Robert99

You are right - that was Homid I believe so just where do you live? . . . . . You really got hot under the collar really fast....did I hit a nerve with the truths? Jo, You will have to guess again. It wasn't Hominid. I live on the planet Earth. Which planet do you live on? Just remember that Pluto is no longer called a planet. Sorry to disappoint you but I don't get hot under the collar. I just make it a point to get even. What truths? I don't remember seeing any truths in your posts. Robert99

Jo, I have never met Bruce and I didn't travel from Texas to Washington. But I have been to WA twice on this matter. Nothing beats going to the scene of the crime to do some research. Also, I have never met you and you wouldn't know me from Adam in a photograph. Further, I have never met Duane Weber so don't get your hopes up. Just continue re-writing the CIA's articles on their site and inserting Duane into those stories. I think you and Blevins already have the "blow hard" business tied up. What am I hiding? Nothing. What are you hiding? Plenty. Who am I? I am who I said I am. Robert99

Jo, Just to make sure we still understand each other, the avalanche of posts that you have been making recently are still bullshit. And you have even taken up Blevins habit by replying to your own posts. You, like Blevins, apparently feel that the person who takes up most of the space on this thread wins the game. Is Blevins back yet from his last announced departure from this thread? If not, something must have delayed him and he will surely be back here tomorrow. For the record, Duane Weber was not DB Cooper nor did he know who DB Cooper could have been. If Duane actually made any of the statements that Jo Weber claims, then Duane was a con man and Jo Weber was delighted to be conned. In addition, KC was not Cooper as RobertMBlevins has claimed in perpetuity. And the recent indications from Blevins that he is not really interested in KC anymore suggests that Hollywood is not interested in Blevins screen play on the subject. At times, life can be a bitch. Robert99

Mark, Your last sentence is going to cause Blevins and Jo Weber to go ballistic. But welcome to the group of "true believers" about the flight path of the airliner. Shutter, who sometimes posts here on DZ and runs the "other DB Cooper" site, which the two individuals mentioned above continually disparage, has done some beautiful simulations of the hijacked airliner's flight. I'll switch over to Shutter's site and send him a PM to read your post here. With luck, Shutter will invite you to join his site. Robert99

Blevins, Do you understand that Captain Scott is quoted by two people as telling Himmelsbach that the airliner passed over Woodland? And do you understand that Captain Scott was on the airliner and responsible for the flight path of the airliner? And do you understand that Larry Carr came along 35+ years later with a map and that he was trying to determine the source of that map and what it supposedly represented? The rest of your post is just another of your efforts to try to undercut some facts that you don't like since they do not support your Cooper candidate. Robert99

Robert says: Another reference the flight passed over Woodland, which negates any pass over Tina Bar. Again..check the map provided by FBI Special Agent Way-Too-Cool Larry Carr. Calame and Rhodes should have run and got themselves a map and then asked Scott if the flight was east or west of the interstate. Woodland is directly off the freeway. Blevins, Your response above is an outright lie. Even the newest Campfire Girl recruit can determine that a straight line between the Mayfield/Malay Intersection on V-23 and the Canby Intersection on V-23 south of the present day Battleground VORTAC crosses Woodland and Tina Bar. In case you don't understand the above, when the airliner overflew Woodland it was about six miles WEST of V-23. Interstate 5 has nothing to do with the navigation of the airliner. And in any event, it could not be seen by the flight crew on the night of the hijacking due to the cloud cover. Your desperation to preserve your KC fable is beyond belief. Robert99 We're not talking about KC, who you keep referencing for some weird reason I can't fathom. Almost like paranoia or something. Care to offer any proof that Flight 305 was actually SIX miles west of Woodland, WA when it flew by? That would put it miles on the other side of the Columbia. The map provided by Seattle FBI agent Larry Carr says otherwise...(attached) Between you and the FBI, I choose to believe the map the FBI agent made public. BLEVINS, I DID NOT SAY THAT THE AIRLINER WAS SIX MILES WEST OF WOODLAND. I SAID THAT WOODLAND WAS SIX MILES WEST OF V-23. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN YOUR CLAIM AND MY STATEMENT IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED. Maybe you could get someone to explain that difference and to read my original post to you. Robert99

Robert says: Another reference the flight passed over Woodland, which negates any pass over Tina Bar. Again..check the map provided by FBI Special Agent Way-Too-Cool Larry Carr. Calame and Rhodes should have run and got themselves a map and then asked Scott if the flight was east or west of the interstate. Woodland is directly off the freeway. Blevins, Your response above is an outright lie. Even the newest Campfire Girl recruit can determine that a straight line between the Mayfield/Malay Intersection on V-23 and the Canby Intersection on V-23 south of the present day Battleground VORTAC crosses Woodland and Tina Bar. In case you don't understand the above, when the airliner overflew Woodland it was about six miles WEST of V-23. Interstate 5 has nothing to do with the navigation of the airliner. And in any event, it could not be seen by the flight crew on the night of the hijacking due to the cloud cover. Your desperation to preserve your KC fable is beyond belief. Robert99

Blevins writes: Nice dodge. But we weren't talking about Kenny Christiansen, were we? You reached for that because you have NO ANSWER. R99 replies: Blevins, You are ALWAYS talking about KC even if you don't mention him. Even if you would like to disassociate yourself from him at this point, KC is your only interest and your KC story (which is pure bunk in the first place) falls apart if the airliner overflies Tina Bar. Blevins writes: Rataczak might tell you something like this: R99 replies: Rataczak also might tell me that the airliner overflew Tina Bar or even that shrimp whistle. Hypotheticals are hypotheticals. Blevins writes: According to the map provided by Special Agent Larry Carr, there is a line showing that Flight 305 was on the east side of the interstate at all times while it was between Olympia and just a bit north of Vancouver. Which means they didn't go over Tina Bar. The question I asked about it is legitimate. What makes YOU right, and Larry Carr wrong? R99 replies: Blevins, have you seen Larry Carr's description of the maps in a YouTube video? You need to see that video and then re-read your claims above. If you need a link to the video say so and I will post it. But you probably already have the link. Blevins writes: I would like to hear Rataczak's imput on all this. There is nothing wrong with that. You start grabbing for KC references because you are afraid Rataczak might give the 'wrong' answer and negate your Tina Bar Overflight theory. Since you are the proponent of this theory (and who knows, you could be RIGHT), then you should have tried to verify this through Rataczak clear back in 2009, correct? We're not talking about bypassing Portland on the west side. Even the map shows the flight turned to the SW, but NOT UNTIL IT REACHED THE VANCOUVER AREA. R99 replies: Blevins, your hyper-sensitivity about KC is showing. That is probably a direct result of not having a single thing to back up your claims about KC being Cooper. Read the following very carefully and remember it if you can since I am getting tired of having to repeat this for your benefit. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEN EXISTING, NO PILOT WOULD HAVE FLOWN THAT SEGMENTED ARC AROUND THE WEST SIDE OF PORTLAND THAT IS SHOWN ON THOSE MAPS. Robert99

Blevins, You are the one who claims the FBI map is accurate. So where is your EVIDENCE, not SPECULATIONS, to support your claim? Here's how things work in the real world. You claim the map is correct, then you produce some facts to support your claim. You haven't done a single thing to show that the map is real. My statements that the maps shown as depicting the flight path are nonsense were first made in 2009. At the same time, I posted some numbers on Sluggo's web page to support my statements. This was about a year before you joined this thread. I'm sure that you have that information, and everything else on Sluggo's web page, on your computer so it should not be a big job to take a look at it. Robert99 I'm not trying to pass the buck. There is the map. Then there is you saying it is wrong. Special Agent Larry Carr is the person who provided that map on request. He was a former Cooper case agent. What will be your response if Bill Rataczak says the flight was just east of Vancouver as it approached that city, and was never over the Tina Bar area? My response would be to ask him what he was doing "east of Vancouver" as you put it. What will your response be if Rataczak says the flight bypassed Portland on the west side? Actually, your response would be that is impossible since KC was still breathing at 8:30 PM PST on November 24, 1971, and in all probability DB Cooper wasn't. Robert99

Blevins, You are the one who claims the FBI map is accurate. So where is your EVIDENCE, not SPECULATIONS, to support your claim? Here's how things work in the real world. You claim the map is correct, then you produce some facts to support your claim. You haven't done a single thing to show that the map is real. My statements that the maps shown as depicting the flight path are nonsense were first made in 2009. At the same time, I posted some numbers on Sluggo's web page to support my statements. This was about a year before you joined this thread. I'm sure that you have that information, and everything else on Sluggo's web page, on your computer so it should not be a big job to take a look at it. Robert99

I will answer that ONE for everyone. NO the FBI cannot ATTEST to the accuracy of that Web site. Some of that was supplied by a former agents is inaccurate. Also the providers of the information & those who write the information make changes and /or their interpertations of what is being presented. Do they have a map on there with the word NO written on it - well any map with NO written is NOT the actual map used by the FBI. I know how and when that NO got on that map. Jo, Please make an effort to get your quotes right. The first paragraph you quote above was actually from Blevins. The second paragraph is from me. Robert99

R99 should have contacted Bill Rataczak on this theory long ago. This isn't a question that requires much research, or a re-writing of reality. The co-pilot would know the truth. FYI: Rataczak told Skipp Porteous in a phone interview that he does research (even today) on the Cooper case. He has notes, files, etc. He was THERE. I think the most basic question, i.e. 'where was the flight while it was still north of Vancouver' is one Rataczak could answer easily. Why don't you just ask him if you have some questions?

You should be going to the Seattle FBI and asking them about this alleged path. This is a sort of baseline point here. Ask yourself (and them) why they continue to make that map available on their website as the 'flight path map' if it is not anything of the sort. [The rest of Blevins post has been deleted as irrelevant.] Blevins, instead of pontificating about what other people should do, do your own homework. Take a look at the things related to Cooper in the FBI's "vault" which is accessible on their web page. Do you actually believe that the FBI is going to attest to the accuracy of everything that is in that vault? Robert99

*** Jo, You don't understand how the Air Traffic Control system operates. On the flight to Reno, the Portland Airport would not be contacted by the airliner which was under direct control of the Seattle ATC Center. Portland was NOT involved. Robert99[/quote "Robert99"] Jo writes: DO you know how the Air Traffic Control worked in 1971 under the circumstances given? NO you don't, you were NOT there. How many time does one have to explain WA was having some air traffic problems at the time & why the guys were on loan from Atlanta's ATC R99 replies: Jo, You are just blowing more smoke. In 1971, I was an active pilot. The US Air Traffic Control system is highly standardized. It doesn't make any difference where the controllers were from. They would be trained and certified to meet the Seattle ATC standards. And there is nothing to support you claim of air traffic control problems in Seattle in the first place. Jo writes: The communications with Portland are VERY necessary NOT for me but for someone like you to understand that what was happening in 1971 was NOT ordinary circumstances. R99 replies: There is no evidence of any communications between Portland and the airliner when it was headed for Reno. I think it is self-evident that the hijacking of an airliner is not ordinary circumstances. Jo writes: The Crew had been instructed to do what they needed to do...and the crew did just that. You do know they were hoping to come in over Portland PDX and/or a near by Airport with enough visibility to determine if Cooper WAS gone. R99 replies: Jo, you have got to be kidding about the above claims. You are just blowing more smoke. There is basis for such claims. This is just another Jo Weber fantasy. The rest of Jo's post is still more nonsense which has been addressed a few posts back. Robert99

***. And if you read the radio transcripts while the airliner was on the ground in Seattle, you would have noted that the crew was interested in not flying over populated areas with a bomb on board.[/quote "Robert99] Jo writes: Jo has a story to tell!

Robert99 - you are the one being ridiculous at this point. YOU seem driven to convince everyone the plane was West of Seattle. Why? As the plane approached Portland - communications with the PDF come into play and NO ONE know why those transcripts were REMOVED from the PDX office.... Where you aware the transcripts from the PDX went POOF After Jo started to question the FBI in 2000. When Jo had volunteers out there trying to obtain information...I believe I might be able to verify this with a phone bill. Jo, You don't understand how the Air Traffic Control system operates. On the flight to Reno, the Portland Airport would not be contacted by the airliner which was under direct control of the Seattle ATC Center. Portland was NOT involved. It makes no difference what happened to any radio transcripts in Portland. The transcripts in question involved the Seattle ATC communications and not anything from Portland. The FBI had transcripts of ALL relevant communications from both the Seattle ATC and Oakland ATC Centers within about a week of the hijacking. The Seattle transcripts were redacted by the FBI but they did not redact the Oakland transcripts. Nothing has gone POOF that is relevant to the Cooper hijacking communications. Robert99

Thanks.

Further, you would have noted that the Seattle ATC controllers gave the hijacked flight crew carte blanche to make any changes to their flight path that they wanted to do. Blevins writes: I also saw your post about perhaps the money ended up in the Columbia. This assumes Cooper went into the Columbia, and that would have to be done in the Portland area. Even if this were true, explain to me how at least three bundles of the cash managed to end up on the banks of the Columbia miles away from that point...all in the same spot. R99 replies: Your claims are false. I have NEVER said that Cooper landed in the Columbia River! Since 2009, I have repeatedly written that in all probability Cooper landed on solid ground but very near the river water and in the Tina Bar area. This statement of yours is pure nonsense. Blevins writes: As I've explained before, unless these bundles had little strings attached to each other holding them together, this scenario is highly unlikely. One thing that Tom Kaye's research on the money shows us, it is that this money did not lay out there for nine years in the cold, wet weather of the Pacific NW before it was found. Bills not 'fanned' either, as Kaye's team discovered happened when those packets are exposed to water. Rubber bands crumbly, but still in place. This money did not float down the Columbia on 11/24/71 and end up together miles away somehow. It would have turned to complete mush in eight plus years. R99 replies: I believe everyone who has seriously looked at this matter from Ckret to the present, concluded that the Tina Bar money was not exposed to water for the entire time that it was missing. Instead, it was protected by the bank bag and/or other things. This supports the idea that Cooper landed on dry land. And that three packets were found close together supports the idea of repeatability, meaning that the money arrived at Tina Bar from a nearby location. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the theory that the money was planted at Tina Bar. All indications are that it arrived there by natural means. Blevins writes: I believe the flight path map offered at the FBI's website is accurate. Some of the added notations showing the time the flight reached a particular point may be inaccurate. But the path itself is probably accurate. You admitted yourself that they were tracking that plane and that the radar info is good. Just because they misjudged a few time entries doesn't mean the path itself is wrong...which means Flight 305 missed Tina Bar by miles on the way down from Seattle. R99 replies: Of course the Seattle ATC was tracking the hijacked airliner! That was their job. And as I have said any number of times before, the only valid flight path is the one the FBI redacted from the Seattle ATC transcripts. Your comments on the so-called FBI map are meaningless. Do you have any information that the flight path on that map even represents the hijacked airliner? How about showing some proof for once. Robert99 The pilot who said he wanted to fly over the ocean could have purposely flown over the river (?) The short answer is "yes", but the airliner was above several cloud layers and an overcast so that the river could not have been seen visually. In addition, the airliner was only over the river proper for a few miles (at more than three miles per minute groundspeed) so the probability of Cooper landing in water deliberately is quite low. The crew didn't know when he planned to jump or when he actually did jump. In all probability, the airliner was just taking a short cut around the west side of Portland, to avoid flying over the city, when Cooper jumped. Somewhere around Toledo (or the Mayfield/Malay Intersection) the airliner left V-23 and flew direct to the area of the Canby Intersection which is on V-23 and 27 DME miles south of the present day Battleground VORTAC. The above shortcut would mean that the airliner either overflew or passed very close to Tina Bar. Note that the Columbia River runs north, or a couple of degrees east of north, at Tina Bar. In any event, all of the chase aircraft and the helicopter that tried to sight the airliner were vectored to the west and southwest sides of Portland. There is nothing to support a flight path on the east side of Portland or even east of Tina Bar. The people who claim the flight stayed on V-23 or east of it while in the Portland area are simply making that claim since they need Cooper to survive the hijacking to support their claims about their Cooper candidates. Further, the topography of the Tina Bar area is so unique that additional statements can be made once the flight path has been pinned down. And we need the un-redacted Seattle ATC transcripts to do that. Robert99

I call them as I see them. It's as simple as that. Blevins, You did not hit a nerve. You are the one who has been whining about "the other site". And you and Jo Weber are the reasons why "the other site" was created. Robert99

Blevins writes: I don't have an agenda. Discussing points on the case in general is okay. In the past I've discussed the money, the chute at Amboy, other things. But...then I saw people begin to attack each other. Some were banned. I got a rather jaded attitude about the whole thing. R99 replies: Blevins, You have a clearly defined agenda and that is to make a buck off KC who, unfortunately, is dead and cannot defend himself. Do you remember being banned from DZ? I can remember at least two instances, there may have been more, when you were banned from DZ. Don't you remember them? Blevins writes: Then...someone else establishes a NEW site on Cooper . . . This same site wants to be a major player, but their hits according to Google are downright pathetic and their paranoia so extensive it's ridiculous. R99 replies: Blevins, you apparently view the Cooper threads as Facebook type operations where the one with the most posts and "likes" wins. That is one of the reasons you and Jo Weber account for about half of the posts on this thread. At the same time, neither of you has done anything meaningful in the Cooper matter. Blevins writes: The public generally doesn't support restrictive websites because they sense an agenda. Especially when the facts about that come out HERE...on the website recognized worldwide as the major player on Cooper. R99 replies: If what you claim is true (and it is not), then you wouldn't be so concerned about "the other Cooper site". Dream on. Robert99

Blevins writes: Robert99: I've flown from Seattle to Reno several times. Never once did any flight I was ever on (this goes back to the 70's) ever cross to the west side of the Interstate 5 freeway to get to Reno. And they didn't do it on the way down from Seattle, either. They always approach Portland from the east and don't turn west until they reach the Vancouver area. (See attached map from the FBI's website) R99 replies: Routine airline flights would follow either V-23 or V-23E between Seattle and Portland. Surely you would agree that the hijacked airliner flight between those two cities was not a routine flight. And if you read the radio transcripts while the airliner was on the ground in Seattle, you would have noted that the crew was interested in not flying over populated areas with a bomb on board. You would also have noted that the flight crew was informed that the Chief FAA Psychologist had predicted that the hijacker would blow the plane up when he parachuted from it. That is why the crew wanted to avoid populated areas. Further, you would have noted that the Seattle ATC controllers gave the hijacked flight crew carte blanche to make any changes to their flight path that they wanted to do. Blevins writes: I also saw your post about perhaps the money ended up in the Columbia. This assumes Cooper went into the Columbia, and that would have to be done in the Portland area. Even if this were true, explain to me how at least three bundles of the cash managed to end up on the banks of the Columbia miles away from that point...all in the same spot. R99 replies: Your claims are false. I have NEVER said that Cooper landed in the Columbia River! Since 2009, I have repeatedly written that in all probability Cooper landed on solid ground but very near the river water and in the Tina Bar area. This statement of yours is pure nonsense. Blevins writes: As I've explained before, unless these bundles had little strings attached to each other holding them together, this scenario is highly unlikely. One thing that Tom Kaye's research on the money shows us, it is that this money did not lay out there for nine years in the cold, wet weather of the Pacific NW before it was found. Bills not 'fanned' either, as Kaye's team discovered happened when those packets are exposed to water. Rubber bands crumbly, but still in place. This money did not float down the Columbia on 11/24/71 and end up together miles away somehow. It would have turned to complete mush in eight plus years. R99 replies: I believe everyone who has seriously looked at this matter from Ckret to the present, concluded that the Tina Bar money was not exposed to water for the entire time that it was missing. Instead, it was protected by the bank bag and/or other things. This supports the idea that Cooper landed on dry land. And that three packets were found close together supports the idea of repeatability, meaning that the money arrived at Tina Bar from a nearby location. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the theory that the money was planted at Tina Bar. All indications are that it arrived there by natural means. Blevins writes: I believe the flight path map offered at the FBI's website is accurate. Some of the added notations showing the time the flight reached a particular point may be inaccurate. But the path itself is probably accurate. You admitted yourself that they were tracking that plane and that the radar info is good. Just because they misjudged a few time entries doesn't mean the path itself is wrong...which means Flight 305 missed Tina Bar by miles on the way down from Seattle. R99 replies: Of course the Seattle ATC was tracking the hijacked airliner! That was their job. And as I have said any number of times before, the only valid flight path is the one the FBI redacted from the Seattle ATC transcripts. Your comments on the so-called FBI map are meaningless. Do you have any information that the flight path on that map even represents the hijacked airliner? How about showing some proof for once. Robert99

Jo, You are the one twisting the facts and you have been doing that since day one of your efforts to prove that Duane was Cooper. Your worst enemy on this thread is yourself. What are you getting out of this? Your claim that you are just trying to find out who Duane was is as hollow as Blevins claim that he is not trying to make money off Cooper. Robert99

Perhaps you need to verify your information with the co-pilot. He said VANCOUVER not Portland! I remember my conversations w/the co-pilot & he said Vancouver & not Portland - but again things are twisted to meet the agenda of others & not to solve this case. . . . . . DO YOU know how many times the co-pilot had made this route prior to the skyjacking? You better find out! Ask him yourself how many times he had flow that route prior to the skyjacking. I know the answer, but do you? It is very very important. Jo, But for the overcast and cloud problems I mentioned earlier, the co-pilot could see Portland/Vancouver from his seat on the right side of the aircraft. You need to look at the nose configuration of the 727. The number of times that the co-pilot had flown between Portland and Seattle is of no consequence here. But you recently claimed that the hijacked flight was his first time between those two cities. You seem to forget that he had flown that very route just a few hours earlier. And your claim of a sighting on the east side of Portland is not supported by any actual facts. Robert99

In the case of Cooper, I think it all comes down to the simple fact that he wanted some money. There is nothing in reality to support the claim that the money found at Tina Bar was planted. All indications are that the money arrived at Tina Bar by natural means and it may have been going INTO the Columbia River for the first time when it hung up at the location where it was later found. Tests on the Tina Bar money by Tom Kaye did not find any evidence of Columbia River contamination. But Tom does not consider this to be conclusive pending further testing. But the above does not preclude the money from being exposed to other water sources, such as rain fall, prior to its arrival at Tina Bar.

You have hinted previously that Cooper landed near Tina Bar and that's how the money ended up there. No use denying that. I can point you to your posts on that. This goes directly against the map the FBI still makes available on their website showing the flight path...to this very day. And as a pilot, you should know that the flight probably knew its position as it flew merrily along at 9,600 feet between Seattle and Portland. The overcast matters not. They were being tracked all along that route from the moment they left Seattle. You just said so in a recent post. How about it, Robert? Go on the record for a change instead of picking on Jo Weber. Do you believe the flight path map freely available for download at the FBI's website is an accurate rendition of the actual flight path? Yes or no? If your answer is NO...then you should explain why you are right and that map is wrong. And if your answer is NO, then explain why the FBI would continue to make that map available on their website. Maybe you know something from those transcripts that they don't know. But if you do, you haven't presented a single thing to support that. Now you are saying as well that there are no 'believable ground witness reports'. Does this mean you think the Janet Fable is a load of horse manure? If so, you should discuss this with your buddy Galen Cook at the alternate site, because he believes it intensely. He said so in that article I linked. What's the matter? Can't handle the question? Think you'll piss off Cook at the alternate site? LOL. Blevins, I see that you have now started replying to your own posts. That is a first for this thread as far as I know. I have no idea what Galen Cook thinks about the flight path or Janet or anything else. If you want to know, why don't you ask him? I am not his press agent. The rest of your baloney has already been answered. You would already know this if you actually read the posts on this thread. Robert99