Thanks, dudeman17,
So, it’s possible that they could have seen the city lights through the clouds. It’s also possible that the cloud cover would have made seeing the lights of Portland/Vancouver impossible. It’s difficult to answer because we cannot know the precise weather conditions in that area at that exact time.
Regarding your question about doubting the word of the crew. Couple things to consider. First, we must weigh the statements they made immediately after the incident versus statements made decades later. Here’s an example: in the Zodiac Killer case, a police officer named Foulke wrote a memo to the SFPD brass stating in detail how he saw the killer of taxi cab driver Paul Stine (later confirmed to be a Zodiac victim) as he he walked away from the crime scene. He was interviewed two decades later for a documentary and added the details that the killer walked with a limp and had a widow’s peak. Four decades later, he added and subtracted even more details, contradicting the very memo that he wrote in the days and weeks following the sighting. To complicate matters, Foulke’s partner who was sitting in the passenger seat next to him claimed he saw no such man described by Foulke. So what do we believe? Foulke’s initial description? The description twenty years later? The description 40 years later? Or his partner’s statements? Do we believe a combination?
I’m not claiming to know the answers to these questions, but I do think that it’s reasonable to assume that recollections change over time, and that we should probably put more weight into statements made closer in time to the incident than decades later.
The other thing to consider is that Rataczak seems to be the most verbose of the crew. The others have been quite reticent in comparison, so Rat’s statements attract more attention. I’d like to compare Rat’s statements with those of the rest of the crew, and see if parallels can be drawn.
To be clear, I’m not trying to discredit Rat. There’s not enough evidence to do so. However, if there WAS evidence that the cloud cover would prevent the crew from seeing the lights of Portland or if another crew member contradicted Rat’s statement, then it’s logical to call some of his previous statements into question.
One thing I do find odd, is that the evidence suggests that the crew wasn’t even sure that DBC had jumped from the plane until it landed in Reno and Anderson investigated. They weren’t even sure if the pressure bump was when Cooper jumped until the sled test in January of the following year. There’s nothing in the radio transcripts where the crew indicated that they thought he had jumped. Still, Rat has stated numerous times that he made the statement “I believe our friend as taken leave of us.” And that he has given precise times (8:11) and distances (28 miles north of Portland) for when Cooper jumped. How is he so sure of those things now when they were a mystery to the crew at the time?
