DB Cooper

[snowmman 3]

Cooper only did one crime in his life. This one.

That was also key to why he didn't get caught. When you're doing lots of crime, you're always having to hook up with guys that will turn on you at the drop of a hat.

For the rest of Cooper's life, he never did anything that would make anyone want to turn on him. There was never a reason for someone to think "oh that bastard, he probably did the cooper job and I'll get his a** now"

Cooper also realized how amazingly lucky he was that night...when at the time he thought he was smart. When in 1972 you see all the guys copycat'ing and some of them getting shot by the cops/FBI and all getting caught, you straighten out and fly right.

[edit] So, then you ask, how did he survive the rest of his life. Well he was rehired the next year. He went back to work in his old industry, potentially the same employer. Got bummed out again, and eventually left though.

Having been laid off, is one of the reasons that aided him. There were no guys at work that noticed anything odd when he showed up at work after Thanksgiving. Because he didn't have to show up at work.

[quade 4]

Quote

Cooper only did one crime in his life. This one.

That was also key to why he didn't get caught. When you're doing lots of crime, you're always having to hook up with guys that will turn on you at the drop of a hat.

For the rest of Cooper's life, he never did anything that would make anyone want to turn on him. There was never a reason for someone to think "oh that bastard, he probably did the cooper job and I'll get his a** now"

Cooper also realized how amazingly lucky he was that night...when at the time he thought he was smart. When in 1972 you see all the guys copycat'ing and some of them getting shot by the cops/FBI and all getting caught, you straighten out and fly right.

[edit] So, then you ask, how did he survive the rest of his life. Well he was rehired the next year. He went back to work in his old industry, potentially the same employer. Got bummed out again, and eventually left though.

That's a lot of, what appears to be, baseless assumptions there.

Do you have anything to back any of that up?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[snowmman 3]

What is beautiful about the human condition, is that two people can look at one thing and say there is nothing there, or something there.

Baseless is always in the eye of the beholder.

I may be wrong. But I'm not baseless.

[quade 4]

I didn't say YOU were baseless. I said it appears as if you're making some baseless assumptions.

Upon what do you base the following statements you've made over the last few posts;

1) He had multiple children.
2) He bought a house in 1966.
3) Only did one crime in his life.
4) Was laid off from work.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[snowmman 3]

thanks, Neo :) I think this is interesting. Scott was closest in real age to the age estimated for Cooper. But he never saw Cooper. So we have the age estimates coming from the two stewardesses in their early twenties. Besides them, who else gave confirming age estimate? (I'm not sure who all was constrained to the cockpit)

Quote

Snowman, I think Cooper was 40 to 50 because everyone described him as such. No one in the cockpit ever saw Cooper.

The rubbed bands, according to the Ingrams, were found with the rubber bands wrapped around the bundles and they crumbled to the touch (not dust).

[Orange1 0]

Quote

First name from brother or young son.
Last name is his middle name.

Surely a middle name is... well, pretty obvious? Alternatively, I understand it's fairly common for aliases to use the same initials as the real person. Someone D. C. ... possibly a 2-syllable last name as well. First name... maybe also a 1-syllable abbreviation of a longer name... Don, Dave etc.

Should only take about a million man-hours to search through records to find someone who fits Maybe a boeing employee would narrow it down.

Ckret - any comments on this line of thinking? I presume somewhere in the vast FBI lore there is work on this.

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[SafecrackingPLF 0]

I have an alias that I use (also known as a pen name) and the initials have nothing to do with my real name.

The only safe assumption a person could make would be that he probably used an alias. If he did, he may have used it before or used other aliases before.

[snowmman 3]

there was a comment before about how a line can be drawn between any number of variables. You have to reflect on what you recognize as a variable. Variables are not just hard things you can touch like money.

Everything that has happened since 1971 and everything that happened in 1971 is evidence that should be accepted.

The behavior (and results of that behavior) of everyone, both the investigators and Cooper, since 1971 is evidence.

If you don't accept that, it means you're rejecting evidence for no good reason.

My point is that the answer is out there. People sometimes shut the answer out, thinking they're going to aggressively find the answer based on their point of view.

Have to let the data/evidence talk to you. All of it.

Be the scientist watching the rats in the maze.

Quote

I didn't say YOU were baseless. I said it appears as if you're making some baseless assumptions.

Upon what do you base the following statements you've made over the last few posts;

1) He had multiple children.
2) He bought a house in 1966.
3) Only did one crime in his life.
4) Was laid off from work.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

I have an alias that I use (also known as a pen name) and the initials have nothing to do with my real name.

Yes, but we all know you're different. And I am presuming you don't use your "pen name" for criminal purposes.

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[quade 4]

Quote

Have to let the data/evidence talk to you. All of it.

Be the scientist watching the rats in the maze.

But there is NO data to my knowledge to support that he had multiple children, or bought a house in 1966 or was laid off or did only one crime.

From what I can see in your assumptions, you're not being a scientist, you're looking at clouds and seeing rabbits.

Show me proof otherwise and I'll retract the statement, but up to this point you've shown us nothing to support your claims.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[snowmman 3]

you're thinking like someone from 2008.
need to think like someone from 1971

Records of driver's licenses weren't computerized in OR until like '68 or '69.
don't know about WA.

so you're thinking about "searching"...well that wasn't going to be the normal mindset at that time (I think)

Quote

Quote

First name from brother or young son.
Last name is his middle name.

Surely a middle name is... well, pretty obvious? Alternatively, I understand it's fairly common for aliases to use the same initials as the real person. Someone D. C. ... possibly a 2-syllable last name as well. First name... maybe also a 1-syllable abbreviation of a longer name... Don, Dave etc.

Should only take about a million man-hours to search through records to find someone who fits Maybe a boeing employee would narrow it down.

Ckret - any comments on this line of thinking? I presume somewhere in the vast FBI lore there is work on this.

[SafecrackingPLF 0]

I suppose you're right. I chose the pen name for a specific purpose. The purpose was for marketing.

I'm not sure how a criminal would select an alias, except for ease of getting IDs and such. In this particular crime, there was no need for ID so the name could come from anywhere.

Who knows how or why he selected that particular name. To say he used his uncle's first name and his brother's middle name might be correct, but the odds are unbelievably against it. Find a legit suspect who's uncle's name was Dan and his brother's middle name was Cooper and maybe there's a theory. Otherwise, I take it for what its worth, drivel.

[snowmman 3]

To commit the perfect crime, it's not important how you think, but how the people looking for you think.

I love the negative reaction I get, because it helps explain why Cooper wasn't caught.

People sometimes stress about the perfect crime needing to be perfectly thought out. You can get (and probably more likely get) the perfect crime accidentally. Cooper was the accidental perfect crime.

[quade 4]

Quote

Cooper was the accidental perfect crime.

An assumption based on your belief he lived.

If he died trying to get away, it wasn't perfect, was it?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[snowmman 3]

The key thing about an alias you have to remember, if you ever use one...is that when the people say the alias, you have to look up and respond.

If you don't, they know it's not your real name.

The alias in this case was not related to any need for fake ID.

[councilman24 37]

There is no way I believe that date is a repack date. It's the manufacturing date and serial number. And obviously a canopy made in 1946 was not in a crash in 1945. Did I miss it? What is the scientific basis that this wasn't one of Cooper's chutes?

There needs to be assesment by someone other than Cossey. And I thought we didn't know what was in the training reserve, silk or nylon?

Forgive me if I missed something. Haven't followed it all.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[BigSky 2]

I would like to know the same thing. How are we ruling out this chute?

What can we determine if we look only at facts? I personally think that some of these speculations go way outside the lines of trying to figure this thing out.

The money on the beach:

We know for a fact that this was coopers. How did it get there? Can we rule out that it got there by natural causes? If so how can we do this?

If it didn’t get there naturally then when, why, and who could have put it there? We have someone who thinks they know someone who put the money there. Is there any way to prove that? Maybe mud form Tinas bar in a shoe or a receipt from a hotel that puts the person in the place at the right time?

Speculation is great but it will never win you a court case. We need FACTS and we need them badly.

“Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drink I feel ashamed. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and their hopes and dreams. If I didn’t drink this beer, th

[raftman 12]

Hey Terry, I asked the same question earlier.
It doesn't add up.

[snowmman 3]

ignore me cuz I'm no expert, but Poynter seems to say it's the fiscal year of manufacture, at least on AAF chutes

he quotes
AAF regulation 65-35 dated Aug 10, 1943 required all AAF canopies to be stamped with the fiscal year and a serial number.

he made a special note that it's fiscal year, not calendar. I assumed he meant manufacture date, but that AAF regulation should say. (not sure if Navy had different rules or ??)

Quote

There is no way I believe that date is a repack date. It's the manufacturing date and serial number. And obviously a canopy made in 1946 was not in a crash in 1945. Did I miss it? What is the scientific basis that this wasn't one of Cooper's chutes?

There needs to be assesment by someone other than Cossey. And I thought we didn't know what was in the training reserve, silk or nylon?

Forgive me if I missed something. Haven't followed it all.

[SafecrackingPLF 0]

How did it get there? Can we rule out that it got there by natural causes? If so how can we do this?

Good questions. It's been the subject of debate since November.

The "how did it get there" is the bigger mystery. The "natural causes" (if the facts are correct) is pretty certain; the money had some help getting there. The question is, how much help?

I will mention, there are several who disagree with that conclusion, including Ckret. The reason I hold to it so tight is because no one has shown me a legit reason to think he jumped after 8:13 pm (calculated 8:11), and no one has shown me a legit reason to think the plane was way off course (east or west).

The big reason I want to analyze float time is because I would like to figure out "how much" help that money had. It may be impossible to figure it out conclusively, I don't know... but I do know it's impossible if no one ever tries to figure it out.

The post you're looking for is here:
Cooper Myths Debunked

If you need more explanation, let me know.

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

From what I can see in your assumptions, you're not being a scientist, you're looking at clouds and seeing rabbits.

Show me proof otherwise and I'll retract the statement, but up to this point you've shown us nothing to support your claims.

We need to be reminded of the facts occasionally, but not assumptions that have NO basis. Maybe Snowman thinks he would make a good FBI profiler also and maybe those rabbits are pink.

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

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

There is no way I believe that date is a repack date. It's the manufacturing date and serial number. And obviously a canopy made in 1946 was not in a crash in 1945. Did I miss it? What is the scientific basis that this wasn't one of Cooper's chutes?

There needs to be an assesment by someone other than Cossey. And I thought we didn't know what was in the training reserve, silk or nylon?

Forgive me if I missed something. Haven't followed it all.

Terry, I caught the same thing, but I have found that over the yrs that you can't tell the FBI anything they don't want to hear and it has taken this forum for them to actually listen to people who know what they are talking about.

CKRET:
Definitely -Cossey's analysis of the chute should be reviewed by others - such as Ralph Hatley. Ckret, why not get in touch with him... He is part of the older parachute world and might give you a new perspective. He lives in the area and is a nice man - Bet he would be willing to look at that chute and give you an opinion.

Cossey doesn't really like to be bothered, but he did send me the information I requested a few yrs ago - but, was adamant that he did not want any other communication. So a second or third opinion needs to be done.

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

[councilman24 37]

I don't have my Poynter's manual here but the canopy would have the actual date of manufacture somewhere. In the 50's, one panel oould have the serial number and date as in the found canopy. The oppositie side of the canopy would have the same information plus the contract (which might include the year of award as part of the number) the manufacturer, the military drawing or specification number. The opposite side of the canopy should have much more information. This does assume that in 1946 they did the same as in the 50's. I haven't seen a '46 canpy. But I would never assume that the plain english date is not the date of manufacture. This looks just like much more recent canopies and not the major data panel. This is the opposite side from the major information.

Just like M-1 carbines made by Rockola, IBM, etc. several manufacturers make the same model parachute.

And, without chemical test or burn test I probably couldn't tell a silk canopy from a nylon canopy. But all silk were twill, nylon were twill and ripstop.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[BigSky 2]

Safe.....I know it’s been the subject of debate and I think you are doing a very good job. I was more trying to make the point that if this thing is going to get solved then we need to look at the facts more. What can we absolutely rule out and things of that nature.

I personally think the key to solving this thing is if we can 100% rule out that the money made it there naturally. Once we could accept that as fact then the efforts could be focused much more.

“Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drink I feel ashamed. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and their hopes and dreams. If I didn’t drink this beer, th

[Sluggo_Monster 0]

snowmman,
Why do you put your “In Reply To” tag at the bottom of your posts?



BigSky,
Bravo! That’s what I’ve been saying for two months. We could advance the likelihood of contributing (in some meaningful way) to the solution to the case, if we had 80% less “(data) points” and concentrated on the 20% “facts”. But, remember when I tried (with 377’s help) to build a Facts vs. Myths database? No one was interested, because facts aren’t fun, mythology is. I’d give my left testicle to set down in Seattle and pour over everything the FBI (and other LE Agencies) has on the case.



Ckret (Bold per your request),
I’m puzzled about two things:
First, I flew about once a week in 1971. Air travel was very different then. I flew from SFO to LAX or from SJC to SNA (John Wayne now) for $16.xx one way. Planes left from those airports to the other every hour on the hour. I never showed an ID, I could purchase the ticket under any name I wanted, I could take anything on board (carry-on) that would fit under the seat in front of me or in the overhead. I don’t think a cabin attendant would notice if I had anything when I boarded, unless it was problematically large or I was unable to get it in the overhead and she had to help me so I wouldn’t be blocking the aisle. (Note: PC Police, they were ALL females back then.) So the question is, since Tina was sent forward, how do you know that Cooper didn’t get something out of the overhead. Something he left there or something a confederate left there. I’m sure all passengers were treated as suspects and questioned, but was it cursory or detailed? If you have no background on Cooper, how would you know if a particular passenger might have been a confederate? That question may not be too clear, so, here’s an example:

[example] Cooper works at TRW (maybe even has a Security Clearance). Bill works at TRW and has a “Q”. Bill brings some “tools” on board and puts them in the overhead (maybe including a parachute), he boards at PDX or possibly deplanes at PDX, (in which case he probably would have never been even interviewed). Otherwise he exits with all the other passengers at SEA and gets questioned (debriefed). He’s a solid guy, with a “Q”, so he’s eliminated from the suspect list. Nobody even knows he a Cooper work together.[/example]

I’m sure there are some records of the passengers who deplaned at SEA (as far as their backgrounds), but what about those who boarded at previous stops?

Second, oh never mind, I’ll save it for another day, the above is too much already.



All,
In your next post, please state whether you were or were not an adult in 1971. This is not frivolous; I have a good reason for asking.

BTW: I WAS an adult in 1971.


Sluggo_Monster

Web Page
Blog
NORJAK Forum