700 ft per minute would be around 12 minutes to drop. 180 feet per minute would be around 47 minutes. 700 number puts the card dropping at around 11 feet per second..

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That chart doesn't seem to make sense. it continues with altitudes in the next figures directly below showing the last altitude of 50,000.
3.0 ft/sec at 50k takes .05?

.09 at 1,000 feet?

The figures remain the same for altitudes of 1,000 thru 9,000 feet?

Are these figures something to factor in with other figures vs what the actual number or conclusion is for these altitudes?

Three feet a second would be 180 feet per minute. not 700 feet as you calculated being similar to a parachute drift. how do they equal?

The chart is for non-rotation which appears to have changed from it "tumbling"

Chart below is just an example...

The chart you have posted shows various data for each altitude segment.

For example, if you drop leaflets at 1000 feet the data pertaining to that segment would be in the "5-0 height increment." Next, for a leaflet to travel through that entire segment--meaning 5k to 0 feet--it would take 0.49 hours. However, your placard drop would be only from 1K. Therefore it would take about 1/5th of the time, in other words, 0.9 hours. Moreover, the wind speed is 5 KTS during that segment, you would have a horizontal drift of 1/5th of 2.5 NM, and the azimuth angle is 170.

Thanks for adding your sailplane experience R99 and confirming debris sightings aloft.

Some pilots refer to skydivers as skytrash.

377

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

That chart doesn't seem to make sense. it continues with altitudes in the next figures directly below showing the last altitude of 50,000.
3.0 ft/sec at 50k takes .05?

.09 at 1,000 feet?

The figures remain the same for altitudes of 1,000 thru 9,000 feet?

Are these figures something to factor in with other figures vs what the actual number or conclusion is for these altitudes?

Three feet a second would be 180 feet per minute. not 700 feet as you calculated being similar to a parachute drift. how do they equal?

The chart is for non-rotation which appears to have changed from it "tumbling"

Chart below is just an example...

The chart you have posted shows various data for each altitude segment.

For example, if you drop leaflets at 1000 feet the data pertaining to that segment would be in the "5-0 height increment." Next, for a leaflet to travel through that entire segment--meaning 5k to 0 feet--it would take 0.49 hours. However, your placard drop would be only from 1K. Therefore it would take about 1/5th of the time, in other words, 0.9 hours. Moreover, the wind speed is 5 KTS during that segment, you would have a horizontal drift of 1/5th of 2.5 NM, and the azimuth angle is 170.

But a more direct standard test of which flight path is valid would be to measure the time taken to fly from A to B. Let A be Maylay. Let B be the time of T33/305 intersection near Lake Oswego. Somebody has that data. That intersection was put together by R2 and the T33 pilot. The time between two alternate routes starting at Maylay must be different. Tests like that was one reason for running simulations?

I am not aware of anyone involved in this case ever using the placard find as a test of the "Flight Path" - nor did they use the meals brought on board 305 as a test of the flight path either!

Finding direct data was in the original mandate and FOIA request filing by Robert. That failed. What's next? Tea leaves? 

Tests have to be valid.

Tests do have to be valid and yours isn't.  If the airliner stayed on the centerline of V-23, as you claim, from the Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection rather than flying a direct path between them, it would only travel two nautical miles further.  Since the airliner's ground speed was more than three nautical miles per minute, that would be less than 40 seconds of flying time.  And the data quality is not sufficient to draw a conclusion based on this.

How are you coming along on your search for my posts on DropZone?  I trust you will find my posts, somewhere around 2009, that point out the problems with the FBI flight path.  These problems with the FBI flight path didn't just pop up last week.

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

That chart doesn't seem to make sense. it continues with altitudes in the next figures directly below showing the last altitude of 50,000.
3.0 ft/sec at 50k takes .05?

.09 at 1,000 feet?

The figures remain the same for altitudes of 1,000 thru 9,000 feet?

Are these figures something to factor in with other figures vs what the actual number or conclusion is for these altitudes?

Three feet a second would be 180 feet per minute. not 700 feet as you calculated being similar to a parachute drift. how do they equal?

The chart is for non-rotation which appears to have changed from it "tumbling"

Chart below is just an example...

The chart you have posted shows various data for each altitude segment.

For example, if you drop leaflets at 1000 feet the data pertaining to that segment would be in the "5-0 height increment." Next, for a leaflet to travel through that entire segment--meaning 5k to 0 feet--it would take 0.49 hours. However, your placard drop would be only from 1K. Therefore it would take about 1/5th of the time, in other words, 0.9 hours. Moreover, the wind speed is 5 KTS during that segment, you would have a horizontal drift of 1/5th of 2.5 NM, and the azimuth angle is 170.

But a more direct standard test of which flight path is valid would be to measure the time taken to fly from A to B. Let A be Maylay. Let B be the time of T33/305 intersection near Lake Oswego. Somebody has that data. That intersection was put together by R2 and the T33 pilot. The time between two alternate routes starting at Maylay must be different. Tests like that was one reason for running simulations?

I am not aware of anyone involved in this case ever using the placard find as a test of the "Flight Path" - nor did they use the meals brought on board 305 as a test of the flight path either!

Finding direct data was in the original mandate and FOIA request filing by Robert. That failed. What's next? Tea leaves? 

Tests have to be valid.

Tests do have to be valid and yours isn't.  If the airliner stayed on the centerline of V-23, as you claim, from the Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection rather than flying a direct path between them, it would only travel two nautical miles further.  Since the airliner's ground speed was more than three nautical miles per minute, that would be less than 40 seconds of flying time.  And the data quality is not sufficient to draw a conclusion based on this.

How are you coming along on your search for my posts on DropZone?  I trust you will find my posts, somewhere around 2009, that point out the problems with the FBI flight path.  These problems with the FBI flight path didn't just pop up last week.

Funny! So you agree the distance is further, v23 vs straight path. But you turn around and say "the test isnt valid". You clarify: 'the data quality is not sufficient to draw a conclusion based on this.' Now you turn that into an asset.

Robert we already knew all of this - we have discussed this for years. Nothing has changed in this story, except for your tactics. Fortunately for you both fp's go through Maylay !  Anyone with a brain knows where this is going. Nowhere. And if the placard did not even come off during the hijacking flight ... then you have one more problem.

As for searches, do them yourself if you feel you have something to prove.

Georger, if you have the email or documents you need to provide them. if not. we need to move on....