WA WA - D.B. Cooper hijacking mystery, 24 Nov 1971 - #2

[georger]

I'm no bomb expert (lol) but it only requires common sense to figure that Cooper's plan did not require a real bomb, only something that could convince a casual observer that it might be one. Building the device using stuff that he would actually need during and after the jump (flares, altimeter, compass, flashlight, etc.) was what distinguished him from other fake bomb hijackers of the day who usually had political motives and little practical sense.


I suppose we should be careful what we say here. No point in giving people ideas but its the "bulb" that gets me. I mean whats the point of having some way to test the battery (ies) via a bulb once you're already in a compromised situation ... so it looks to me like the bulb was for effect, or a slip in Cooper's reasoning power like his major slip, hijacking in the first place!

I am aware of the previous posts (LC, Adnoid, etc) suggesting a rcvr, direction indicator, etc etc .... all in the brief case. I know that indicator Adnoid posted a photo of. That and the receiver and power supply needed to run a circuit like that would not fit in the briefcase Cooper had,
unless I am mistaken. Moreover, the difficulty of using it reliably as Adnoid
explained to everyone previously. I dont think this case is that complicated.

Jerry

 

[KarlK]

I'm no bomb expert (lol) but it only requires common sense to figure that Cooper's plan did not require a real bomb, only something that could convince a casual observer that it might be one. Building the device using stuff that he would actually need during and after the jump (flares, altimeter, compass, flashlight, etc.) was what distinguished him from other fake bomb hijackers of the day who usually had political motives and little practical sense.

I suppose we should be careful what we say here. No point in giving people ideas [...]

Times have changed, I don't think it would be possible for an extortionist to pull a DB Cooper style stunt anymore. The level of difficulty involved in the successful hijacking of a commercial airliner in a Western country would require means far beyond the grasp of a single man and it would make no sense financially.

but its the "bulb" that gets me. I mean whats the point of having some way to test the battery (ies) via a bulb once you're already in a compromised situation ... so it looks to me like the bulb was for effect, or a slip in Cooper's reasoning power like his major slip, hijacking in the first place!

Well, with regards to the contents of the briefcase we can only rely on the testimony of a casual witness who was only allowed a quick glance. Was there even a bulb?

That's not certain but let's assume for a moment there was one. Something that has always bugged me about this case is the apparent disregard Cooper had for his own safety after the jump. The more I look at it the less convinced I am that Cooper simply assumed he'd find some way to get out of the woods -both literally and figuratively- after landing. I suspect it's possible he had an accomplice, and that this accomplice would have played a part in locating and retrieving Cooper from the landing zone. At the time a portable (ELT type) battery powered radio beacon would have been the best device for the purpose. These things don't run off small 9v batteries, they require a special battery pack, a pack which sometimes looked a lot like a bunch of dynamite sticks...

If this was the case then the availability and intensity of battery power would have been a primordial concern for Cooper as it could have influenced the choice of the general area over which to jump. Light brightness from the bulb would tell Cooper what sort of range he could expect from his location transmitter. ELT's usually are set to transmit over a relatively small area but that's because they may have to be transmitting over long periods of time and thus draw as little power as possible from their batteries. However if assigned to a clear channel and given sufficient power such a device can produce a signal able to reach a homing receiver over quite a long distance.

This could explain the purpose of the bulb if indeed there was one.

 

[georger]

Times have changed, I don't think it would be possible for an extortionist to pull a DB Cooper style stunt anymore. The level of difficulty involved in the successful hijacking of a commercial airliner in a Western country would require means far beyond the grasp of a single man and it would make no sense financially.

Well, with regards to the contents of the briefcase we can only rely on the testimony of a casual witness who was only allowed a quick glance. Was there even a bulb?

That's not certain but let's assume for a moment there was one. Something that has always bugged me about this case is the apparent disregard Cooper had for his own safety after the jump. The more I look at it the less convinced I am that Cooper simply assumed he'd find some way to get out of the woods -both literally and figuratively- after landing. I suspect it's possible he had an accomplice, and that this accomplice would have played a part in locating and retrieving Cooper from the landing zone. At the time a portable (ELT type) battery powered radio beacon would have been the best device for the purpose. These things don't run off small 9v batteries, they require a special battery pack, a pack which sometimes looked a lot like a bunch of dynamite sticks...

If this was the case then the availability and intensity of battery power would have been a primordial concern for Cooper as it could have influenced the choice of the general area over which to jump. Light brightness from the bulb would tell Cooper what sort of range he could expect from his location transmitter. ELT's usually are set to transmit over a relatively small area but that's because they may have to be transmitting over long periods of time and thus draw as little power as possible from their batteries. However if assigned to a clear channel and given sufficient power such a device can produce a signal able to reach a homing receiver over quite a long distance.

This could explain the purpose of the bulb if indeed there was one.

LC and Adnoid explored something like this previously. Adnoid explained the
VOR and VORTAC system, and victor 23. Your description now of these old batteries is intriguing. Im not familiar with them specifically but I can see
where something like that might pass for flares or sticks of dynamite, not
with a transmitter but as a "field strength indicator". Good grief I have tuned and even tracked xmtrs myself (in the old days) using a light bulb
as a field strength indicator, and it works. Now if he is riding v23 and
nearing a vortac (say near SilverLake) would a light bulb being used as a field strength indicator work? This is a rather novel idea but frankly its
so simple and old school... was that whatwas in the brief case? Adnoid?

I have 100% faith in what Mucklow described. She was one saavy lady
and emotionally together. Read the transcript. I would quote it here if I
could but that would take time. She described twice to Ground Control in detail what she had seen in the briefcase. Her detailed description is in the transcript word for word. Light bulb is definate. Absolutely in her description. Miss Mucklow was 'brilliant'.

Jerry


indicator

 

[Albert18]

Wasn't Flo the one who Cooper allowed to see inside the briefcase? This was when the hijacking started.

In that communication it looks like operations is repeating what they have been told earlier.

 

[georger]

Wasn't Flo the one who Cooper allowed to see inside the briefcase? This was when the hijacking started.

In that communication it looks like operations is repeating what they have been told earlier.

It was Tina Mucklow. When Cooper finally released her to go to the cockpit
she gave a detailed decription over the radio to Northwest and ground
officials. This description is where some knowledge of what was in the briefcase comes from -
Jerry

 

[snowmman]

Interesting reading thru your comm style.

One thing I've come to accept in the Cooper case, is that there are no facts. The provenance of all data is in question. Every sentence written anywhere and it's author, and motive, is questionable. So it's actually very funny to waste time firing a couple neurons on it. It's kind of just a self-pleasuring act isn't it, at some level?

I like how you picked up the fluid dynamics question. From some other thread in the universe I suppose. I can picture all the words planned on being written about that...

Can you summarize all flight path data for me? All data and it's provenance, regardless of whether it's accurate, rumor or whatever.

And then the same on the range of times any jump was most likely to have occured.

Maybe it's just me, but once you find money (but who knows if even that is true! you try to find an alignment of data that says the flight path might be near the money find. I'd like to see the data that says the flight path wasn't near the money find, or any that suggests it might be. Then we can deconstruct that data and assess likelihood.

But hell, that's all just dreaming, as my grandma used to say. She used to churn her own butter when I was young...really.

p.s
Al Lee
I was assuming that was a code word that was used to identify law enforcement..i.e. ALL LE
For instance, it seems to me it identifies when either the FBI is talking or the pilot wants to talk
to the FBI. (i would think you'd want a code word, so if the hijacker overheard, he wouldn't know
you were talking to the FBI, right?)

 

[georger]

Interesting reading thru your comm style.

I like how you picked up the fluid dynamics question. From some other thread in the universe I suppose. I can picture all the words planned on being written about that...

Can you summarize all flight path data for me? All data and it's provenance, regardless of whether it's accurate, rumor or whatever.

And then the same on the range of times any jump was most likely to have occured.

Maybe it's just me, but once you find money (but who knows if even that is true! you try to find an alignment of data that says the flight path might be near the money find. I'd like to see the data that says the flight path wasn't near the money find, or any that suggests it might be. Then we can deconstruct that data and assess likelihood.


Hi Snowmman. It's a pleasure. My interest in fluid dynamics & flight data is my own. I dont visit threads. Just this one & a few others related. I dont
have complete flight or weather data. Im trying to assemble it, as you did
for temperature data. I believe the FBI did an anaylsis (of some kind) which was the basis for their Lake Merwin area search. They didn't just
fly over to Merwin and say, "lets look here, boys!". I think you get my drift. It would also seem likely Quantico did an analysis, perhaps even recently.
It is that type of analysis with respect to the placard and perhaps the money also, that I am most interested in.

Yes. The money may be related to the flight path, or not. For all we know
this whole episode was nothing more than a training exercise cooked up by
the FBI, which continues to this day ... with Left Coast and West Coast and Teddy part of it!

Jerry

 

[snowmman]

I've seen the predicted flight path and drift path map (AB lines etc) that Larry Carr (FBI) has put out. Seems to be dependent on predicted (or I suppose actually measured?) SW (From the SW to the NE) winds. The search area was all North and East of predicted flight path..(initially at least). The winds were pretty strong.

I have a 11/27/71 New York Times article that talks about 25 to 40 knot winds in their analysis, but it also mentions 7000 ft...so I think they maybe had more accurate data/analysis later. (it does seem like 10000 ft is accurate now, if you agree on the predicted jump time)

Also depends on interpretation of the reported "pressure bump" and "curtsy" for expected jump time from the plane.

There seems to be an allowed margin of error for width of the predicted flight path.

I'm not sure how far SEA radar tracked flight 305, or what data was used to create the flight path map. (it's slightly east of V23 around the Ariel area)

There are subsequent articles where Scott and Himmelsbach supposedly had later conversations, leading them to conclude that the flight path was different than the map shows.

So I have no idea where to start with flight path. Some people say there was good radar data. But then I don't know why Scott would discount that in that later conversation.

Of course the ideal goal is to get a google earth kmz file that has the flight path. I have one that has v23 and a topo overlay with my guesses at some of the points from the FBI map (the FBI topo released is hard to read)..but it's all hit and miss. And then the exact jump time is a guess also.

The placard seems to have been found very close to the V23 path. (farther north). But the transcripts show the aft door indicator light on a good number of minutes before the predicted jump...so that could make sense.

The other thing we don't know, is whether Cooper went down the steps and waited. The pressure bump and curtsy could be much before the jump (assuming the curtsy was due to the aft stairs being fully deployed after being weighted by cooper..assuming he just walked down them once).

Too many unknowns, I think.

edit: Carr said this about the source data for the map:
"...was created in January 1972 using USAF radar data from McCord, jump time of 8:11 PM based on crew analysis and tests conducted, Wind info from 10,000 MSL to ground, human body trajectories provided by Boeing, time correlation from USAF radar and NWA communication tapes with flight 305 and plane speed and altitude from the flight recorder. "


that's a lot of different data that was merged. I'm not sure how USAF radar data and flight recorder data are both used to generate a flight path. (not even sure how they recorded radar data, if they did)

 

[snowmman]

just brainstorming here on your light bulb question.
photographic flash bulbs have been used for electric ignition
of explosive devices. (you have to add some other stuff)

oh: and the big tornado you're remembering is probably the one on April 5, 1972?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Portland-Vancouver_Tornado

 

[georger]

I've seen the predicted flight path and drift path map (AB lines etc) that Larry Carr (FBI) has put out. Seems to be dependent on predicted (or I suppose actually measured?) SW (From the SW to the NE) winds. The search area was all North and East of predicted flight path..(initially at least). The winds were pretty strong.

Snowmman, I am in total agreement and aware of everything you say including the old 1971 NYTimes article. I have (somewhere) a similar but later article which speaks of an east cross wind at 60+ knots. I was always suspicous of this until Scott surfaced later (as you refer) and put his path
west of v23, not east. I think what I have is a newspaper article with no provenance of course! Let me find that article.

The one thing I may not have is Carr's drift map you refer to above. Is that
available somewhere? The only Carr maps I have are the two (one long,
one short and square) from the FBI website and both of terrible quality. Is one of these maps the map you are referring to, above?

I believe the transcripts give a usable timed altitude sequence from just after takeoff to the run at 10k feet. Scott radios his altitudes from 6500 through 7000 through 8000, 9000, and ten. Each transmission is time stamped. I wonder also if McChord copied somehow their radar data -
they must have. But I suppose it is kept closed, the case is still open.

I agree in every point you present here. Including the issues and varaibles you mention, eg. when is a 'curtsy' a curtsy/atmospheric with ladder extended etc vs. a jump. I dont see this Cooper sitting or standing out
the ladder very long, one slip and you would be gone. But I could see him
sitting just inside and waiting. You wouldnt even to stand with weight on the ladder but hold on to the hand rails and let air pressure do the rest,
and off you go. On the other hand, I am quite sure 305 was followed clear
to Reno. So it is to Cooper advantage to depart in clouds so as not to be seen, if he thought clearly enough to know that. But I also agree the curtsy offers but one jump theory.

Thanks,
Jerry



I

 

[snowmman]

the one I referenced

 

[georger]

the one I referenced

Oh my G, where did you get this? OK. Let me send a few more emails
and I will be back... you made my day Snowmman. I will find the old
article mentioned above - its in my system somewhere. Thank you!
Jerry

 

[georger]

Thought I would check in - Im still here. Im running down a number of
leads so not much to say at the moment. Kind of waiting for others to
say something? I guess I can report having just talked to one of the engineers (last week) who worked for Boeing and was involved in the
Cooper case, helped design and test the Cooper Lock after the fact and
had a lot of stories to tell when we talked last week. The man remembers
the case well and even had some hard facts and data to share, from tests Boeing did after Cooper's capper. I will share this soon.

I hope people hang around here -

Jerry

 

[Albert18]

To refresh my memory, I have a few questions about the FBI map Snowmman posted.

Line A-B is their original best guess for Cooper's jump, correct?

Line H-to top of map and Line O-R must be what they thought were the outer limits of the jump area?

What is the diagonal line that comes down from the top left side of the map and intersects at point F at the bottom of the map? (I believe that is an F) Is this the flight path?

What are the three parallel lines?

 

[snowmman]

This is what Larry Carr (ckret) said when he provided it:

"The attached was created in January 1972 using USAF radar data from McCord, jump time of 8:11 PM based on crew analysis and tests conducted, Wind info from 10,000 MSL to ground, human body trajectories provided by Boeing, time correlation from USAF radar and NWA communication tapes with flight 305 and plane speed and altitude from the flight recorder.

line CDES is the most probable ground path, line GIJK the westernmost ground path and line LMNO the easternmost. Line AB was believed to be the most probable, however, with the finding of the cash where it was, the landing area had to be further south. It now seems as if line OR would be the most probable areas."

The jump time estimate of 8:11 PM is based on a lot of other things. May be correct or incorrect. I believe the parallel lines allowed for error margin in predicting the flight path.

 

[georger]

So, if this is the 1972 map then the drop zone should be shifted
approx 20 miles to the east, as per Scott's later revised recollection
or is that irrelevant?

Radar data from McChord would seem to preclude any recollection by
Scott and be independent of any input by Scott?

Also, is there a larger version of this map with far better resolution?

You wouldnt happen to know if Carr is willing to release the dna data?
This is no idle unqualified request on my part.

Jerry

 

[snowmman]

sorry, Jerry, don't know the answers to any of that.

I was musing about when and how they generated that map. They also did testing to try to create the pressure bump, and decided they could only create it when the aft stair bumped closed after sliding their parachute sled down it.

So you would think it would be simple to ask Scott: where you do think you guys were when you felt the pressure bump (assuming pressure bump = jump)

I would think Scott must have ok'ed the map at some level. I read comments somewhere about being near the suburbs of Portland. Which I thought was weird because you'd hit Vancouver before you hit Portland.

So I dunno. Have no idea what data they used, and whether they correlated with Scott's recollections well, or what. Even though they flew on to Reno, you would think they'd remember the pressure bump detail well. Maybe they didn't, if at the time they didn't think it meant "jump". They still weren't sure he jumped when they got to Reno.

 

[georger]

sorry, Jerry, don't know the answers to any of that.

I was musing about when and how they generated that map. They also did testing to try to create the pressure bump, and decided they could only create it when the aft stair bumped closed after sliding their parachute sled down it.

So you would think it would be simple to ask Scott: where you do think you guys were when you felt the pressure bump (assuming pressure bump = jump)

I would think Scott must have ok'ed the map at some level. I read comments somewhere about being near the suburbs of Portland. Which I thought was weird because you'd hit Vancouver before you hit Portland.

So I dunno. Have no idea what data they used, and whether they correlated with Scott's recollections well, or what. Even though they flew on to Reno, you would think they'd remember the pressure bump detail well. Maybe they didn't, if at the time they didn't think it meant "jump". They still weren't sure he jumped when they got to Reno.

It's unclear how flight crew info was used vs. relying on good radar and
flight recorder data, when drawing their map(s). BTW, Ive always heard it was Bob Rataczak doing the flying, not Scott. Scott spent a lot of his time communicating, especially with Northwest and others which is not reflected in the SPI transcript. No Northwest Transcript or data has ever been released; the FBI has it.

In fact, except for unofficial and anecdotal accounts after the fact, I don't know where the word "bump" comes from. It's not in the Seattle PI trans- cripts. The word in those transripts is "oscillations in the cabin - must be
doing something with the stairs" at 8:12pm Transcript No.1. The word 'bump' (to me) arises later aftertests were done and in the anecdotes of
outsiders who commented that 'if you roll a 200-300lb load off the stairs
it sometimes will snap back up and shut causing a "bump" to be felt. But
the transcripts says "oscillations".

In addition, Scott gave an interview later (if Im pressed I can document the source) in which he didnt talk about oscillations or bumps. but spoke
about a 'change in trim' he and Rataczak had to adjust for around 8:12-
8:13, as he recalled. He explained, if the passengers were not stirring
around and the plane was quiet, if a stewardess walked from the front of
the plane to the back he could notice a change in trim - the 727 was
that sensitive when well trimmed. I think Scott's point is valid. He said
something happened in the back about 8:12-13 where the plane loss weight in the back (changed is mass) and they noticed it immediately in
the cabin and had to adjust trim slightly. Even with flaps and gear down
at 170 knots struggling to keep trim these guys were good pilots and I
have no doubt at all these guys felt a change in trim if one occurred.
A "bump" would be another matter, but I cannot find that word in any
transcript.

Incidently, at 8:12/13 there were at 10,000 and holding. At 8:01 they
had been at 15,000 so had dropped 5000 feet. At 7:53 at 10,000 after
climbing at 15 degrees from 7000 at 7:53. They had been flying at 7000
since 7:40.37 (Transcript T9). Cooper's original request stated many
times was "Below 10,000".

Also, flight comms go stone silent (in the published transcripts) after
8:13. The same level and type of free flowing communications never
occurred again clear thru to landing at Reno and at Reno Scott tell
approach ctl point blank: 'I have orders not to talk about HIM'.

They searched the plane before landing at Reno and they couldnt find
Cooper or the bomb. The Transcripts make that pretty clear.

Jerry

 

[snowmman]

interesting thoughts Jerry.
The 15000: I thought that was a typo. It's in the rtty transcripts right?
I think it's inconsistent with altitude info in the other parts of the transcripts (other comms)
I don't think they were really at 15000. maybe review that.

I was reviewing my notes on what Larry Carr (Ckret) has said at the dropzone.com site

here's something relevant he posted recently: (It's been noted that the plane probably didn't have RTTY onboard, so Larry's comment about crew typing might be wrong. It might be someone transcribing radio traffic for that log)

"A bit of new info, the concrete time of the jump was based on the crews communication with NWA flight operations. NWA flight operations was keeping a running log documenting each communication noting the time. I did a re-read of the NWA log, tower transmission and the flight crew interviews and discovered when the crew felt the pressure variance they were not on the phone with NWA. They called just after to report the incident. The person keeping the log must have not written the time he received the communication but the time the crew thought they felt the bump.

Another clue to the time is the ground radio teletype log. It my understanding that the teletype will automatically log the time with the communication. The crew typed a message which was logged at 8:12 and mentioned oscillations not a bump.

The crew referenced a call to Cooper at 8:05 PM when making a statement about the pressure change, stating the pressure bump occurred 5 to 10 minutes after this. They further stated that when they felt the pressure change they were not yet to Portland but definitely in the suburbs."

 

[Niner]

snipped...
I hope people hange around here.

hanging around.... just reading! (as not too hep on all you're talking about now!! but still here!