New Forum & News Updates

[Robert99]

Yes, Robert, I may be the only one to suggest a cover-up in Norjak, but how would you describe the FBI's investigation? Incomplete? Compromised? Typical of a large governmental bureaucracy? I'm not arguing with you, just asking.

Bruce, I see absolutely no reason why the Cooper hijacking could not have been resolved before the end of 1972.  And with a little bit of luck, it could have been resolved by the end of 1971.

The Cooper case is not brain surgery.  In fact, it is not even rocket science.

[andrade1812]

Technically, the plane does zig zag below Lake Merwin. I don't understand why they would do this?

Rataczak, in his DVD talk, says he started drifting with the wind, which brought him east. As he was approaching PDX, he notices he wasn't keeping the plane on a straight course, and makes a correction. He probably started drifting because of all the commotion and conversation regarding the oscillations. This, of course, is an interpretive view based on the FBI map everyone seems to hate so much.

"Drifting with the wind" is a meaningless phrase here.  Do you know what "crab angle" means?  It is the airliner's track on the ground that is important and once the cross wind component has been determined then just maintain the same heading and you will stay on the center of the airway or whatever other track you are trying to maintain.

As always, it's a pleasure to be emasculated by your technical knowledge. But I would point out, even Rataczak describes his flight path as "connect the dots" (and he makes a sort of zig-zag motion with his hand) in his talk.

[georger]

Technically, the plane does zig zag below Lake Merwin. I don't understand why they would do this?

Rataczak, in his DVD talk, says he started drifting with the wind, which brought him east. As he was approaching PDX, he notices he wasn't keeping the plane on a straight course, and makes a correction. He probably started drifting because of all the commotion and conversation regarding the oscillations. This, of course, is an interpretive view based on the FBI map everyone seems to hate so much.

"Drifting with the wind" is a meaningless phrase here.  Do you know what "crab angle" means?  It is the airliner's track on the ground that is important and once the cross wind component has been determined then just maintain the same heading and you will stay on the center of the airway or whatever other track you are trying to maintain.

As always, it's a pleasure to be emasculated by your technical knowledge. But I would point out, even Rataczak describes his flight path as "connect the dots" (and he makes a sort of zig-zag motion with his hand) in his talk.

To date, Rataczak has never given a concise useful public statement of what the flight path he flew "WAS". "And he makes a sort of zig-zag motion with his hand in his talk" is not a useful statement of what any flight path ... was.

  Given his statements and hand gestures to date one would have to conclude he didn't know where in hell he was during the whole affair!

[andrade1812]

Technically, the plane does zig zag below Lake Merwin. I don't understand why they would do this?

Rataczak, in his DVD talk, says he started drifting with the wind, which brought him east. As he was approaching PDX, he notices he wasn't keeping the plane on a straight course, and makes a correction. He probably started drifting because of all the commotion and conversation regarding the oscillations. This, of course, is an interpretive view based on the FBI map everyone seems to hate so much.

"Drifting with the wind" is a meaningless phrase here.  Do you know what "crab angle" means?  It is the airliner's track on the ground that is important and once the cross wind component has been determined then just maintain the same heading and you will stay on the center of the airway or whatever other track you are trying to maintain.

As always, it's a pleasure to be emasculated by your technical knowledge. But I would point out, even Rataczak describes his flight path as "connect the dots" (and he makes a sort of zig-zag motion with his hand) in his talk.

To date, Rataczak has never given a concise useful public statement of what the flight path he flew "WAS". "And he makes a sort of zig-zag motion with his hand in his talk" is not a useful statement of what any flight path ... was.

  Given his statements and hand gestures to date one would have to conclude he didn't know where in hell he was during the whole affair!

Fair. And I would only add it is just as erroneous to assume Rataczak held a straight path and constant crab angle throughout the flight.

[georger]

Technically, the plane does zig zag below Lake Merwin. I don't understand why they would do this?

Rataczak, in his DVD talk, says he started drifting with the wind, which brought him east. As he was approaching PDX, he notices he wasn't keeping the plane on a straight course, and makes a correction. He probably started drifting because of all the commotion and conversation regarding the oscillations. This, of course, is an interpretive view based on the FBI map everyone seems to hate so much.

"Drifting with the wind" is a meaningless phrase here.  Do you know what "crab angle" means?  It is the airliner's track on the ground that is important and once the cross wind component has been determined then just maintain the same heading and you will stay on the center of the airway or whatever other track you are trying to maintain.

As always, it's a pleasure to be emasculated by your technical knowledge. But I would point out, even Rataczak describes his flight path as "connect the dots" (and he makes a sort of zig-zag motion with his hand) in his talk.

To date, Rataczak has never given a concise useful public statement of what the flight path he flew "WAS". "And he makes a sort of zig-zag motion with his hand in his talk" is not a useful statement of what any flight path ... was.

  Given his statements and hand gestures to date one would have to conclude he didn't know where in hell he was during the whole affair!

Fair. And I would only add it is just as erroneous to assume Rataczak held a straight path and constant crab angle throughout the flight.

You may be correct but, having talked to a number of pilots etc who get involved in Incident (report situations) I have to wonder if Rataczak isn't still operating under a 'nondisclosure mandate'. Some people claim these are life-long restrictive, after a significant "incident". ? The policy has been explained to me by a number of former pilots who now in their 70s still take it seriously, years after the original 'incident'. I asked one guy "why"? He just shook his head at me and quipped: "if you have to ask you don't (deserve to) understand". For some of these guys it goes with the territory and mental mind set.

I will note that compared to other crew members BR has been unique in being the most public in his willingness to try a meet public demands, answer questions, and the like. One has to wonder just how far this can go and what restrictions have been in play, for whatever reasons. This sounds obtuse, but how much of the flight path was BR actually aware of and when? 

[Robert99]

As always, it's a pleasure to be emasculated by your technical knowledge. But I would point out, even Rataczak describes his flight path as "connect the dots" (and he makes a sort of zig-zag motion with his hand) in his talk.

If you really want to be "emasculated", then maybe we can get some 14 year old boys and girls who are also pilots to join this group.  But they would just explain the same thing in the same way that I have.

Yes, you can be a pilot and fly by yourself in some types of aircraft before you are old enough to get an automobile driver's license.  So you will need someone, such as your mother, to drive you to the airport.  For the record, I had a pilot's license before I had a driver's license.

If you are interested in learning about aircraft navigation, the FAA has a number of excellent publications that can be downloaded without charge from their web page.  I highly recommend the FAA publications.  And I get the impression that you could benefit from studying some of them.

As Georger has posted this evening, neither Rataczak nor the other two pilots on the hijacked airliner have discussed the flight path in any detail.  After the money was found at Tina Bar, Captain Scott was reportedly "leaned on" to change the flight path further to the east in an effort to explain how the money reached that point from the originally proposed jump location.

I believe that Tom Kaye and others have demolished the Great Washougal Washdown Theory.   

[377]

Does anyone think there is even a remote possibility that Brian Ingram's parent put the money there for their young son to "innocently" find?

It seems so unlikely that Brian's seemingly random dig for a campfire pit at Tina Bar would immediately uncover the loot.

It's one of the few explanations I can think of that explains two seemingly unlikely events:

1. The presence of the money at Tina bar
2. The discovery of the money at Tina bar.

377

[Robert99]

Does anyone think there is even a remote possibility that Brian Ingram's parent put the money there for their young son to "innocently" find?

It seems so unlikely that Brian's seemingly random dig for a campfire pit at Tina Bar would immediately uncover the loot.

It's one of the few explanations I can think of that explains two seemingly unlikely events:

1. The presence of the money at Tina bar
2. The discovery of the money at Tina bar.

377

What purpose would Brian's parents finding and then planting the money at Tina Bar, while claiming that Brian found it, serve in the overall story?

The Cooper hijacking does have a number of unlikely events, but they appear to have natural explanations rather than being the result of conspiracies. 

[georger]

Does anyone think there is even a remote possibility that Brian Ingram's parent put the money there for their young son to "innocently" find?

It seems so unlikely that Brian's seemingly random dig for a campfire pit at Tina Bar would immediately uncover the loot.

It's one of the few explanations I can think of that explains two seemingly unlikely events:

1. The presence of the money at Tina bar
2. The discovery of the money at Tina bar.

377

Unlikely events? You can add two more to your list.

3. The presence of Life on Earth.
4.  The discovery of Life in the Universe.

Unlikely, has nothing to do with it!

[377]

Does anyone think there is even a remote possibility that Brian Ingram's parent put the money there for their young son to "innocently" find?

It seems so unlikely that Brian's seemingly random dig for a campfire pit at Tina Bar would immediately uncover the loot.

It's one of the few explanations I can think of that explains two seemingly unlikely events:

1. The presence of the money at Tina bar
2. The discovery of the money at Tina bar.

377

What purpose would Brian's parents finding and then planting the money at Tina Bar, while claiming that Brian found it, serve in the overall story?

The Cooper hijacking does have a number of unlikely events, but they appear to have natural explanations rather than being the result of conspiracies.

Here is a possible explanation:

The Ingrams found a lot more of the Cooper loot but wanted a trial balloon to see who would claim ownership, legal hassles, etc.

Not a great theory, I admit that, but you gotta think out of the box regarding the Tina bar money find.

377

[nmiwrecks]

Does anyone think there is even a remote possibility that Brian Ingram's parent put the money there for their young son to "innocently" find?

It seems so unlikely that Brian's seemingly random dig for a campfire pit at Tina Bar would immediately uncover the loot.

It's one of the few explanations I can think of that explains two seemingly unlikely events:

1. The presence of the money at Tina bar
2. The discovery of the money at Tina bar.

377

I think it is in the realm of possibilities, but improbable.  It is more probable however, than KC sneaking to the beach and burying the loot or D-Web throwing a paper bag of loot into the Columbia.    Ridiculous.    The question I ask myself is would the rubber bands remain intact enough through the moving and burying process to be present when Brian "found" them?  Unlikely, but not impossible.

Let's talk motive.  I can see your point about "testing the waters" at that time.  But since then, they could have cashed in revealing the truth of the Cooper case.  The original "treasure trove" of twenties would more than likely have some kind of attachment to a skeleton or living person, and with today's media, the Ingrams could have easily parlayed that information into six figures plus.   

[Bruce A. Smith]

You may be correct but, having talked to a number of pilots etc who get involved in Incident (report situations) I have to wonder if Rataczak isn't still operating under a 'nondisclosure mandate'. Some people claim these are life-long restrictive, after a significant "incident". ? The policy has been explained to me by a number of former pilots who now in their 70s still take it seriously, years after the original 'incident'. I asked one guy "why"? He just shook his head at me and quipped: "if you have to ask you don't (deserve to) understand". For some of these guys it goes with the territory and mental mind set.

I will note that compared to other crew members BR has been unique in being the most public in his willingness to try a meet public demands, answer questions, and the like. One has to wonder just how far this can go and what restrictions have been in play, for whatever reasons. This sounds obtuse, but how much of the flight path was BR actually aware of and when? 

Well stated, Georger. This is the sense I got, and still have, after speaking with Bill for 70 minutes on the phone in 2009 (?!- has it been that long??? Whew...). He's committed to being helpful, and he is certainly generous with his time, but he does seem to operate with some inner, unexpressed, restrictions.

I get that "If you need to ask, you don't deserve/can't comprehend/you'd never understand, etc...I see that in my dealings with uniformed/military/first-responders guys.

[Bruce A. Smith]

News Update: Ralph Himmelsbach

Hank Bertsch, Lt. Col., retired-the Braden guy, emailed me today to say that a buddy of his met Ralph at a retired FBI agent party recently and RH didn't look too good physically and mentally. I'll email JT and see what's cookin'. In the meantime, prayers and healing wishes to ol' RH.

[Bruce A. Smith]

OOPS

Does anyone have JT's email address? I lost it when I transferred computers last August. If so, please let me know at brucesmith AT rainierconnect DOT com. Thanx.

[Bruce A. Smith]

Does anyone think there is even a remote possibility that Brian Ingram's parent put the money there for their young son to "innocently" find?

It seems so unlikely that Brian's seemingly random dig for a campfire pit at Tina Bar would immediately uncover the loot.

It's one of the few explanations I can think of that explains two seemingly unlikely events:

1. The presence of the money at Tina bar
2. The discovery of the money at Tina bar.

377

What purpose would Brian's parents finding and then planting the money at Tina Bar, while claiming that Brian found it, serve in the overall story?

The Cooper hijacking does have a number of unlikely events, but they appear to have natural explanations rather than being the result of conspiracies.

Here is a possible explanation:

The Ingrams found a lot more of the Cooper loot but wanted a trial balloon to see who would claim ownership, legal hassles, etc.

Not a great theory, I admit that, but you gotta think out of the box regarding the Tina bar money find.

377

Let me remote view this.

I'll get back to ya!