DB Cooper

[snowmman 3]

Everything I read about Cooper screams "pilot" not "jumper" to me. Skills, attitude, knowledge, apparent comfort with situation as it unfolded.

If I was the FBI back then, I would have taken the current FAA database of licensed pilots, and investigated everyone that met the description. Couldn't have been that many.

I wonder if the FBI did this.

Does anyone else feel this way? It doesn't scream jumper to me. Maybe ex military pilot, but odds would favor that ex military pilot might still be private licensed pilot?

Note that McCoy was pilot (helicopter).

[georger 247]

Quote

Quote

Until
he separates a sufficient distance from the plane
radar can't resolve him as a discrete object .. so
would have something to do with Cooper's radar
angle vis-a-vis the plane.

I'd say from my experience jumping from a jet and in seeing birds flying around boats on marine radar that Cooper had enough separation to be resolved distinctly from the 727 echo within one second. The closer the plane is to the radar the sooner the Cooper and plane echoes would become distinct because a fixed distance between them gives higher angular separation when closer to the radar antenna (polar geometry).

At 10 miles it should have been a piece of cake to see the Cooper echo.

Certainly ATC raw radar tapes would have been preserved after such an incident. They are when accidents are involved. What happened to them?

377

REPLY> Well, resolution would be a function of distance, beam spread angle, frequency, type of
target (reflective vrs amorphous etc), etc etc ... it
sufficies to say I think you are very correct. 10 miles
and in 1 second a body has fallen far enough from
the plane it is detectable.

As I recall this (this is crude cuz radar is not my area)
these old radar(s) had different beam widths a controler could switch between to change resolution?
Like a kind of magnification? In fact I saw a radar
panel a control officer was working back in the 60s
and the tech had several different plastic reticles he
could put over the screen then switch between beam
widths to change resolution...

But if they werent looking then all of this is irrelevant.

Cooper probably had that figured out too!

[Ckret 0]

Tosaw was agent for five years, he left the Bureau in 1956. His description of what happened that night is much more detailed from what I have provided because he made it up. Don't mistake what i am saying here, I think he made an honest attempt to investigate the case but he was also writing a book.

By the early 80's most of the foundational details he writes in his book had been released to the public, or, given his connections, nothing he could not have gleaned from taking an agent out for a few.

Take it for what it is, it's just another piece of the puzzle. I can tell you this from what I have read of Snowmmans post, when Tosaw goes into "new" details, I cannot confirm what he is saying because that is not what the witnesses provided to the FBI.

It is human nature to complete the picture, if you are given A and C, you will create B. I think to a large degree Tosaw put the "B" in DB.

[snowmman 3]

Quote

Tosaw was agent for five years, he left the Bureau in 1956. His description of what happened that night is much more detailed from what I have provided because he made it up. Don't mistake what i am saying here, I think he made an honest attempt to investigate the case but he was also writing a book.

By the early 80's most of the foundational details he writes in his book had been released to the public, or, given his connections, nothing he could not have gleaned from taking an agent out for a few.

Take it for what it is, it's just another piece of the puzzle. I can tell you this from what I have read of Snowmmans post, when Tosaw goes into "new" details, I cannot confirm what he is saying because that is not what the witnesses provided to the FBI.

It is human nature to complete the picture, if you are given A and C, you will create B. I think to a large degree Tosaw put the "B" in DB.

okay fair enough.
i just wanted to post it, because most people haven't seen it. If you say it's not true, then I believe that.

What about the dredge stuff. All those details about 36" and 18" are just wrong?

And the frozen nozzle claim on the subsequent fuel trucks?

I'm not sure if you're saying everything I posted is wrong or what. I suspect the stuff about "hand inside the briefcase on a wire" is wrong?

I don't think anything about flaps at 30 degrees was published before '84.

What you're saying might be true...there's just flickering details that seemed right.

(edit) It sounds like you're saying the thing about pills is just bogus.

So anything that' "new" like you say, is just bogus.

(edit) We've never heard any detail about why Himmelsbach said Cooper swore or used foul language...as a fer-instance.

[georger 247]

Quote

Quote

georger wrote:
REPLY> unless time and disatance are accurate -
this is why I questioned the large variation in ground
speeds between markers on Sluggo's map. I mean its
impossible to be doing say 160 kts one minute and 235 the next, then back to say 175 - unless you are a UFO! I mean either the radar data is accurate or it isnt.
The overall slope (average) of the data seems within
acceptable range but these large variations one minute to the next seem to make anything possible
when it wasn't (if physics applies).

Georger..I went back and looked at Sluggo's leg knots/distance to see what you were talking about.
Yes..too much variation.

BUT: these tick marks were hand drawn right? I suspect if we allow a little variation on each tick mark (error) that we could get them so the variation in speed distance is not so bad?

In fact I can estimate. A fast leg covered 4.1 NM
A slow leg nearby: 3.02 NM

So a .5 NM error on both of the surround tics would account for that.

Isn't our radar only about that accurate?

So I think what it says is that if from tic to tic we could see an instaneous 0.5 NM error, or that the hand drawing could introduce that error, then we can't make any flight speed analysis from the tick marks

does that make sense? We don't know enough about the instaneous causes of radar error.

(attached sluggos thingee again)

(edit) It does look like if Cooper jumped at 2015, then maybe they had started changing the flaps back to 15 degrees already? thinking it may have jumped earlier at the oscillations. So I guess we're not sure about Cooper's exit speed.

REPLY> Sluggo had an explanation for this - he will chide me for forgoetting, but his answer made sense.
The ONLY reason it matters to me is (a) trying to
refine a drop point and (b) sure as hell somebody
would see this and make a big deal about it - peer
review and all that. Personally I can live with it except
as it affects zeroing in on a drop point. And yes.
The radar had .5+- in it as I recall Sluggo's post.

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

unless time and disatance are accurate -
this is why I questioned the large variation in ground
speeds between markers on Sluggo's map. I mean its
impossible to be doing say 160 kts one minute and 235 the next, then back to say 175 - unless you are a UFO! I mean either the radar data is accurate or it isnt.
The overall slope (average) of the data seems within
acceptable range but these large variations one minute to the next seem to make anything possible
when it wasn't (if physics applies).

Now, I know why they call you Mr. Cool - you give common sense a chance to air.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[Ckret 0]

Actually the dredge information may be correct. where he went wrong is the dredge layer uncovered in 1980 was not disturbed, therefore, nothing under it would have been found. Also, the dredge operator/manager said no way the money could have gone through the pipe and not been destroyed.

The fueling is part correct, a third truck was on standby, never used. There was not a frozen nozzle.

The pills, no way, and the angry burst didn't happen according to the witnesses and the account they gave to the FBI.

Why Himmelsbach reported a foul mouthed Cooper is beyond me. He knows full well Cooper, according to the witness statements, was calm and polite throughout the incident.

[georger 247]

Quote

Quote

REPLY> I should not have read this! Cooper is now coming off as far more in control and competent than
I thought he was. Saluting Mucklow? WTF is that!@!!

I'm thinking maybe it wasn't a real salute. Maybe a wave, hand up kind of thing. Even though, shows relatively relaxed, confident?

well, the description of rig up is even worse for changing a perception of Cooper, I think. I was thinking though that it might be overstated. I think any dummy familar with slider buckles would be able to cinch up the straps. Note I commented on the probable error in "canvas" here.

page 32

"Cooper put the military parachute on his back and cinched up the canvas straps to make them fit his chest and thighs. Tina noticed how quickly and easily he completed this complicated operation - just looking as though it were an everyday occurence"

There is another description of Cooper inspecting the open stairwell very quickly after takeoff. So I don't know if I agree with Ckret's interpretation of wanting to jump right away. He definitely seems to have started getting things in motion around the stairs right away.

REPLY> I think if Tina said it was a salute, that is
what it was. Again, its audacious if not stupid, even for
a worldclass jumper to do. (In the next fifteen minutes
he could be saluting a bear or have a fencepost up his rectum.)

He is the only unsolved case of this kind in aviation
history.

Nothing quantifiable in that! We could speculate forever.

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

I should not have read this! Cooper is now coming off as far more in control and competent than
I thought he was. Saluting Mucklow? WTF is that!@!!

Remember that Tosaw's book regardless of how interesting has some fiction entwined - It is my understanding that Tina DID NOT interview with him because she had already been at odds about the things article where saying and why this young lady chose to remove herself from the media.
I myself not being overtly religious can really understand.

You can bet the salute was just something added by Tosaw or his writing staff.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[snowmman 3]

Quote

Actually the dredge information may be correct. where he went wrong is the dredge layer uncovered in 1980 was not disturbed, therefore, nothing under it would have been found. Also, the dredge operator/manager said no way the money could have gone through the pipe and not been destroyed.

We've bickered about this before, so I'm just going to summarize. I'm not disagreeing/nor need any more but:

1) The clay layer was not the whole dredge spoil layer, right? The dredge spoils were part clay, part sand.
So the money could have been thrown up in the sand layer. I thought there was >30" of dredge spoils, total The clay layer was not that thick. So Tosaw wasn't saying the money was under the dredge spoils. He was saying it was "in it"..i.e. above the clay part of the spoils.

2) I know your interview with the dredge operator said "no way" without damage. So I'll take that as fact (I did a long time ago..just wanted to post Tosaw's detail)

Quote

Why Himmelsbach reported a foul mouthed Cooper is beyond me. He knows full well Cooper, according to the witness statements, was calm and polite throughout the incident.

Okay that's real good to hear from you. It's one of the confusing things. I've noted before that there's a long trail of confusing emotional-sounding statements from Himmelsbach. I'll just lump this in as one of them.

[snowmman 3]

sluggo: you've already documented the rigger's card thing as myth.

Since we've gotten some confirmation as some of the other Tosaw things I've posted are "myth", maybe be worth putting some short things on your site, to get this down...so people in the future don't regurgitate the same stuff. ...some of the dredge damage stuff, the pills, the fuel truck nozzle freeze, the "hands on the wire inside the briefcase" scenario, the salute, the inspecting of the chute...the fast rig up? Actually we don't know how smoothly Cooper rigged up, do we?

Is there any interview detail on the Cooper rig up? smooth/clumsy? cinching straps? (ckret)

Hey I just ordered the Norjak book..Look out for more inflicted pain-via-post when it arrives!

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

[url]http://cgi.ebay.com/Ha-Ha-Ha-By-DB-Cooper anyone seen this book?

377 this is the book I referred to many times HA HA HA by D.B. Cooper. The writer of this book remains unknown to this day and the name Van Cleave - this is another story......How I got the book is still another story - just as strange as his visitor at the shop that day in 1990 or 91.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

Quote

The first thing Cooper did when he began examining the sage-green military back chute was to take the packer's card from its pocket on the inside flap. He could see the date Cossey had packed the chute and also his signature and certification number from the U.S. Parachute Association. [ed. specultion by Tosaw?]. He then opened the parachute and examined the nylon panels and suspension lines. Tina was impressed with the professional way in which he went about his examination"

I have personally spoke with many individuals and I have been assured in past yrs that this NEVER happened. The book may have been informative, but you will note that in the credits you will not find Tina's name. So what she didn't tell him he made up.

This nor the so called salute ever happened. Refer to the transcripts.
If it did then we could say all of the things I have tried to say and what Coffelt said to Tina are true.
Leave her alone - I have not forced myself on this girl now a woman - leave her alone - this is why she doesn't talk to anyone - because of things like this.

She was just a kid at the time - this thing has altered her whole life. I respected her wish not to view photos but did not heed her advise to let go - to leave the past in the past.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[377 22]

Quote

So a .5 NM error on both of the surround tics would account for that.

Isn't our radar only about that accurate?

Something is amiss. Maybe the pencil plots had big range errors but 1971 radar, even cheap ones, had sweep to sweep range errors at least an order of magnitude better than .5 miles. If I was tied to Pier 47 in SF and painting Alcatraz with my 1969 vintage Decca 101 X band radar, the Alcatraz echo image stayed put... no visually perceptible range variation from sweep to sweep. Absolute range accuracy (comparing to govt nav chart) was within 1 or 2 %. It is really easy to get accurate and stable radar ranging by using a crystal controlled sweep oscillator to control the radial (ranging) sweep of the CRT electron beam. Even a free running oscillator of good design would do a decent job at getting the range right and minimizing range error drift.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[georger 247]

The dredging: What is your understanding of How far either side of Tina Bar the river was dredged?
Links?

George

[377 22]

Quote

The first thing Cooper did when he began examining the sage-green military back chute was to take the packer's card from its pocket on the inside flap. He could see the date Cossey had packed the chute and also his signature and certification number from the U.S. Parachute Association. [ed. specultion by Tosaw?]

You bet there is some Tosaw spin in there. Riggers don't use USPA numbers on packing cards, they use their FAA number. Wonder what else he spun??

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[snowmman 3]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300239738338&fromMakeTrack=true&ssPageName=RSS:B:SRCH:US:104

interesting story about an FBI agent's son (retired teacher) buying an Ingram bill 20 years ago from the Ingram family, for his father, who is now dead. So he's selling the bill on ebay.

It's a weird story. At first I thought someone who bought a bill might be lying and reselling it with a good story. Says it was brought to the auction recently, and authenticated and put in a PCGS archival holder like the rest of the auctioned bills. Has pictures at the ebay url.

The location of the bill is listed as Sallisaw, OK

Now I don't have to tell all you Cooper experts why that town/state jumps out at you right?

It's where the Ingram clan was originally from, and where they returned after the couple of years in WA. I think maybe Brian's grandma still there? (Brian and maybe others eventually went to AR)

Brian went back to Sallisaw to go to high school, after they left WA. Attended high school in Sallisaw 1986-1990

So the story of the teacher having Brian's younger brother in class might make sense. I guess I didn't realize Brian had a younger brother. The dates make sense. Brian got the money after a 6? year court case?

[georger 247]

I like your epilogue!!!

[snowmman 3]

Quote

The dredging: What is your understanding of How far either side of Tina Bar the river was dredged?
Links?

George

Apparently it was both sides. The sand from the OR side went to that side, the sand from the WA side went to the Fazios.

The only info I was able to dredge up was the indirect reference to the cubic yards dumped on the Reeder ranch on the other side. I already posted that a while back... I exchanged email with the guy who owns the Reeder RV place there (and Reeder beach) and he confirmed that it was his aunt and that sand had been dumped there.

But I have no detail about where in the river they dredged, or how far up or down river.

Tosaw quotes numbers for the cubic yards dumped on the Fazio side, in Oct. '74. The Reeder side referenced Aug. '74 as the dredge time, with a similar, but not exactly the same number of cubic yards of material.
(by Army Corps of Engineers)

I had a thought that dredging in that area, meant sediment deposited, making the channel less deep. That would mean the river flow slowed, dropping sediment. Maybe because the river was going from narrow to wide there? Not sure why there needed dredging. What about other places (which is what you imply, I think.)

[georger 247]

Quote

this is a weird thing Tosaw mentions.

after telling them that everything must be delivered to Sea-Tac by 5 o'clock, Cooper adds:

' ..."also tell them not to be sending any other kind of messages because my bomb is electronic and certain signals might set it off."

Tina reported all this to the cockpit on the interphone. The crew was somewhat puzzled by the hijacker's statement but assumed he meant that the standard hijack distress signal would set off the bomb. After discussing the matter, they figured it had to be a bluff because if a radio signal to headquarters would not affect the bomb, then neither would a hijack signal. They decided, however not to send the signal and instead let the company handle the entire matter.'


This all is interesting to me. Cooper had to know they were using the radio. Was he trying to intimidate them into not sending a squawk signal, knowing it would be used for tracking? It's all very odd. Maybe reveals aviation knowledge. At the very least it might explain why no squawk was sent? This was before the plane landed in Seattle.

Or maybe he just was trying to get them to minimize radio traffic, figuring the less the better, for him.

REPLY> That is interesting. Why would he think he
could fool anyone on that!? This paints the same
portrait Ckret has pushed namely: 'had enough
superficial knowledge to be dangerous'. (but also
stupid in the face of technical people).

I wont get into the techgnical aspects of this but
Cooper is basically describing a situation that would
be dangerous even for himself ... no bomb control.

If this is true it could be very telling ... (and almost
a relief!).

Does anyone know exactly what frequency and mode
we are talking about here?

[snowmman 3]

Quote

Quote

this is a weird thing Tosaw mentions.

after telling them that everything must be delivered to Sea-Tac by 5 o'clock, Cooper adds:

' ..."also tell them not to be sending any other kind of messages because my bomb is electronic and certain signals might set it off."

Tina reported all this to the cockpit on the interphone. The crew was somewhat puzzled by the hijacker's statement but assumed he meant that the standard hijack distress signal would set off the bomb. After discussing the matter, they figured it had to be a bluff because if a radio signal to headquarters would not affect the bomb, then neither would a hijack signal. They decided, however not to send the signal and instead let the company handle the entire matter.'


This all is interesting to me. Cooper had to know they were using the radio. Was he trying to intimidate them into not sending a squawk signal, knowing it would be used for tracking? It's all very odd. Maybe reveals aviation knowledge. At the very least it might explain why no squawk was sent? This was before the plane landed in Seattle.

Or maybe he just was trying to get them to minimize radio traffic, figuring the less the better, for him.

REPLY> That is interesting. Why would he think he
could fool anyone on that!? This paints the same
portrait Ckret has pushed namely: 'had enough
superficial knowledge to be dangerous'. (but also
stupid in the face of technical people).

I wont get into the techgnical aspects of this but
Cooper is basically describing a situation that would
be dangerous even for himself ... no bomb control.

If this is true it could be very telling ... (and almost
a relief!).

Does anyone know exactly what frequency and mode
we are talking about here?

I believe Ckret is confirming that this should go in the myth bucket: i.e. no FBI interview confirmation of it.

(edit) oh ps: Tosaw said the flares/dynamite had black tape on them. I've not heard of that before, although it would seem necessary. Loose sticks of dynamite/flares would seem to be a pain in the briefcase? Maybe it would tell us something if ckret confirms if there was black tape?

[skyjack71 0]

Ckret:
I wish to thank you for the total professional way you have handle the past few post.

Snowmman
You have put yourself out there as a source of all. There is by far too much repetition and hashing over things that have been done over and over. I am going to copy and paste an email I received from the State of Wa. regarding the claims you made about Vancouver Lake, flooding and the other things.

You take information and interpert it the way you want - you are not a geologist, hydrologist, nor do you have any real physical contact with the State of Wa that I am aware of.

An Official email regarding Lake Vancouver, Lake River and the flushing:

Quote

Greetings Jo-
I can certainly understand your concern with understanding the information you have been given, especially a river having reversed flow – it seems to be counter-intuitive!

Lake River is the natural outlet to Vancouver Lake and has several tributaries; Salmon Creek is one of them. It joins the Columbia River at the north end of Bachelor Island (also the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge).

The Columbia River is tidally influenced in the area of Vancouver Lake and Lake River, which influences both the river as well as the lake. It is because of this tidal influence that the flow in Lake River reverses itself but this only occurs during flood tides.

The tidal influence on the Columbia River near Vancouver (which includes the Lake River confluence) is approximately 1’-2’ feet. It could be that the folks who shared the information about Lake River influencing reverse flow on the Columbia were misinformed and did not understand the flows along this stretch of river are tidally influenced.

Trying to obtain flood history for the period of 1971-1980 has been a bit difficult. Depending upon the flooding event, it can range from minimal to major. The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration considers anything over 25 feet (river elevation) on the Columbia River major – they have documented 1948, 1956, 1964, and 1996 as years having this level of flooding in the Vancouver area. I was unable to locate any records involving lesser events – not that they did not occur, it is just records tend to be spotty.

I am not familiar with the Fazio property – so I cannot tell you what, if any, flooding threat may exist.

I have attached several documents that I think you may find helpful. They are:

1) Flood Area Map – this is a Washington Department of Ecology floodplain area map showing where the flood hazard areas are – this is a high-level map but I am hoping you will still find it useful. The flood hazard area is orange colored.

2) Vancouver Lake & Lake River Watershed – this is a nice summary (found on Clark County’s web page) of both the lake and river, I thought you might find it interesting background information

3) Vancouver Map – this is a Vancouver City map, which will provide an overview of the area you reference in your email

It is my hope you find this information useful and that I have provided clarification for you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any additional questions or if I can provide further assistance.

Respectfully,
Julie

I was able to down load one of the maps - it was very large. The other things I was unable to reference due to a heavy lightning storm in the area. If they have been posted before please let me know so I do not duplicate what has already been posted.

I am finding it difficult to read and understand some of the posts - it is never clear who is replying to who and copying the complete post is using up space and time (and repetitive). I am sure that Drop Zone only has specific limit for the size of this thread - we should economize that space.

One or two individuals seem to be an expert in ALL things. I am not a jumper, a hydrologist, engineer, a pilot, a radar expert, a member of the Foresty Div., or any of the things that would provide any expertist to the subjects.

I can understand someone like Sluggo who seems to be very knowledgeable of his subject - he is using real time and real facts. I think his contributions have been the most valuable we can get. He stays on the subject he knows and understands ... and doesn't go off into the wild blue yonder about things he has no knowledge of.

I wish to thank all of you for your time and effort - and help. The last few days (health wise)have been difficult - maybe tomorrow will be a better day. The storm is closing in on me so I will have to sign off.

Again, Thank You,

[georger 247]

Either Cooper is taking out of his you know what or he is trying to intimidate the crew. Not "intimidating them into not sending them a squawk signal" just plain intimidating them. If someone gave me a message like that I would assume, just like the crew, they meant don't go to 7500, which is the code for Unlawful Interference aka hijacking.

To answer your questions though...

Squawking the signal has little to do with tracking. For Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) in the U.S. (IFR is what all commercial flights operated under), a plane is generally assigned a transponder code at the clearance delivery stage on the ground and it stays with that aircraft the entire flight. So tracking isn't an issue.

It is more a backup way of letting ATC know you have a situation on board. If you have a guy in the cockpit with you demanding you don't tell air traffic control you are being hijacked you may be able to get away with changing your transponder to the code.

As for explaining why no squawk was sent... If you are referring to the code the crew was supposed to send when Cooper jumped it doesn't. That code wasn't the hijack code, it was a code given by ATC that Cooper would not have any knowledge of. If you are referring to the hijack code, they obviously were able to communicate the message over the radio.

[georger 247]

OK. Direct question.

Is there ANYTHING you know that suggests or documents Cooper saying his bomb was "electronic" and could be
triggered by a squak signal, saide to anyone?

[georger 247]

Quote

Quote

So a .5 NM error on both of the surround tics would account for that.

Isn't our radar only about that accurate?

Something is amiss. Maybe the pencil plots had big range errors but 1971 radar, even cheap ones, had sweep to sweep range errors at least an order of magnitude better than .5 miles. If I was tied to Pier 47 in SF and painting Alcatraz with my 1969 vintage Decca 101 X band radar, the Alcatraz echo image stayed put... no visually perceptible range variation from sweep to sweep. Absolute range accuracy (comparing to govt nav chart) was within 1 or 2 %. It is really easy to get accurate and stable radar ranging by using a crystal controlled sweep oscillator to control the radial (ranging) sweep of the CRT electron beam. Even a free running oscillator of good design would do a decent job at getting the range right and minimizing range error drift.

377

OK... there are posts about the gear being used at
the time but these posts are old ... but will look.
Thanks for these details... I have no problem with
"standard error" and it looks like thats exactly what
we have. Sluggo's latest post on this is very good.