Robert99

BK, There will be more on the flight path but nothing to support your idea of a "fake wind crab". And nothing at all on Janet's location, or Janet herself, since I am not interested in writing humor or fiction, or both. Just remember that I am one of the few people on this thread that has passed psychological evaluations which were necessary to participate in various endeavors. As a result of that and other things, I do have a low tolerance for BS.

Perhaps my actions were also suspicious to some that Thanksgiving weekend. I got off an airliner on the evening of November 24, 1971, rented a car, drove across a good size river, and didn't come back until the following Sunday afternoon. But I wasn't the hijacker. In fact, the hijacking had already taken place before I got on the ground. Also, I was in the midwest and was headed to a family gathering for Thanksgiving.

Well, I'm sitting at the dining table with Helen Jones and her daughter for ten hours on a Saturday. I asked them sort of casually about KC's complexion. The mother pipes up with 'he was really tanned' and the daughter says 'olive'. I was surprised to say the least. I'm not focusing on the descriptions TOO much. I mean if Kenny was blond haired and six foot six, I would. You can gather all the descriptions you want, and all the circumstantial evidence you wish, but in the end it comes down to a direct witness. Ever watch those cop shows and the detective will say, 'Someone out there knows SOMETHING...' It's kind of like that. In this case it's Geestman, for the most part, and Jones, and a few others. In order to really discover the truth one way or another on KC, these people must be questioned by the Seattle FBI, IMHO. Sometimes things are just as simple as they appear. One example is this: Bernie and Margaret Geestman, in their first interviews regarding KC and the hijacking, immediately began pointing to each other as being involved in the hijacking. WTF is that, I thought. No kidding. They lived 350 miles apart and hadn't had contact with each other in almost 15 years. Margie did not have a phone on her ranch in Twisp, either. Or a cell. I had to buy her one so History Channel could speak to her. In any case, I definitely hit a nerve with those two, and that was way back in the beginning of the investigation on KC. Something was up with these two. Then when the other things began to come out...Bernie's sister ID'ing the tie tac and saying she thought Kenny was the guy all along, the loan, the house, missing over the time of the crime, etc. well, you can see where this is going. Sticking to the complexion matter, were KC's ancestors from Scandinavia? Do Eskimos have sun tans or is it genetic?

Blevins, Just one comment about the "dark suntan" that was supposedly acquired hanging out at the beach in Japan during layovers. In that day and age, suntans were basically a summer thing. They had a tendency to disappear during the fall and winter. If KC flew the northern NWA routes, which seems likely, he probably didn't have much opportunity to work on that suntan during the fall and winter due to shorter days (less sunshine) and, I understand, Japan gets quite chilly during the fall and winter (at least in the areas that NWA would be serving). In addition, I think most people can distinguish between a "suntan" and an "olive" complexion.

Mr. Blevins, That is an excellent observation. However, I strongly suspect that some people here only desire to sell books. You have claimed numerous times that the first two editions of "Blast" almost drove Adventure Books into bankruptcy. But I bet you have already started thinking about a fourth edition.

OK. If my object was to fly an airplane on a special path, but make the record read differently, how could I do it? The method would have to be hidden in plain (plane (;#)) sight. Could I claim a really non-existent West to East wind that I had to compensate for by faking a crab and actually flying West? Then, with the wind supposedly blowing me back East, my fake flight record would show me 15 miles East of my now covert real flight path over the pipeline where I want to be. (Winds blow differently at different altitudes as I understand it, like the jet stream which pilots often use to their advantage. Not a wind expert.) When they search for the jumper they will be looking in the wrong place and he can escape easily. Hence, the big to-do thing to silence Janet. Plug the leak!! How's that? Don't want to lose this point, as it is extremely critical to how things were done, and it exposes involvement by others. (By definition that makes a conspiracy) That alarm term alone makes the story a, "Don't Touch This One, Story!" Now Mr. Blevins will probably scream idiot at me again, as we are getting down to basic building blocks of the real story. You'd think he would grab hold of this enlightening information and tie it to KC somehow. He knows I'm for real and he's supposed to to silence me, rather than help seek out information. THAT is a FACT and he proves it himself, day after day. Nothing personal. I understand. It's business. BK, Just take the rest of the day off and get plenty of sleep tonight. Maybe the world will look differently tomorrow.

Dumb question here (for once): Would cross winds being mis-stated cover for a crab right to a real position 15 miles west of the stated position? Ie., could the wind discrepancy cover the position shift undercover? Would that explain how the plane got West of Portland while still seeming to be East (or directly over)? Just askin'. I think maybe so. huh? Something going on here. Perhaps the Bohen report is correct and the other report was fudged? Naw, that would never happen, would it? Also seems to me that this particular plane had special new gear that the rest of the airliners had not been upgraded to yet. Kinda foggy, but I remember a discussion about new radios, extra radios, something. It was more advanced than the average goose? It could be vectored by the Pilot rather than the navigator plotting a course? A reported side wind would justify a flight crab correction while maintaining vectoring beacon signals? Naw, that would never happen. You'd have to be a damned skilled pilot to do that! BK, Could you restate the above in some manner so that people can understand what in the hell you are talking about?

Presumably, Bohan was on V-23 East, as opposed to the V-23 that the NWA airliner was on, and tracking inbound on radial 345 to what was then the PDX VORTAC. This means that his ground track was 165 degrees magnetic. Bohan also states that the supposed 80 Knot wind was from 166 degrees (presumably magnetic) and right on his nose. No known calculation error, either simple or complicated, could result in over estimating the wind velocity at 14,000 feet by a factor of more than two and missing the wind direction by about 45 to 60 degrees. With a ground track inbound direct on the 345 radial, Bohan could read the ground speed directly from his DME. Since he said the wind was right on his nose, he would not have to bother with determining a crab, or wind correction, angle. Thus all he would have to do is calculate his true air speed and substract the ground speed from that to get the headwind speed. To calculate the true air speed, Bohan would have to use the indicated air speed, available by looking at the airspeed instrument, his altitude, available by looking at the altimeter, and the ambient outside temperature. How ever the outside temperature was measured on Bohan's aircraft, it would have to be corrected by one means or another for temperature rise. This corrected value is going to be lower than the one showing on the temperature gage. The airliner had two airspeed indicators and altimeters that operate on separate pitot-static systems and are otherwise totally independent. If the flight instruments were in error, the crew should have noticed a difference between the instruments. In addition, the crew had two independent DMEs and should have noticed any discrepancy between those instruments. Consequently, in all probability, there were no malfunctioning flight instruments or electronics on Bohan's aircraft. Airline aircraft instruments and electronics must be maintained to provide accurate readings within a rather narrow range. In addition, the outside air temperature reading would have to be vastly over estimated to make a significant difference in the computed true airspeed (over estimating the temperature would indicate a higher airspeed). Under estimating the outside air temperature would reduce the computed true airspeed. In summary, there seems to be no way that a mechanical error or calculation error could result in the wind speed and direction that Bohan reported. Maybe Mrs. Bohan will provide Bruce Smith with some information that will shed some light on Bohan's claims.

This is what I was talking about earlier. You guys changed something that moved the flight pattern. This is what I was referencing - the name change. I do NOT know if you guys VERIFIED exactly what the pilot was using - if his map had the old designation. Why would I have been told by the man in the cockpit they few EAST of PDX between Vancouver and Cames and then toward Gresham along I-5. Did the co-pilot NOT know where he was? Did that happen? I was told or read the co-pilot had not flew this route before - if my memory serves me correctly this was his 1st flight in that area. I do not mind being corrected on this - because I did not record the conversation and this was several yrs ago - 2003 /2004 I believe. I did log the conversation...buried and in storage. I have heard other versions of the co-pilots story told by reporters and others. Do not know that any of them actually spoke to the co-pilot. Would feel much better if on a TV program or radio program (out of the past) we could get something right out of the co-pilots mouth. Not after yrs and stress have tampered with his memory. I have been doing this for only 16 yrs and the co-pilot had to deal with it for 40 yrs as have the others. The technical stuff is way over my head, but I try. Jo, You are trying to make spaghetti, or whatever, out of simple radio navigation. If the Co-pilot didn't know how to navigate, then he would not have been a Co-pilot. Note that the Captain knew how to navigage and so did the Flight Engineer. The Flight Engineer had three stripes on his sleeve which meant that he was rated as a Co-pilot on some NWA aircraft even though he was actually acting as the Flight Engineer on this particular flight. There have been some changes to V-23 between Seattle and Portland in the 40 years since the hi-jacking but nothing that will explain what you are claiming. In an effort to clear up some of your confusion about the flight path, meaning essentially V-23, I will work up a post explaining some of those changes. But I am sure that you will never accept a flight path that doesn't pass on the east side of Portland. You would probably prefer a flight path that passed east of Pendleton, right?

Jo, What is now known as the Battleground (BTG) VORTAC was built years before the hijacking. On the date of the hijacking (November 24, 1971) that very same VORTAC was known as the Portland (PDX) VORTAC. Some time after the hijacking, the name was changed from PDX to BTG but the location, radio frequencies, and other matters stayed the same. Duane didn't have anything to do with either the PDX or BTG VORTACS.

Engine placement and thefact that there was only a 1/4 moon that night leads me to believe that is not really DB Cooper And they apparently didn't know that a 727 has three engines. This is just a continuation of the Great Cooper Ripoff.

Jo, I have written some articles, which Sluggo has on his web page, about why the times on the "FBI maps" are not valid. Sluggo didn't argue with me about any of those conclusions. There were no "sightings" of the airliner as it passed through the Portland area. As has been repeatedly pointed out over the past several years by others as well as myself, the airliner was above an overcast and several cloud layers when it passed through the Portland area. The people on the airliner could not see the ground. And vice-versa, the people on the ground could not see the airliner. The Janet story, and other such claims, are nonsense.

They stated they used another map - when Sluggo was there. 1972 - what this map showed was the name of a designation that was the same as the one on the old maps. It was a map marking designation...but showed this to be further N or S than then old map. They used this to alter the projected flight path making it go West of Portland instead of EAST of Portland. This new flight path map they created then put the flight West of Portland. WRONG!. It also caused the flight path itself to shift. Shift it back like the map used by the Pilots and it puts the plane East of Vancover and over if NOT East of Troutdale Air Strip. Jo, Here we go again! The map I mentioned above, or the Jeppesen version of it, is the map that the flight crew used between Portland and Seattle that afternoon and the one they used on the flight south that evening. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about this. It was MANDATORY that the flight crew use that map because they were flying under IFR conditions. When the airliner turned at Mayfield Intersection (now Malay Intersection) to track directly to the PDX VORTAC (now known as the BTG VORTAC) they were already well west of Portland. For them to fly around Portland on the east side simply does not make sense. It would have added about 15 miles to their flight path and they could not have been at a point they stated they were at south of Portland at the stated time if they had gone east of Portland. In the radio transcripts while on the ground in Seattle, the crew discussed the maps and approach plates they had asked Al Lee to get for them. The navigational and approach information they were provided, in the same box with the meals Cooper had requested, was all FAA approved information and supplemental to the maps and approach plates they already had on the airliner. Since the airliner was above an overcast as it passed through the Portland area, the flight crew could not see the ground to navigate visually. So they used exactly the same map, or its Jeppesen equivalent, that is now posted on Sluggo's web page. There is no way to get around the above. The airliner was NEVER east of Portland!

Jo, Calm down. A copy of the 1971 Low Altitude IFR Chart effective the day of the hijacking can be viewed on Sluggo's web page. The NWA flight crew was probably using the Jeppesen version of this chart.

That is correct. Weather radar for general aviation is now much better, and if I understand correctly, weather radar information from the National Weather Service can now be displayed on the instruments of even bottom-of-the-line general aviation aircraft that have "glass cockpits". The main concern is what lies ahead of you. If you can't see some distance ahead visually or by means of radar, you don't know what you are getting into. You need to truly understand aviation weather, and not just what the weatherman told you, and avoid areas of convection that could lead to such things as thunderstorms. Of course, it goes without saying that flying into embedded thunderstorms is an absolute no-no.

I'm not in a position to interview people who have claimed to witness bad weather, so I'm doing what I can. If anyone is ever able to interview a "witness" I would hope the interviewer would know what the questions should be and how to evaluate the answers. I would be hoping to understand why their stories conflict with authoritive data. I doubt that any of the witnesses will have any specific info, so how do you evaluate vague claims? Personal perception is part of this. I'm not presuming any of the "witnesses" are idiots or liars. I'm not thinking about witnesses in general. I'm thinking about "witnesses" who have apparently said they were out FLYING in terrible weather that night. How would such a person recognize this terrible weather in the dark if they've not flown at least a few times in moderate weather during the day? How would a person distinguish terrible weather from a little rain while in the dark with a big fan beating the little rain down against the windows and fuselage unless the person had been in that situation at least a few times? The discussion about bad weather during the hijacking has been around a long time. It is complicated because there have been claims that are not consistent with our limited data from a trusted govt source. We are not complicating it. It is complicated and I am trying to deal with it. What discussion there has been of this is simply because I asked for it. I'm trying to do what analysis can be done regarding the weather that night. I would like us to do what we can about that weather rather than flitting from topic to topic without ever settling anything. There are multiple discussions going on here. I participate in some and skip others. If you have some topic you want to address, go ahead and do it. If I think I have anything to contribute I'll be happy to. Just to set the record straight, Georger's statement "That would be the normal approach vs sitting here and just presuming Dona and the others are idiots or liars (as Robert99 contended), . . . " is just more of G.'s nonsense. I haven't "called" or "presumed" anyone to be an idiot or liar in this weather matter.

Then when you first started what was all of the TTY talk about on your part? I thought you said you were deaf? I will go back and read those emails (maybe). JT told me you were deaf - totally deaf. We discussed a conference call and you used TTY (you said) and would need that? This is what I recall. I told you I could use a facility I have which gives the deaf the ability type and have their words become audio ... what was that all about!? You and JT brought it up! I didnt invent this! I just read my mail. I apologize if I somehow made a mistake. My credentials are not in the area of psychiatry per se but in ed-psych measurement. I was an evaluator and test designer working for the govt. Go back and read the thread, Robert99. Its all there. I am not "stone deaf" or "totally deaf" and have not made such a statement to anyone, but I do have a hearing problem in the critical frequencies for human speech. Consequently, the use of voice phones does not work for me.

Coming from someone who is stone deaf, as you are, that is an interesting comment. Paranoia is associated with your condition. You havent been the same since JT made his sick comment about your ears, in retaliation to your simply showing your expertise. It was the only thing JT could muster for a defense. But then, you attacked Jo Weber of all people over 'credentials'? I knew right there the dynamics of things had changed in your mind, and that is a shame. That you would call anyone paranoid here 'is' a little paranoid, dont you think? I think the better more intelligent approach would be to recognise there are sound reasons for being a little apprehensive in a place known for paranoia, as a general fact of the personalities and conditions here. You sir, are simply one of the flock, now claiming you arent a sheep, but butting heads over trivia anyway, for no sound reason! Georger, I have never met you, JT, or Jo Weber and neither of you would know me from Adam. 1. I am not "stone deaf". I have never made such a statement to anyone. 2. I do not recall ever having an argument with Jo Weber over "credentials". 3. JT's name calling, and yours as well, does not get under my skin. I fully understand that you and JT are just part of the drag on the evolution of the human race. 4. Since you claim to know so much about psychology and psychiatry, you presumably have undergone physcoanalysis, which I understand is required for professional practice as a psychiatrist. If so, you obviously failed to benefit from it and maybe 377 can help you get some of that money back. Georger has been blocked from my personal e-mail address for several weeks. Could someone on this list inform me as to how I can block him on DZ PMs as well.

Georger, I will answer your PM here. First, Farflung and I are not up to anything. Second, you are totally paranoid.

Hominid, The short answer is "yes". Keeping in mind that the discussion here refers only to the lower end of general aviation aircraft (or "private" aircraft), I would NOT recommend intentionally flying into moderate rain or maybe any rain at all. First, the pilot should be rated for instrument flight, the airplane should have a heated pitot-static system, full IFR instrumentation, and avionics suitable for the flight assuming that it is in controlled airspace. Second, if the airplane is going to be flown in bad weather routinely, it should also have a weather radar system and thought should be given to the possible need for anti-icing equipment. But don't under-estimate Mother Nature. Hail can come from much, much higher altitudes even though the temperature at the airplane's level is above freezing. Moderate rain on the canopy usually means that you can't see forward and don't have a horizontal reference except for your instruments. In short, in my humble opinion, any pilot interested in weather flying (i.e., other than blue skies) should get an instrument rating and have an instrument rated instructor pilot with him during his first several flights into actual IFR weather.

And if you encounter hail, it can bash in the leading edges of your wings and stabilizers. In other words, the airframe is now junk.

Sluggo calls it the :1972 FBI Jump Zone Map: He places it under the heading: "FBI Search Maps" . He calls the two pages which accompany the "1972 FBI Jump Zone Map, the "Explanation of lines and points on the LZ map". What do you call these documents? R99: I'd call them the same thing that Sluggo does. G: Why cant someone refer to the two typewritten pages of explanation as cover letters? What law of nature or convention of human language would that violate or confuse ? Maybe you need to issue a Glossary of Terms, and demand everyone follow it - ? R99: A standard dictionary should be sufficient. G: Oh! almost forgot! Will ask here: Do you or Tom or Blevins happen to have the missing page from Larry's six pages of the weather data? I assume you know what Im talking about? Maybe you dont. Maybe you do! R99: I haven't counted them. No. Yes. No. G: Do you know where I got those pages? Im lost and confused. R99: Larry? Agreed but you said it. Well, DO YOU NOW FEEL BETTER! ? No change here. How about you?

Sluggo calls it the :1972 FBI Jump Zone Map: He places it under the heading: "FBI Search Maps" . He calls the two pages which accompany the "1972 FBI Jump Zone Map, the "Explanation of lines and points on the LZ map". What do you call these documents? R99: I'd call them the same thing that Sluggo does. G: Why cant someone refer to the two typewritten pages of explanation as cover letters? What law of nature or convention of human language would that violate or confuse ? Maybe you need to issue a Glossary of Terms, and demand everyone follow it - ? R99: A standard dictionary should be sufficient. G: Oh! almost forgot! Will ask here: Do you or Tom or Blevins happen to have the missing page from Larry's six pages of the weather data? I assume you know what Im talking about? Maybe you dont. Maybe you do! R99: I haven't counted them. No. Yes. No. G: Do you know where I got those pages? Im lost and confused. R99: Larry? Agreed but you said it.

Down track parallel with or under the FP? No drift? What do you estimate the forward throw to be? The map doesnt cover that, or doesnt mention that specifically? Why don't you take the time some day to read the write-up that is included with the drop zone map? "Down track parallel with or under the FP?" Surely you don't think Cooper is going to do a 180 degree turn and head back towards Seattle? "No drift?" Unless the wind stops, a very unlikely event, Cooper would drift downwind in the less than a minute it takes to fall from 10,000 feet to sea level. Even if the wind was perpendicular to the flight path, Cooper would probably not impact more than one-quarter mile from the flight path. If Cooper impacted at higher elevations, it would be less than that. "What do you estimate the forward throw to be?" Forward throw? You are beginning to sound like a skydiver. But at the speed the airliner was travelling, and falling all the way to sea level, Cooper would be on the ground less than one-half mile down track from his jump point. "The map doesnt cover that, or doesnt mention that specifically?" Huh? Whatever you are talking about, a good place to start would be the quotation at the top of your post and the write-up (its not a cover letter) that came with the drop zone map. And Dr. Professor, why don't you work up a post explaining the differences in the computations between the following two cases: 1. Assume that Cooper jumped from a stationary balloon at 10,000 feet (assume a no wind condition), what are the equations that describe his free fall to sea level? 2. Assume that Cooper jumped from an aircraft that was travelling 225 MPH at 10,000 feet (assume a no wind condition again), what are the equations that describe his free fall to sea level? Are there differences in the two sets of equations? If so, which set of equations is the most difficult to solve? Do you know how to solve either set of equations? Don't be modest or shy in showing your "expertise" in this matter.

Actual landing point depends heavily on whether Cooper pulled the ripcord right off the stairs, or went into freefall for a while first. Immediate pull: more drift. Freefall for a while: less drift. Unfortunately, no one knows for sure WHEN he pulled. My best guess says he did it right off the stairs. The map in question covers those conditions. However, it doesn't cover a no-pull situation which would put Cooper on the ground roughly one mile, or less depending on the height of the local terrain, down track from his jump point.