Looks like Bohan was mistaken with his fierce winds out of the south at PDX, unless he experienced a very strange anomaly.

I really don't care what you buy. you are going against known evidence based on a card YOU can't confirm has been in the same location for 7 years prior to being found. then you move the path at random. you are basing it on winds that you believe are set in stone which we are learning are not. winds are very unpredictable at the least. especially at different levels. simply "not buying it" shows failure to even research any facts surrounding weather, winds or anything that could support or bust a theory. looking at the winds that evening and calling it quits is not how things go in my book.

the path could be 3 miles east or west. nobody can confirm that either. the radar will be inaccurate the further away it is. but when it's right on top of a major airport saying where the plane was is pretty damn hard to get around, period! saying you "don't buy it" is hard to swallow but you want everyone to swallow the money was planted and the path was wrong?

I can start saying the wind caused a false reading on the stairs and that's why I believe he didn't jump where they marked it. Cooper jumped at 8:05. it makes sense. they didn't even search that area and that's why nothing was found? it's pretty simple. the oscillation was simply wind.

I don't research to better one side. I research to find answers. I'm not one sided on anything. it appears that way due to the evidence at hand. i had questions about the path. so I thought of the simulator. I didn't do it to prove it was wrong. I did for answers. some of you guys look solely on dismissing, ignoring hard evidence to back a theory. even the autopilot. nobody knows when it was on or off. they claim it was on for most of Washington. you want to suggest it was on where the plane wasn't flying basically straight for most of Washington. the turns around the jump zone? that whole area doesn't make sense, but answers lie with the pilots who might answer those questions that might end up making sense. can I put mystery into this claiming the pilots might of taken pills that affected his senses. did they drug test them?

You want to claim a reason why nothing was found based on nothing found in another location. he could hide the chute under some branches but couldn't bury it or hide anything good enough anywhere else?
It's okay to fly around over Seattle for long periods but not Portland for two minutes?
The card is set in stone where it was found?

You decide the plane turns before malay one mile after Toledo where the plane hardly has enough time to recover from the first turn? R99 makes more sense flying straight to Malay. how many paths can we have? I count four now.

Rat claims the location can be found looking over the records while talking with the company. not the tower. maybe they told him not to broadcast the information, I don't know?

I agree 100% with the 3 points you written. my point of the term "manufactured evidence" is not meant to be offensive. if that is what you believe, I'm sorry. it's not how I intended to imply it. the points you provided have not been confirmed as fact of there placement. if you use these points, nothing can be written as fact while using them. if that makes sense. even if he planted the money, it doesn't change the path. it's nothing but speculation. it can't be anything else. the theory can not survive without facts..

As I mentioned on TMN. I'm out trying to make sense of all of this. the first person I contacted was Tom. email and phone. my job, if you look at it that way is finding answers. I can't tell you the path is accurate to any degree, but I can tell you it strongly suggests that. it's the main reason I did the simulator. (skeptical) but not to disprove but to find answers.

As I also mention on TMN that I wouldn't stop and claim the path was wrong if I found a critical error. I would seek out better knowledge to confirm my findings and proceed from there. I'm a sim pilot, not a real one. who's going to believe me?

To be sure, each one of us has a manner in which we approach challenges, mysteries, puzzles, etc. I certainly think your approach is valid and compelling.

This is probably an appropriate time to mention that I have theorized about DBC landing on Bachelor Island and stashing the missing evidence (parachutes and attache' case) there for awhile. During this time I have been actively organizing a search of my target area which will commence within three weeks.

I have obtained the appropriate permissions and arranged the logistics for the search which will include traveling by boat to and from the island (the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge would not grant me permission to cross their off-limit areas to access Bachelor Island). Additionally, we'll be using magnetic locators and ground-penetrating radar from a drone.

Finally, I have been working to broadcast a LIVE STREAM of the search on the DB Cooper Channel on YouTube. The stream would be accessible to anyone with internet access for FREE. I hope to have the logistics worked out regarding this LIVE STREAM within the next week.

I actually have thought quite a bit about the timing. In fact, there are two components regarding the timing. First, there is where the jet was along the flight path at a given moment. Second, there is when DBC actually jumped.

I ultimately felt comfortable that the first point regarding the location of the jet along the flight path (irrespective of the path) was probably accurate. In other words, the FBI stating that the jet turned at Malay at 7:59 strikes me as legit. After all, there aren't too many ways to screw this up.

On the second point regarding when DBC jumped, I likewise felt it was likely that he jumped when they felt the "pressure bump." Also, that this time was probably 8:12 or very close to that time.

Of course, both of these assumptions on my part--and the FBI--may be wrong.

Needless to say, the previous assumptions, along with other factors, cause me to believe that DBC almost certainly survived. In fact, I would put the odds at close to 100%.

Of course, none of these things can be known with absolute certainty. What can? That said, if the "absolute certainty" standard is applied too rigorously it's inevitable that paralysis will set in and nothing will get resolved. 

most of the case appears to have been or being replaced. it's becoming a new crime. the Amboy chute was Cooper's. the bomb was made of red tape. Cooper's description is wrong. the path is wrong. everything is wrong? this concerns me a great deal.

This is a valid point. The challenge is striking a balance between not-getting-carried-away with thinking-outside-of-the-box.

If you have any questions about 71 vintage radiosondes the guy who runs this online museum is the man.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

For some reason thousands of brand new radiosondes were sold surplus for pennies. I bought several different kinds for $1 each in the late 1960s and early 70s. Most were mfd by VIZ. They had no NAV gear but did contain aneroid  altitude/baro sensor, UHF radio transmitter, temp sensor and other stuff. Later ones had LORAN C receivers which were superseded by GPS receivers. The NAV receivers eliminated the need for ground based radar tracking of balloon position.

377

Another person with demonstrated avionics skills, says:

"I see nothing inconsistent between the info about placard find location and the
"FBI" flight path, largely because neither is precise and we also don't have precise info
on the atmospheric conditions at the applicable time and position."

The person above ran his own analysis equally complete to what R99 has run, or any other individual. There are just too many unknowns ... did the placard ice up or was it moisture loaded which would affect its trajectory. The aerodynamic options available are too many and unknown.  All of that said -

""I see nothing inconsistent between the info about placard find location and the
"FBI" flight path, largely because neither is precise and we also don't have precise info
on the atmospheric conditions at the applicable time and position."

I still haven't had time to redo the analysis using Tom's new information.  But I will get to it in the next few days and it will be more complex than the previous ones.

Your friend is right that neither the FBI flight path nor the placard analysis is precise.  However, I did a rather thorough analysis of the atmospheric conditions in the Portland/Vancouver area about 10 years ago and found that they were about two percent more dense than the standard conditions for a given altitude.

At Tom's suggestion, the effects of moisture on the placard were considered in the original analysis.  Believe it or not, there is information online about the effects of moisture on falling objects.  I'll comment on this further in the forthcoming analysis.