Hominid

A VERY INACCURATE model.

I groaned when I first saw Himmelsbach identify the seat on that Decoded episode. Shows that both he and the Decoded bunch were clueless that there were many different "727s" with many different seating arrangements. One can't just go on a 727 and expect that the flight 305 727 was the same. The big tip-off of the difference is that the seat 18C H. identified was not in the last row of seats.

The Boeing data for -100 series 727s indicates that there was a window the next row forward. One handy thing about the row from a hijacker's point of view is that the seat position just aft of the last window was aft of the front end of the engine on the side. I don't understand why you think the photo is not like the seating plan you posted. Looks to me like the one that had 18 rows. Maybe it's that you're seeing 2 seats in the photo. I think it is 3. I would bet a little money that the photo was among those taken during the re-enactment flight. Quote We have been saying Cooper sat is 18C. Most of the socalled official publications and the FBI including Larry Carr have been saying, 18C. Tom Kaye says it was 18E. based on FBI 302's he has read ! Quote: "2. Cooper sat in seat 18E (Fig. 1), all the way in the back on the right side of the plane. According to the FBI 302's, the black tie was found on his seat cushion - 18E." Kaye even has a photo of the seat - notice there is no window next to his seat as per allegations Cooper moved over to look out "his" window' while on the ground at SEA? Must have been some other window because there is no window close to his seat, on his side of the plane. And right side of the plane now means 'right' looking forward from the back, which contradicts another socalled official account. The photo of his seat is not like the seating plan I previously posted - notice the number 18 on the AC dispenser just above the seat which identifies the row of these two seats ... I assume the photo of seat 18E Tom has put up on his website is an FBI photo?Quote

I think it likely that Almstad actually said, "I think it was a man,". Note that the statement is nonsense as it stands. The reporter or typist or typesetter probably just left out a word. I think, Almstad was saying (in effect) that he couldn't tell whether it was a man or a woman he saw carrying the bag.

Jo, Don't blame me on Georger. He didn't bring me to the thread. Pay attention.

I think he was probably there, but I would question whether he actually knew what the weather was. I think it likely that neither he nor the helo pilot had ever flown at low level through rain in the dark. H was even less likely to have ever done it in a helo. They may have been moving faster than the pilot normally would because they were trying to find 305. It was likely a different kind of experience for each of them. How would they size up the weather under unfamiliar circumstances?

Obvious conclusions are often wrong. Regarding the 80kt headwind there is really only one source in the public record. If he was actually told it, he probably swallowed it eagerly and repeated it because it fit the scenario he had long espoused and maybe believed.

Here's an analogy to explain the likelihood of an 80kt south wind at 14K feet in an airmass over Oregon and Washington moving eastward at 30kt. Imagine yourself in the center of a sports field (like US football field) with a whole, whole lot of other people. You're standing shoulder to shoulder with people all the way across the field. There are rows just like yours behind you and in front of you, all so close and tight that it's impossible to step forward or back unless the row there does as well. You're all packed in like sardines so you even have your shoulders pulled in tight. (Keep your hands to yourself by holding them at your chest.) The whole population on that field is walking lockstep down the field toward the east and the others on the field are really intent upon going that way. You're all going 3 knots. You are now a molecule of air and your neighbors are too. You are part of the air moving to the east over Oregon and Washington on the evening of 11/24/71. The air molecule on either side of you is your friend. You and your two friends think you're a strong wind, and you decide you want to run at 8 knots 90° to one side, toward the south. The first step you take, you find yourself in a place already occupied by air heading east. The air mob doesn't share your wish to go south. You lose the tussle. You'd be doing well just to edge a bit toward the south. This is like having a strong south wind (you) in a sea of west wind. Ain't gonna happen. The only way you could go cross-flow is if there were something like a wall out on the field to divert at least part of the flow. Or maybe a huge mob of air running onto the field from the sideline. There was nothing equivalent to that on the route from Seattle to Portland on hijack night.

At 14K' 80kt would be a very high wind speed. I think it could happen over central Washington only if a jetstream were overhead with a speed around 160kt, which is about as fast as they get in the region. If it happened, the wind direction would be very close to the direction of the wind in the jetstream. From the 500mBar charts for the 24th and 25th we can estimate pretty well the path of the jetstream at 4am on those days. Each is a line through maximum wind speeds shown on the chart. I've attached a copy of part of the 500mBar chart for the 25th with the estimates for the jetstream at 4am on both days. The position of Portland is marked with a small "x." At 4am on each day the jetstream came over the coast at about the California border. On the 24th the jetstream went quickly up to northern Montana because the -25C° (and -30C°) constant-temperature lines (the dashed ones) retreated WAY up into Canada. This reduced the temperature gradient over Montana, so the 500mBar wind speeds dropped a bit and so would the jetstream wind speed. This is why the lines for the jetstreams are not continuous in this area. You may have noticed from TV weather how jetstreams sort of "slither" across the northern US. Although the wind in the jetstream is fast, the jetstream itself (its path) doesn't. They can't make abrupt changes. The jetstream at 4am on the 24th ran across southern Oregon. Quite a distance from Vancouver. By 4am the next morning (8 hrs after jump time) it was even farther away. In neither case was the jetstream direction anywhere near being from south. Note too that interpolating between the wind directions on the two "flags" shown near Portland would give close to west wind at the 500mBar level, which is nominally 18K'. 24 hours earlier, the wind direction was almost the same (apx 260°). There is no way the wind at 14K' would have been from south as would have been necessary to fit the Bohan lore.

Different kinds of clouds are associated with different kinds and intensities of weather (precipitation and wind) as explained below if you're interested. The surface weather charts for 4am PST on the mornings of the 24th and 25th have indications of what kinds of clouds were observed then at a number of stations (mostly airports) in the US northwest. The symbology also indicates the extent of sky coverage by clouds and the amount of precipitation in the preceding 6 hours for each station. One thing that would jump out immediately at a weather person is that the 11/24 chart shows complete overcast (total cloud coverage) at almost every station all the way to Montana. The stations for which the coverage wasn't total had near-total coverage. In present day the situation would be like looking at a satellite picture and seeing clouds covering the entire region. The chart for the next day shows only a bit less coverage. From the 24th chart, low-altitude cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud was above PDX 16 hours before jump time. But this Cb did not have a clear outline at the top and was not flat across the top. This would have indicated likely "bad" weather. PDX reported no thunderstorm. Although it wasn't raining there at 4am, they had received .10" of rain in the preceding 6 hours. A couple of hours earlier, out on the coast to the northwest, Astoria had heard some thunder. Elsewhere around Washington, Oregon and the Idaho stovepipe, stations reported stratus, stratocumulus over cumulus, stratocumulus, and altocumulus. None of these types is associated with more than light rain and breeze. Reported rain amounts were small, the only significant rain being at the Washington coast. Away from the coast, Washington stations reported fog. The chart for the next morning (4am) shows close to the same for 8 hours after jump time. No station reported vertically developed Cb or thunder. A higher proportion reported stratocumulus over cumulus, and a higher portion reported broken cloud cover rather than overcast (near total cover). Billings and Cut Bank, MT to the east reported almost clear sky. The cloud cover over the region had somewhat dissipated. Again, the clouds were not of types that produce heavy precipitation or strong wind. Preceding 6-hour rain amounts were small except on the Washington coast. For both days, the 4am surface charts give a picture consistent with the scenario of humid marine air being driven steadily eastward (as shown by the 500mBar charts) and being cooled gradually as it moved along. Very stable weather conditions. Temperature and pressure gradients too low to produce violent weather. A large, persistent system. Away from the coast, the weather was close to the same everywhere for at least 24 hours. At any given point and time, the weather coming in from the west was going to be pretty much the same for several hours. -------------------- Cloud correlations: Stratocumulus has very light rain or "drizzle" and can have mildly unstable air if close behind a cold front. Nimbostratus gives constant but moderate precipitation and usually develops from altostratus from which precipitation has begun. This constant, moderate precipitation might be considered by some to be "bad" weather. Altocumulus indicates mild instability at altitude and can produce precipitation that doesn't make it to the surface (if any at all). Stratus forms in precipitation from higher clouds or forms from stable, moist air that is cooled. Stratus produces light rain or drizzle. Some cumulonimbus (Cb) produce rain, but separate shallow Cb (like beetles) are indicators of fair weather. If the clouds have large vertical development, strong updraft exists inside the cloud. These can produce moderate rain. The worst weather comes with such a cloud that builds high and develops a flattened top. Heavy rain. Wind. Hail. Lightning and thunder. Definitely "bad" weather.

Hey Blevins, I believe the cases thing 'cause someone was obviously taking your picture while you were shooting. Either that or you have a cyclops eye. Looks a little odd with the sights lined up with your forehead.

I want to address the lack of hail in any of the lore about hijack night. First, though, note that any "witness" henceforth remembering the hail that came down in the horrible weather that night did not remember it until someone pointed out the following. In other words, such account will be null and void. I think that alternate up/down drafts is no longer considered necessary for hail formation. The up and down typically occurs in circulation in those tall, black cumulonimbus clouds. Storm clouds. Associated with thunderstorms. Lightning. Thunder. Heavy rain. Actual bad weather. Lack of hail in stories about horrible weather is part of the evidence against existence of that horrible weather. Anyone henceforth remembering the hail that night is obviously a liar.

I agree with the first. I also have not seen your recent posts as arguing that weather was bad. I think the Rataczak re. turbulence is irrelevant because all I've seen is like "a little" which would not be extraordinary and not an indicator of particularly bad weather. Hang in Georger. Unless someone comes up with some new data or different angle on what we have, I don't see what more I can say about it other than exploring veracity of a couple of reports from people (person) supposedly in a helo that night.

Thanks.

Thanks Robert. Am I right to assume that some of the technology wasn't available or as good in '71, so it would have been even less wise then to fly in moderate rain?

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.

Airtwardo, Since apparently you've flown light planes, what do you personally think about the questions I posed? The article is inconclusive for me. On the one hand, he seems to acknowledge that quite a few pilots don't mind flying in moderate or even heavy rain. On the other hand, it appears that such flying is probably stressful for most pilots.

Yeah, and heaven help you if they've frozen! Ouch!

Thanks Jo. Not to worry. In my analyses I don't use anything someone else has done to basic, original evidence. Relying on someone else's work can get you going toward false conclusions.

The discussion is not about 305. It relates to perceptions of "witnesses" about weather that night. Didn't you want to understand the accounts that don't agree with weather bureau data?

Thanks. I haven't digested it yet, but it looks like it will be helpful. Robert99, Do you think that someone flying thru steady rain would be apprehensive about whether or not hail might be next?

I think it could be a little helpful to explore not actual weather but perceptions of it. Specifically, I'd like to get some thoughts about this from people who fly light private planes or are at least familiar with such. Pilots, passengers or even people close to private aviation. I've never been close to that community, so my thoughts may be way off. First, what about flying through moderate, steady rain? It seems to me that pilots try to avoid doing this and they're trained to avoid it. Maybe don't go out flying if it's raining or if it's likely to be raining while you're out. Try to avoid areas of rain. Go around it if you can, or climb above it. How right or wrong am I about this? What proportion of private pilots fly through such weather frequently? How nervous or "spooked" (or scared) would a typical private pilot be about flying through such weather in day time? How about doing it in the dark? How different would it be in relation to flying through light rain? Scattered showers?

Thanks Robert99. I assume you mean the copy of a google earth view.

Do you mean you have a color version of the search zone map? All I've seen is B/W. I don't think a color of that would be particularly helpful unless it had better resolution than the B/W, which is about 59 pixels per statute mile. I'd like to have better resolution if it's available.

You should be able to find lots of them right in your town.