This what you are looking for?

Maybe poster had somebody else in mind?  Peterson? Thats why I asked.

This what you are looking for?

That would be the one. In the version of the files that I see (taken from Colbert's website) there are a lot of redactions on that page. Your version does not have any. What gives?

My guess is the FBI either gave Gray copies, or are working with him in releasing them..Colbert had to obtain them through the FOIA, which I'm sure has guidelines for privacy...Gray wouldn't fall under that protection...IMO?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

My guess is the FBI either gave Gray copies, or are working with him in releasing them..Colbert had to obtain them through the FOIA, which I'm sure has guidelines for privacy...Gray wouldn't fall under that protection...IMO?

That could be it. The document you posted above about the money bag dimensions contains no redactions. But the same document obtained from Colbert's website (which is page #240 in the file that contains 278 pages) has several redactions. Perhaps I need to go the GG route instead of the Colbert route in looking at these files.

I can send you his files?

Gray's files only contain 77 pages...

It's a little confusing. some time back I was given files from unknown sources (some what) these files were from Las Vegas and redacted, and incomplete. Gray's files came out and were not redacted and fill in the gaps from my files, but his are from Seattle  then Colbert starts getting batches of files from FOIA, and in some cases are completely redacted with some pages, but has more info about suspects vs other things. all together they are a good tool...

Its serving a meal one molecule at a time for the next 200,000,000,000 years. GL. 

Anyone want to volunteer to stitch it all together by next Tuesday?

 

R 99 wrote: "377, what is your estimate of the g's during the opening at 180 MPH of a round canopy?"

It depends on what kind of opening you get. I have had so called "slammer" openings on squares that have popped a few suspension lines that were in excellent condition. On C9 rounds I'd guess 9Gs max at 180 mph deployment. C 9s don't often give abrupt openings. Note the gentle squidding on the 727 SAT Thailand jumps.

See: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login  The speed limits on chutes are real. They can fail if exceeded.

"All of the [modern commercial] canopies open significantly faster than the military 28ā€™ canopy ā€“ with some canopies of this general type capable of producing 20 gā€™s or more at only 180 knots. While this quicker opening is a great benefit at low speeds and/or low altitudes (such as skydiving cutaways) it is definitely a mixed blessing in the bailout environment. It must be further noted that smaller canopies inherently open faster than larger ones (due to the smaller internal filling volume)."

"Based on my qualitative feel for the overall experience of the tests that I've conducted, some of the small, very lightweight canopies (NPI/FFE) in use today have in excess of 50% catastrophic failure rates at speeds of 130 to 150 knots. These same canopies would almost certainly exhibit a 100% failure rate at speeds over 180 knots."

Here is some info on FAA canopy standards (TSO C23)  See pg 22/64  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

TSO C23b was based on testing a military C9 round canopy,which at the time was considered a state of
the art canopy.Standard category equipment had to demonstrate the ability to withstand a 5000
lb shock load with no damage. No specific speed or weight was required for structural testing.
This testing was adequate for most skydiving applications when all canopies were round and were built
out of relatively high permeability fabric and high elongation Nylon lines.
With new technologies such as low permeability fabric and new canopy designs like ram-air canopies,
this standard was no longer adequate. Some canopies could generate the 5000 lb shock loads at relatively
low weights and speeds while others would not generate 5000 lbs at speeds and weights far
higher than what was required with a C9.
Parachute equipment produced under TSO C23b has no required placarded maximum weight or
speed. However, this is very misleading. All parachute equipment has a maximum weight and speed
combination above which failure is likely.
In most cases it is significantly easier to pass the 5000 lb shock load of C23b than to
pass the minimum testing requirements of TSO C23C or TSO C23D.
The next revision of the TSO,TSO C23c, provided a solution to the lack of specific weight and speed
testing and placarded limits.However,TSO C23c had a major limitation in that it only provided for
certifying equipment up to 254 lbs exit weight.This meant that anyone over about 230 lbs could
not legally use this equipment.
TSO C23d fixed this limitation by providing a means for certifying at higher weights and higher
airspeeds.

377

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The cut shroud lines definitely could have been used to secure the money bag IF DBC was a savvy jumper or rigger. If you do something dumb like secure the lines to a trouser belt loop rather than the main lift web of the harness, failure is likely to occur under canopy opening shock loads.

Many Whuffos underestimate the G loads encountered during canopy deployment. The bold as hell skyjacker in the Philippines who sewed his own parachute canopy learned the hard way as it opened then shredded.

There is zero evidence that Cooper used any electronics for nav or comms. A pocket VHF tunable aviation band receiver would have been a smart carry. Could have monitored all the plane comms. I bought one in 1969, made by Radio Shack. It cost under $30 and worked great.

377

You always say there's zero evidence for this and zero evidence for that, kind of implying that it must not have happened then.  We only have two pieces of physical evidence in this case -- the Tina Bar money and a placard.  That's it.  Evidence for much of anything is pretty much non-existent here.  Yet, that is your counter argument for just about everything.  What was in the bag, what was in the briefcase besides a bomb or flares, what was in Cooper's pocket??  Yes, there was No evidence of an electronics device, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.  You are definitely a lawyer, 377
Meyer

I confess to being a bit (shocked?) that the FBI (or somebody) actually considered Cooper having 'electronics'. I mean wasn't it the FBI that said he was dumb, deaf, and blind, nasty foul mouthed food service worker who couldnt tie his shoes, too dumb for electronics .... now behind the scenes it turns out they were considering the hijacker had real skills and technical knowledge of a rather sophisticated kind?  Public vs private stances?

Obviously a tech discussion was going on behind the scenes. I may now be forced to reconsider my stance that radios weren't involved and it could not have been ... Kenny Christiansen's uncle, Daag Hammerskoldt von Petersbuilkt ? Hvad vil den enxt FBI-dokumentet bringe?