DB Cooper

[Andrade1812 51]

Most of the effort regarding Kaye's findings on the tie have been toward explaining the results away, rather than attempting to find the tie's origin. Unfortunately.

[CooperNWO305 157]

Some background on RMI and titanium. The process is described as well as some reference to military applications. 
 

[FLYJACK 742]

11 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

How do we know for certain that RMI was the only company in the world using this process? When did the other companies stop? Did RMI state they were the only ones or did someone call all the other companies? I’ve heard this before, and I don’t doubt the honesty of the people, I’d just be curious to see some solid proof. It just seems too easy that they’ve narrowed down where the titanium came from. 

The Ti sponge did not match RMI,, the "salt" did. That "salt" can't be exclusive to RMI.

 

sodium and Ti sponge is used in pyrotechnics... the round silicon spheres found on the tie suggest formed in a high temp,,  perhaps a firework or hand held sparkler.. military flare/incendiary??

Edited January 20, 2020 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 742]

Nippon Soda used the "Sodium" method to make TI sponge...

all production exported to the US...

BTW,,, remember the tie was manufactured about 1964..

Edited January 20, 2020 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 742]

Not Braden, he doesn't match the Cooper description, has unique features and there is no evidence other than his jumping skills.. 

"It is felt Unsub was not an experienced criminal because of his mannerism exhibited after he received the ... ransom money. Unsub reportedly became somewhat childish,
in his actions and comments while counting the money."

Braden isn't the type to become childish.

[CooperNWO305 157]

8 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Because of the limited information that we can 100% certify about the hijacker, at SOME point you have use the best criteria to either include...or dismiss...at least a few of the suspects that come along. Otherwise, where do you draw the line?

I believe blue eyes to be one of the exclusion criteria. I also think it is more likely that if Flo Schaffner wasn't sure on the eye color, she would have said that. ("I didn't really notice,' or "I never saw what color they were.") But her story was that Cooper's eyes were brown, and she never retracted that. So I think we can accept that she got at least one good look at his eyes. 

Criteria is limited. There are no scars on Cooper, no moles that anyone has mentioned, no real distinguishing features. They even argue about his height and his hair. So what do you have to go on to eliminate suspects? It's tough. One of the few things going is the eye color. That's why, in the lack of other really good evidence that points to a particular suspect, you almost HAVE to eliminate anyone with blue or green eyes. 

Same thing for Sheridan Peterson:

"If they are blue...it just won't do..."  If either of these guys had ended up in court, you can just see Johnnie Cochran telling that to the jury. Or maybe Faye Dunaway would tell us the score:

Agreed.  The favorite defense of the eye color is along the same lines as the age defense that the Rackstraw and McCoy people use.  They cite that witness testimony or witness remembrance is sketchy.  I was listening to a podcast on the DC  Sniper this morning and a professor from Iowa State was talking about how the witnesses in that case were all over the place.  The big difference between the Cooper case and some of these other cases like the DC sniper is that the Cooper witnesses had a long time to look at him.  If the rationale used by the Rackstraw group on age, or the blue eyed folks was legitimate, then why would the courts ever use witness testimony for cases?

[FLYJACK 742]

Witnesses do make errors...

In the Hahneman hijacking the captain positively ID'd the wrong guy when shown pictures.. he looked similar to Hahneman.

and just like the Cooper case witnesses thought the original sketch was good but not perfect.. 

We are relying on witness recall.. height is very poor for recall as there is no imprint or reference, it is subjective. Hair is actually very good for recall as that image is imprinted on memory.

 

If we are going to list all military personnel with jump experience as legit suspects we will have a list so long it would be worthless...

[CooperNWO305 157]

Opening up the suspect list to the following would increase the number of suspects considerably

Males between the age of 28 and 55 (Rackstraw and McCoy were 28)

Males with blue eyes or brown eyes (hazel would be brown). 

Anyone with skydiving or military parachute experience that fits those ages (that would be anyone who served in the 101st Airborne, 82nd, 17th, etc.).  All air crews who wore harnesses/chutes, pilots, etc. etc.

Any females who got gender re-assignment surgery like suspect Barb Dayton

Anyone with an American accent, to include those from Canada or those who came to the US as youths.

Etc. Etc. Etc.  My point is that if we don't narrow it down, then the possible list is huge.

I predict that if this case is solved, that Cooper will have had brown eyes and will have been over 40 at the time of the hijacking.

[ParrotheadVol 70]

Doesn't the Cooper description say "possibly" brown eyes? I didn't think anyone had said that he for sure had brown eyes.

[CooperNWO305 157]

6 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I think the reason the FBI put 'possibly brown' on the wanted poster is because only one confirmed witness actually saw Cooper without his sunglasses, other than the ticket agent, who couldn't be expected to remember such a thing after the fact. 

Without a second witness to the eyes, it's unlikely the FBI is going to say DEFINITELY brown. I will tell you the guy I trust with the witness reports, and that's the guy who was allowed to examine the original notes taken by the FBI agents:  Geoff Gray. According to Gray, Flo Schaffner was pretty definite on the eye color. The excerpt on this from Gray's book, page 91 in hardcover:

It's a tricky point all around, I'll admit. But the fact that Flo gave a definite color is significant. And it wasn't blue or green, which would be much easier to notice. This leads me to believe she was right. Her interaction with Cooper went on for a couple of minutes prior to him putting on the sunglasses. So she may have gotten a good look at him in plain sight as it were. 

First, there is the approach. No sunglasses at this point. He gets her attention and hands her the envelope with the note. She puts it into her purse. He gets her attention a second time, (this is now two looks at Cooper) telling her she should look at the note. My opinion is that once she read it, then the first thing she's going to do is look at him again, to get a read on the guy who just handed her a note like that. Most people would do that, rather than looking out a window or at the ceiling. They are going to gauge the person who just ruined their whole day, even if they don't realize that's what they are doing. It's a psychological reaction. 

Another interaction: Flo sits next to him. He shows her the bomb. Still no sunglasses. 

Another interaction: Tina has been listening and comes over to both of them. Still no sunglasses. There is a discussion on who is going to go to the cockpit, and Cooper finally decides to let Flo go forward, while Tina takes her place next to Cooper. It is about this time that Cooper puts on the sunglasses...i.e. when Flo gets up from the seat, and Tina takes her place. 

Tina could have seen the hijacker's eyes prior to sitting down, but she either didn't notice the color or didn't remember. But she does not dispute it when Flo tells the Feds they were brown. We also know that Tina DID get a look at Cooper while she was listening to Flo and Cooper, but we don't know what she may have told the Feds later. Perhaps she even AGREED that Flo was right, but it is hard to say. But there was a short window during the time she was listening to the two of them. By the time Flo and Tina exchanged seats, the sunglasses were on. 

My thought is that at some time during all these things, Flo DID get a few good looks at Cooper's face and that's what she remembered. That his eyes were brown. 

Later, all three stews do the Facial ID Catalog stuff with the Feds. None of them dispute Flo's assertion Cooper's eyes were brown. 

However, since only a single witness (Flo) gave an eye color, the FBI would have no choice but to say 'possibly'. I use the Occam's Razor on this one:  Since Flo positively asserted that Cooper's eyes were brown, with no 'maybes' or 'not sure' stuff, she was probably right. She's the only person who got a few good looks at Cooper without his sunglasses. 

Two other Flo-related interactions with Cooper and without the sunglasses: When she took his drink order, and when Cooper boarded the plane. "Welcome, aboard!" etc. She took his drink order before he gave her the note. 

That is now THREE good interactions with Cooper without the glasses, and one general one, i.e. boarding. The boarding 'look' at him is probably a non-starter, but the last three are definitely meaningful. 

I agree with Robert, again.  We disagree on some other things, but probably agree on more than we disagree on.

The "possibly brown" is used to support suspects with blue eyes. Plain and simple.

On Unsolved Mysteries Flo was adamant about remembering the eye color and his eyebrows.

Question for Parrothead or any others, if the FBI said "possibly brown" then why not say "possibly blue" or "possibly green"???

 

[FLYJACK 742]

They said possibly brown, meaning "dark eyes", not  possibly light or possibly blue.

 

"From information the subject is described as white male, mid 40's, 5'10" to 6', 170 to 180 pounds, average to well built, olive or swarthy complexion, medium smooth, dark brown or black hair parted on left side, combed back, sideburns to low ear level, dark eyes, probably black or brown. Subject wore a dark suit,white shirt, with narrow black tie. He wore dark glasses with plastic rims (possibly prescription lenses) most of the time. He had dark overcoat and was described as cool and calculating. His voice was low. He spoke intelligently and was a heavy smoker of Raleigh filter tip cigarettes."

 

 

[CooperNWO305 157]

17 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

They said possibly brown, meaning "dark eyes", not  possibly light or possibly blue.

 

"From information the subject is described as white male, mid 40's, 5'10" to 6', 170 to 180 pounds, average to well built, olive or swarthy complexion, medium smooth, dark brown or black hair parted on left side, combed back, sideburns to low ear level, dark eyes, probably black or brown. Subject wore a dark suit,white shirt, with narrow black tie. He wore dark glasses with plastic rims (possibly prescription lenses) most of the time. He had dark overcoat and was described as cool and calculating. His voice was low. He spoke intelligently and was a heavy smoker of Raleigh filter tip cigarettes."

 

 

Good way of putting it.  "possibly brown" meaning probably dark.

[FLYJACK 742]

1 hour ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Good way of putting it.  "possibly brown" meaning probably dark.

better,, "dark eyes", probably/possibly brown, the most common (or rarer black or dark grey)

Eyes were dark,,, NOT possibly blue.

Edited January 22, 2020 by FLYJACK

[ParrotheadVol 70]

7 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Question for Parrothead or any others, if the FBI said "possibly brown" then why not say "possibly blue" or "possibly green"???

 

I couldn't remember the exact wording that was in the description and who it was that actually seen his eyes without the glasses. That's why I asked.

[ParrotheadVol 70]

5 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

better,, "dark eyes", probably/possibly brown, the most common (or rarer black or dark grey)

Eyes were dark,,, NOT possibly blue.

Flyjack - I tend to agree with this. At least it makes sense. But, I do have to point out that a few posts ago you were pointing out that the FBI certainly looked at people that were shorter than what was in the description and that we couldn't be sure about the height. OK, fair enough. But let's remember, they also looked at people that did not have dark eyes, including Sheridan. So, by your own logic, how sure can we be about the dark eyes?

[FLYJACK 742]

7 minutes ago, ParrotheadVol said:

Flyjack - I tend to agree with this. At least it makes sense. But, I do have to point out that a few posts ago you were pointing out that the FBI certainly looked at people that were shorter than what was in the description and that we couldn't be sure about the height. OK, fair enough. But let's remember, they also looked at people that did not have dark eyes, including Sheridan. So, by your own logic, how sure can we be about the dark eyes?

I knew you would say this,, but there are two different issues here.

 

First, I was pointing out the reason for the FBI's "possibly brown" claim = dark eyes. It wasn't meant to claim possibly blue... Flo claimed "dark eyes" if she was wrong that is another issue. Recalling eye colour is far more accurate than height recall.

People have been using the "possibly brown" claim to advance blue eyes. For that to be true Flo had to be completely wrong. It is possible but it is really a different claim. To advance a blue eyed suspect Flo had to be wrong whereas height was an estimate.

 

Second, the other difference is I wouldn't use eyes alone to eliminate. A suspect with blue eyes would have to have other overwhelming factors to remain included, none do/did. That is my beef with your height issue, you are using it as a single factor elimination..  even worse, you don't know Tina's actual height and you don't know if she had shoes on, you don't know the height of somebody recorded as 5' 8" while in shoes... too many variables. 

If I am 5' 8 3/4" no shoes, sometimes I write 5' 8" sometimes 5' 9" and I am about 5' 10" in shoes.. does that alone qualify for Cooper elimination.

I remember Larry Carr saying that they weigh many factors to eliminate, it is never a single one. (unless it is way way off the description).

 

 

[CooperNWO305 157]

Robert: Good luck with the camping trip.  I'm wondering how the folks in Cooperland can really get this case back in the spotlight, nationally and internationally?

Individual suspects hit the news, and there is an uptick in interest for a short time.  A show comes on like on the Travel Channel and we see an uptick.  A new suspect like Walter Reca comes out and we see an uptick.

How can we get sustained interest in this case so that people are thinking about it and wondering if it could be there grandfather, or they go looking in the family safety deposit boxes for $20's, or they hike the area of the flight path and look for relics?

How do we get the FBI to re-open the case, or at least take an interest in it?  I'm thinking if you write your congressman out there in Oregon that they would probably ignore it.  I'm just thinking that once the 50th anniversary comes and goes that this case could die.

[ParrotheadVol 70]

48 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Robert: Good luck with the camping trip.  I'm wondering how the folks in Cooperland can really get this case back in the spotlight, nationally and internationally?

Individual suspects hit the news, and there is an uptick in interest for a short time.  A show comes on like on the Travel Channel and we see an uptick.  A new suspect like Walter Reca comes out and we see an uptick.

How can we get sustained interest in this case so that people are thinking about it and wondering if it could be there grandfather, or they go looking in the family safety deposit boxes for $20's, or they hike the area of the flight path and look for relics?

How do we get the FBI to re-open the case, or at least take an interest in it?  I'm thinking if you write your congressman out there in Oregon that they would probably ignore it.  I'm just thinking that once the 50th anniversary comes and goes that this case could die.

It's a 50 year old case. I doubt that the case will ever be back in the national spotlight, at least for any length of time. The upcoming special that is going to air on HBO may create some interest though. People seem to be more interested in docs that air on HBO and Netflix more so than the ones that air on Discover and Travel Channel. 

[FLYJACK 742]

"The fingerprint lifts made during the search of the interior of the aircraft in the area where the hijacker was known to have been, such as the rear door, the area around the door, the lavatory door, as well as the seat area, susceptible to dusting, were submitted for fingerprint examination, but no fingerprints of value were found on any of the latents thus obtained. "

[ParrotheadVol 70]

Robert, you're obviously not a boxing fan, it's "Thrilla" In Manila. I may give that one a view as I am an Ali fan. No desire to see the Scientology one though.

How is the Minnow films production cut down to 84 minutes? I thought this was a four episode documentary?

[FLYJACK 742]

The Cooper case is too complex for a film to do it justice...

To appeal to the widest audience a Cooper film has to be "superficial"..

These films/shows don't advance the case. It may be entertaining but I don't expect anything new.

Increased public interest isn't my goal... it doesn't advance the case, it perpetuates misinformation.

[FLYJACK 742]

Increasing public interest helps books, films and narratives, it doesn't help advance the case. The public does not have the knowledge and ability to discriminate and process all the information in such a complex case. They accept what they are presented as fact rather than develop their own conclusions. It perpetuates uninformed opinions.

[Andrade1812 51]

We need documentaries that treat the Cooper case as an unsolved mystery, instead we get suspectovision where a previously eliminated Cooper candidate is declared the winner.

[FLYJACK 742]

Tom Kaye found a diatom on 377's Cooper bill, Georger Id'd it as Asterionella.

Asterionella is common in the Columbia River..

However, Asterionella japonoca is a spring and summer species while Asterionella formosa is a winter species...

So which one is it? 

 

Coulmbia River diatoms...

Edited January 25, 2020 by FLYJACK

[CooperNWO305 157]

13 hours ago, Andrade1812 said:

We need documentaries that treat the Cooper case as an unsolved mystery, instead we get suspectovision where a previously eliminated Cooper candidate is declared the winner.

True. Many people who know who DB Cooper is would likely tell you the case is solved and it is Rackstraw or Reca.