georger

Ok. Maybe he was a nuclear engineer from over at Hanford or Trojan who had too many rads and wanted to go out with a "splash".

There you may have it. Now define drift and a DZ and you might want an archaeologist in scuba gear to stand by, and a hydrologist for flow and distribution probabilities. (Thats what they do for a living) The bones should have fresh dna! Suggest some young guys very good in the field and looking for publicity at "23andme.com" or use some of the folks who did snp assays after 9-11, if this goes that far.

It could also mean he didnt say much and the primary witnesses were too frightened to remember details. Snowmman I also want to advise that due to severe weather damage issues all meetings concerning money and hydrology have been called off until who knows when. Similar if not better resources are available in your State should you care to pursue them. Good luck.

No accent would simply mean he was from the middle of the US somewhere. Same old trick with national newscasters. It would also imply english as the primary language and having been born in the US by parents who used english as their primary language. The lack of slang may indicate a higher level of education. Not necessarily a college, but it could also be from further education and leadership courses from with in the upper enlisted ranks of the military. It also points away from someone with a previous conviction. I've yet to meet someone who has done any sort of jail or prison time that hasn't picked up some sort of none-popular slang. well the US divides up into a number of broad linguistic regions, central midwest being one but it has a lot in common with the northwest region phonologically. Syntax is another matter. Every area has regionalisms. What may be significant in this case is that all witnesses gave a common report, ie. "no accent", even though there were probably language differences between the witnesses. For example, Mucklow and Schaffner came from different parts of the US so if they both report "no accent" that could mean something as broad as "he didnt have a Spanish accent" or Svedish, etc. That level of "no accent" is superficial. We also have the glaring contradiction between what Himmelsbach reported vrs. Mucklow and Schaffner vis-a-vis language. (He used filthy language on the one hand but was calm, deliberate, relaxed, and well spoken and polite on the other hand.) It could also indicate all of the witnesses were traumatised and couldnt give a full account. Just consider the linguistic regions 305 flew through on that day alone. You multiply that by the number of hours of service the crew in contact with him had, . . . and you can see why the Soul Bros. dressed in back business suits with sunglasses too!

And there aint no such animule. Everyone is from someone and somewhere. (Prior to the internet that is)

Maybe the dna of Mr. Simons should have been taken from the Lav to refresh his mind!

Do you find that occasionally witnesses give one account immediately after an event and another one, one that fits more widely known facts, during later interviews? Perhaps so different that the two accounts even contradict themselves? Perhaps so different that they put the witness in a better light in the second account; make the witness more "perceptive" or even omniscient, knowing things that they could not have possibly known during the actual event? Very good point!! My thought exactly and I am sure there is plenty of precident for that. People tend to clam up and want to go home and hide under the covers, when J. Edgar and publicity shows up. Like "who me?" ... "I wasnt on any airplane!" ... "didnt we juist see you get off that thing" ... "nope was some other guy" ... "Im just here visiting uhhhh taking my dog for a walk' . . . and they go home and five hours later are on some talk show. I can see why FBI guys get so stiff. You never know who to believe. And for my own part I am distressed that Ive flubbed up three times now posting things which turned out not true, partly true, incomplete, or whatever ... Mr. Sluggo is pissed and I dont half blame him . . Ckret is running marathons up and down from some basement archive ... and Mr. George (me!) is sitting here wantring to know: was Cooper an Eskimow or British or Italian or raised at Vancouver based on "he had no accent".... you would think an FBI would make notes on things like this but welcome to the real world. Somebody must be reading this forum laughing and thinking: THESE GUYS ARE ALL NUTS! George.

The Simons told the agents the night of the hijacking that they never saw Cooper nor did they realize the flight had been hijacked. A very kind member of this forum directed me to a video on You Tube, from a program called In Search Of ??? Richard and Barbara Simons give a detailed long description of their encounter with Cooper. Here's the link if it will copy: http://youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFyZSyvqk Good luck.

You have got to be kidding.! You must think I am making this up. Let me see what I can find. There is something wrong here. (Its Monday@!)

Then if this is literally true, Cooper came from the same region as the witnesses (whoever they were to be one unified linguistic group). If this is true, then we now know something very definate about Mr. Cooper. He wasn't from Baa-Habbah. He wasnt an import. He was of the same general social class as the witnesses. He was able to communicate with a younger generation than himself without noticeable difficulty. And he had no apparent speech defects which would indicate physical pathology.

Canopus, you have the odds on your side. I think we all know that on some level. Thanks...

In that regards, what about slang or the lack there of? I can literally tell what neighborhood of the city someone lives in due to what slang they use or don't use and my city only has 70,000 people. Your above is what I was getting at. We all have some kind of regional accent. Was Cooper's accent the same as Mucklow's and Schaffner's whatever that was? It goes to his origins. (Northwest, Central US, Southern, East Coast, and the like).

Well I think you mean me. I apologise if I am posting things as fact or engaging in speculation when I probably should be asking questions or putting things in the form: "Is it true that . . . ". That might be more agreeable to you and I am willing to do it that way. I think it is very important we all work together here. Sincerely, George

NOT TRUE: The 727-100 has the following Flap settings: 727-100 HIGH LIFT DEVICES Flap positions are: UP 2, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 40 with gates at the 2 and 25 positions. 5,15,25 Normally T-O and 30, 15, 5, Normal Landing. At 140,000 lbs. V sub Ref for landing with 15 degrees flaps is: 142 knots At 140,000 lbs. V sub Ref for Take-off with 15 degrees flaps is: 136 knots. As you see these values are much lower that 160 – 170 knots being flown by 305. --------------------------------------------------- Correction noted and welcomed. The expert! in the other forum was wrong then. --------------------------------------------------- BTW: For planning purposes, Boeing estimates total turnaround time (Place stairs, position equipment, deplane passengers, unload baggage, fuel airplane, service galley, service water, service lavatories, clean cabin, clean aft entry, load baggage, board passengers, and clear area and start engines) for 28 first class and 66 tourist class passengers as 26 minutes. (about 10 min of which is re-fueling at 600 gpm). If Cooper knew this, he was reasonable to expect to deplane the passengers and re-fuel in 15 min. If he believed this he was delusional.

____________________________________________ I dont think sky marshals had anything to do with this. It was just Cooper feeling vulnerable and being aggressive when he should have been keeping a very low profile not to attract attention. The hijacking was barely 10 minutes old when this happened. Maybe Ckret can shed some light on this. Simons and his wife recounted this VERY CLEARLY after the fact. (They could hardly stop talking about it because they were upset). It shows Cooper's aggressive side and his vulnerability in the face of poor judgement at the very time he needed to be focusing and mind his manners. This is one of the 'little events' that helped form Himmeslbach's appraisal of Cooper, trying to look underneath to see the real Cooper.

NEW QUESTION: Ckret, something in the back of my mind - doesnt need an immediate answer if one is even possible. NO ACCENT. When did Tina and Flo mean? No foreign accent. No US regional accent? Have you any idea what they meant by no accent.

Yes! These wind patterns and velocities must be nailed down. south wind, east wind. I have read both. Wherever he bails what are the winds aloft and at ground on that date and time. Something to give a definate direction to his rate of drift and direction after bailout. I will reveal that I once even talked to my State Climatologist about this and he could not find exact data. So, if you find something (I thought you already had?) then you have him beat. (But my guy didnt have a lot of time to look either - very busy man - so I just dropped it. )

________________________________________________ That had better be true or we are all fishing on a parking lot! Any chance Cooper could have over heard the communications in the cockpit, or Tina gave Cooper info she had been given from the cockpit ? Even if he heard or knew everything, I dont see that it changes the outcome. Cooper was being held by circumstances beyond his control and his opportunities for bailing fixed. examples: time it took to refuel at SEA, the flight path taken and its contraints, time to get aircraft aloft and configured for a jump, time to suit up, time to resolve rear door & stair deliemma, weather conditions, money packing and possible chute issues, visibility issues, etc.

Even if it is not true it is a viable theory which connects known facts, and therefore must be tested until some better explanation comes forth. Causation is key. Cause of placard at Toutle. Cause of money at Tena Bar. (two unimpeachable facts). The causative link potentially, is a flight path. Cooper bails along the flight path, whatever that was. If the flight path CAN connect Toutle with Tena Bar then there is a 99.9% Correlation. Correation is not cause. So you then move to causes which connect the facts.

_____________________________________________ He did seperate out Schaffner from Mucklow pretty quickly, using the more vulnerable of the two to meet his needs and he relied on that to the end. He ascertained that in general people were bowing to his demands and he stayed with that to the end. The critical period came early after Cooper handed his note to Schaffner and the attention of Schaffner and Mucklow shifted to Cooper and away from other passengers newly seated on the plane. Two passengers, Richard Simons and his wife (both interviewed at Seattle) got a little upset and it almost unraveled things, if what I am told is true. Read this carefully: The passengers had taken their seats and were getting acclimated. Schaffner and Tina were making their rounds and doing their work. Cooper slips his note to Schaffner. Schaffner slips the note into her pocket. Cooper has to lean out and get Schaffner's attention for Schaffner to read the note. Tina and Flo discuss the note and one goes forward to pilot Scott, but Schaffner comes back and is now on station with "our friend in the back". Hancock wonders what is going on and sputters with eye gestures (seen by some of the passengers) back at Schaffner. Schaffner grimmaces Hancock off, Hancock goes forward to converse with Scott and is informed. This is the scenario I have been told. Passengers begin to feel a little neglected and several are looking around frankly wondering about the absence of flight attendants. But people get settled in and Hancock and Muchlow seeing to everyone with Schaffner stuck in the back with Cooper. Passenger Simmons and his wife turn around and look back at Schaffner attending Cooper alone, then turn back and say something to each other. Simons abruptly gets out of his seat to go back to use the lavatory and heads directly back at Schaffner standing (blocking) the aisle at Cooper's side. Simons is almost to Schaffner and Cooper suddenly looks up at Simons and "glares defiantely" straight at Simmons with Schaffner now looking a bit stricken (so I am told Simons said). Simons not wishing a problem (but wondering if there is one) steps to Schaffner's right and Schaffner moves to let Simons by. Simons edges by Schaffner with Cooper still glaring at him and Simons goes back to the Lav wondering about 'this guy' and what is going on. (Ckret might know all about this from the interviews conducted at Seattle. Simmons and his wife were interviewed several times later.) This is not heresay. Simons came back out of the Lav and Im not sure where Schaffner was then, but as Simons passed Cooper, Simons looked back at Cooper but Cooper's head was now low and Cooper did not look up at Simons a second time. Simons went back to his seat and he told his wife what had happened. Simon's wife turns around and looks back at Cooper (Cooper's head still low). Simons and his wife have a discussion and now they both turn and look back at Cooper, with Schaffner now back with Cooper's and Schaffner and Cooper are talking. Simon's wife said later that she was a little miffed at how one occupant at the back of the airplane was occupying the flight attendant's time, or seemed to be, and Mr. Simons himself was miffed at Cooper glaring at him in a defiant manner as Simon's went back to the lavatory. Simons said he and his wife discussed this briefly and decided to let it pass and mind their own business. But inside the terminal they were flabberghasted that the person in the back had been hijacking the plane. So Cooper may have thought he was in control, but just below the surface things could have unraveled quickly at any time, with Cooper relying on the context of the airplane and people's good manners (and his bomb!), to keep order. I wish to point out that Cooper was never tested. Had the Simon's wished to make an issue this whole thing could have unraveled on the spot and who knows what would have happened. (Very likely unless ordered by Cooper Scott would have returned the plane to Portland where they had just left.)

Yes, gold was floating at around 35 an ounce in 71. I know from personal experience. Passage 6:21 and Scott's words in TR#1 of the pi transcripts is where technical competence is seemingly attributed to Cooper directly. But, regardless of whatever assets Cooper had, he relied on the technical competence and experience of others to hijack the airplaine. His only real asset was his bomb. Everything else is secondary. Cooper did not give a technical note of any kind during the whole hijacking. 'Go here, do that, do this and that by such and such a time...' is all we know for a fact he said, written in his single note given Schaffner. He didn't even specify the parachutes to use! We have a very small amount of evidence to work with here. It isn't like he left a resume. If he had had technical knowledge he would have used it.

It's not cheesy at all but factual and realistic.

In general I agree with your thesis. He was deluded. Detached from reality even if he had skills and knowledge. Something pushed him over the edge to risk everything. Anger? Revenge? Dire need? Deep manic depression? He's thinking and acting on one level but not on another for critical level (the level needed for self protection and survival). His personal needs overrule his conscience, if he had one. He's detached from reality and lucky he didn't get a bullet through his head, to bring this down to Earth! Lazy but also driven. You know Ckret, he might have had a revolver conceiled on his person, that no one saw (in the paper bag?). Hijacking are an inherently violent act (indirect violence) because they can turn lethal at any instant for everyone on the plane and send everyone in a flash to the full forces of nature. There is less margin for error in an aircraft vs say on a ship or on land. Cooper cut through all of that and there is the heart of his violence and denial. I think this guy could have been very violent in a flash if required, and he kept the most vulnerable person on the plane with him at his side (along with his bomb) - that pretty much tells you what Cooper was all about and the stress he placed on himself to keep even five minutes of this going. Few people could think straight in that kind of stress which he had to be experiencing, whether he showed it or not.

That is (has been) my understanding too - with Scott concentrating on radio work. Wasnt there a post about this some time back?

QuoteThis is where you brilliant types leave me shaking my head as well as the rest of the theorist who want to put the Portland area as part of Coopers plan. If Cooper needed to land around Portland or Vancouver he would have directed the pilots to fly that direction. ____________________________________________ Its not that Portland was his plan but it just worked out that way, just like sitting on the ground at SEA for almost 2 hrs wasnt planned, then bailout with rear door open immediately after liftoff didnt work out, so he takes his next best option under poor visibility after Scott levels and slows the plane which is skyglow from Vancouver & Portland and he bails. ... and money turns up at Tena Bar.