Robert99

Blevins, Have you even bothered to read Soderlind's write-up on the radar accuracies he used in coming up with the original jump location? If you have, then why don't you list them here as well as specify the location site of the radar that produced his data? I am not your nursemaid and I am not going to do your homework for you. Nor am I interested in being your "pen pal". I am fortunate enough to have "pen pals" who do know what they are talking about and I had rather talk to them. Robert99

Well, I'll bet they were at least REASONABLY accurate. Otherwise the 1970's would be historical for all the mid-air collisions of commercial aircraft, especially between Seattle and Portland. You could make a nice living just scrapping out all that wreckage along the I-5 corridor. Now you're trying to blame crappy radar for the reason you put Flight 305 on the west side of the freeway north of Portland - and by several miles. Unproven. I want to see something solid that actually proves, or calls into serious question with evidence, that all those people were wrong on where 305 was between SeaTac and PDX. Paul Soderlind (and his team at NWA) weren't exactly slouches at their jobs. And they had time on the ground to plan the tracking of 305, since Cooper was delayed at SeaTac a couple of hours. Excerpt from Soderlind's obituary: ***'Soderlind retired in 1973. He later became a consultant for Boeing, Embry-Riddle, the U.S. Air Force and the Federal Aviation Administration, among others. In 1997, he was inducted into the Minnesota Aviation Hall of Fame and was the first to get the FAA Citation and Gold Medal for Extraordinary Service to Aviation Safety...' He was also a pilot for NWA, and pretty much the greatest employee the airline ever had. There's even a scholarship program in his name. I think I mentioned he was a real smart guy. And if his team says Flight 305 was here or there (they had a great hand in the creation of the FBI's flight map) I will believe he and his results rather than yours, unless you can prove otherwise. Blevins, As people have pointed out to you repeatedly, you need to actually read the posts before replying to them. Paul Soderlind and NWA people are reportedly the very ones who prepared the initial jump area estimate, and they included a write-up which discussed the accuracy of range and azimuth radar data. You should read their write-up. And if you ever do read it, the accuracy might come as a surprise to you. But I am sure that you can waffle a bit on that point. In the early 1970s, the basic goal of ATC radar operators was to keep the radar returns from merging. This was a "relative" position control rather than an "absolute" position control. If you are interested in learning anything about aviation, you should go to the FAA's web page and get copies of some of their publications, some of which can be downloaded without charge. Admittedly, this would reduce your time for monitoring and pontificating about ever post on this thread and working on your next "authoritative" book on whatever it is you are writing about. You are the leading expert on just about everything aren't you? Robert99

Hope I am not misquoting who said what, but would you please explain the statement above...and also answer this question. Did the VOR located West of Battleground and off of NE 112 Av have anything to do with calculating the plane's position? I ask this because Duane took me to that VOR and mentioned THE GUYS working there - he also mention a small air strip North of there. That airstip is N.W. of Battleground and on that same Road. Jo, Radar positions were not as accurate in the early 1970s as you apparently believe. The write-up with the original predicted jump area discusses those accuracies. The only VOR in the Portland area that defines V-23 is the Battleground VORTAC. In 1971, the Battleground VORTAC was known as the Portland VORTAC and located in exactly the same geographical position. The FAA just changed the name, everything else about it stayed the same. Robert99

Jo, Please define "apology" for me. As I remember it, just a few weeks ago you called me a name and then claimed it was all my fault that you did so. Robert99

The placard is a known factor, and indicates the flight path at that point very well. The money found at Tena Bar, not necessarily so, because no one can say how it arrived there. The idea that Flight 305 was several miles EAST of Tena Bar is the established flight path, (not 'my theory' lol) so it is YOU who are venturing the theory. And your theory goes against what was plotted by the FBI, Paul Soderlind and his team at NWA, and the available radar data. Although you keep denying it, you are determined to move the flight to the west side of the Interstate 5 freeway in your attempt to explain the money at Tena Bar. Problem: You don't have any proof, or at least enough to go against the official flight path established decades ago by the people and items I listed above. Blevins, Since I am the one who did the calculations concerning the point where the placard separated from the airliner, I feel that I probably know as much as you about what it means. First, my point was to do a "conservative" estimate of the separation point. That is, the distance calculated was the "minimum" that the airliner would have been from the location where the placard was found at the time they separated. A number of estimates were required for this calculation and the "minimum" distance calculated was two or three nautical miles west of the centerline of V-23. The "actual" distance could have been greater. And if it was greater, it would undermine your own theory even more. Second, the FBI map of the first predicted jump area included a several page discussion of radar accuracies with respect to both range and azimuth from the radar site. So where was the radar located that was used in the preparation of that predicted jump area? Surely you wouldn't place your total faith in something that important without knowing the facts. Third, the positions and times on the FBI flight map have been discussed to death on this thread several times already. Did the airliner really fly three nautical miles in one 60 second period, then fly six nautical miles in the next 60 second period while maintaining the same airspeed? If so, the laws of physics as understood for centuries previously will have to be re-written. Fourth, no pilot would fly the segmented circle around the west side of Portland as indicated on the FBI map. Fifth, what do those four red "x" marks on the southwest side of Portland mean? Is the fact that a direct line between those marks and the Mayfield/Malay Intersection passes over Tena Bar purely coincidental? Sixth, why did the chase aircraft, including Himmelsbach in his helicopter, head for the southwest side of Portland when they were trying to intercept the airliner? Finally, if the "official flight path" you claim to believe is so accurate, why hasn't Cooper been found in the last 42 years? Robert99

if you are saying it was a no pull. it's would be attached to him for a period of time I would say? if he landed in the river...where is the body? welcome to the form...... Yes, welcome. River landing? Maybe. One point I've brought up about it is if you calculate the total amount of possible water landing against landing on ground, the chances are far greater he came to the ground. There's just a lot more dirt and rock between Seattle and Portland than lakes and rivers. It's strictly an 'odds' thing, and completely non-scientific.

Following is a preliminary explanation of the information Blevins has posted as being in KC DD214. KC was born in Morris, MN or enlisted while living there, maybe both. He was born 17 Oct 26, enlisted 25 May 44, entered on active duty on 18 Dec 44. His Army serial number was 17 141 033 and appears to be a Regular Army serial number. From this, it appears that KC joined the Army in May 44 with a delayed entry for active duty. He was 17 years old at the time he joined and went on active duty after his 18th birthday. One of the advantages of early enlistment is that you are no longer subject to the draft. So about the day he graduated from High School (and probably became eligible for the draft the same day) he joined the Army with a delayed entry onto active duty. KC departed from the Continental US on 15 Aug 45, about a week after the second Atomic Bomb had been dropped, and arrived in the APTO (probably Asiatic Pacific Theater of Operations) on 7 Sep 45. This does not necessarily mean that KC arrived in Japan on that date. However, at some point KC did make it to Japan. The surrender documents ending WW2 with Japan had been signed on 2 Sep 45 onboard the battleship Missouri which was anchored in Tokyo Bay. On 13 Sep 46 KC headed back to the US and arrived on 26 Sep 46. This last date is probably the date of his arrival on the west coast. No date is given for KC leaving the Army. During his Army service, KC earned the Parachutist's Badge and qualified as a marksman with the M-1 rifle. He received several medals and ribbons including the Good Conduct Medal. As a minimum, this means he stayed out of trouble and/or was discreet. KC was discharged for the Convenience of the Government under AR 615-365. The information following the AR number is probably supplemental information for implementing the AR. Basically, it appears that KC was discharged as a part of the postwar downsizing of the Army and that he was not interested in making the Army a career. The $300 listed was a mustering out payment and not part of his regular pay. The $73 would be to cover travel expenses back to his enlistment point (Morris, MN?) from wherever he was discharged (Fort Sheridan, IL?). The "T/5" means that KC was in a technical field but that field is not mentioned. The exact meaning of the "5" is not clear but should not be automatically assumed to be equivalent to E-5 as used in the modern army. Robert99

Blevins, You addressed the above comments to Bruce Smith. You berate Bruce for not providing "proof" about some of his comments and you have threatened him with legal action if he didn't make some changes to his book. So, just for the hell of it, where is your proof that KC was NOT HIV positive? Just list the original sources for your allegations. Now an "Economics" question. What is the cash value of your KC book and the related media rights of a gay KC story, versus the cash value of your KC book and the related media rights of a gay KC who also messed around with young boys story? Is there a difference in those values? Do you have "proof" that your belated efforts to polish KC's reputation is not just an effort to protect your own financial interests in your KC book and its media rights? Just follow the money. Robert99

Rather than repeat Jo's whole post, let me simply say again that Georger is right. It would be folly for the Fazio's to build a house between their farm buildings, which are clearly visible in the aerial photographs, and the river beach. That soil is extremely sandy and any building there is going to have a very short life span. There does appear to be a residence on the east side of the farm buildings. It backs up to a hayfield. But I have no idea who, if anyone, lived in that building. In addition, even a shed for boat equipment along the Tena Bar beach would be unlikely. There is a marina just a few hundred feet upstream of Tena Bar (I believe Amazon kept her boat there for several years) between the mainland and Caterpillar Island. And there appears to have been a small marina about three-quarters of a mile downstream of Tena Bar at one point. But boats or anything related to them being in the immediate area of Tena Bar for lengthy periods of time is very unlikely. The enormous erosion problem at Tena Bar is shown in pictures and discussed by Tom Kaye on his web page. Robert99

Blevins, To the best of my memory, a parachute was NOT required for doing acrobatic flying in the early 1970s EXCEPT in certain situations. If you were flying your own plane solo and not-for-profit, then no parachute was required. If you were carrying paying passengers and doing acrobatics, then a parachute was required for each person on board. Generally speaking for sports aviation, if you were interested in staying alive, then a parachute was a very good idea. If not, then no need for one. For sports contests with airplanes, the organizer usually required a parachute. Robert99 Why don't you call Hayden and ask him yourself? He has an ongoing business in Kent, WA and freely answers questions if you are nice. He is not hard to find. First you say chutes weren't required. Then you say if people wanted to stay alive, or it was required by an organizer, they would wear them. Well, maybe Hayden wanted to stay alive. He said he was told (we're talking late 60's here) he had to get chutes. Ask HIM. It's verification of the source. Why would you take my word alone on it anyway? Blevins, the comments in posts just above cover the situation I was talking about. Hayden was your source, or was he Bruce's source? You said Hayden didn't want to wear a parachute in your original post. Then you suggest just above that maybe Hayden did want to wear a parachute. Your efforts to be on both sides of the same question at the same time are remarkable. Is that good research? Georger is right. Robert99

Blevins, To the best of my memory, a parachute was NOT required for doing acrobatic flying in the early 1970s EXCEPT in certain situations. If you were flying your own plane solo and not-for-profit, then no parachute was required. If you were carrying paying passengers and doing acrobatics, then a parachute was required for each person on board. Generally speaking for sports aviation, if you were interested in staying alive, then a parachute was a very good idea. If not, then no need for one. For sports contests with airplanes, the organizer usually required a parachute. Robert99

Blevins, Have YOU researched anything that will appear in your upcoming book? Or, are you just copying posts from this thread? Citing your own post as "research" will not get the job done. Robert99

Tom Kaye's web page has a picture and discussion of a bundle of the 20s that had "fanned out" due to an apparent "torque" applied by water flow. That particular bundle had only one rubber band (and it was on the left end of the bundle) when found. It could have started out with two or more rubber bands, but only one was present during the "fanning" out process. Robert99

Smokin, Thanks for the interest. I've been on a trip in an easterly direction and just got back a few days ago. I am going to deliberately post less here in the immediate future but will continue to work on some things that are related, in one manner or another, to the Cooper case. And the Cooper case is not the center of my life. Robert99

Every statistical analysis that I could find in the literature that had any chance of producing meaningful information has already been applied. Some progress has been made using a statistical approach, but there does not seem to be any chance for further progress that way. Basically, determining some segments of a possible series of algorithms seems to be the only route to a solution. I am absolutely sure that a single algorithm will not solve the problem. There are several short sets of data. They are, or will be found to be (I'm sure), statistically independent but, nevertheless, related. Don't ask me to explain that further at this point. But to repeat, algorithms seem to be the only possible way of making further progress. I would prefer that any further discussion of this be both off DZ.com and privately. Also, I won't have time to pursue this matter further until about mid-September. Robert99

I never said I didn't accept Ckret's statement. I made an argument of logic. It is interesting that Gray's book doesn't mention the randomizing of the money bundles. That information would have been bookworthy. Gray had access to the FBI files, he was monitoring the DZ message board and in contact with Ckret aka Carr. Maybe someone should email Gray. If portions of bills were actually found 3 feet deep in the sand as well as close to the surface (as the Ingram money was), it would by itself eliminate the Washougal wash down theory as a possibility. It would mean that the deposition of the money at Tena Bar was a "repeatable" action and that the money had landed close by and remained there for quite a while, meaning long enough for three feet of sand to be deposited over the first bills that moved toward the river. Also, portions of the bills buried 3 feet down would eliminate Duane Weber as a possible Cooper candidate. When last seen by Jo Cooper during their visit to Tena Bar in late 1979, Duane was supposedly carrying some of the money which he intended to bury. However, Duane did not have a shovel. Duane Weber does not appear to be the type of person who would dig a hole 3 feet deep and deposit some money in it, all with the hope that somebody would discover the money at some unspecified later date. So unless this post has triggered Jo's memory, a distinct possibility, and she now remembers that he was also carrying a shovel, the reported connection of Jo and Duane Weber with Tena Bar is nonsense. Robert99

Jo, Let's just drop the subject. Robert99

These GUYS need a little help with their history!

The possibility of finding any more bills or money fragments is probably zero. The story of deeply buried fragments and other fragments floating in the river itself, has been around for quite a while but nobody seems to have any proof for that claim. If some of the fragments were up to three feet deep in the sand, it would imply that Cooper cratered on dry land, that the money bag was in the area of the later money find for a significant period of time, and that the money deposition was a "repeatable" action. The original location of the money find site was just below the tree line and it is my understanding that the present horizontal location of the money find site is a few feet into the river itself. That is, it is now under water. Also, the vertical location of the money find was a few feet above the water level. The river bank has undergone plenty of erosion and basically the soil comprising and adjacent to the money find location has gone downstream. And it is in the realm of possibility that Cooper went with it. Robert99

Amazon, Do you know the date that the marina between Caterpillar Island and the Washington Shore was constructed? The channel in which the marina is located was listed as a "mud flat" on relatively recent US topographical maps. Nevertheless, I have recently seen boats in that marina that probably had 4 or 5 foot drafts. To me, that suggests that the channel had been dredged and probably in connection with the construction of the marina. Georger, as I understand his post, is saying that there is/was a "dead water" area just north of Caterpillar Island in the Tena Bar area. This would certainly be true if the marina channel was a mud flat with little water passing through it. If the channel has been dredged to permit water to flow through it during normal river levels, which are about 5 to 7 feet above sea level, then the "dead water" area that Georger suggests would probably be quite small or maybe even eliminated. The addition of a relatively fast flowing area of water along the shore of Tena Bar would probably significantly reduce the accumulation of debris on Tena Bar. It should also be noted that the Columbia River downstream of Portland is not a raging torrent. It descends only about one foot per 15 or 20 miles of river length. In contrast, the Mississippi River between Minneapolis and the Gulf of Mexico descends about one foot per mile of river length. Robert99

Yes. Two of them in fact. One of Garrett's most capable detectors (and one of the most expensive) plus a "pinpointer" instrument for restricted spaces. Robert99

If he bounced near Tena Bar wouldn't his remains/rig have been discovered? Are you suggesting he splashed in the river? 377 That would seem logical. I doubt that he went into the river, but I do think he landed very close to the water. If he did splash, I think the odds are that he and everything with him would have stayed intact and kept going downstream. For the first few minutes in the water, Cooper would probably have had sufficient buoyancy to stay on the water's surface even if dead. Maybe Cooper came from a short distance upstream to Tena Bar, but it would take quite a while for the money bag to deteriorate to the point that the money could separate in a relatively benign manner as it apparently did. The construction activities for the Flushing Channel are a big unknown here. Those activities, along with the construction of the marina where Amazon kept her boat, are possible game changers. But as far as we could tell, Meyer Louie and I didn't get within two or three feet (the approximate limit of our equipment) of the parachute hardware (which is what we were actually looking for) that was with Cooper during our recent visit to Tena Bar. Robert99

Earlier is better in this case. The money would have to be out of the bag for this to happen in my opinion. And, of course, an early date of arrival at Tena Bar supports Tom Kaye's conclusions. I consider Georger's Hypothesis to have now been proven and will not question it further. Robert99 in your opinion, based his study, is it your opinion that the money was planted? or not? A simple question, remember its only your opinion and it is not to be attacked. You are entitled to have one without me being mean to you. so, yes it was planted, or no it was not The money was not planted. Robert99 Now I know that you can form an opinion and answer questions. I will always answer your questions and treat you with respect whether we agree or not. That's the most important thing to me. There will be times that I will not know but I'll do my best to find out gc148 Thanks.

I'm sure we both would like to see some real test flow data! Can your Russian probability modeler handle problems with only non-numeric (alphabetical) data? Robert99Quote what do you mean? what type of alphabetic data? You mean like the probabiity of occurrence of protein types? Numbers have to enter the picture somewhere? The problem is there are no numbers involved, it is purely alphabetical data that has been massaged at least once and probably more. Some of the massaging is evident and some is not. So there are a number of steps that must still take place to come up with anything useful. The problem is about one step short of voodoo. Robert99

What can I take to make the required mental adjustments Robert? What did you take to write the above? I am OK with the Sluggo flight path and its many subsequent variants and derivatives that differ insignificantly. It's the Tena Bar money that drives me nuts. I can't figure it out. It's an itch I can't scratch. What's your theory about the money find? 377 I can't remember what I took, but I have now had a nap and it has worn off. In my opinion, Cooper bounced very close to where the money was found. The fact that three bundles were found together suggests the possibility of them arriving at almost the same time or at very slightly different times. Either way, that suggests that the money bag was in that immediate area for at least a brief period of time so that such things as water (no problem with the cows here) running off the Fazio's property could move the three money bundles past the tree line toward the river. Robert99