georger

Im back. Not sure how long. Will simply inform the group I am at Iowa City, Iowa. Massive flood here so been busy. Im ok, family ok, but we are shaken and dealing with a serious situation. Suggo I apologise. Here's the attachment, I hope. Again I just did this to see what it would look like. George

__________________________________________ HARD PULL QUESTION: Lets assume hard pull with nb6 and 28ft canopy, and his money bag tied around his waste. 377 has said below this is a very hard pull. Another has said bag around his waste might interfere with finding the rip cord at all. From 10000 ft Im assuming roughly 60-90 seconds of free fall with no chute deployed. Let's assume hard pull and interference from the bag. Is it reasonable to assume you would try and shift the bag or even try and get rid of the bag or dump its contents simply trying to get his chute open. What options do you see here?

Even if he tied the money around his waste? Or are you saying 'especially' if he tied the money around his waste? have you got a photo of this arrangement?

We all get roses for this in the Happy Hunting Ground, or a kick in the ass. ???javascript: addTag('pirate') javascript: addTag('pirate')

okay, if we just run with that, then you're asking us to find a jump point that has the money bag coming off and landing in the Columbia, or some bit of land that might get flooded or a stream...I'm thinking stream is unlikely because of small size...probability/likelihood of any particular money landing site is probably correlated to it's area..stream area is small..columbia is big...banks of columbia are big. And this landing site for the money has to be within 1/2 mile of the flight path, probably less, depending on how you vector the money relative to the plane's path. And this jump point has to be before the Columbia. So given this difficult set of conditions, you think it's somehow obsessive to focus on the data requirement that's forcing us to have a jump point before the Columbia. Now I'm scratching my head because I feel this vibe of how "hey we don't need to be so analytical" when all the requirements for the equation seem to demand a lot of precision on everything we talk about. In fact, the lack of precision, the willingness or desire to grab at an answer that might be "close enough", I think is what has always doomed this investigation. Just because you see a possible grab handle doesn't mean it's the right one. Snowmman, What I need you to do right now, ok!!! is to slowly show me your hands, right now, ok? I need you step away from the keyboard with your hands up, Ok? right now. Breath brother, too analytical about the word "felt" not the case. Everyone needs a day off, I shall grant you two. Now go outside and run around a bit, the blue stuff when you look up is called sky and the green stuff at your feet we call grass Funny! (Does your wife look over your shoulder and read this stuff and laugh?)

I believe this is the normal inertia concept (the same reason your body keeps moving forward if the car slams on brakes). There's a cute little freefall sim on Kallend's website which you might like to look at - just plug in some numbers for windspeed and look at the trajectory: http://lensmoor.org/cgi-bin/chute.cgi (btw the reason the forward throw is the opposite direction to the drift is because planes usually drop jumpers flying into the wind) I don't believe I've seen anything about him originally requesting below 10K, but it could make sense either from a cloud cover perspective, or from a spotting perspective - IF he had a particular position in mind, the lower you go out the less you are affected (either in freefall or under canopy) by wind drift from the uppers. Ckret of course is of the opinion he didn't know where he was going to jumo anyway, so this would be a moot point. Ckret, on another tack, was Mayfield ever formally identified as a suspect? Were his prints ever compared? He has a criminal record so presumably you (FBI) have them on file. _____________________________________________ Thanks! Got it. It was your use of the term "throw" I wasnt sure about. SAFE may have said something about this also, moons ago. (Where is SAFE?) I cited the "below 10000" passages for Sluggo so you will see those. If "below 10000" was what Cooper first asked for, and then it gets changed to 10000?, then that may say something to you sky divers about his experience level? Its just a sidenote that has always had my attention wondering..

These profiles are very nice.

In fact, the lack of precision, the willingness or desire to grab at an answer that might be "close enough", I think is what has always doomed this investigation. Just because you see a possible grab handle doesn't mean it's the right one. Ok. Just for the heck of it I took Sluggo's missing minute map from last evening and put the relevant flight comms on it. Not sure what this proves it gives some context.. attached below:

Where did you get this tid-bit? Sluggo T8 6:59-7:41 transcript. "He said we'll have to go below 10,000". This follows the statement about going unpressurised .... these passages follow the bit about the FAA psychiatrist. Also at 7:27 of T1 "will be unpressurised and he has said must stay below (unintel = 10oooft) will go (unintel) would suggest go via the coast then back on route..."

Quotesnowmman, Since no one else wants to play my game (or they haven’t had the opportunity), I’ll give you a big clue. I spent the night last night with these charts. I knew something was wrong with the timing of the jump point (I have suspected it since I started on my “Flight Path Model” back in March). I knew it was wrong, but I had no way to prove it. A 727 can’t fly at 97 knots. Then Ckret sent the chart and it is right there. You remember that old “shaggy-Dog story, where the punch line is “the missing brick”? Well, there is something missing here too. Look at this (Attached File) and ponder on it. Don’t get all esoteric, and start that shit about cumulative error, standard deviations, Gaussian distributions,............... REPLY: It might be helpful to explain one more time what this map was for and who made it, and when. Was the map made (red ticks) during the flight, then filled in later with furtehr estimates (black ticks), by who? These are estimates in any event, not a conspiracy theory.

4. Quite the contrary. 10K sounds like a perfectly normal altitude - for a skydiver. In fact until you posted your questions, I'd never even thought twice about the altitude. ________________________________________ His original request was for BELOW 10,000 ft. What's your reaction to that?

4) Is there anything about Cooper’s altitude request that strikes you as “odd” or “improper”? He requested 10,000 feet. (Whether he stated MSL, AGL or didn’t specify is lost at this time.) If your answer is “yes,” Please explain (in detail). _____________________________________________ His original request was for below 10,000 ft. What does this say from a skydiver's point of view? Couldnt make up his mind? Wasn't a skydiver? Mispoke?

QuoteDon't forget to include the forward throw an object will have leaving an aircraft in flight. Also depending on the body position of a human in free fall they tend to scoot and slide all over the place, ___________________________________________ Can you explain this a little - elaborate... Thanks.

305 didnt cross the Columbia ? Cooper jumped before the Columbia? They FELT?

No, you're thinking discrete drift lines when there's nothing about the 8:15 "guess" that says we need to step in discrete time quanta. It's not about circles. If you start thinking circles, it's all wrong and we might miss something? ______________________________________________ Snowman I think you misunderstand what I am saying. The flight path has a built in uncertainty as to time and position. Sluggo has been trying to lessen this uncertainty and specify how much uncertainty there is in the flight path. But not all uncertainty can be eliminated because some uncertainty is inherent in the mere fact of flying, weather, reporting, etc. When I say 'circle of probability' I mean even if you pick a point on the flight path, the point is a probability (circle), as wide as the uncertainties in time and position etc are. Nobody including Sluggo can certify that any time chosen on the flight path is a dead certainty. Again, uncertainty is inherent in the fact of a flight path by its very nature and we will never (for a variety of reasons) get to a certainty level much greater than say 1-2 minutes wide. (A point suddenly becomes a circle of uncertainty). I have no doubt Sluggo will try to reduce certainty as much as he can. That is what this whole exercise of revising the flight path (to fit certain facts) has been about. But any flight path model is no better than the facts that support it and the facts the model is trying to explain. If you dont like the word circle then call each point a window. ( a window of opportunity for a bail out). Whatever we call it we will wind up dealing with the same issues, which are uncertainty. I hope this helps?

probably not until the earliest of late 78. ??? why?

It must arrive after 1974 ! ??

Ckret: you're jumping the gun here. You immediately talk about the Columbia for water movement. It may be most likely, but the Vancouver Lake, Shillapoo Creek, flooding to Lower River Rd theory I threw out, is possible also. Because Vancouver Lake is so large, it's not immediately dismissable, I think. georger was the first to introduce this alternate water path. I posted jpgs of the distance across Shilapoo in that creek, from the north channel of Vancouver Lake, and it's not that bad. It could actually be more plausible as the low velocity water movement that georger seems to like better. I'm not pushing this idea. Just don't see why you jumped to the Columbia already. Snowmman think about this. You cant limit to one scenario only. You have to consider several scenarios. There is going can be no perfect solution unless his bones are found. Since nobody has found those and he wasnt found at the Hilton Room #233, then its a backdoor entry working the probabilities, and fortunately there is order within Chaos - one piece of that order was the money found at Tena Bar (also the placard at Toutle). I mean this literally unless you find his bones. I'm not saying anything new ...

Ckret, my suggestion is simulation before test. Thats what mathematics and computer simulations are all about. I would pick several scenarios and run a simulation. As a control I would include a Washougal washdown scenario. Because quite frankly if you don't you will be criticised for not being thorough, and this time we want the FBI to look good! (At least I do). This could possibly be done at the U of Washington, or through somebody here?, maybe someone at USGS in Washington. The simulations don't have to be fancy. Just basic. The raw data should be useful no matter how this goes. (I cant do it here. Everyone is busy. As you know.)

I'm also biased against much hydrology at work for moving money. But I have no data/insight there. The opinion here is the Tena Bar money does not show signs of longterm aggressive movement, without having had protection. That was always one of the issues in the Washougal theory or any longdistance conveyance.

So we can look at the wind rose, and just look at cases where the wind speed was 10-11 knots or more. The wind rose uses meter/sec. The conversion is knots x 0.515 = meters/sec So let's say 5.6 meter/sec That means all the yellow data can be ignored in the rose. (light wind almost equally likely from all directions) To have a wind strong enough to meet measurements, it looks like it's very likely to have come from ESE or SE. I suspect this is also correlated to an accompanying rain, based on what 377 has said. I think it's also reasonable to conclude that the wind direction in this case will be similar to 10,000 ft. We can probably estimate the wind gradient as we go up in altitude, based on the gradient that's been reported before, nearby, on 11/24/71. Just from memory, I think that was a peak around 20 knots at 10,000 ft? So I think we have info for a canopy drift line guess. Now we have fuzziness about where to put the jump line...at least 1 or 2 minutes of fuzziness around the curvy flight path, till PDX. (depends on opinions) If Cooper landed in heavy residential areas, he might have been spotted. So we might prefer guessing at drift lines and jump points that meet the canopy drift line requirements, and flight path requirements, but end in more open land. I suppose using today's Google Earth will confuse us, because Vancouver is so much more developed. Just guessing from the '71 air map, it seems there's a lot more open area. So maybe there's nothing to make one guess towards Vancouver Lake, exactly. I still am biased to thinking that the jump point on the flight path, is somehow aligned to the Ingram money find, but maybe not. I'm also biased against much hydrology at work for moving money. But I have no data/insight there. Where is SAFE and his calcs? I wouldnt worry too much about Tena Bar, just go where the data takes you. Strike a circle of probability based on time at several points on the new flight path and see where drift and drop winds up based on 10 knot wind. Its the direction and line that matters most. The descent line t1...tn can be adjusted to better data.

good post!

Thats what I have also. I had Schaffners home but cant find it. Also have an old wx report that winds were from the E to SE between 10-20 mph that evening but cant find that file either, I have mentioned this report several times but realise without vertification its worthless/futile.

Or a bowling ball hurtled from space!

Is it true: If Rataczack said Portland its Portland and he had flown the route many times under all kinds of conditions ?