The two problems with the Janet story are (a) no corroborating second of third reports, and (b) the physics of what Janet could have seen or saw. But, there are problems with that. (1) The newspaper/reporter version of what Janet claimed to see does not match what 'Janet says she saw'. Blevins attacked Janet's story based squarely on the questionable newspaper account - Blevin's refused to consider anything else in spite of reports that the 'reporter' account was not accurate.  (2) The newspaper account omitted the fact Janet's husband and children were also witnesses and saw 'something' that caught their attention. (3) There is abundant evidence that whatever Janet and her husband saw they reported it to a number of people, had discussions with people including law enforcement, and Janet wrote a letter to the FBI reporting what she had seen.

Janet's husband talked to law enforcement who apparently advised to keep a low profile. Janet was then allegedly visited by "suits" who told her to STFU! The family then took a lower public profile in the matter.

Janet's story challenges the official flight path. R99 could give an opinion about that based on his analysis. Janet's story introduces the possibility of 'flares' being cited by a witness, at a time when only a handful of people at the official level suspected Cooper's bomb consisted of road flares and no dynamite. Janet and her husband reported their story in detail in a timely fashion which eliminates the possibility that they made their story up after the fact based on news accounts. Janet and her husband's report is an independent account unrelated to anyone or anything else, before flight 305 had even landed at Reno.

The newspaper reporter's account of what Janet saw, eliminates Janet's husband, children, and others from the story! The reporter's version of what Janet saw is not a true or accurate account of what 'Janet AND HER HUSBAND' said they saw.

One possible explanation for a strong FBI reaction, whether appropriate or not, is the fact that Janet's report literally dovetailed other official discussions happening in the same time frame as Janet and her husband's observations were happening Janet and her husband made their observations in the same time frame as flight 305 was leaving Portland-Vancouver airspace to be turned over from R2 at Seattle to the controller at Eugene . A lot was happening during this short time frame. R2 was in communication with 305, with another controller at Eugene, with military people, and also with a T33 trying to intercept flight 305 just south of Portland. The flight crew on 305 had just reported 'he must have bailed ...'. It was to say the least a chaotic fact-dense period with many communications happening and people trying to plan the next move ...

As soon as R2 passed control over to Eugene  and things settled down a bit, R2 asked the controller at Eugene if this hijacking could have anything to do with a "flare dropping incident" (FAA/FBI documented) which had occurred at Eugene the weekend before 11/24/71? This lead to a series of discussions. It ultimately influenced the FBI to give suspects in the Eugene area some scrutiny; commented about later by 305 passengers being shown suspect photos.

But, the Janet 'fire' report and the Eugene 'flare' report dovetail. It is no surprise that the FBI took it seriously and tried to clamp down on rumors.

What Janet saw may have been flares being dropped and drifting.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The two problems with the Janet story are (a) no corroborating second of third reports, and (b) the physics of what Janet could have seen or saw. But, there are problems with that. (1) The newspaper/reporter version of what Janet claimed to see does not match what 'Janet says she saw'. Blevins attacked Janet's story based squarely on the questionable newspaper account - Blevin's refused to consider anything else in spite of reports that the 'reporter' account was not accurate.  (2) The newspaper account omitted the fact Janet's husband and children were also witnesses and saw 'something' that caught their attention. (3) There is abundant evidence that whatever Janet and her husband saw they reported it to a number of people, had discussions with people including law enforcement, and Janet wrote a letter to the FBI reporting what she had seen.

Janet's husband talked to law enforcement who apparently advised to keep a low profile. Janet was then allegedly visited by "suits" who told her to STFU! The family then took a lower public profile in the matter.

Janet's story challenges the official flight path. R99 could give an opinion about that based on his analysis. Janet's story introduces the possibility of 'flares' being cited by a witness, at a time when only a handful of people at the official level suspected Cooper's bomb consisted of road flares and no dynamite. Janet and her husband reported their story in detail in a timely fashion which eliminates the possibility that they made their story up after the fact based on news accounts. Janet and her husband's report is an independent account unrelated to anyone or anything else, before flight 305 had even landed at Reno.

The newspaper reporter's account of what Janet saw, eliminates Janet's husband, children, and others from the story! The reporter's version of what Janet saw is not a true or accurate account of what 'Janet AND HER HUSBAND' said they saw.

One possible explanation for a strong FBI reaction, whether appropriate or not, is the fact that Janet's report literally dovetailed other official discussions happening in the same time frame as Janet and her husband's observations were happening Janet and her husband made their observations in the same time frame as flight 305 was leaving Portland-Vancouver airspace to be turned over from R2 at Seattle to the controller at Eugene . A lot was happening during this short time frame. R2 was in communication with 305, with another controller at Eugene, with military people, and also with a T33 trying to intercept flight 305 just south of Portland. The flight crew on 305 had just reported 'he must have bailed ...'. It was to say the least a chaotic fact-dense period with many communications happening and people trying to plan the next move ...

As soon as R2 passed control over to Eugene  and things settled down a bit, R2 asked the controller at Eugene if this hijacking could have anything to do with a "flare dropping incident" (FAA/FBI documented) which had occurred at Eugene the weekend before 11/24/71? This lead to a series of discussions. It ultimately influenced the FBI to give suspects in the Eugene area some scrutiny; commented about later by 305 passengers being shown suspect photos.

But, the Janet 'fire' report and the Eugene 'flare' report dovetail. It is no surprise that the FBI took it seriously and tried to clamp down on rumors.

What Janet saw may have been flares being dropped and drifting.

I like your analysis, G. As for corroboration, I thought there were two other accounts of the fiery object, with Janet's making a total of three. I recall you and Galen wondering if the 2nd and 3rd accounts were actually a re-telling of the episode after the other parties had heard of the fiery object through Janet/the Vancouver grape vine.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Flares could of been to there advantage. they can lite up 15 acres for 15 seconds. I'm not saying they did, I think a lot of people would have seen them...

In my opinion, it is very unlikely that the T-33 or the F-106s(?) would be carrying flares in the first place.  I do not know of any purpose that they would serve.  In any event, the aircraft were quite a bit higher than the lowest cloud layer which (from memory) was about 3,000 feet.