intention of remaining aboard any longer than it took to put on a chute and jump. You could take some guesses on where by examining the V23 map a second time and keeping an open mind. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the hijacker and consider what he demanded and what he actually got. THINK! Would you rather jump at twilight in an area fairly recognizable from the air, with lights below, or into the darkness, over trees, in the Middle of Nowhere? I will never believe that a south-of-Merwin-Lake jump was in his original plan. That was forced upon him by these factors: 1) Plane had to circle Seattle before money was ready. 2) Once on the ground, the FBI delayed the takeoff as long as possible, until after dark. 3) Hijacker requested the plane depart with stairs down, but was told no. 4) Once airborne, it took time to put on chute, prep money, (which came packaged wrong for him and which he had to improvise to secure) and get the door open. 5) By that time, it was dark and they were past the more civilized areas. There are clues here, some based on what Cooper EXPECTED to happen, and what REALLY happened. If his original plan had worked, the money would have been ready by the time they reached Seattle, without circling. The refueling truck would have worked, and immediately. The money and chutes would have come aboard right away at the same time. The stairs would be down as they departed. There might even be some daylight left. Mexico, we're going there. Can't? Then okay...Reno. The hijacker didn't care. He had no intention of remaining aboard very long. The request for Mexico was probably nothing more than a red herring to make it harder for the FBI to locate him after he jumped. It's a long way between Seattle and Mexico. Or Reno. Big search area.

1) Plane had to circle Seattle before money was ready. 2) Once on the ground, the FBI delayed the takeoff as long as possible, until after dark. 3) Hijacker requested the plane depart with stairs down, but was told no. 4) Once airborne, it took time to put on chute, prep money, (which came packaged wrong for him and which he had to improvise to secure) and get the door open. 5) By that time, it was dark and they were past the more civilized areas. There are clues here, some based on what Cooper EXPECTED to happen, and what REALLY happened. If his original plan had worked, the money would have been ready by the time they reached Seattle, without circling. The refueling truck would have worked, and immediately. The money and chutes would have come aboard right away at the same time. The stairs would be down as they departed. There might even be some daylight left. Mexico, we're going there. Can't? Then okay...Reno. The hijacker didn't care. He had no intention of remaining aboard very long. The request for Mexico was probably nothing more than a red herring to make it harder for the FBI to locate him after he jumped. It's a long way between Seattle and Mexico. Or Reno. Big search area.