DB Cooper

[olemisscub 488]

7 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

This is the only mention of transmitters in the chutes,,  I found that the FBI was using them around that time...  but obviously no confirmation that they were used for Norjak. The file about picking up a signal was very early on in the FBI dump,, FBI Part 11 p 332/3

Milnes seemed to really respect Nyrop's wishes that the FBI and LEO's stay completely out of it. I can't envision them slipping a tracker in one of the chutes given how standoffish they were during the actual hijacking. As we know, other FBI offices during other hijackings didn't keep their distance like the Seattle Office did. Interesting that Seattle took a totally different approach with the Sibley hijacking a year later. They ended up shooting and wounding him. That was a United Airlines jet, so maybe UAL told them to intervene. 

Edited January 2 by olemisscub

[olemisscub 488]

Here are the shards that Uncle Bruce has always been so obsessed with. 

 

[georger 235]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Here are the shards that Uncle Bruce has always been so obsessed with. 

 

Smith and Tom ???   grin....

[FLYJACK 654]

3 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Here are the shards that Uncle Bruce has always been so obsessed with. 

 

I already posted an image, 1 of the envelops and the two pill boxes..

 

[olemisscub 488]

12 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I already posted an image, 1 of the envelops and the two pill boxes..

 

Indeed. Tom said they were just crumbs.

[JAGdb 86]

The question around these darn shards is where they were found and whether they were derivative of the original 3 packets or not. It doesn't seem like the FBI ever made a definitive statement on this.  Perhaps the condition and size make this impossible to determine?

[FLYJACK 654]

This is why I am skeptical about the accuracy of the early description of Cooper's back chute..  it may be a conflation of descriptions indicated by the 28 ft error.

5:57 AM on the 25th, there is a duplicate at 5:10 AM,  Where did this detailed description for both front chutes come from..  Cossey? or ??... Cossey claimed he was contacted when the plane landed in Reno, but there is no record in the files of contact with Cossey until the afternoon of the 25th.. Unless that description came from somebody else but who would know the chute colour and the shroud colour unless it was opened before being given to Cooper. 

 

[olemisscub 488]

34 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

This is why I am skeptical about the accuracy of the early description of Cooper's back chute..  it may be a conflation of descriptions indicated by the 28 ft error.

5:57 AM on the 25th, there is a duplicate at 5:10 AM,  Where did this detailed description for both front chutes come from..  Cossey? or ??... Cossey claimed he was contacted when the plane landed in Reno, but there is no record in the files of contact with Cossey until the afternoon of the 25th.. Unless that description came from somebody else but who would know the chute colour and the shroud colour unless it was opened before being given to Cooper. 

 

It's a good question, although that description is wrong from the start anyways. It says "All White Nylon". Of course we know the functional reserve was salmon colored, so I doubt that description came from someone on the scene. I would speculate that since Emerick is the one who handed them over that he provided a description at some point between handing them over and when that report was written. That would seem to make the most sense. They called Hayden at 2:50 AM to get a better description of the back chutes, so maybe they did the same with Emerick and it just isn't reflected anywhere in the notes. 

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

It's a good question, although that description is wrong from the start anyways. It says "All White Nylon". Of course we know the functional reserve was salmon colored, so I doubt that description came from someone on the scene. I would speculate that since Emerick is the one who handed them over that he provided a description at some point between handing them over and when that report was written. That would seem to make the most sense. They called Hayden at 2:50 AM to get a better description of the back chutes, so maybe they did the same with Emerick and it just isn't reflected anywhere in the notes. 

Yup, the description is wrong.... 

Emerick doesn't make sense though.. beside the description being wrong he didn't even know one was a dummy chute, how would he know the colour of the chute or shroud colour.

The exterior description could have been noted by somebody handling them before they went to Cooper,, but not the chute and shroud colour, model number and length unless they were opened. (even that is a stretch)

My sense is that some information is missing perhaps due to the early chaos...

Either some of that chute info came from Cossey earlier and wasn't noted in the files or somebody opened the chutes.

That info was not gleaned from the packing card... Somebody had to have thoroughly inspected the chute..

What if the dummy was intentional, they could have put a bleeper in it.. that chute was the only one with no seal. Somebody opens the unsealed dummy, notes the inside description and puts a bleeper in...  they wouldn't want to admit in the files to intentionally supplying a dummy chute.

either that or they contacted Cossey earlier than reported. 

 

Edited January 3 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 488]

15 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Yup, the description is wrong.... 

Emerick doesn't make sense though.. beside the description being wrong he didn't even know one was a dummy chute, how would he know the colour of the chute or shroud colour.

The exterior description could have been noted by somebody handling them before they went to Cooper,, but not the chute and shroud colour, model number and length unless they were opened. (even that is a stretch)

My sense is that some information is missing perhaps due to the early chaos...

Either some of that chute info came from Cossey earlier and wasn't noted in the files or somebody opened the chutes.

I agree that there is something strange about those early descriptions. You'll see where they often refer to both back chutes as being olive drab. I don't dwell too much on that though. I chalk that up to the "fog of war", as it were. Early chaos as you say. 

[FLYJACK 654]

Checking the Epstein list for DB Cooper...

[CooperNWO305 147]

There have been comments about the need for a site like DZ to discuss Cooper. Since the DB Cooper Forum has basically stopped, this is the only forum available for critical discussion on the case. The FB group run by Eric has Nicky as one of its admins, and he or someone in support of him deleted a comment of mine questioning him on his stance on whether the money was spent. Nicky or someone did not like that I noted how his stance on the money being spent seems to change depending on which angle he is playing for the day. Remember, he’s the one who liked Rackstraw for Cooper, then Klansnic, then Vordahl. His excuse is that it is ok to completely change theories and suspects, even after as a so called “expert” you would think when he stood for something for years that he would have done legit research. 
 

I’ve stated to others that if you’re not vetting your theories over here on DZ, then you’re not getting the feedback that is really needed. 
 

There are very few of the original Cooper researchers posting like they used to on the Forum.

[georger 235]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Checking the Epstein list for DB Cooper...

Let is know the outcome! ................................................

[georger 235]

1 hour ago, CooperNWO305 said:

There have been comments about the need for a site like DZ to discuss Cooper. Since the DB Cooper Forum has basically stopped, this is the only forum available for critical discussion on the case. The FB group run by Eric has Nicky as one of its admins, and he or someone in support of him deleted a comment of mine questioning him on his stance on whether the money was spent. Nicky or someone did not like that I noted how his stance on the money being spent seems to change depending on which angle he is playing for the day. Remember, he’s the one who liked Rackstraw for Cooper, then Klansnic, then Vordahl. His excuse is that it is ok to completely change theories and suspects, even after as a so called “expert” you would think when he stood for something for years that he would have done legit research. 
 

I’ve stated to others that if you’re not vetting your theories over here on DZ, then you’re not getting the feedback that is really needed. 
 

There are very few of the original Cooper researchers posting like they used to on the Forum.

The Cooper discussion has picked up some very excellent newcomers over the years. That's worth sticking around for. The FBI release of case docs has been very helpful ...

Edited January 4 by georger

[JAGdb 86]

Latest from Dr. Edwards:

 

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/24385999-d-b-cooper-and-flight-305-the-radio-ham-revisited

[FLYJACK 654]

36 minutes ago, JAGdb said:

Latest from Dr. Edwards:

 

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/24385999-d-b-cooper-and-flight-305-the-radio-ham-revisited

Disagree completely.. the ham operator comment was vague and not accurate or conculsive.

 

Here in the Harrison notes is the same time reference. 04:25 - 04:30 = 8:25-8:30

"Reno looks good" matches

and asking stew to communicate with man (before landing)..  she is not talking to Cooper.

 

 

Here at 8:30 Soderlind was asking for the stew to try to contact Cooper... 

She was NOT talking to Cooper.

 

[olemisscub 488]

46 minutes ago, JAGdb said:

Latest from Dr. Edwards:

 

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/24385999-d-b-cooper-and-flight-305-the-radio-ham-revisited

His other recent blog post about the sketch and the eyes was erroneous. I emailed him about it and he said he'd do a correction on it. He thought that this document was a reference to Schaffner picking out this set of eyes. I pointed out to him that the reference to Eugene is the clue that this document was about Bill Mitchell. Schaffner couldn't remember what his eyes looked like so the agents ran around asking which of the other witnesses saw his eyes. We knew Gregory and Hal Williams made claims about seeing his eyes and picked out eyes from the Facial Identification Catalog, but this most recent Vault release was the first indication we have that Bill also picked out a set of eyes. The eyes he chose didn't end up on the Bing sketch, so Bing's eyes came from either Gregory or Williams. 

In my most recent video that I published yesterday, I argue (although it should be obvious) that the eyes on the sketches are likely the least accurate components of the sketches. Bing's eyes are, as I stated, based on Gregory or Williams' selection from the catalog. Then, with the Comp B's, Rose essentially just drew the eyes from KK5-1.  

 

[Cola 49]

15 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

There have been comments about the need for a site like DZ to discuss Cooper. Since the DB Cooper Forum has basically stopped, this is the only forum available for critical discussion on the case.

Agreed. I think the DZ has worked but what I've observed of our use is that we keep reacting to post and cycling through the same 20 points here year after year.

It would be nice to have another central place to serve as a sort of creative commons where research topics have dedicated threads. A place to organize and upload records, references, 302's, transcripts ect.. which I presume most researches already splice up records by topic and organize their records similar to the Agency hierarchy.

This is beyond my skill set, but I can dream.

 

[Cola 49]

15 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Nicky or someone did not like that I noted how his stance on the money being spent seems to change depending on which angle he is playing for the day. Remember, he’s the one who liked Rackstraw for Cooper, then Klansnic, then Vordahl. His excuse is that it is ok to completely change theories and suspects, even after as a so called “expert” you would think when he stood for something for years that he would have done legit research. 

I think we should allow a change of mind and some evolution in our theories- conjectures. It's ok to pick a favorite candidate and work on them, use them to sharpen your critical thinking skills, and improve your understanding of the case.

Some candidates are attractive and some are repulsive. I think it takes time for a sleuth's taste to mature to a point where they can see the good from the bad. 

Years ago I would have considered candidates that were 5'6 - 5'8 . There was a time when I did not know, Coops height. I had not committed to a candidate qualifier of 5'11- 6'1.

But show me a 5'9-10 candidate that is so convincingly Cooper and I'll back off -my mind is malleable on a 6 ft height qualifier.

But try to show me a candidate that's 5'6 and this I will not accept. I think we most all agree that 5'6 is nonsense, outside of reason!!!

What do you all think, is there a difference in-classification between a Sleuth, a Researcher, an expert?

[ParrotheadVol 70]

1 hour ago, Cola said:

What do you all think, is there a difference in-classification between a Sleuth, a Researcher, an expert?

Interesting question. I suppose that there may be a distinction between sleuth and researcher, although one can easily be both. When I hear sleuth, I think of someone that is actively trying to solve the case, while a researcher may not have that as their prime objective. Both would be better served to be considered an expert as well, though there have been many over the years that I would certainly hesitate to call an expert. I do not consider myself to be any of the above. Sometimes I feel like I know less about the case now than I did when I first stumbled into the vortex. 

Edited January 4 by ParrotheadVol

[olemisscub 488]

1 hour ago, Cola said:

Years ago I would have considered candidates that were 5'6 - 5'8 . There was a time when I did not know, Coops height. I had not committed to a candidate qualifier of 5'11- 6'1.

But show me a 5'9-10 candidate that is so convincingly Cooper and I'll back off -my mind is malleable on a 6 ft height qualifier.

 

My take on this height is this: I think the FBI probably got it right, with the 5'10 to 6' assessment. 

Tina was 5'8. It's on her passport from 71 and she also apparently told the FBI this as well since it's in her 302. There is a video clip of the crew getting out of a van the next morning in Reno about to take the plane back to Seattle. You can see briefly see Tina's boot heels in that clip and she looks to have about a half inch heel. I actually figured their heels would be higher, but they weren't. 

Tina's first 302 says the HJ was 5'10 to 6'. Her second 302 she just says 6'. It is a well known phenomenon that people who are intimidated by an individual will exaggerate height. However, think about your own height and go through this exercise. I'm 6'1. If someone was 6'1 or 6'2, there is no chance in hell that I would estimate them to be as tall as 6'5.   So if Tina was willing to estimate that someone was 4 inches taller than her, then it seems hard to believe he could be roughly her same height. It goes the other way as well. If Tina was willing to go as low as 5'10, then someone 6'2 is probably out of the question. That would be like me thinking that someone could be 6'3 and they turn out to be 6'7. This is why I think 5'10 to 6 is probably about right. 

But then again, did she ever stand side by side with him? We don't know. Perhaps she had to squeeze past him at some point if he was standing up working on the money bag or something like that. She also claimed that she showed Cooper how to lower the stairs, but does that mean she was standing next to him literally pointing at how to do it or did she merely just explain to him how to do it?

Regardless of how people can and do misinterpret height, Tina thought he could have been as much as 4 inches taller than her, which suggests to me that he likely wasn't close to her height. So a suspect who is 5'8 or lower is a complete non-starter for me and by that same token, I have a difficult time with a suspect who 6'2 or something like that. 

[ParrotheadVol 70]

16 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

But then again, did she ever stand side by side with him? We don't know. Perhaps she had to squeeze past him at some point if he was standing up working on the money bag or something like that.

So, it's been said on this and other forums that Tina said that she had to look up to look Cooper in the eyes (I've always assumed that was with his shades on). I've even repeated this at times myself, but only because others have said it so I assumed it was true, which is never a good thing to do in the vortex. So does this come from somewhere? Or is it not accurate? It certainly seems to contradict her claim that she didn't get a good look at his face, which makes me think it probably isn't accurate. 

[olemisscub 488]

32 minutes ago, ParrotheadVol said:

So, it's been said on this and other forums that Tina said that she had to look up to look Cooper in the eyes (I've always assumed that was with his shades on). I've even repeated this at times myself, but only because others have said it so I assumed it was true, which is never a good thing to do in the vortex. So does this come from somewhere? Or is it not accurate? It certainly seems to contradict her claim that she didn't get a good look at his face, which makes me think it probably isn't accurate. 

I’d always heard that too. No idea the source for that. Her only extensive interview before recent times was with Tosaw and I just did a word search of his book and didn’t see anything similar. 

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

My take on this height is this: I think the FBI probably got it right, with the 5'10 to 6' assessment. 

Tina was 5'8. It's on her passport from 71 and she also apparently told the FBI this as well since it's in her 302. There is a video clip of the crew getting out of a van the next morning in Reno about to take the plane back to Seattle. You can see briefly see Tina's boot heels in that clip and she looks to have about a half inch heel. I actually figured their heels would be higher, but they weren't. 

Tina's first 302 says the HJ was 5'10 to 6'. Her second 302 she just says 6'. It is a well known phenomenon that people who are intimidated by an individual will exaggerate height. However, think about your own height and go through this exercise. I'm 6'1. If someone was 6'1 or 6'2, there is no chance in hell that I would estimate them to be as tall as 6'5.   So if Tina was willing to estimate that someone was 4 inches taller than her, then it seems hard to believe he could be roughly her same height. It goes the other way as well. If Tina was willing to go as low as 5'10, then someone 6'2 is probably out of the question. That would be like me thinking that someone could be 6'3 and they turn out to be 6'7. This is why I think 5'10 to 6 is probably about right. 

But then again, did she ever stand side by side with him? We don't know. Perhaps she had to squeeze past him at some point if he was standing up working on the money bag or something like that. She also claimed that she showed Cooper how to lower the stairs, but does that mean she was standing next to him literally pointing at how to do it or did she merely just explain to him how to do it?

Regardless of how people can and do misinterpret height, Tina thought he could have been as much as 4 inches taller than her, which suggests to me that he likely wasn't close to her height. So a suspect who is 5'8 or lower is a complete non-starter for me and by that same token, I have a difficult time with a suspect who 6'2 or something like that. 

Nope.

If you claim the FBI got it right then you would be claiming Cooper was 5' 8" plus.. The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for suspects and occasionally going lower for compelling suspects.. 

So, you actually disagree with the FBI...

The height thing is one of the most misunderstood things in this case.. and people seem to take unwarranted and over confident positions..

 

Things to consider,,,

Suspect height recall for witnesses is not that accurate. Nobody actually measured Cooper's height.

The inside of an aircraft can distort perceptions of height.

When Flo wrote 6' 1" in cockpit she had only seen Cooper seated after he had passed her the note and identified himself as a hijacker.

Tina said Cooper was seated almost the entire time. We know he stood up briefly in her presence, how close?.  

Outside the plane, Al Lee claimed Tina was 5' 6".. Tina's passport says 5' 8".. women tend to exaggerate their height, I assume Tina is 5' 8" and Al Lee's estimate shows how inaccurate estimating can be. 

Flo said Rataczak told the her to remove their shoes.. no indication if any stews actually did.

The initial official Cooper description lower bound was 5' 9" then amended to 5'10" to overweight Tina's testimony.. because she saw Cooper standing. The FBI was over relying on Tina, right or wrong.

Bill Mitchell and Robert Gregory had Cooper at 5' 9" though Cooper was seated. Men are more accurate estimating another man's height than women are.

 

and when people read notations of height for people (for example passport or draft card) it is almost always self reported and doesn't include shoes. That and Tina's height are probably why the FBI went as low as 5' 8"... Somebody listed at 5' 8" somewhere could be 5' 9" in shoes.. If Tina was 5' 8" she could have been 5' 8.5" in those shoes..

Also, self reporting on things like passports and draft cards usually does not include fractions.. people round up or down or concatenate.  I am exactly 5' 8 3/4" bare foot.. in most shoes I am 5' 10".. I would claim my height was 5' 8" or sometimes 5' 9" on documents dropping or rounding the fraction.. 

So, we have variables under stating peoples recorded heights on one side and variables impacting witness estimates on the other... 

 

Cooper's initial description by the FBI was 5' 9" to 6' incorporating Mitchell and Gregory.. 

IMO, the sweet spot is 5'10" plus or minus and inch in shoes. An individual's recorded height could be an inch or so less if without shoes.. Point is, these are witness recall estimates with variables and individual heights are usually under reported.. without shoes. Comparing apples and oranges.

Edited January 4 by FLYJACK

[CooperNWO305 147]

4 hours ago, Cola said:

I think we should allow a change of mind and some evolution in our theories- conjectures. It's ok to pick a favorite candidate and work on them, use them to sharpen your critical thinking skills, and improve your understanding of the case.

Some candidates are attractive and some are repulsive. I think it takes time for a sleuth's taste to mature to a point where they can see the good from the bad. 

Years ago I would have considered candidates that were 5'6 - 5'8 . There was a time when I did not know, Coops height. I had not committed to a candidate qualifier of 5'11- 6'1.

But show me a 5'9-10 candidate that is so convincingly Cooper and I'll back off -my mind is malleable on a 6 ft height qualifier.

But try to show me a candidate that's 5'6 and this I will not accept. I think we most all agree that 5'6 is nonsense, outside of reason!!!

What do you all think, is there a difference in-classification between a Sleuth, a Researcher, an expert?

I’m not sure if you’re new to the case or just new to posting here. You may not be aware of all the background of my post. 
 

Being an “expert” and having three suspects that you’ve continuously pushed is not an evolution. Changing your views depending on the day is not critical thinking or honing your skills. A seismic shift in thinking has really not been warranted in this case since maybe the Colbert files came out.