DB Cooper

[georger 244]

Quote

Snowmman. Miss print or mistake on that post I meant Never be posted. I realy think you new that. All conversation's or email's will be kept private. Nothing discussed between anyone and my self will be made public unless released by the other party first and I have been given permission to do so prior. Jerry

received and understand . . .

Wash took down USC at Seattle today! Holy shit!
Iowa over AZ!

[JerryThomas 0]

The Seahawk's tommorrow will Show a big surprise. Yes I did tell you about the info and you were given the info and how to verify it . Maybe you forgot. Jerry

[skyjack71 0]

Jerry:
1. When are you going to explain the lighter statement.

2. How do you expect others to use your research to come to the conclusion you have if it is "secret"?

3. Where is the PROOF I asked you to produce regarding your claim that Duane's Georgia criminal record would show he was in jail or etc in Nov of 1971 and could not have committed the crime.

4. Where is your proof that a family member claimed Duane was with them on Thanksgiving day of 1971.

5. Why did you deliverately take what I told you years ago and convince me I was on the Columbia instead of Lake LaCames - why didn't you tell me about the lake - especially when I described the area? I even told you what he said standing on that point on the lake[u]....."Over there used to be a logging camp and just beyond that is a slute that goes down to the Columbia".

Why did I let you make me believe this? I got tired of arguing with you and your prisoner of war tactics worked on me for a while until I learned that the only way I was going to get to the truth was to stand up for myself and what I believed.

I was listening to a tape I made in 1997. This was a turning point regarding you and why I stopped communicating with you in 2001. Think about this - I spoke with you only once or twice after returning from Washington in 2001. Did you ever ask yourself why?

Because there was NO WAY you could have thought I was on the Columbia from that one specific statement and my continued insistance I was NOT on the Columbia. Yet, 8 yrs later you come to this fourm calling me a liar not just once but repeatedly.

I have agreed that you did convince me for a period of time that my route was different than what I was attempting to tell you on the phone for 4 plus yrs. Who was I to dispute the authority on the ground? BUT, we all know that in 2001 - I found out you had misled me.

Being someone who does not want to demean others - I have remained very silent about this - then you came here to the forum and called me a liar. Perhaps you did not realize I had only been to WA. one time in my life and was describing to you what I was playing back in my head. I provide every out I could for you and yet you persisted in calling me a Liar.

Because this one statement could in no way have indicated the body of water I was describing was the Columbia itself, you "the authority on the ground" knew exactly where I was. Remember that recently you told me on the phone that part of the land I was on was owned by your wife's family. You also told me that part of the area I have described has a Walmart and shopping center on it. Is any of that true?

You have gone to great efforts to discredit me on this. One has to ask themselves WHY? The answer is rather obvious to most who have watched your stories evolve over the yrs.

As for my "story" yes, I agree it has evolved, but I was dependent on others who had something to gain - like you.

What evolved about my story? Learning more about the crime itself and the jump and the efforts of others...but never did my story change - other than remembering things because of trigger words or seeing things I had seen before (such as that trip in 2001). After my trip to WA in 2001 - I made an effort to find maps and talk to people and to try to understand why you told me I was on the Columbia.

Until this you came to this forum I had NO idea you had shared this erroneous information with the public....and why I have been viewed negatively by the WA news. Because one of their own (someone involved in the investigation) lied and you are the only one who knows why you have done so.

Why did you then tailor your story and area to overlap with what I had told you?

It was my objective not to have to reveal this - but, unfortunately you have left me with NO choices. Of course, most who read this will know exactly what your reply will be. She is lieing and she is a great fiction writer - sorry, but there are NO takers amongst those who know I am encapable of lieing on paper or in-person...I can tease and try to let other know I am teasing with a smiley.

I will kindly ask that you admit your error or boo boo. You have cost me over 8 yrs of my life...and I do not take that lightly.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[snowmman 3]

I want to talk about HTMD, and fuel-air explosives.

What does it take to get an FBI interview nowadays? I've rented big trucks. No one interviews me. I'm on a thread working thru the possibilities for hijacking...and what do I get...nada.

Hey I was thinking about IED potential on a plane. The presence of an O2 tank in the overhead compartment, plus a flare, raises possibilites.

Look at this hole an O2 tank blew in the side of a Qantas jet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/2644048/Exploding-oxygen-bottle-caused-hole-in-Qantas-jet.html

What if you took the O2 bottle, opened it up and jammed it down the toilet, so all the O2 is in a confined area. Then tossed your lit flare in.

(edit) This supposed Zazi stuff doesn't add up. Look at this:

"The officials said text messages sent by Zazi suggest the plot was nearing the attack phase. One message said the "wedding cake is ready," which authorities say may have been code to indicate the attack was ready.

Raids in New York led to the discovery of 14 new backpacks.

The New York Daily News reported Saturday that seven New York men with ties to Zazi had unsuccessfully attempted to rent a large rental truck on Sept. 10, the day before Zazi arrived from Denver. "

We're supposed to think that they were going to rent a big truck for a big bomb, and at the same time use 12 backpacks to deliver bombs....and they found them renting the truck and somehow 12 backpacks, but no sign of any explosive materials?

How does that make sense?
They've arrested him tonight. The charges are expected to be lieing to FBI agents."

What to say?

The wedding cake is ready.

[skyjack71 0]

This is a PM Shelly just sent to me. I dd not know 2 posters could share one posting name?

Quote

No disrespect Jo. I have read all post . The only disrespect is when you claim duaine was Cooper or claim the tall tale's that you do. Jerry and I can prove our statement's . Yea guess what there is more than one that will prove you wrong. so please give it up . Jerry does not want to discredit you.Ok All he want's is to get you to stop your lie's ok . Shelly

Well, guys what did you expect?
I have made my case. It is time for me to move on - but not out.
I am sure that some of you can tell from the tone of my post that some things are changing very rapidly right now. They are all positive and by the way Ms Shelly tell your "Hoax Buster" no deal.

PS. I know all about JERRY's deal - his book. So now you all know the REST of the Story. Why Jerry has to get rid of me!
BYE! BYE!

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[snowmman 3]

Quote

This is a PM Shelly just sent to me. I dd not know 2 posters could share one posting name?

Quote

No disrespect Jo. I have read all post . The only disrespect is when you claim duaine was Cooper or claim the tall tale's that you do. Jerry and I can prove our statement's . Yea guess what there is more than one that will prove you wrong. so please give it up . Jerry does not want to discredit you.Ok All he want's is to get you to stop your lie's ok . Shelly

Score!
I knew this Jerry <-> Jo peace agreement couldn't last.
Cavemen don't agree to disagree. They just beat each other to death.
Yahoo!

[georger 244]

Quote

I have been authorized by House subcommittee to release the following information.

I have outlined the importance of Seattle ARTCC (Air Route Traffic Control Center) before, with their long range radar capabilities.

Their transcript is on page 68 thru 74 of the Carr-released transcripts.

I have mentioned how the various "positions" reported were likely operators in front of radio and likely radar scopes.

The positions:
SEA R2
SEA R5
SEA R6
SEA R10

The new information is that the Chief of Seattle ARTCC had his name disguised.

In the transcript, (attached page), you can see that he's named as "Gerald H. Oaterkamp"

However, if you analyze his signature, which has an "a" in Gerald, and an "a" in "kamp"...those a's are not the same as the supposed "a" in "Oater"

Looking at his signature, his name is "Osterkamp".

So the question is: "Why was Osterkamp's name obfuscated? Why did Osterkamp agree to the obfuscation? Was he given an offer he couldn't refuse?"

Gerald H. Osterkamp held the key to the flight path and why it was covered up.

You can review the attached, or the original transcript, to see that I'm correct.

Also, even though the typewriter print is far from perfect, it is clear that someone typed "Oaterkamp", in a successful attempt to keep journalists from the source of the truth.

I don't know if Osterkamp was assassinated. There is no evidence to prove he wasn't. I don't know if Duane was involved, although supposedly Duane was a crack shot, even without glasses.

(edit) The probable assassination took place this year in Florida, May 17, 2009

relationships are everything, and the next.
tov miod.

[skyjack71 0]

Sorry Snowmman - He can have the thread. As for me I am going on vacation for a long long time. Want to meet me in California or Washington?
Going to both places because there are somethings my guy can't get - without my being there in person.

Seriously - I really want to meet you and 377 - and you know my real email address. I will be in Burbank and then to Huntington and then to - a place of secrets.
With the documentations in hand I will then be going to WA and there will be 2 stops there. (May be driving this portion, but not alone.) This is really happening and I am glad it will soon be over...

Trying to find flight routes that will keep me out of small fast jets as that kind of plane got me in trouble before...ruptured blood vessel in my ear. That was scary and painful. The biggest problem are the flights out of my own area - all small fast jets.

I haven't flown that far since the ruptured ear in 2004 - (we went to Loma Linda for Cancer treatment.) This time I make the trip alone with NO one to hold my hand. Using a cane and refusing to check my luggage.

Last time I flew to Cinni to bury my husband, they wouldn't let me keep my cane - so I had to ask for help everytime I got up. Because of my health situation I basically made my trip standing as much as I could and generally have to go to the galley area to do that. Never flown 1st class, but I am too cheap to make that effort.

My right leg has to be extended infront of me - which mean an outside seat...and right behind 1st class. Any other seat means I spend most of the flight on my feet. The other thing was watching the other passengers so they didn't fall over my leg and at all times being on guard.

So much trouble, but the train is an absolute NO because of the time involved and the exposure time...to other passengers.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[Orange1 0]

i feel a newfound sense of freedom. Back to self-filtering of certain posters. Much nicer
I can't see how this flight path debate will ever be resolved. No data, nothing firm. The only thing that will confirm it is finding cooper's body or rig somewhere?

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[snowmman 3]

Attached is the arrest warrant for the bearded one.
We should all consider the operation compromised, as he may reveal details of the Flight 305 operation.

The offense is briefly described as follows:
"Making a False Statement in a Matter Involving International and Domestic Terrorism in violation of 18 USC Section 1001 (a)(2)."

Because of my knowledge of such laws, I have been careful to only post stuff relating to flight 305 that is 100% true. Others may consider the need to start destroying disk drives.

(edit) 377, read the whole thing. Tell me what you think.

(edit) I have discovered a tighter connection to Flight 305. In the attached arrest warrant, Agent Garrett Gumbinner, purposely misspells Zazi's first name. This is a known tactic in government operations, as I showed with the ARTCC chief. Attached snip showing.

[Farflung 0]

A little review of the geometry and units of measure.

Two specific points were utilized during the hijack in reporting the aircraft track. One was a surveillance radar (assume on McChord AFB) and the other being the Battle Ground TACAN.

The radar was near the origin of the flight where Battle Ground TACAN was near the estimated jump site some 90 nautical miles south.

Basic geometry using a one degree accuracy, at 60 NM distance would induce a one NM ambiguity. Correct so far?

As the plane proceeded south, the positional accuracy from McChord became less precise while the width of the radial the pilots were following to Battle Ground became more refined (narrow).

Beamwidth on long distance RADAR is typically around 3 degrees wide. If a target was 60 NM away, it would have an ambiguity of 3 nautical miles, at 90 NM distance that ambiguity would grow 50% to 4.5 Nautical Miles. Not knowing what type of RADAR or the location I have assumed a 3 degree beamwidth located on McChord AFB.

Next is the time. Even near stall speed, they were covering 2.5 to 3 NM per minute.

Around Battle Ground TACAN plus or minus one minute, with tracking from McChord is an ambiguity of 5 NM by 4.5 NM or 22.5 square nautical miles. How far off am I now?

Information weighting. The pilots time of 20:11 (local) at which the hijacker jumped is the centroid from which all geopositional information radiates. Why?

Conversations about missing approach plates, fuel exhaustion and some pressure oscillations have solidified near a crews radio transmission and a RADAR return at a less than optimum distance. At 8:11 the plane was barely 12 nautical miles from Battle Ground TACAN; radial and DME would be very precise at that distance yet appears unknown or unreported..

The tracking reports in 'statute miles' added yet another potential positional error. The Columbia River is 7 minutes from the time the crew reported some oscillations and 4 minutes after a turn following station passage of Battle Ground TACAN.

All things considered, the time stamp of 20:11 combined with primary reliance upon RADAR (excluding crew input, Transponder tracks) is precise to the point of exclusion. What would the LZ footprint resemble if there were a few other levels of fidelity? T + 4 min, T + 8 min? If there was never any money found how would that be weighted?

[snowmman 3]

Farflung:
Why do you need to make calculations or guesses about the radar accuracy in 1971?

I thought the info from 1971 on positional accuracy is documented.
If they weren't sure how exact a plane position was, relative to radar indication, how could they come up with rules for required separation to avoid accidents, or running into stuff, like mountains.

(edit) p.s. There is nothing to say 20:11 has any accuracy associated with it. What makes you think 20:11 has anything to do with when Cooper jumped?

[georger 244]

Quote

Farflung:
Why do you need to make calculations or guesses about the radar accuracy in 1971?

I thought the info from 1971 on positional accuracy is documented.
If they weren't sure how exact a plane position was, relative to radar indication, how could they come up with rules for required separation to avoid accidents, or running into stuff, like mountains.

(edit) p.s. There is nothing to say 20:11 has any accuracy associated with it. What makes you think 20:11 has anything to do with when Cooper jumped?

because Rat said it did - Rat's testimony
and probably the testimony of others (along with
radio tranbsmissions from this period) is the only
thing that bracket's this period. Presumably radar
data did not see Cooper jumping at a specific
moment, but personally Im not even sure about
that, because I am not sure anyone is telling
(revealing)_ the whole truth!

Larry says Rat said: '10 mins after 8:05, I could
see the suburbs of Portland coming up ...'

Jerry then says Rat said: 'Nope! We were 20 miles
east of V23 and crossed at Troutdale ...'

Bruce interviews Rat and forgets to ask!

I have tried to talk to rat to ask myself but can
never find him home: Im not sure Rat would tell
me the truth even if I asked. Who am I!

Tom thinks he has solved the question but is
holding it as a proprietary patented Ace:

Everyone seems to have an agenda up their sleeves!

Ive said all along there was a third FP west off V23
and Snowmman suddenly posts the Dawson
interview. I asked Jerry ages ago if he had ever searched WEST of V23 or WEST of Portland and he
said "yes" with no results. Of course we already
know Tosaw and others have poked around in this same area!

Farflung now surfaces to bring up radar resolution and beam widths. !

What goes around comes around.

[georger 244]

Quote

A little review of the geometry and units of measure.

Two specific points were utilized during the hijack in reporting the aircraft track. One was a surveillance radar (assume on McChord AFB) and the other being the Battle Ground TACAN.

The radar was near the origin of the flight where Battle Ground TACAN was near the estimated jump site some 90 nautical miles south.

Basic geometry using a one degree accuracy, at 60 NM distance would induce a one NM ambiguity. Correct so far?

As the plane proceeded south, the positional accuracy from McChord became less precise while the width of the radial the pilots were following to Battle Ground became more refined (narrow).

Beamwidth on long distance RADAR is typically around 3 degrees wide. If a target was 60 NM away, it would have an ambiguity of 3 nautical miles, at 90 NM distance that ambiguity would grow 50% to 4.5 Nautical Miles. Not knowing what type of RADAR or the location I have assumed a 3 degree beamwidth located on McChord AFB.

Next is the time. Even near stall speed, they were covering 2.5 to 3 NM per minute.

Around Battle Ground TACAN plus or minus one minute, with tracking from McChord is an ambiguity of 5 NM by 4.5 NM or 22.5 square nautical miles. How far off am I now?

Information weighting. The pilots time of 20:11 (local) at which the hijacker jumped is the centroid from which all geopositional information radiates. Why?

Conversations about missing approach plates, fuel exhaustion and some pressure oscillations have solidified near a crews radio transmission and a RADAR return at a less than optimum distance. At 8:11 the plane was barely 12 nautical miles from Battle Ground TACAN; radial and DME would be very precise at that distance yet appears unknown or unreported..

The tracking reports in 'statute miles' added yet another potential positional error. The Columbia River is 7 minutes from the time the crew reported some oscillations and 4 minutes after a turn following station passage of Battle Ground TACAN.

All things considered, the time stamp of 20:11 combined with primary reliance upon RADAR (excluding crew input, Transponder tracks) is precise to the point of exclusion. What would the LZ footprint resemble if there were a few other levels of fidelity? T + 4 min, T + 8 min? If there was never any money found how would that be weighted?

Thank you...

[Farflung 0]

Snowman,

You are correct with some caveats.

Even today, there are vast regions of the western U. S. and most of Alaska not to mention the oceans which are not under RADAR coverage for tracking or traffic separation. This is managed through planned speed, take off and check point times and altitude control.

Pilots are very good at maintaining track on a Victor Airway, with MEAs (minimum altitudes as not to hit mountains) and making turns based upon station passage or an intersection.

What was the location of Flight 305 according to the pilots? They made position reports at 7:40, 7:43, 8:22, 8:52 and 9:28 (local) with IAS from 160 to 175 kts.

Why such a large reliance upon the RADAR data with radial and DME to cross reference the planes location?

Overhead Battle Ground TACAN occurred at 8:14 plus or minus 1 min. according to the crew transcripts.

Tracking backwards in time 3 mins. to the report of oscillations places the aircraft 8 to 9 nautical miles north of Battle Ground TACAN.

It is also 'documented' in the crew transcripts that Flight 305 at 8:22 (local) was "23 DME S PDX at 10,000'." By checking the AFD you will notice the radials of 131 through 230, for all altitudes and distances for the VOR/DME named PDX is unusable. Although a small error (9 nautical miles), if 305 were truly 23 DME south of PDX at 8:22, they would have been over Battle Ground TACAN at 8:11 (local) when the oscillations were detected by the crew.

What to believe, RADAR, pilots navigation, communications transcripts, common sense?

[snowmman 3]

Farflung said: "It is also 'documented' in the crew transcripts that Flight 305 at 8:22 (local) was "23 DME S PDX at 10,000'." By checking the AFD you will notice the radials of 131 through 230, for all altitudes and distances for the VOR/DME named PDX is unusable. Although a small error (9 nautical miles), if 305 were truly 23 DME south of PDX at 8:22, they would have been over Battle Ground TACAN at 8:11 (local) when the oscillations were detected by the crew. "


Yes, there is additional stuff in the transcripts that can be used to support (or not) any proposed flight path, to some degree.

That's exactly why Jerry will never draw a flight path. Once he does, there is other information available that can be used to discount it. So he does what Jo does: Imply, but provide no data.

I think there's nothing in the transcripts that shows the flight path we have to be wrong. Do you agree?

With respect to where they were at 8:11...you're aware of the "minute error" issue in the flight path we have?

So yeah, I expect even if we focused on 8:11, it's unclear where on the flight path they were. (within some precision).

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you just pointing out that Cooper could have jumped in a broad region along the flight path as we know it? I think we all agree on that...other than Jerry.

(edit) Georger, you mentioned correlated events. All these posts are correlated to the recent arrest of Zazi by Agent Garrett Gumbinner.

Agent Gumbinner, is the same agent who interviewed the guy who shipped himself in a box on an airplane in 2003, and got charged with being a stowaway.

"Mr. McKinley charged what he said was a $668.70 United Parcel Service shipping bill to this company, he told investigators."

"One of the two friends Mr. McKinley mentions brought him a wooden crate measuring 42-by-36-by-15 inches. "I thought it was big enough for me to fit in," Mr. McKinley wrote."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982412/posts
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2003/09/15-stowaway-story.htm

[1969912 0]

A fresh voice. Welcome, Farflung!

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Orange1 0]

Quote

A fresh voice. Welcome, Farflung!

ditto!

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[snowmman 3]

I must be missing something

FarAfield reported:
"Overhead Battle Ground TACAN occurred at 8:14 plus or minus 1 min. according to the crew transcripts.

Tracking backwards in time 3 mins. to the report of oscillations places the aircraft 8 to 9 nautical miles north of Battle Ground TACAN. "

If I look at the flight path,
http://n467us.com/Data%20Files/Analysis%20of%201%20min%20Error%20Central%201971.jpg

that's what it shows.
And that's uncompensated for a one-minute error (which would shift times down)

FarField, have you analyzed the flight path maps at Sluggo's site?
I guess I'm wondering what the issue is you're going after?
There might be something, but I can't see it.

[snowmman 3]

Farflung said "if 305 were truly 23 DME south of PDX at 8:22, they would have been over Battle Ground TACAN at 8:11 (local) when the oscillations were detected by the crew."

Are you assuming a straight line flight path when you estimate distances? The flight path map has a curving path.

Looking at the southern portion of the flight path, we only have radar ticks marked to 20:18, but you can count them after that to see where the 20:22 location is. It looks like maybe east of Tualatin or Wilsonville.
http://n467us.com/Data%20Files/Analysis%20of%201%20min%20Error%20South%201971.jpg

I'm not sure what you're in disagreement about.

Or: are you showing that the transcripts have data that says Jerry's Washougal visits are more about a "friend" or donuts?

[snowmman 3]

here's another interesting "body not found" case
I'm not sure of the overall long-term stats for the Columbia

Oct 11, 1972 Spokane Daily Chronicle
Portland, OR

Searchers yesterday recovered the fuselage of a light plane which crashed Oct 4 into the Columbia river [ed. the one I reported before was a different one].

It was found a mile south of the mouth of the Williamette River and about 75 yards downstream from where the plane apparently crashed, said Sg. Donald McNamara of the Multnomah County sheriff's river patrol.

McNamara said the search for the body of the pilot of the rented plane, 53-year old Dr. J. Maxson Reeves, would continue.

Other parts of the plane and it's log book were found shortly after the crash.

Reeves was vice president and dean of the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ALMSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mfgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4212,3399348&dq=body+columbia-river

I didn't find any subsequent reports of the body being found.

(edit) This report from Oct 5, 1972 sounds like the first report of the plane crash. Cessna 150.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wpcSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gvcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2675,377613&dq=columbia-river+airplane+crash

[Farflung 0]

1969912, Orange1,

Thanks for the welcome.


Snowman,

RADAR data at 8:11 has a larger CEP because the site is 80 nautical miles away. (making an 80 foot putt)

The aircraft 12 nautical miles north (12 foot putt) is using an instrument which was designed in concert with the Battle Ground TACAN to receive and display bearing and DME information to a crew of three licensed aviators. At that distance the width of the navigation beam being transmitted is about 1,200 feet versus the 6,100 foot ambiguity if they used the Olympia TACAN at the opposite end of the airway. Same equipment, same crew yet with an extra five thousand foot error per degree of deviation between planned course and instrument indication.

All of these systems may supply a time and location within 1,200 feet (you may make an 80 foot putt and a 12 foot putt), however only Battle Ground has the ability to deliver this fidelity at every data point (out of the 80 or 12 foot putt, which will you make more often?).

Yes one can use (manipulate?) data and create a foregone conclusion. The last guy that won the lottery was wearing pants therefore if I wear pants....

Using RADAR plots with an ugly track can verify position reports from closer sources which fall within DME and RADAR accuracy parameters but with a more refined and logical curve/shape.

RADAR has a 'velocity gate' which rejects data that falls outside normal limits (going from 200 knots to 3000 knots) thus reducing noise and confusion. I think it would serve this subject well if there were some velocity gates. Why the single source approach? Have the bugs been shaken out of the 'official transcripts' after 35 years?

How far can one reasonably drift under a military canopy from 10 thousand feet? 10 miles? 15 miles? The average skydiver would surely give me a quick education on jump dynamics and the many basic laws of physics which one would have to violate.

The same holds true for pilots, what would it take to oops....WE are 20 miles east of course, ATC and RADAR failed to catch this and issue vectors, NONE of the crew noticed the RMI swinging through 30 then 40 degrees while we parallel an airway at 10,000 feet heading for Mt. St. Helens!!

Hope this clears things up.

[snowmman 3]

Farflung said
"How far can one reasonably drift under a military canopy from 10 thousand feet? 10 miles? 15 miles? The average skydiver would surely give me a quick education on jump dynamics and the many basic laws of physics which one would have to violate.

The same holds true for pilots, what would it take to oops....WE are 20 miles east of course, ATC and RADAR failed to catch this and issue vectors, NONE of the crew noticed the RMI swinging through 30 then 40 degrees while we parallel an airway at 10,000 feet heading for Mt. St. Helens!!"

Re: canopy drift. I went thru an estimate based on C-9 canopy and SE winds near Portland a long time back. I used a wind rose showing 10 years of historical data on wind, along with surface wind conditions from 11/24/71 for that. I was trying to put a canopy drift near Tena Bar, assuming jump from the flight path near PDX.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3385551;search_string=%26quot%3Bcanopy%20drift%26quot%3B;#3385551
(edit) I just noticed the attached jpg in that post was before we got the detailed flight path jpg.

I agree with you on the "watch out for Mt. St. Helens" problem.

I quoted a paper here which recently compared radar-predicted locations, with GPS locations (since planes now have GPS transponders). The paper gave bounds and means for errors in locations.

I tried to get a good estimate for the radar gear in place at Seattle ARTCC in 1971. I posted a lot on that.

I did suggest that the error was greater than the +- 0.5 nm the FBI 1972 search map paper quoted. I suggested maybe the radar location was +-1nm.

I'm still not sure what you're suggesting.
We don't know when Cooper jumped.
We have a flight path, with radar ticks of unknown source, and at least one transcription error.
We don't have a good indication of the +- error of the radar ticks.
(edit) I also argued that the "+-1 minute communication time tolerance" is debatable (in the NWA->FBI jump zone prediction)
http://n467us.com/Photo%20Evidence_files/image126.jpg

No one is disagreeing with that.

So what's the new information?

(edit) re descent rates. 1500 ft/min has been quoted as estimate. here I threw out 1200 ft/min
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3385710;search_string=1200%20ft%2Fmin;#3385710
I thought there were some accounts from the "old days" of possibly slightly slower...I think we went thru all this.
We debated where the C-9 had any mods that would affect forward speed. Apparently not. So wind aloft was the unknown. Ckret posted data, but unreadable and probably wrong area. No agreement on anything other than surface winds at PDX on 11/24/71.

I did post some stuff on currrent winds aloft (10,000') at PDX on 11/24/08 I believe, as an example. The latest online stuff gives you that.

Ckret posted this wx:
"The weather: Ceiling of 5,000 feet, broken clouds at 3,500, scattered clouds at 1,500. Winds of 12 to 14 knots, light rain showers."

Here's KPDX weather (hourly for last 24 hours)
http://flightaware.com/live/airport/KPDX/wx

(edit) note that Jerry's Washougal theory is more constraining. No canopy drift. So Cooper has to drop from plane into Washougal.

(edit) Farflung: I have the impression you think people here are behind any of the FBI statements or the Nat Geo stuff. As far as I know, the consensus is all that is total B.S.

[snowmman 3]

http://www.weather.com/maps/activity/aviation/us10000footwindsaloft_large.html

attached also.

you can see ~40 knot (blue) winds around PDX right now (at 10k feet)

drops below ~30 knot at 5000 ft.
http://www.weather.com/maps/activity/aviation/us5000footwindsaloft_large.html

[Farflung 0]

Snowman,

8:52 (local) 305 reports over EUG VOR 10,000 feet and 170 kts indicated.

9:28 (local) 305 reports over MFR 10,000 feet and 170 kts indicated.

36 minutes of 170 knots is 102 nautical miles. Make sense?

Eugene VOR to MFR is 99 nautical miles according to the Enroute L charts.

99 nautical miles in 36 minutes is a ground speed of 165 knots. That would translate to a direct headwind of 5 knots on average, at 10,000 ft for that period of 36 minutes.

Or winds aloft of 150/05, between Eugene and Medford.

This information seems pretty new! Even though it occurred in 1971.

Nice modeling of the canopy drift to Tena Bar. What are the dependant variables required to drift to Tena Bar versus 'float'?

There is no forensic data which would indicate 305 deviating more than 3 or 4 miles from centerline of the assigned airway. Keep in mind Portland International was/is quite capable of watching their airspace and made no contact or mention of an aircraft so terminally lost. This being flown by a crew which just hours before made the same journey without incident and made the following position reports and navigated to Reno just fine.

Strange how groups of people, who fly for a living, some for decades; suffer a temporary bout of incompetence then recover. Equally vexing, is how adroitly Cooper was able to ply his vocation considering this was likely his only attempt.

PS, Snowman please quit trying to find anything more sinister than simple maths and linear logic in my stupid little posts. I'm truly that big of a dork, you can relax. I think I've been showing my work (logic) and using words no stronger than 'may' and 'perhaps'; I'll try to tone it down and match the decorum laid by the preceding 500 pages.