DB Cooper

[Robert99 54]

29 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

We have the data.. it does not actually say what you claim..

The closest weather balloon's went up at Quillayute, 100 miles West of Seattle and about 170 miles from Cooper's jump, so irrelevant.

And, at Salem Or... at 5PM, about 70 miles from Cooper's jump, that data showed wind about 212 deg varying slightly with elevation. But, it isn't close in place and time to the jump zone... not very useful.

The winds aloft data posted in the FBI files for Portland and Salem were a forecast estimated from the balloon data at Salem at 5PM.. they used an average as a proxy for the wind Cooper encountered.. but there was an error.

 

The winds aloft data from the balloon's tells us a few general things,, 

The wind direction at surface was close to direction throughout elevation.

The wind at Salem at 5PM was more Southerly than believed.

The wind naturally increases speed at elevation over surface but the winds were much higher at elevation than the FBI used..

 

It also showed 50 knots at 10,000 feet for Salem at 5PM.

It shows 66 knots at 13500 ft..  

So, the other pilot claiming 60 knots headwind at 13000 ft on the night of the hijacking may have been correct. He also said the wind was shifting between approximately 160 and 200 degrees. That actually fits the data we have.

The best info we have is that the wind was shifting that evening between S-SE and SSW... Seattle was S, Toledo ground was S-SE..

I can only say that the wind was NOT conclusive in the LZ and the FBI ruled out a S-SE wind direction.

We do NOT have actual data for Cooper's jump time and place.. the FBI estimated a  W-SW wind.

 

I have made this same argument for years but recently found an error that makes it bullet proof.

 

I feel I am wasting my time again with this post, you will just never accept the facts and make claims about the wind data that don't exist.

BTW, when everyone finds out the error, you won't believe it.. the fact that nobody caught it undermines the credibility of the entire investigation.

 

 

 

 

Chaucer, we do agree on one thing.  And that is you are wasting your time with the above post.

After the airliner took off from Seattle, the ground winds didn't mean a thing.  It was the winds aloft that were important and the winds were never greater than about 35 knots at 10,000 feet, and also entirely from the southwest (225 degrees true), during the entire flight to Reno.

The winds aloft above 10,000 feet don't mean a thing either.

You and Chaucer need to get the FAA aviation weather book mentioned earlier.  Both of you know less about aviation weather than any 16- or 17-year-old boy or girl who takes the written test to get a pilot's license.

[FLYJACK 754]

1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

Chaucer, we do agree on one thing.  And that is you are wasting your time with the above post.

After the airliner took off from Seattle, the ground winds didn't mean a thing.  It was the winds aloft that were important and the winds were never greater than about 35 knots at 10,000 feet, and also entirely from the southwest (225 degrees true), during the entire flight to Reno.

The winds aloft above 10,000 feet don't mean a thing either.

You and Chaucer need to get the FAA aviation weather book mentioned earlier.  Both of you know less about aviation weather than any 16- or 17-year-old boy or girl who takes the written test to get a pilot's license.

Exactly what I expected,, condescending and ignoring the facts..

THERE IS NO WINDS ALOFT DATA FOR COOPERS"S LZ..

DO YOU UNDERSTAND.... the only data is Salem at 5PM.

Not only do you ignore the facts you make claims that are inconsistent and untrue...

The Salem winds aloft at 5PM shows 58 knots at 9800 ft.. 58 is greater than 35...

The other pilot that night claimed 60 knots at 13000 ft which is consistent and lends credibility to his other claim that the winds were shifting between 160 and 200 degrees.

So, you make contradictory claims about data that you claim is somehow valid for Cooper's LZ.. to be polite, your logic is inconsistent with reality.

You have been asked to produce the winds aloft data for Cooper's LZ and have never done it because it doesn't exist.

Now, STOP wasting my time.

There is nothing more I can or wish to do to help you.

Edited July 10, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Math of Insects 98]

@Flyjack, are you comfortable explaining what you mean about "being asked" not to disclose your research? My first thought was book deal, but then someone else presenting your research publicly at CooperCon would seem to be the ultimate deal-killer. It's hard to get more public than that! Even sharing with select people privately would seem risky in that case. All it takes is one of them to say a single thing in public to mess up the whole deal.

What does it mean when you say you are "being asked" not to share? 

[FLYJACK 754]

I am in preliminary discussions for a major project.. not a book

They asked me NOT to discuss the case publicly.. usually these things don't pan out..

The wind error is minor compared to what I have....  so I am not that concerned about it.

I just thought it would be a great teaser for CooperCon rather than here,, but I am not presenting anything.

That error is unbelievable...

[FLYJACK 754]

Here is the weather balloon data..

For Salem Nov 24/71 at 5PM.

windspeed at 58 knots 

The direction was more Southerly and the speed higher than believed for Cooper's jump.

But, it was recorded 3 hours before and 70 miles from Cooper's jump,, how relevant is it?? 

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Math of Insects 98]

18 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I am in preliminary discussions for a major project.. not a book

They asked me NOT to discuss the case publicly.. usually these things don't pan out..

The wind error is minor compared to what I have....  so I am not that concerned about it.

I just thought it would be a great teaser for CooperCon rather than here,, but I am not presenting anything.

That error is unbelievable...

OK, I see. So a TV show or the like. So the wind chart would theoretically be ok to share, you were just thinking it would be more fun to make it a reveal at CooperCon? Is that right? It wouldn't be covered by whatever the preliminary talks are related to? 

[FLYJACK 754]

I got it wrong.. I used an online time converter and missed the date flipping backward.

Here is what I screwed up,,

The date/time on the raw weather report is the 25th, 0300, 0400 and 0500..

It is UTC which goes backward to the 24th for PST.. I checked only the time conversion.

So, the report on the 25th UTC was the 24th local time. I thought it was the 25th.

Sorry about that.

The basic argument about the wind estimate is still valid.

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 754]

Ok, I feel bad for that mistake so I will post something new from my files...

This is a redacted letter that I was able to get unredacted...

 

WHY was it redacted??

and it has elements/themes that were in Gunther's book.. it may have been written by "Clara"... or Cooper himself..

gave her $5000 cash... close to TBAR amount??

The letter isn't written as fact.. but to claim Cooper was dead and he was a good guy.. just like the Gunther narrative which was published much later. 

This letter is fascinating because of the redactions and similarity to Gunther's book, I can't see some rando writing this. It was mailed Sept 72.

Edited July 11, 2023 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 754]

I'll toss in a bonus,, this is polarizing, some will reject it others will be intrigued.

But it happened. You have to admit that it is very odd.

On March 2, 1972 FBI WEEKLY SUMMARY

Plans being made for ground search of area in near future.

On March 8th the FBI secured Army authorization for a ground search and on March 9th Hoover authorized it. It was planned for a week later but got delayed until Feb 25th and completed April 17..

But, on March 8, a brief note randomly appeared in the local PA paper with no other context.. it said that Tina was offered money from the hijacker and she didn't accept because it wouldn't be right. That statement wasn't exactly true, Tina asked for the money and took it then she claimed she handed it back because it was against company policy to take tips.

So, what is going on... Why did they place this public statement in the local paper right when the search was authorized Tina never gave out case evidence and they were all instructed not to say anything not already mentioned in the papers.. This was completely out of character. Did Tina's FBI brother in law try to get ahead of the search.

IMO, Tina, her sister and brother in law FBI agent were front running the search. If Cooper's body and/or the money was found missing a bundle, Tina would be looked at by the FBI because she already told them she handled some money. They planted the slightly false story in the public to front run the search, there is no other good reason.

Tina moved to upstream of TBAR in 78/79..

There is no proof Tina actually kept the money and there never will be unless she confirms it. 

 

This is the note, nothing else, no other hijacking related article..

 

March 8,1972..

 

[olemisscub 525]

While Hoover may have approved it on March 9th, the Army did not. Your reference to the Army approving it on March 8th comes from SA Shutz overstating his position on Army cooperation. He clarified what he meant the next day on March 9th, restating that he spoke to someone at the Pentagon who was favorably disposed to the idea. Actual Army approval did not come until March 15th. Also, the first day of the Army search was on March 21st, not the 25th. 

[FLYJACK 754]

29 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

While Hoover may have approved it on March 9th, the Army did not. Your reference to the Army approving it on March 8th comes from SA Shutz overstating his position on Army cooperation. He clarified what he meant the next day on March 9th, restating that he spoke to someone at the Pentagon who was favorably disposed to the idea. Actual Army approval did not come until March 15th. Also, the first day of the Army search was on March 21st, not the 25th. 

 

It was informal approval...  not relevant.

You are right it started on the 21st, it was delayed by snow on the 25th,, I misread that as delayed until...

Both of these points are irrelevant for the post.

The FBI was pursuing a ground search before the 8th.

 

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 525]

March 15th was not "informal approval". That was the date the Secretary of Defense of the United States authorized it, which was required because these were not National Guard troops, who can be deployed by a Governor, but rather this was the active military. 

Second, why does it matter if they were pursuing a ground search before March 8th? Manning submitted his proposal for a large search to the Bureau as early as mid-January. I really don't understand what you're even suggesting with this. Use a different phrase than "front running" because I'm not sure what you mean. 

[Chaucer 110]

26 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

March 15th was not "informal approval". That was the date the Secretary of Defense of the United States authorized it, which was required because these were not National Guard troops, who can be deployed by a Governor, but rather this was the active military. 

Second, why does it matter if they were pursuing a ground search before March 8th? Manning submitted his proposal for a large search to the Bureau as early as mid-January. I really don't understand what you're even suggesting with this. Use a different phrase than "front running" because I'm not sure what you mean. 

This seems far more reasonable than the idea that the FBI suspended a search due to a media report involving Tina Mucklow. That's getting into woo-woo territory.

[FLYJACK 754]

6 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

March 15th was not "informal approval". That was the date the Secretary of Defense of the United States authorized it, which was required because these were not National Guard troops, who can be deployed by a Governor, but rather this was the active military. 

Second, why does it matter if they were pursuing a ground search before March 8th? Manning submitted his proposal for a large search to the Bureau as early as mid-January. I really don't understand what you're even suggesting with this. Use a different phrase than "front running" because I'm not sure what you mean. 

No, no, I meant the 8th.. not the 15th. It looks like they had some informal approval at one level on the 8th and formal approval on the 15th. I know the military has its processes.

But, this is irrelevant to my post because it isn't about the Army search approval sequence and process.

Front running just means they were aware that there was an upcoming initial extensive ground search and got a public statement out ahead of it.. You know Tina's brother in law was FBI,, I mention it for others.. but he would have access to case info and it is known that they were very protective of Tina. 

I can't think of any other reason that piece would get put in the paper, they must have planted it intentionally and the timing is suspicious. They revealed case evidence.. though not entirely accurate, a slight lie. Tina didn't talk publicly for decades..

It doesn't prove anything but it is extremely suspicious behaviour.

[FLYJACK 754]

2 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

This seems far more reasonable than the idea that the FBI suspended a search due to a media report involving Tina Mucklow. That's getting into woo-woo territory.

That piece had nothing to do with a delay..

I doubt the FBI ever knew about that piece in the local paper.

[Chaucer 110]

I mean there are well known researchers in this case that think that a guy in Pittsburgh read about the floods in the Columbia, flew out to Portland, drove to Tena Bar at night, and dug through the sand for stolen loot in 3 feet of water by moonlight. 

Other well known researchers believe that the crew of 305 ignored their prescribed flight path and flew from the Malay Intersection directly to the Canby Intersection without ATC knowing or caring, and then the entire military-security apparatus of the United States either overlooked this fact or actively covered it up for reasons unknown.

So, if you think Mucklow's brother-in-law caused the suspension of a ground search to protect his sister-in-law from prosecution for accepting $6000 under duress, then I guess you are in good company. 

Carry on. 

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Chaucer

[FLYJACK 754]

Here, there was an informal acceptance of assistance from Fort Lewis contingent on higher authorization.

and they had planned to start on the 14th... delayed to the 21st.

 

[olemisscub 525]

13 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

That piece had nothing to do with a delay..

I doubt the FBI ever knew about that piece in the local paper.

OK, that's much better. I thought maybe you were suggesting that they delayed the search due to the article for some reason.

What I still don't understand with your theory is why they would put out that public statement when Tina was already on record with the FBI saying she didn't take the money. You're suggesting this was done to nullify any aspersions that may have come from the court of public opinion if the FBI were to announce that some money was missing? 

[FLYJACK 754]

7 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

I mean there are well known researchers in this case that think that a guy in Pittsburgh read about the floods in the Columbia, flew out to Portland, drove to Tena Bar at night, and dug through the sand for stolen loot in 3 feet of water by moonlight. 

Other well known researchers believe that the crew of 305 ignored their prescribed flight path and flew from the Malay Intersection directly to the Canby Intersection without ATC knowing or caring, and then the entire military-security apparatus of the United States either overlooked this fact or actively covered it up for reasons unknown.

So, if you think Mucklow's brother-in-law caused the suspension of a ground search to protect his sister-in-law from prosecution for accepting $6000 during under duress, then I guess you are in good company. 

Carry on. 

 

but I never said that... to be clear. It sounds crazy.

I just don't want it attributed to me...

 

[Chaucer 110]

No, you didn't say that, but you alluded to it. 

And, yes, it does sound crazy. And frankly, for a person who fancies himself as the end all and be all of the Cooper investigation - the TOP GUY - conspiracy nonsense like this seems beneath you.

But, as I pointed out, there are a lot of prominent names in this case attached to wild, unsubstantiated conspiracies, so I guess we add your name too. 

[olemisscub 525]

Is that the same local paper that said Cooper had a gun to her head standing in the door threatening to push her out?

 

[FLYJACK 754]

3 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

OK, that's much better. I thought maybe you were suggesting that they delayed the search due to the article for some reason.

What I still don't understand with your theory is why they would put out that public statement when Tina was already on record with the FBI saying she didn't take the money. You're suggesting this was done to nullify any aspersions that may have come from the court of public opinion if the FBI were to announce that some money was missing? 

BINGO...

Only the FBI had Tina's initial statement, if the search found money missing and it was made public Tina would get both public and legal scrutiny. Getting that statement into the public would "front run" public opinion to potentially prepare a public or legal defense, if needed.

That is the only reason I can imagine that spun story was planted..

They were concerned that the money would be found and some would be  missing..  Why?

 

 

 

[olemisscub 525]

4 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

That is the only reason I can imagine that spun story was planted.

 

What makes it a planted story though? That paper probably had a source within the Mucklow family who told them that story. 

[Chaucer 110]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

BINGO...

Only the FBI had Tina's initial statement, if the search found money missing and it was made public Tina would get both public and legal scrutiny. Getting that statement into the public would "front run" public opinion to potentially prepare a public or legal defense, if needed.

That is the only reason I can imagine that spun story was planted..

They were concerned that the money would be found and some would be  missing..  Why?

 

 

 

Why would Tina get "public and legal scrutiny", if only the FBI knew about Cooper offering her money? 

You're making it seem like her brother-in-law was playing 4 dimensional chess over $6000 that Cooper offered her while she was under duress. 

[FLYJACK 754]

9 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

No, you didn't say that, but you alluded to it. 

And, yes, it does sound crazy. And frankly, for a person who fancies himself as the end all and be all of the Cooper investigation - the TOP GUY - conspiracy nonsense like this seems beneath you.

But, as I pointed out, there are a lot of prominent names in this case attached to wild, unsubstantiated conspiracies, so I guess we add your name too. 

No, I didn't even allude to it..

If you took it that way, it wasn't meant to be..  it is a crazy idea.

That is why I didn't understand your comment... 

I never said that, meant that, believed it or alluded to it.