Author Topic: Flight Path And Related Issues (Read 1101253 times)

georger · « **Reply #150 on:** March 26, 2014, 02:59:57 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Looking at Hominid's map again, and assuming that the eastern two large red "x"s are points on the airliner's path, and that it flew directly from the Mayfield/Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection, then the western two large red "x"s are probably points on the T-33's flight path.

In addition to the two eastern red "x"s, there appears to be a third red "x" on that same line and just west of the words "Williamette" and "Caution". I think I can see both a vertical line and a horizontal line with both of them being partially obscured by the large black line that is supposed to be the airliner's flight path. Also, I think I can see a sixth red "x" which would be the third red "x" on the western lines and it is located just slightly below the east end of the word "Wilsonville".

Indeed there is that 3rd red "+" on that same longitude. It's one of the larger ones of the plotted points. There's another almost as large down by the Willamette River just east of the Wilsonville circle. A small one mostly hidden by the dark line east of the word "Tualatin." Another mostly hidden by the dark line just west of where I added "V23" under the thin radial I added. Another just to the left of the "Control Area" I added in white. These are all plotted points. The four you are referencing are mistakes that were crossed out.

The great circle course between the Mayfield/Malay Intersection and the Canby Intersection is 180.14 degrees True, which means with respect to the grid lines or, in this case, the longitude lines. I don't see anything relevant in your comments above.

Try reading them. The 4 plot points you're trying to make into T33 flight path WERE PLOTTING MISTAKES that were crossed out. They were each crossed out with three to four slashes like "///" in the same color as the plot crosses, but lighter. It appears that there are numerous plot points you're unable to see. You need to use some kind of software that will enable you to see the detail.

What copy of the map are you working with? I confess I can't see anything like the three '///'s on my copy of the map. Could you crop and post an example of what you are seeing?

hom · « **Reply #151 on:** March 26, 2014, 07:06:52 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I can only see the things I have previously described. But then, I am restricted to using my eyeballs since I don't have any sight enhancing software on my computer and don't know of any magic incantations that might be useful. What software or incantations would you recommend?

I'm sorry, but I am not aware of what is available now. I use a "lite" version of Paint Shop Pro that I got years ago as a freebie with something computerie I bought. I think I can help otherwise, however. I've been attaching the files in .bmp format and it appears that this doesn't just expand by clicking on the image the way the .jpg images do. I'll use .jpg instead.

I've attached an image with the four plot points on the left side. I also dragged part of the plot from further north down and put it on the right side to show examples of what the normal red crosses look like. The image is only one JPEG away from the original file from Sluggo's site, which is the same as what the museum has. And I have my software set to use minimal compression in creating the .jpg files, so very little degradation occurs with each serial save.

hom · « **Reply #152 on:** March 26, 2014, 10:22:10 PM »

It looks like, other than the fantasy by Gunther, you guys (R99 and Georger) having heard something similar from R2 is the only reason to think there was a T33 involved. Is this right? So, was anything said that would place the T33 anywhere specific at a specific time?

Robert99 · « **Reply #153 on:** March 26, 2014, 11:02:12 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It looks like, other than the fantasy by Gunther, you guys (R99 and Georger) having heard something similar from R2 is the only reason to think there was a T33 involved. Is this right? So, was anything said that would place the T33 anywhere specific at a specific time? I have seen something in the records about some flight making some kind of progress at PDX. I think some of it is in those Harrison notes.

Here is some of the information on the T-33, starting on page 46 of Himmelsbach's book. It was an Air National Guard T-33 on a night training mission from Portland International Airport. It took off to the west about 7:50PM PST and was directed to contact Seattle ATC soon thereafter. Seattle ATC told the T-33 that they wanted it to track the airliner.

The T-33 then turned south towards Lake Oswego and about three miles behind and about 1000 feet above the airliner. Near Eugene, the T-33 was told to land at Klamath Falls, it did, and was not involved further in the hijacking matter.

According to the "FBI notes" at 8:52PM PST, the airliner was over the Eugene VORTAC, at 10,000 feet, and doing 170 KIAS. It should be noted that this 8:52 time is NOT stated as being the "time over station" which is the time that the airliner would physically pass overhead the Eugene VORTAC with a resulting shift of "TO" to "FROM" on the airliner's VOR instrument. The 8:52 time is simply the time the agent wrote down the information.

georger · « **Reply #154 on:** March 27, 2014, 12:00:12 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I can only see the things I have previously described. But then, I am restricted to using my eyeballs since I don't have any sight enhancing software on my computer and don't know of any magic incantations that might be useful. What software or incantations would you recommend?

I'm sorry, but I am not aware of what is available now. I use a "lite" version of Paint Shop Pro that I got years ago as a freebie with something computerie I bought. I think I can help otherwise, however. I've been attaching the files in .bmp format and it appears that this doesn't just expand by clicking on the image the way the .jpg images do. I'll use .jpg instead.

I've attached an image with the four plot points on the left side. I also dragged part of the plot from further north down and put it on the right side to show examples of what the normal red crosses look like. The image is only one JPEG away from the original file from Sluggo's site, which is the same as what the museum has. And I have my software set to use minimal compression in creating the .jpg files, so very little degradation occurs with each serial save.

I got a fresh copy of the map and I see what you are talking about - attached. The 4-5 west crosses are blemished vs. other crisp cross marks. Blemished, crossed out, attempt to cross out, attempt to scratch out? I'm not sure what the cause or intent would be. (Is there anything straightforward in this case?).

Note also that each of these crosses is thicker, drawn twice?, overlapped, than any of the single line red pencil crosses which are sharp and distinct along the #2 penciled flight path line(s). It makes me wonder if the west crosses are an after-thought? Why should mistakes have been only in the Portland (west) area? This could be a copy of an original map which did not have the west cross marks, like an office copy, then was worked with and crosses added by people looking at, working with, or evaluating the map (maybe in an FBI office)?

Here are sharp cross marks from the penciled flight path, for comparison.

hom · « **Reply #155 on:** March 27, 2014, 01:08:34 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It looks like, other than the fantasy by Gunther, you guys (R99 and Georger) having heard something similar from R2 is the only reason to think there was a T33 involved. Is this right? So, was anything said that would place the T33 anywhere specific at a specific time? I have seen something in the records about some flight making some kind of progress at PDX. I think some of it is in those Harrison notes.

Here is some of the information on the T-33, starting on page 46 of Himmelsbach's book. It was an Air National Guard T-33 on a night training mission from Portland International Airport. It took off to the west about 7:50PM PST and was directed to contact Seattle ATC soon thereafter. Seattle ATC told the T-33 that they wanted it to track the airliner.

The T-33 then turned south towards Lake Oswego and about three miles behind and about 1000 feet above the airliner. Near Eugene, the T-33 was told to land at Klamath Falls, it did, and was not involved further in the hijacking matter.

According to the "FBI notes" at 8:52PM PST, the airliner was over the Eugene VORTAC, at 10,000 feet, and doing 170 KIAS. It should be noted that this 8:52 time is NOT stated as being the "time over station" which is the time that the airliner would physically pass overhead the Eugene VORTAC with a resulting shift of "TO" to "FROM" on the airliner's VOR instrument. The 8:52 time is simply the time the agent wrote down the information.

Thanks. Then the T-33 would have been out somewhere for about a half hour before getting to 305 at about Lake Oswego? Might have gone straight out "there" for fifteen minutes, then back almost directly to Oswego. Doesn't seem to me like enough info to figure out what, if anything, 305 may have done to facilitate the hook-up. Doesn't seem like they would need to do anything for that purpose. Does that seem right to you?

hom · « **Reply #156 on:** March 27, 2014, 01:36:22 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I got a fresh copy of the map and I see what you are talking about - attached. The 4-5 west crosses are blemished vs. other crisp cross marks. Blemished, crossed out, attempt to cross out, attempt to scratch out? I'm not sure what the cause or intent would be. (Is there anything straightforward in this case?).

Note also that each of these crosses is thicker, drawn twice?, overlapped, than any of the single line red pencil crosses which are sharp and distinct along the #2 penciled flight path line(s). It makes me wonder if the west crosses are an after-thought? Why should mistakes have been only in the Portland (west) area? This could be a copy of an original map which did not have the west cross marks, like an office copy, then was worked with and crosses added by people looking at, working with, or evaluating the map (maybe in an FBI office)?

Most of the other plotted points are on longitudes that are just one or two minutes of longitude different from the immediately preceding point. In the case of these four points, the first is several minutes to the west of the immediately preceding one. So, the plotter uses the longitude scale that is quite near. Problem is that the minute marks don't have the values annotated by them. Every group of ten looks just like the others. There's very little difference between the groups of five. The plotter picked the wrong longitude for the northernmost of the four points. Plotted the other 3 based on differences from that one.

Eventually the plotter discovered the mistake. That pencil doesn't erase very well from the chart paper. It takes an electric eraser, and it's easy to burn through the paper. Easier just to scratch through the mistakes with the pencil.

So the plotter puts red crosses at the correct locations. These are precisely, absolutely exactly 5.0 minutes latitude to the east. These positions support the proposition that the first four were just mistakes. Although someone might have been "doodling" about "what if the plane came down 5' to the west," I can't image that they would reproduce the 1' back-and-forth part of the pattern.

Robert99 · « **Reply #157 on:** March 27, 2014, 01:42:04 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It looks like, other than the fantasy by Gunther, you guys (R99 and Georger) having heard something similar from R2 is the only reason to think there was a T33 involved. Is this right? So, was anything said that would place the T33 anywhere specific at a specific time? I have seen something in the records about some flight making some kind of progress at PDX. I think some of it is in those Harrison notes.

Here is some of the information on the T-33, starting on page 46 of Himmelsbach's book. It was an Air National Guard T-33 on a night training mission from Portland International Airport. It took off to the west about 7:50PM PST and was directed to contact Seattle ATC soon thereafter. Seattle ATC told the T-33 that they wanted it to track the airliner.

The T-33 then turned south towards Lake Oswego and about three miles behind and about 1000 feet above the airliner. Near Eugene, the T-33 was told to land at Klamath Falls, it did, and was not involved further in the hijacking matter.

According to the "FBI notes" at 8:52PM PST, the airliner was over the Eugene VORTAC, at 10,000 feet, and doing 170 KIAS. It should be noted that this 8:52 time is NOT stated as being the "time over station" which is the time that the airliner would physically pass overhead the Eugene VORTAC with a resulting shift of "TO" to "FROM" on the airliner's VOR instrument. The 8:52 time is simply the time the agent wrote down the information.

Thanks. Then the T-33 would have been out somewhere for about a half hour before getting to 305 at about Lake Oswego? Might have gone straight out "there" for fifteen minutes, then back almost directly to Oswego. Doesn't seem to me like enough info to figure out what, if anything, 305 may have done to facilitate the hook-up. Doesn't seem like they would need to do anything for that purpose. Does that seem right to you?

The airliner would stay on course and the T-33 would be vectored to join up with it. Don't forget the "turned south" statement for the T-33. As shown by the western marks, the T-33 flight path must have been almost parallel with the airliner's flight path when each crossed the Columbia River west of Portland. This doesn't mean that the T-33 had "joined up" with the airliner by the time they crossed the Columbia. The time(s) at Lake Oswego are not given but the aircraft had probably joined up by the time they reached that location. Remember that the T-33 had a substantial speed advantage over the airliner.

Robert99 · « **Reply #158 on:** March 27, 2014, 01:46:26 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I got a fresh copy of the map and I see what you are talking about - attached. The 4-5 west crosses are blemished vs. other crisp cross marks. Blemished, crossed out, attempt to cross out, attempt to scratch out? I'm not sure what the cause or intent would be. (Is there anything straightforward in this case?).

Note also that each of these crosses is thicker, drawn twice?, overlapped, than any of the single line red pencil crosses which are sharp and distinct along the #2 penciled flight path line(s). It makes me wonder if the west crosses are an after-thought? Why should mistakes have been only in the Portland (west) area? This could be a copy of an original map which did not have the west cross marks, like an office copy, then was worked with and crosses added by people looking at, working with, or evaluating the map (maybe in an FBI office)?

Most of the other plotted points are on longitudes that are just one or two minutes of longitude different from the immediately preceding point. In the case of these four points, the first is several minutes to the west of the immediately preceding one. So, the plotter uses the longitude scale that is quite near. Problem is that the minute marks don't have the values annotated by them. Every group of ten looks just like the others. There's very little difference between the groups of five. The plotter picked the wrong longitude for the northernmost of the four points. Plotted the other 3 based on differences from that one.

Eventually the plotter discovered the mistake. That pencil doesn't erase very well from the chart paper. It takes an electric eraser, and it's easy to burn through the paper. Easier just to scratch through the mistakes with the pencil.

So the plotter puts red crosses at the correct locations. These are precisely, absolutely exactly 5.0 minutes latitude to the east. These positions support the proposition that the first four were just mistakes. Although someone might have been "doodling" about "what if the plane came down 5' to the west," I can't image that they would reproduce the 1' back-and-forth part of the pattern.

Remember that the western marks are going straight south and that means they would be on the same longitude line.

hom · « **Reply #159 on:** March 27, 2014, 11:24:12 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Remember that the western marks are going straight south and that means they would be on the same longitude line.

Yes. The two westermost points exactly on 122°41'W. The other two exactly on 122°40'W. Exactly 1' difference. With the ±0.5' tolerance, the actual positions for all four could have been essentially 122°40.5'W. That is, all on the same longitude.

hom · « **Reply #160 on:** March 27, 2014, 02:15:33 PM »

Refer to the attached snip of the "FBI" flightpath plot. See the plot cross largely covered by the neanderthal line a little south of the PDX latitude. See that this cross lines up almost perfectly with the 45°34' scale mark on the latitude scale to the right (at the bottom of the "296"). Only problem is, that is not the 34' scale mark. The 34' mark is actually hiding behind the peak of the dark "teepee" obstruction symbol, and on the right side of the latitude scale. Why should anyone care?

For almost all of the plot points on the "FBI" thing, the lat and lon can be determined with sufficient precision from visible parts of the red "+"s. In the remaining cases the coordinates can be determined by the fact that the neanderthal line and big black "+" entirely obscure the red "+"s. Of all the coordinates (both lat and lon) for all the plot points, every one except for the one addressed in the preceding paragraph is measured to be within ±0.2' of being on an exact whole minute. Not one of them is measured to be within ±.2 of halfway between whole minutes. With this number of coordinates, there is no way this could be unless the data being plotted had a precision of 1' latitude and 1' longitude. The source data was rounded to whole minutes of latitude and longitude.

georger · « **Reply #161 on:** March 27, 2014, 02:58:47 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Refer to the attached snip of the "FBI" flightpath plot. See the plot cross largely covered by the neanderthal line a little south of the PDX latitude. See that this cross lines up almost perfectly with the 45°34' scale mark on the latitude scale to the right (at the bottom of the "296"). Only problem is, that is not the 34' scale mark. The 34' mark is actually hiding behind the peak of the dark "teepee" obstruction symbol, and on the right side of the latitude scale. Why should anyone care?

For almost all of the plot points on the "FBI" thing, the lat and lon can be determined with sufficient precision from visible parts of the red "+"s. In the remaining cases the coordinates can be determined by the fact that the neanderthal line and big black "+" entirely obscure the red "+"s. Of all the coordinates (both lat and lon) for all the plot points, every one except for the one addressed in the preceding paragraph is measured to be within ±0.2' of being on an exact whole minute. Not one of them is measured to be within ±.2 of halfway between whole minutes. With this number of coordinates, there is no way this could be unless the data being plotted had a precision of 1' latitude and 1' longitude. The source data was rounded to whole minutes of latitude and longitude.

which implies ... ?

(radar data?). Level of Resolution of what?

hom · « **Reply #162 on:** March 28, 2014, 12:30:01 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

which implies ... ? (radar data?). Level of Resolution of what?

I haven't thought much about "implications." Yeah, resolution of 1 minute of latitude by 1 minute of longitude. However, here's some facts.

Knowing that the precision (smallness of the differences between data points) is large in relation to the range of data values in which we're interested permits us to say that a plot of the data will look "jerky." That the plotted points will make it look like the speed would have had to vary wildly even though the actual speed didn't.

Knowing the basic fact about the data permits us to explore how such a plot would vary depending upon the true speed, and thereby draw some valid and useful (though limited) conclusions about the actual positions and groundspeeds from the seemingly fouled up position plot. See the attached pdf.

Sample of "jerky" at constant groundspeed:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Robert99 · « **Reply #163 on:** March 28, 2014, 02:11:33 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
which implies ... ? (radar data?). Level of Resolution of what?

I haven't thought much about "implications." Yeah, resolution of 1 minute of latitude by 1 minute of longitude. However, here's some facts.

Knowing that the precision (smallness of the differences between data points) is large in relation to the range of data values in which we're interested permits us to say that a plot of the data will look "jerky." That the plotted points will make it look like the speed would have had to vary wildly even though the actual speed didn't.

Knowing the basic fact about the data permits us to explore how such a plot would vary depending upon the true speed, and thereby draw some valid and useful (though limited) conclusions about the actual positions and groundspeeds from the seemingly fouled up position plot. See the attached pdf.

Sample of "jerky" at constant groundspeed:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Let's consider some basic geometric values here. I trust you realize that 1' (one minute) as used in your attachment represents one Nautical Mile (about 6080 feet) of latitude which is measured along a line of longitude (north and south) and in the Portland area about 0.7 of one Nautical Mile of longitude which is measured along a line of latitude (east and west).

To "drift" sideways by one single foot while covering a 6080 foot long Nautical Mile (or even a 4256 foot distance) is not sufficiently great to show up in the data. And you certainly cannot measure something like that on the maps that are available in the Cooper matter.

Frankly, I don't understand the "rounding errors" that you mention. The map with the time hacks on the flight path show such things as 3 Nautical Miles being covered in one minute and then 6 Nautical Miles being covered in the very next minute. That is a 100 percent difference and is not going to be the result of any rounding errors.

You continue to see things in that map that completely escapes me. I simply don't see any logical basis in what you are doing.

Sorry.

Shutter · « **Reply #164 on:** March 28, 2014, 08:56:00 PM »

I installed a "Highlighter" unfortunately it's not automatic. it's simple though. you do the following that you see on the pic. If I show you in the post, it will highlight it. just like this

UPDATE...you can now just paste the url link in the post. that's it.

test link

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Author Topic: Flight Path And Related Issues (Read 1101253 times)

georger

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

hom

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

hom

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

Robert99

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

georger

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

hom

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

hom

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

Robert99

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

Robert99

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

hom

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

hom

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

georger

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

hom

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

Robert99

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues

Shutter

Re: Flight Path And Related Issues