DB Cooper

[dudeman17 294]

2 hours ago, Cola said:

...To me if the stews/records could confirm he continued to seek control over his destiny by interacting with the Bomb then in my mind that action of seeking control/security in the bomb tips the scale from a ruse to very much real.  

That's an interesting take. On the other hand, he might have kept his hand in there anyway to maintain the 'authenticity of the ruse'. On the other other hand, if the bomb was fake, maybe he might have left it on the plane so that the authorities would know that it was fake, so that if he got caught maybe his sentence would be less severe. Maybe this, maybe that...

Another thing I wonder about is his 'grudge'. He had a grudge - not against the airline, but a grudge. So what was that about? Was he maybe expecting to get caught, then he could publicize his grudge? But then he gets away with it, or gets killed, and we never find out... Maybe the grudge was just personal and the money was his answer?

So much about this case, and we'll likely never know the answers. I guess that's why we still talk about it after half a century...

Edited May 22 by dudeman17

[Cola 36]

5 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

That's an interesting take. On the other hand, he might have kept his hand in there anyway to maintain the 'authenticity of the ruse'. On the other other hand, if the bomb was fake, maybe he might have left it on the plane so that the authorities would know that it was fake, so that if he got caught maybe his sentence would be less severe. Maybe this, maybe that...

 

 

On this, I don't have any answers that are the factual truth, but for me I have decided where I am on this one and what I see of the evidence says to me the bomb was not a prop.

Further confirmation for me would be if the stews or records could in the future help us understand the on the ground interactions with the bomb. 

At some point a prop is past its utility. It has brought him cooperation, it has brought him all of his request, it gave him control. But on the ground does he continue to use the bomb for intimidation or does he seek reassurance /comfort in the bomb? 

A prop has no utility in obliterating any trace of him. 

Is he interacting with the case during times where he is feeling vulnerable?

If its a prop, and he continued to interact with it on he ground, I'd think there would be a vocal element to a ruse, With a prop would he be inclined to remind the stews, this is for real, I'm a threat - I mean business, no funny stuff. 

In my mind if it were a prop he'd try to intimidate and bluff them further verbally and not just stick his hand in the case and sit there silently. 

If he kept silent with no verbal intimidation but continued to interact with the bomb is that a tell of authenticity?

IIf he's silent is that him treating the bomb as an emotional support animal going to it in those moments where hes felling insecure. Hes not displaying the bomb or the threat but hes quietly interacting with it because it brings him comfort.

He knows it's real and he's using the bomb for his own self-assurance and not as an intimidation tactic. If its real it represents that ultimate control of his destiny. 

When he is worked up over the fueling procedure he is showing us that he is feeling insecure possibly even vulnerable and paranoid. In that moment does he go back to putting his hand in the case in front of Tina? Is he doing that action without giving any verbal threat to her. Is this actions intent for his own peace of mind more so than to display a threat?

Would a prop give him emotional comfort?

 

Just so I'm clear - there is no record of how he handles the bomb on the ground and this is just my conjecture of if we could find out how he interacted with the bomb and stews on the ground  we may be able to better weigh the authenticity.  

 

 

 

Edited May 22 by Cola

[dudeman17 294]

I will re-state my usual disclaimer. I do not independently research this case, I am not actively trying to solve it. I have my own reasons for being interested, so I follow along. I do throw in a few cents' worth about the logistics of parachuting, because that is something that I do know about. And none of this is personal argument for me, just interesting discussion.

But...

4 hours ago, Cola said:

On this, I don't have any answers that are the factual truth, but for me I have decided where I am on this one and what I see of the evidence says to me the bomb was not a prop.

This is something where I have a fundamental disagreement with some people who do research, and are trying to solve the case.

Some people want to take their opinion of a likely scenario, and move it into the realm of fact. I cannot follow this. Sure, taking a likely scenario and seeing where it leads is part of how research is done, and may well lead to some proof. But the likely scenario itself is not proof. If someone comes up with an ultimate solve, if any link in their chain is supposition and not fact, then their proof may go poof.

My personal take is that there is so much about this case that we do not, can not, know for sure, and likely never will. If it has not been definitively solved by now it likely never will be. But I could be wrong about that as well, and it is certainly no reason to stop trying.

[Cola 36]

13 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

Some people want to take their opinion of a likely scenario, and move it into the realm of fact. I cannot follow this. Sure, taking a likely scenario and seeing where it leads is part of how research is done, and may well lead to some proof. But the likely scenario itself is not proof. If someone comes up with an ultimate solve, if any link in their chain is supposition and not fact, then their proof may go poof.

 

Dudeman we are all good…

 

A short philosophy lesson on the case and life:

There is a thought hierarchy to information in life and the case that goes like this:

Thinking, Believing, Knowing, Proving - Acceptance - Denial

My post yesterday was introducing a thought of mine, not a proof, not a known, not a belief.

I shared the thought for fun. Birthed it here on this board in a post, so it could become our collective thought to chew on and kick around.

In my usual disclaimer, I think I'm consistent in marking my post as my thoughts when they are, my beliefs when I hold them, and the knows when they are refereed, there are very few proofs in this case to be held.

If the bomb was real or not it is of little concern. What is of concern is what can we deduce from the bomb that would provide insights into the man. What do we have other than our deductions to form our thoughts and assign weights to build beliefs.

Our legal system's operates at a threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not operate at the threshold of nothing less than fact and absolute proof. I have no expectation that anyone in the Vortex will ever bring proof on Cooper, I could be wrong, but armchair investigators are unlikely in my mind to come in contact with actionable evidence. What we mostly will have on any candidate is our deductions and the candidate that fits beyond a reasonable doubt may satisfy our collective definition of who Cooper was. 

Edited May 23 by Cola

[olemisscub 473]

22 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

 

Another thing I wonder about is his 'grudge'. He had a grudge - not against the airline, but a grudge. So what was that about? Was he maybe expecting to get caught, then he could publicize his grudge? But then he gets away with it, or gets killed, and we never find out... Maybe the grudge was just personal and the money was his answer?

Just my personal opinion here, of course, but I suspect we're overplaying the 'grudge' line. Having prosecuted criminals for years and also defending them for years, most of them can try to justify their misdeeds by blaming someone else. So they all could claim they had a grudge if they wanted to. It's a bit of a useless clue because it could be literally anything. Maybe he was pissed at airlines for taking money away from railroads, or maybe he was pissed because the SST project was shut down, or maybe he was a supporter of the American Indian Movement and was pissed about that whole deal, or maybe it was just something simple and personal like that he had a grudge against his ex-wife who took the kids in the divorce. There's no way it can be an informative clue for us, in my opinion.

I've also said before that maybe it was just something cool sounding to say in response to "why did you pick Northwest Airlines to hijack?" It sounded cool as opposed to saying "I hijacked your airline because I'm a dirty thief."

[Cola 36]

44 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I'm a dirty thief

Let's not bring Himmy back...

 

44 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

There's no way it can be an informative clue for us, in my opinion.

 

It is informative but what does it say? Is it just an off the cuff remark or is it a dark  confession of someone whom understands themselves? Is there more to this reply?

I agree it's not a clue until you have a candidate, then its a post factum clue. I think and hope the grudge will serve as a motive if it is uncoverable.

 

 

 

 

[georger 200]

10 hours ago, Cola said:

Let's not bring Himmy back...

 

 

It is informative but what does it say? Is it just an off the cuff remark or is it a dark  confession of someone whom understands themselves? Is there more to this reply?

I agree it's not a clue until you have a candidate, then its a post factum clue. I think and hope the grudge will serve as a motive if it is uncoverable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmmmmm, but is it neo zoom weavie elephantor to be Maldum Fornax material ?

Edited May 24 by georger

[Cola 36]

1 hour ago, georger said:

Hmmmmmm, but is it neo zoom weavie elephantor to be Maldum Fornax material ?

Elcomeway otay ordplaysway...

[Cola 36]

1 hour ago, georger said:

It is informative

Georger I have lurked on you for years, I truly think your as good as they come on psy around these parts tell us what can this informs us of the man?

What does having a grudge tell us of the man...

[dudeman17 294]

On 5/23/2024 at 7:52 AM, Cola said:

Dudeman we are all good…

Of course. This is all just interesting conversation. Disagreement just adds more pieces to the thought puzzle. If there is anything personal in it, for me it is the camaraderie of the shared interest.

---

Apparently I read it wrong, but...

On 5/22/2024 at 1:44 PM, Cola said:

but for me I have decided where I am on this one

...sounded like 'I am choosing to accept this as fact'.

---

On 5/23/2024 at 7:52 AM, Cola said:

Thinking, Believing, Knowing, Proving...

Personally, I would put 'proving' before 'knowing'.

---

On 5/23/2024 at 7:52 AM, Cola said:

If the bomb was real or not it is of little concern. What is of concern is what can we deduce from the bomb that would provide insights into the man.

I would think that those insights would differ depending on whether or not it was real.

---

On 5/23/2024 at 8:17 AM, olemisscub said:

Just my personal opinion here, of course, but I suspect we're overplaying the 'grudge' line.

It's just part of the curiosity, but...

On 5/23/2024 at 8:17 AM, olemisscub said:

maybe it was just something cool sounding to say in response to "why did you pick Northwest Airlines to hijack?" It sounded cool as opposed to saying "I hijacked your airline because I'm a dirty thief."

...as something cool to say, I like the 'dirty thief' line better!

Edited May 24 by dudeman17

[Cola 36]

21 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

On 5/23/2024 at 2:52 PM, Cola said:

Thinking, Believing, Knowing, Proving...

Personally, I would put 'proving' before 'knowing'.

Thinking, Believing, Knowing, Proving - Acceptance - Denial

This is a handy tool for an across the board categorizing of what someone is presenting to you. Is this someone giving me a thought, belief, known or proof and do I accept or deny these.

Within a thought hierarchy Knowing proceeds Proof.

Knowing is personal, its the I know. The engineers at NASA, they knew, they could place a man on the moon long before we saw the proof.

You know what you had for breakfast and only you know this, here this is your Known. You can tell us what you ate, but can you prove it? Such a trivial thing but only 10 hours later do you actually have any proof to offer beyond your own testimonial? Probably not.

This is where acceptance and denial comes in. 

If I trust you, I'll cross the perception bridge you are presenting and agree with the testimonial of your Known. But if I accept your testimonial as truth I can only myself ever hold a Belief in the testimonial of your Known. I can not posses a Knowing myself  - of -  your -   Known. Neither can I prove what you ate.

If we ate breakfast together this experience would be our shared known. But 10 hour later could either of us offer proof of what we ate to someone else other than our testimonial.

 

 

 

 

[Cola 36]

2 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

sounded like 'I am choosing to accept this as fact'.

It's not what I accept as fact, its not Proof and neither am I claiming its a Known, but I'm approaching belief on this one. If I could find out those tid bits on my thoughts about how he interacted with the bomb I could firm up my belief.

However I'm open to being swayed from my thoughts and beliefs.

 

[The Cooper Vortex 81]

New episode out now! DB Cooper had a special set of skills with my good friend Brandon Arnold. 

https://thecoopervortex.podbean.com/e/db-cooper-had-a-special-set-of-skills-brandon-arnold/ 

[georger 200]

2 hours ago, The Cooper Vortex said:

New episode out now! DB Cooper had a special set of skills with my good friend Brandon Arnold. 

https://thecoopervortex.podbean.com/e/db-cooper-had-a-special-set-of-skills-brandon-arnold/ 

D Bee Cooper balanced two basketballs on toes of one foot !  We ponder that anomaly in a fifteen hour session. Eric Uris discovered this fact while traveling on a donkey in Ukraine -  which was under attack at the time.   

[Cola 36]

On 5/23/2024 at 3:17 PM, olemisscub said:

 

Olemiss, its a slow month over here. If you felt inclined I think we'd appreciate you teasing us Cooperites one of these days with your table of contents, or a snippet if you felt like sharing. 

How is the book any update on release?  I heard you say that you finally completed Tena Bar.

Edited June 3 by Cola

[Cola 36]

On 6/1/2024 at 12:23 AM, The Cooper Vortex said:

New episode out now! DB Cooper had a special set of skills with my good friend Brandon Arnold. 

https://thecoopervortex.podbean.com/e/db-cooper-had-a-special-set-of-skills-brandon-arnold/ 

I thought that one was headed off the rails but it proved out to be one of the more dynamic and entertaining episodes!

[Cola 36]

File under Actionable evidence - This detail has escaped me, but I came across an old post on Cossey's lead rigger seal of HF9.

Not that I have much confidence in someone finding the Back chute, but if it happens what is the possibility of some portion of this seal still being affixed to the chute?

Anyone with Rigging experience able to comment on the occurrences and condition of lead rigger seals from the 70's being present during a subsequent repacking. How likley were you to see portions of a riggers seal during a repacking? 

The serial numbers for the chutes were finger quotes "lost in the mail".

Anyone have a pic of a pack with Cossey's lead seal still in place?

 

 

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/55701-d-b-cooper-unsolved-skyjacking/?do=findComment&comment=2489606

Earl J. Cossey is still listed in the FAA database as a Private Pilot and Master Rigger (his seal symbol is HF9)

[dudeman17 294]

1 hour ago, Cola said:

Not that I have much confidence in someone finding the Back chute, but if it happens what is the possibility of some portion of this seal still being affixed to the chute?

Anyone with Rigging experience able to comment on the occurrences and condition of lead rigger seals from the 70's being present during a subsequent repacking. How likley were you to see portions of a riggers seal during a repacking? 

A quick google search will show you images of those seals. Basically it's an easily breakable piece of thread that is looped around the end of the last ripcord pin just past the closing loop (or cone) then wrapped around the base of that pin, it ends up being a loop. The thread passes through the small lead thing that is crimped onto the thread similar to a small fishing weight crimped onto a fishing line. When the ripcord is pulled, the thread breaks. The lead seal might fall off completely, but it might stay attached to the ripcord by the piece of thread wrapped around the base of the pin. If Cooper no-pull bounced, the seal is probably still there. If he pulled, he most likely tossed the ripcord, and it would be nowhere near wherever the rig ended up. If someone found the ripcord, the seal might still be on it. Reserves (and pilot emergency rigs) have to be inspected and repacked at regular time intervals, and usually they have not been used. The seal would still be there, but it would break when the container was opened. The rigger would throw away the old seal and replace it with a new one when he was done with the repack. If the chute was actually used in-air, whether the seal was ever seen again would mostly depend on whether the jumper kept the ripcord. Student skydivers are taught to toss them, experienced jumpers usually try to keep them. A pilot doing an emergency bailout would likely toss it.

 

2 hours ago, Cola said:

The serial numbers for the chutes were finger quotes "lost in the mail".

I thought the serial numbers were known. Both of the packing cards were left on the plane. Flyjack posted the numbers many times.

[Cola 36]

2 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

I thought the serial numbers were known. Both of the packing cards were left on the plane. Flyjack posted the numbers many times.

That's great insight maybe someone will come across that one day.

The parachutes are not my strong suit, I have mostly kept away from this cluster.

I think what we have seen and what FLYJACK posted were the parachute model numbers off the packing cards. I do not know that anyone has ever come across the serial numbers for the canopy or harness.

My understanding of the 302's is that the serial numbers for the Canopy or Harness may have been misplaced. Although, Ckret claimed on Jan 1 2008 that he had the serial numbers. Maybe he picked thee up from Cossey later of they eventually made their way into the records or maybe hes referring to the model numbers off the packing cards.

 

 

I'm unable to upload Jpgs to the DZ at present but the 302 records referring to my serial number finger quotes "lost in the mail" are

302 - Part 28 - DB Cooper pg. 9834 - October 31, 72

" COSSEY stated that he had made available to Agents of the FBI his records containing serial numbers of the parachutes supplied to UNSUB, COSSEY stated that his records were not returned, — A careful review of the file does not reflect the location of COSSEY's records."

"Will recontact COSSEY in an effort to have him recheck his records to determine if he possibly has them or has a duplicate set which may reveal the serial numbers of
 the four parachutes supplied to UNSUB on November 24, 1971,"

" the serial number of the chutes supplied UNSUB and was unable to locate them. COSSEY was asked to recheck to determine if possibly the numbers were still in his possession and he stated he would do so. COSSEY further advised he would call the FBI if he located the book in which the serial number of the parachute supplied UNSUB was contained."

302 - Part 35 - DB Cooper pg.13202 - November 6,74

" The missing.parachute in this case- the one apparently  used by the UNSUB- is described as 28 feet, nylon, white,  flight circular (non-stearable), which was packed
 in a model NB6 (Navy back pack 6) container and harness. The file does not say if the chute or container had a serial number on it."

January 1, 2008

just out of curiosity's sake, did the FBI ever record the serial numbers of the gear that was used?? us riggers do keep logbooks and MAYBE some of the gear found its way back into use?

 

 

 

Edited June 3 by Cola

[dudeman17 294]

6 hours ago, Cola said:

maybe someone will come across that one day

The harness, container, and canopy would each have a label with the model and serial numbers. Those numbers should also be recorded in the rigger's rigging log book and on the packing card. Whether they all actually are on the card would depend on the thoroughness of the rigger. The canopy info should certainly be.

I'm not an expert on the 302's or the specific information flow in this case. But the following is what I seem to remember from reading it here.

The 'lost in the mail' info you refer to refers to Cossey's log book info. Supposedly Cossey claimed to have provided copies of it, but the FBI doesn't seem to have it. The cards were both on the plane. I don't remember if the full info on the harness/containers were on them, but the canopy info, including serial numbers, were. I think the NB6 container has been debunked. That would have been Cossey's personal rig that he originally had claimed to provide, but he may not have. I think the two back chutes actually provided to Cooper were determined to be Norm Hayden's bailout rigs, which were older containers that had had newer harnesses installed.

You should be able to find all this info in Flyjack's posts in this very thread.

[Cola 36]

11 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

The harness, container, and canopy would each have a label with the model and serial numbers. Those numbers should also be recorded in the rigger's rigging log book and on the packing card. Whether they all actually are on the card would depend on the thoroughness of the rigger. The canopy info should certainly be.

You should be able to find all this info in Flyjack's posts in this very thread.

Good, good so there is more than one serial number to be evaluated.

My take on the chute 302-s is that I have seen more of a reliance on validating or invalidating chutes found along V-23  based on the descriptive detail and Cossey himself ruling these out. What I have not picked up on in the 302's is an invalidation by serial number first then Cossey as a secondary confirmation. It seems to be the procedure that  when a chute comes in they look at against their descriptive detail, which appears to be wish washy, then they check with Cossey for a final visual review and determination.

Correct me if I wrong but I believe the thorn in FlyJacks side was the wish washy-ness of the descriptive detail and reliability of the chute evidence.I believe FLY held onto the possibility that the agency may have indeed collected Cooper's chute at one time but mistakenly/unknowingly ruled it out because they relied on Cossey, whom FLY doubted on accuracy.

Anyway

If there were any official testimony-document-302 out there of the kind that said: the found chute was ruled out based on the serial numbers then we checked with Cossey to confirm, I'd settle my doubt and believe that the serial numbers are available.

This was Fly's AOE - so if your out there FLY we still need you! If your done but still lurking maybe you'd consider sharing your research file tree or selling a copy? PM me.

I may look into the model numbers today as I recall a jpg of a packing card being around. But to me the chutes are low yield and I have other things I'm interested in tugging at with my time.

I'd rather defer on the chutes in hopes that Olmisscub's/Ryan's book may have this detail.

 

 

Edited June 4 by Cola

[olemisscub 473]

5 hours ago, Cola said:

 

I'd rather defer on the chutes in hopes that Olmisscub's/Ryan's book may have this detail.

 

 

Cossey never supplied the serial numbers. FBI asked him multiple times and he never did. 

We have an image of the packing card from the “museum chute” i.e. the backpack that he didn’t take. We also have the packing card from the backpack that he took, the “Cooper chute”. That packing card was found on the aircraft. I’ve pasted the info from the Cooper chute onto the photo of the museum chute’s packing card. 
 

 

[Cola 36]

Ryan, what do you think of the Cooper chute serial number of S/N -  7/60 ? is that it?

 

Edited June 4 by Cola

[olemisscub 473]

2 hours ago, Cola said:

Ryan, what do you think of the Cooper chute serial number of S/N -  7/60 ? is that it?

 

That is Cooper's chute, 100%. It has the same packing date as the museum chute, which squares with Hayden getting them from Cossey. 

[Cola 36]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

That is Cooper's chute, 100%. It has the same packing date as the museum chute, which squares with Hayden getting them from Cossey. 

Even Ckret only ever went 99%, but fine "I'll not argue the - point"