You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

what are you trying to claim?

I am simply saying that I believe the FBI flight path is wrong.

The USAF analysis group could not determine exactly when and where Cooper jumped because, fundamentally, the crew screwed up and reported late and they didn't know where they had been when they scrambled to reverse engineer where they were at the time, or even what the exact time was.

If the Cook interview of Anderson is true, which may or may not be the case, the crew debated what signs (pressure bump) meant until finally (2-3 mins later) Rataczak abruptly radioed the company saying they thought Cooper had left.

None of that has anything to do with radar data determining the flight. That only has to do with uncertainty with where Cooper bailed and the time - and that is why the first LaCenter search map is constructed as it is. Its a probability map! The more time they wasted after 8:05-8:13 discussing the matter the closer to the Columbia they were ... and then years later Cooper money turns up on one of the beaches of the Columbia!

Nothing in that scenario means the original flight path is wrong. What it means is the crew's reporting of Cooper bailing was delayed with no time and position known with any accuracy.

I think the crew made several critical errors. one, not reporting the pressure bump or exit point correctly and two, not looking in the back to see if he left. most, if not all the copycat flights had the crew check for exit.

If the Anderson interview is true, that is exactly what Anderson says happened.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

what are you trying to claim?

I am simply saying that I believe the FBI flight path is wrong.

The USAF analysis group could not determine exactly when and where Cooper jumped because, fundamentally, the crew screwed up and reported late and they didn't know where they had been when they scrambled to reverse engineer where they were at the time, or even what the exact time was.

If the Cook interview of Anderson is true, which may or may not be the case, the crew debated what signs (pressure bump) meant until finally (2-3 mins later) Rataczak abruptly radioed the company saying they thought Cooper had left.

None of that has anything to do with radar data determining the flight. That only has to do with uncertainty with where Cooper bailed and the time - and that is why the first LaCenter search map is constructed as it is. Its a probability map! The more time they wasted after 8:05-8:13 discussing the matter the closer to the Columbia they were ... and then years later Cooper money turns up on one of the beaches of the Columbia!

Nothing in that scenario means the original flight path is wrong. What it means is the crew's reporting of Cooper bailing was delayed with no time and position known with any accuracy.

Wouldn't all of this be on the flight recorders? The pressure bump, crew conversations about it, the crew finally calling it in?

It's stuff like this that doesn't make sense. Either they utilized info from the jet or not. If they did they could determine precisely when the crew thought Cooper had jumped.

Eric, if you recall it's even in the transcripts about the possibility of his exit. they didn't know until they landed whether or not he was still with them. they were suppose to flash the lights to mark the spot but failed to because they weren't sure.

I don't know if the flight recorder had the ability of pressure. the records state it was used for speed, direction and altitude. some do and some don't.

If not mistaken the flight recorders are on a loop and over run older recordings. they typically need the last minutes of discussion on tape.

Cooper was frustrated trying to get the stairs down. I believe Cooper was responsible for the placard and possibly threw on the stairs..

the material on the stairs are not identifiable. the placard had writing on it...

I thought the maps and the plotting were infallible, yet we have an obvious discrepancy here. Why?

I don't think anyone believes this. look on the map and you will see "estimate"

The flight map can be off by one minute north and south and I believe one half mile east and west. If the map is off on the jump calculations how will that affect the search? do you believe they went right to where the estimate tells them he landed? they checked the entire area. not just where the estimate shows.

I agree that it can boil down to calculation errors, but not by almost 10 miles.

Tom Kaye said lots of information regarding the jump time was documented in the files. one map is the flight path and the other is a location of a possible LZ. they might differ from each other but it doesn't mean it's completely wrong.

does it make sense that Cooper wore loafers, should we shift it around and get a pair of boots on the plane.
We have now seen the placard can get to the ground in multiple ways. is the drift infallible?
The most damaging parts I see is the traffic controllers (multiple) stating where the plane was. this appears to line up with the flight path. is the path perfect, exact. doubtful. is the timing off, probably. was the drift distance right of where Cooper could of landed (infallible) doubtful. it's an estimate only. it gave them something to go by. a target area.

Can we really move the path because nothing was found? if we searched all around Tbar and Caterpillar island and find nothing do we discount R99's theory based on "nothing found" If we search west of Ridgefield and find nothing do we discount this as well or only discount in the original search area's?

with missing data it's very hard to come to a conclusion. manufacturing things isn't going to help either.

we need to hear things like the traffic controllers stating they weren't sure the plane left V23 or the Air Force saying the path is an educated guess. this doesn't appear to be the case.

To lend more credibility to my “the placard is very important” claim, I am presenting the following information.

First of all, Sandia Laboratories did extensive research on free-falling rectangular plates in 1968 for the US government. A PDF copy of their report can be found at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login .

The report brings out some important info including that during their testing, which involved multiple drops from 2,000 feet and 10,000 feet, they demonstrated that all such objects eventually rotate and that this rotation along with ever-shifting access provides lift and causes the placards to move forward. In fact, the 10,000 foot drops showed the plates traveled 6,000 feet (over a mile) under static weather conditions. Moreover, it provides some beyond-my-pay-grade formulas to determine movement of such plates.

R99 used this report in the analysis he did for Tom Kaye on the placard find. Robert made five assumptions:

1)   The placard was 6” X 6” = .25 sq. ft.
2)   The placard weighed 1 ounce.
3)   The wind was from 225 at 18 knots.
4)   The jet was at 10,000 feet when the placard flew out the back.
5)   The elevation of the placard find was 1,500 feet.

Utilizing this data R99 determined that the placard traveled “conservatively” 2.68 NM, in other words just over 3 SM.

Last night I closely reviewed pictures of the placard and asked him to revisit his distance based upon what I observed, which includes:

1)   The placard was about 6” X 4” = .167 sq. ft.
2)   The placard weighed about 1/3 of an ounce. (This is rough based upon the fact that it is 61% the size of a #10 business envelop, which when holding four 8.5” X 11” sheets of paper is just under 1 oz. according to the USPS.)
3)   The wind average was approximately 24 knots.
4)   The elevation of the placard find was approximately 1,300 feet (according to Google Earth).

Extrapolating these numbers merely in a linear fashion you arrive at a drift for the placard of 8-9 SM. Which, if you look on my 8:12 Arc Theory, puts it in the same location as my Western-most flight path and also in the same location as R99’s Maylay-Canby flight path theory.