Robert99

Blevins, Please note that if the stairs drop 2 or 3 feet under their own weight, then they will drop several more feet as Cooper descends the stairs. It doesn't make any difference if he faces forward, backwards, walks on his hands, or whatever. So there is no way Cooper is going out through a small opening between the stairs and tail cone. And once Cooper's weight is off those stairs, they are going to eventually go back to 2 or 3 feet after slamming into their closed position if they are opened into the airstream sufficiently for the dynamics to do that. Robert99

OK! now tell me this how much time on those damn transcripts lapsed after that initial slowing of the aircraft to get the steps down and the time they felt the bump? This is one of the last things I have to get straight in my mind and I have to mentally put myself there with the map. I know the location I was told about the sounds and the other 2 locations (none of these sitings have anything to do with anything this thread has talked about). Maybe it will not pin point down like I expect it to - but, I am bound and determined to find the location of that damn tower that was there in 1971 and was not there 1979. If I am right - then it will narrow down property records searches or names and land that had a tower in 71 and was gone in 79 and then developed prior to 2010. Lots of ground to cover - but, I am NOT sure what I am looking for - it is just something I have to do and this is my last chance. It is something I am driven to find. I find that and I can tell you where Cooper landed! He told me about the rails and you could see the tower from a long ways away - he was pointing to the N.W if I have my bearings on the rest of it right. I have never felt this close to finding closure since I started other than my trip in 2010. I don't know what you said, but you tripped a memory cord! The aircraft slowed down and the steps were partially lowered when the aircraft was about 20 nautical miles south of the Seattle airport and well north of the Mayfield Intersection near Toledo. This happened about 30 minutes (and about 100 miles) before the pressure bump and presumed jump. Robert99

Will tell why later after I can mark the flight path on the map. Hopefully it will light UP for me. Sitings, places Duane took me to, things he said, places I found, time and space. Jo, Mayfield Intersection (now known as Malay Intersection) is very close to the town of Toledo. You should be able to find that on just about any map. Robert99

I think Rataczak said: "cubits and stadia per watch" ! Its in a newspaper article in the Tea Party Bible Tomes. Writers know! I believe a better translation would be, "Writers THINK they know!".

The reason I brought up the Rataczak quote earlier was because if he really did get the 727's speed down below 170MPH, as he claims in the article, this might increase the chances of survival for the hijacker. I thought I heard that the plane was going about 195 MPH when Cooper jumped. What if it was more like 160, maybe even 150? The article is quite definite about Rataczak quoting MPH, not KIAS. I understand there are differences between KIAS, true airspeed, ground speed, etc. I suppose the base reference might be whichever of those relates most to how the parachute he used was rated in terms of a safe speed to jump. Blevins, Let me repeat once again. You need to read the radio transcripts of the chatter between the airliner and Seattle ATC. The reason for the initial slowing of the aircraft was to help Cooper get the stairs down. After that happened, the airliner climbed on up to 10,000 feet and cruised at 170 Knots Indicated Airspeed (what the pilots saw on their airspeed indicator) for the rest of the flight to Reno. So the aircraft had a speed of 195 Knots True Airspeed (or 225 MPH) at 10,000 feet level while passing through the Portland area. The 170 KIAS speed was specified by the NWA aircraft performance people in Minneapolis as being the speed for maximum range with the flap setting, landing gear down, and rear stairs popped, as specified by Cooper. This had nothing to do with the jump itself but was mandated by the configuration Cooper wanted. Robert99

Jo, Despite any stories you hear to the contrary, the airliner ALWAYS told the ATC people that they were level at 10,000 feet while they were in the Portland area. They were well north of the Mayfield Intersection on V23 when they first reached 10,000 feet. The three turbine engines would be putting out far to much noise to permit ANYONE on the ground to determine variations in the aerodynamic noise about the airframe caused by changing the position of the flaps or leading edge devices. The short answer to your question is "No". Robert99

Rataczak would not call an airspeed MPH if it was actually Knots. Since MPH is 1.15 times higher than Knots, that would be a significant difference. If Rataczak meant 170 Knots, but wanted to put it in MPH, he would say something like "about 190 MPH to 200 MPH". Or he could do the actual and mentally easy calculation and say "195 MPH". And you must remember that Knots is an International Convention mandated system for commercial aircraft airspeeds. Robert99

Author quotes Rataczak extensively, so I have to assume he actually interviewed him, probably by phone. The reason I think this quote is important is because of the alleged speed of the aircraft at the time of the jump. Did Rataczak REALLY manage to get the 727 below 170mph? Or is this just another Cooper Media Fable? Blevins, Read the radio transcripts and you will see what actually happened. The aircraft had been airborn from Seattle for less than 10 minutes and Cooper could NOT get the stairs down. So Rataczak slowed the aircraft well below 170 knots, leveled off at 7000 feet, and then Cooper was able to get the stairs moving down. You seem to feel that 170 MPH was slow for the 727. Perhaps 377 can find the minimum speed in one of his manuals for the aircraft at 7,000 feet ASL standard atmosphere, flaps at 30 degees, leading edge devices deployed, and somewhat close to maximum gross weight. The aircraft had a full load of fuel, or close to it, five passengers, and whatever cargo and luggage it had on the flight from Portland to Seattle. There is nothing mysterious about the 170 MPH figure. But the reporter in question seems to be unfamiliar with aircraft operations. Robert99

Blevins, I'll take Amazon's word at face value. If you don't believe it was a result of dredging either, just who are you trying to convince and why? Robert99

Nope... by the time it moved thru several hundred yards of pipe it would just be diffused completely and completely unrecognizable. Saturated paper subjected to those forces... Blevins, Amazon has now told you at least three times that the the dredging tests you propose are completely unnecessary. She has lived on her boat on the Columbia, including just about a quarter mile from where the money was found at Tena Bar, for many years and has been an eye witness to the results of dredging operations. When Amazon says, that based on her experience, the condition of the money found at Tena Bar indicates it did not get there by dredging, then the case is closed. What is there that you do not understand about this? Also, why are you so fixated on C-M University? Robert99

Jo, Quit trying to distract the thread! Having tea with a lot of Senior Citizens is not going to produce anything meaningful! You are a Senior Citizen and should know that! In fact, all you have to do is check the Columbia River water levels for the late 1970s to answer legitmate questions. And the water level information is online. Robert99 (also a Senior Citizen)

I think the Brits could have accomplished the same thing using only one stick of dynamite rather than a whole box of it. Robert99

Oh my God. Tell me there was a device on this seat that protected the pilot somehow from the canopy, besides his helmet. It's elementary Blevins. The overhead part of the canopy was made of a frangible material and a "spike" would be mounted on the top portion of the ejection seat so that it contacted and shattered the canopy first. By the time (a very, very small fraction of a second) the pilot got to where the canopy had been, all he had to be concerned about was all the shards from the canopy that were flying around plus the problem that caused him to eject in the first place. I am aware of quite a few ejections through the canopy that did not have any problems from that source. Robert99

377, I'll send you another PM on the above. Robert99

A C-9 would open just fine at that speed it was designed to function during high speed ejections... they do not just explode open. They open from the top down. I have laid back and watched them do that just that. Watch the canopy at 23 sec I did a whole bunch of those Or you can watch this.. I showed it to a few people over the years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvBxQC-Olyg Amazon and 377, On the NB6 canopy remark, I was referring to the 26-foot conical canopy that was apparently the original canopy for the NB6 harness/pack. As I have mentioned before, I owned one of those up to about 2 or 3 weeks prior to the NWA 305 hijacking. During the 1960s, the NB6 harness/pack with the 26-foot conical canopy was about the only parachute that would work in general aviation and sports aircraft that had cramped cockpits. Probably sometime in the late 1960s, civilian parachutes were designed by Security Parachute and other companies and came into use in general aviation to fill the need for a thin and compact parachute assembly. I owned several versions of the Security Parachutes (yes, I got burned on the Security 350 matter) plus a Butler parachute (my all time favorite). Most of my "professional engineering experience" was in the area of Vertical-Take-Off-and-Landing (VTOL) aircraft. In that connection, considerable resources were spent on developing early versions of zero-zero ejection seats. The ideal such seat would have the capability for a successful ejection at ground level and zero airspeed on up to 600 knots airspeed at ground level. Those were very difficult requirements to meet, and seldom were, in the 1960 time frame but are routinely, more or less, met today. Usually, the early zero-zero ejection seat would eject through the canopy (to save some time). Also, research was done in speeding the canopy deployment by the use of a device that would fire slugs attached to the rim of the canopy in an outward direction and thus ballistically open the canopy. Some of these parachutes also had "ribbon" canopies to reduce the inital stresses when being deployed at high speeds. Needless to say, military parachute technology has made quite a few advances in the last 50 years. In the case of civilian parachutes, the FAA defines a "Low Speed" parachute as being one for operations at 150 MPH (or maybe knots) and a "High Speed" one being for operations up to 160 MPH (or again, maybe knots). I'll send Amazon and 377 some additional information by PM related to the above subject. Amazon especially might be interested in it. Robert99

But what if he doesn't actually jump, as in freefall-then-pull jumping? 377, who is also a skydiver (I'm not, that's true) agrees with the idea of just pulling while still on the stairs. I agree with facing the rear if you actually jump. There's no doubt the stairs rebounded after they were freed of his weight. But if you pull on the stairs, if you were facing the rear, wouldn't the chute just envelope you all over from the airstream pushing against your back? On the jump location: I also said it had to be at the bottom, yes. But I still think he went down the stairs backwards. Big load, low clearance initially. Leaning over to get past 24-36 inch gap between the stairs and the bulkhead sounds pretty dangerous. This might have been a surprise for the hijacker, who may have expected full extension, or something close to it. So he turns and starts edging his way down backwards. Stairs move downward as he goes. At the end, he may have jumped as you say, or faced forward and tried it that way. I don't know. Just a theory. I personally don't recommend pulling on the stairs in the first place under the conditions Cooper was exposed to. But if you do want to pull on the stairs, facing forward is what you would do. Also, do you have an estimate of how many canopy panels (assuming an NB-6 canopy) would be blown out during an opening at 225 MPH? Robert99 I don't know. I think 377's imput, or any other experienced skydiver would be beneficial here. I thought 305 was going about 175 knots, though. That's still fast, but I think 200mph. The NWA 305 flight crew were instructed to fly at 170 Knots Indicated Airspeed since that was the speed for maximum range under the conditions that they were operating. This 170 KIAS has to be corrected (using a standard pilot's calculator) to produce the true airspeed. Under the pressure and temperature conditions the airliner was operating, 170 KIAS becomes 195 KTAS. Then converting that to MPH produces 225 MPH. Robert99

But what if he doesn't actually jump, as in freefall-then-pull jumping? 377, who is also a skydiver (I'm not, that's true) agrees with the idea of just pulling while still on the stairs. I agree with facing the rear if you actually jump. There's no doubt the stairs rebounded after they were freed of his weight. But if you pull on the stairs, if you were facing the rear, wouldn't the chute just envelope you all over from the airstream pushing against your back? On the jump location: I also said it had to be at the bottom, yes. But I still think he went down the stairs backwards. Big load, low clearance initially. Leaning over to get past 24-36 inch gap between the stairs and the bulkhead sounds pretty dangerous. This might have been a surprise for the hijacker, who may have expected full extension, or something close to it. So he turns and starts edging his way down backwards. Stairs move downward as he goes. At the end, he may have jumped as you say, or faced forward and tried it that way. I don't know. Just a theory. I personally don't recommend pulling on the stairs in the first place under the conditions Cooper was exposed to. But if you do want to pull on the stairs, facing forward is what you would do. Also, do you have an estimate of how many canopy panels (assuming an NB-6 canopy) would be blown out during an opening at 225 MPH? Robert99

Blevins, You do need to spend some quiet time on a vacation in the mountains. Cooper would have to be near the bottom of the stairs in order to have enough clearance from the tail cone to exit. The instance his weight comes off those stairs, they are going to be blown upwards and he had better be clear of the stairs or he is going to get squashed. It really doesn't make any difference which way Cooper faces going down the stairs. He is NOT going to be leaning to the rear of the aircraft if he walks down facing in that direction. But when it comes time to jump, I would strongly suggest that he face to the rear of the aircraft. He is going to be jumping into about a 225 MPH airstream that has a wind chill factor of about 35 degrees below zero. Consequently, he might prefer to have that wind at his back, rather directly into his face, when he jumps. The upper limit for opening military parachutes of that era, with a reasonable assurance that they will not shred to pieces, is also about 225 MPH. So it would be a very marginal condition to pull the rip cord at that speed. If Cooper did pull the rip cord while on the stairs as you recommend, the instance those four rip cord pins move a couple of inches means that he is committed. He simply does not have the ability to "... see the chute open before committing your life to the thing". Cooper sure as hell couldn't hang onto the stairs with an inflated canopy. Robert99

377, Agreed. This almost certainly means that the pressure bump was the point where Cooper jumped. Further, the FBI 727 sled tests reportedly (by the members of the 305 flight crew) matched the pressure bump when the sled slid off the end of the stairs. So it seems to be reasonable to assume that Cooper jumped from the last step of the stairs. This would also give him the most head room with the stairs down as far as his weight could get them. Robert99

You are asking me What Questions did the money find at Tena Bar answer? Been discussed before, but here is the answer to that one: 1. I knew the money did not arrive on that beach - prior to Sept of 1979.... One part of my story I have told and made enquiries about, but no one has an answer for me. I do not know how to contact the Fazio's to get an answer to this question. It was hard to take things in and ask questions with the media there in 2001. I need to know if there was ever a shed on the river side along the tree line and on the beach side of the fence. Need to find out if there are any pictures of a shed ever being there at anytime between 1950 and 1978. This is important! Jo, Take a look at the aerial pictures on Sluggo's web page which were made of Tena Bar in the 1970s. Robert99

That statement was FIRST made by SAFECRACK! Seems like A LOT of people suddenly realized this, but ONLY one answer has ever really explained how the money arrived in a bundle in one place - ONLY ONE! Had the money have been in the water for 8 yrs - it would have fanned OUT! Jo, So you're still playing that record? Okay. First, what questions did the money find at Tena Bar raise? Second, what questions did the money find at Tena Bar answer? Can you give specific answers to the above? I don't remember seeing any such answers from you, Blevins, or other such luminaries. Would Duane be cited today if he threw trash into the Columbia River? Robert99

Problem: That only applies if you believe the FBI's assessment of the Amboy chute is accurate. I have raised reasonably legit questions about that. Ever asked yourself why the Seattle FBI didn't let the Citizen Sleuths have a look? Or if why alleged 'outside experts' (besides Cossey) were allowed to look, why none of them were made public, or even any exact findings on it? You know, like 'we found out it was a cargo chute'. Or 'it really was made of silk as Cossey said, and not nylon'. But there is nothing. Blevins, Something seems to be getting lost in the translation here. Although the FBI may not be following your orders, there is nothing to support your idea that the Amboy parachute is related to the Cooper hijacking. If the Amboy parachute was Cooper's, you have got a problem. If the Amboy parachute was not Cooper's, you have still got the same problem. That problem is how the money got from Amboy to Tena Bar. It couldn't make that trip by natural means. In my opinion, this rules out the possibility of the parachute being Cooper's. Read Georger's posts on this subject during the last couple of weeks. Basically, the Palmer report rules out the possibility of the money being buried by anything other than natural means due to the consistency of the sand layers. And you should read and heed Tom Kaye's remarks on the subject. You and Jo Weber have a number of things in common. You both think you can do a better job than the FBI in investigating matters. And you both think you have an explanation (in Jo's case) or possible explanation (in your case) of how the money floated down the Columbia from somewhere and magically ended up at Tena Bar several feet above the normal high tide level. Dream on. Robert99

Well, I don't have any real explanations on how the money arrived at Tena Bar. Someone buried it, it washed up somehow, it was dredged there. I just have no definitive idea. Theories, yes. But that's all they are, and they are not supported by proof. Frankly, there are too many unknowns. I proposed that if the Amboy chute was really Cooper's, then this could narrow possibilities. Some folks said they believe the FBI's explanation and that this idea is a non-starter. (that the chute could be from the hijacking) Okay. I remind people that about 18 months ago they also forwarded Marla Cooper as a 'viable witness' with little or no evidence to demonstrate that. And since that time, Marla has withdrawn a portion of her initial claims. I got that last bit from speaking to the folks at KickAss Oregon History. I didn't say that to somehow 'discredit' Marla, (although it's true I don't believe her version of events) but to show the FBI hasn't always been right in the Cooper case. Inline imaging: Still couldn't figure it out. Is this code inserted into the text of the post? Sounds easy. I'm probably missing something. Blevins, Your first sentence above says it all. While you offer several possibilities, there are others. And again, even if the Amboy parachute is Cooper's, it doesn't explain how the money got to Tena Bar. As stated last week, the Amboy parachute actually eliminates the possibility of a connection between it and the money. Robert99

That was Jo Weber doing some of her pontifications. Jo, Is your resignation also effective on February 28th? Robert99

Blevins, Your post had exactly nothing to do with my question to Jo about some of her claims. You just reposted things that you had proposed about a week ago and which didn't make it very far up the chain of possible explanations. Robert99