skyjack71 0 #10201 May 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe static line is talked about but was developed AFTER these guys where trained. I will find it later and state it if I have not already done so. P.S. From what I am reading this was developed in 1941 but not fully functional until later...in certain circumstances the static line is not feasible...weather conditions and terrain. Might want to chat with Tiny Broadwick....She was using a static line back in 1914. Tiny Broadwick History ltdiver So much for my 2 sources which are supposedly reliable. I have contacted the site Georger suggested and am waiting for a reply...as to the origin of static lines. My gut told me there had to have been static lines used prior to 1941. This is the statement made "The most important development of the season (1941) was the introduction by Frank and Chet Derry of the static line release. This device, which eliminated the manually controlled ripcord, reduced the intensity of nervous reactions that ususally preceded first firejumps." There was also 2 other statements in the same source that would lead a novice to make the same interpretation. Perhaps what the writer was trying to say - was "in relation to smokejumping", but he doesn't do that. Thank youCopyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjack71 0 #10202 May 24, 2009 QuoteQuote.in certain circumstances the static line is not feasible...weather conditions and terrain. Jo, Do you have info that smoke jumpers made free fall ripcord pull jumps in the 1940s or at any time? That is something I did not know. I though all their jumps were S/L. 377 "After each jump the Derry brothers discussed tehnique and equipment. The jumping outfit consisted of an athletic supporter, ankle braces, combined back and abdominal braces, two-piece padded felt suit, gootball helmet with wire mesh face mask, stout gloves and loggers' boots." Page 126. That was 1940 and according to the author they didn't employe the static line until 1941. On page 132 they discuss the static line. They state that "when the 1941 jumping season passed without any serious or incapacitating injuries, Forest officers decided that "smokejumping is a practical possibility."" So far not much has been reliable in this darn book - but, surely the author didn't take complete liberty. This is Tall Timbers Pilots published in 1953. Sluggo gave me this book when he was here - I read it then and then "shelved" it. Maybe it should have stayed shelved...but I pulled it out and read it again. I am still trying to figure out how and why Duane's family moved to Ca. I know they had friends in CA, and these friends are the ones who helped Duane several yrs later when he got in trouble in CA and sent to McNeil. At the time of that photo Duane would have been about 10 or 12 yrs old or just a little older. Who did they go to CA to visit? Sorry I didn't mean to say anything about Weber - but it is one of those things for which I have no answer. Only little things Duane said, and why this photo was SO important to him. His fascination with planes - it had an origin and a source...prior to his going into the service in 1941. Who were the frends that intervened on his behalf when he was sentenced to McNeil. There is a connection here, but how does one find something like this after all of these yrs - when all the individuals are deceased. Old pictures.Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryThomas 0 #10203 May 24, 2009 I have not read all your post..Im sure there not worth responding too as you have reuested.however I will request that that you controll your self from creating more fiction .Please remeber that people that know you and your past do judge you and your comments so have fun Jo and enjoy your ficticious comments for as long as you can I only wish that some day that you will tell the the truth. Or is that to imberising JerryQuote Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 377 20 #10204 May 24, 2009 Georger, You and Jerry and others see Jo as malevolent. I just don't. She just doesn't get me spun up. I think she teases, is blind to evidence against her hypothesis, stubborn, obsessed, but not a bad scheming malicious person. Just my opinion. I know you disagree and see me as naive. 3772018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Orange1 0 #10205 May 24, 2009 Quote P.S. From what I am reading this was developed in 1941 but not fully functional until later...in certain circumstances the static line is not feasible...weather conditions and terrain. Huh? the vast majority of non-sport jumps are static line. look at any footage of paratroopers from WW2, it is all static line. the weather conditiions and terrain make no difference to the manner of exit (perhaps static line is more reliable in certain types of weather conditions though). As I understand it, when you are getting a lot of people out an aircraft in a short time at a pretty low altitude - ie most military and smoke operations - SL is really your only option. my husband was a paratrooper, these comments do not come from ignorance! weather and terrain by the way are not huge deterrents when an operation need to be done...Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Orange1 0 #10206 May 24, 2009 Quote Georger, You and Jerry and others see Jo as malevolent. I just don't. She just doesn't get me spun up. I think she teases, is blind to evidence against her hypothesis, stubborn, obsessed, but not a bad scheming malicious person. Just my opinion. I know you disagree and see me as naive. 377 I don't see you as naive, but as one of those (rare?) people who always look for the positive side in other people. It's a good trait Jo keeps on claiming she has never changed her story but there are plenty of posts here (most recently by Georger) showing that she does. Personally, as may be obvious, I have just completely run out of patience with her. Even if there are bits of "evidence" she has been holding back, I don't think anyone here believes that whatever they are will be worth anything. Most of the bits she has let out turn out to be nothing but wild conspiracy theories. Certainly, the continuing teases on this front do NOT tally with someone who is tired after a 13-year search and looking for closure.Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georger 197 #10207 May 24, 2009 QuoteGeorger, You and Jerry and others see Jo as malevolent. I just don't. She just doesn't get me spun up. I think she teases, is blind to evidence against her hypothesis, stubborn, obsessed, but not a bad scheming malicious person. Just my opinion. I know you disagree and see me as naive. 377 Thats the kind of expression I appreciate and its well-taken here. Actually I do kind of marvel at Jo's flexibility, given her age. Her mental ability (agility) is far over the curve, as these things go. Jo would be my number-1 candidate for metabolic and neurological tests in her age class. She must have damned good genes! On the other hand, we all see signs of breakage (entropy) now and then. In spite of this Jo forges ahead and few can match her. Most people justs give up after severtal tries, probably a bit mystified and pissed they have been outdone by a 70+ year old woman. So I actually agree with you on your own perceptions along these lines. I also see Jo as ruthless, stubborn, and slightly demented. If Jo actually had a case she would be her own worst enemy. If Jo had a case I would have backed her 100%; she probably senses that. The sorry part is it will all go nowhere. But, it will go further than most of the rest of us will stay with! Jo is completely transparent but also a riddle, all at the same time. It's no wonder people get fascinated... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georger 197 #10208 May 24, 2009 Quote Quote Georger, You and Jerry and others see Jo as malevolent. I just don't. She just doesn't get me spun up. I think she teases, is blind to evidence against her hypothesis, stubborn, obsessed, but not a bad scheming malicious person. Just my opinion. I know you disagree and see me as naive. 377 I don't see you as naive, but as one of those (rare?) people who always look for the positive side in other people. It's a good trait Jo keeps on claiming she has never changed her story but there are plenty of posts here (most recently by Georger) showing that she does. Personally, as may be obvious, I have just completely run out of patience with her. Even if there are bits of "evidence" she has been holding back, I don't think anyone here believes that whatever they are will be worth anything. Most of the bits she has let out turn out to be nothing but wild conspiracy theories. Certainly, the continuing teases on this front do NOT tally with someone who is tired after a 13-year search and looking for closure. When I first told Tom who Jo was I described her as someone who was 'evolving' her story (over time). I still stick with that description. But then I try to put myself in other's shoes and wonder how they see Jo, or what they think. Ckret for example and other FBI people. Jo could be both a curse and a blessing. Before I had ever run into Jo personally or even read any of her posts or articles about her and Duane, I heard her name dropped by an offical person who referred to Jo as "that lady in Florida" and he said it with a grimmace. If nothing else I do think Jo has managed to achieve something she wanted to achieve, which was to place a bur under some people's saddles... I also think and suspect, the Cooper case may be essentially simple. There may be a chain of simple explanations for everything. In fact the ordinary distribution of random events almost dictates that (or something close to that) is the case. And if we had those simple facts, everything else including Jo Weber would become abundantly clear. How much can you pour into a small vacuum? The answer is: " alot and more than most people realise". Jo Weber and the Duane story are in that vacuum somewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #10209 May 24, 2009 Quoteweather and terrain by the way are not huge deterrents when an operation need to be done... They are if you want to have the majority of your troops being able to walk after they land. All you have to do is look at the injury rates on D-Day landings to see that. And for the most part, they had very specific drop zones already established. A far cry from what Cooper would have been potentially dealing with.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Orange1 0 #10210 May 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteweather and terrain by the way are not huge deterrents when an operation need to be done... They are if you want to have the majority of your troops being able to walk after they land. All you have to do is look at the injury rates on D-Day landings to see that. And for the most part, they had very specific drop zones already established. A far cry from what Cooper would have been potentially dealing with. Isn't that the point though Quade - the military is prepared to suffer high injury rates to get something done? At least as far as I understand. In one of the extracts I posted a long time ago, I think while we were talking about Christiansen or Gossett, there was a paragraph describing how they would jump in bad weather over uncertain terrain. By the way, am I missing something, or would weather/terrain have any bearing on whether you used SL or freefall to exit? interesting article here: http://www.historynet.com/leonard-rosen-82nd-airborne-paratrooper-in-word-war-ii.htm some extracts: QuoteRosen ...survived four combat jumps in 1943-44. Even among elite paratroopers, such an achievement is noteworthy. Quote...by the time the men were scheduled for takeoff, in fact, the winds had increased to 35 mph, which was 20 mph faster than what was considered safe during training jumps. It was too late to turn back, however, and the mission was too important to forgo the airborne landings, so Gavin and the others proceeded as planned.... It was later estimated that about 80 percent of Gavin’s 3,400 men were dropped from one to as much as 65 miles away from their intended drop zone. (this is re the invasion of Sicily) QuoteThe 82nd suffered 5,436 casualties during its monthlong stay in Normandy — 1,119 from Rosen’s 505th, a loss rate of 55 percent. (it is unclear what % of this was during the drop and what was in fighting on the ground) I don't know how to get this properly http://books.google.co.za/books?id=QFZ8G-SmVk0C&pg=RA1-PA12&lpg=RA1-PA12&dq=injury+rate+paratrooper+d-day&source=bl&ots=6B6SxU3ssg&sig=pAJejRrprbbI5gXzr3PGnkY4MF4&hl=en&ei=E1UZSvX4I5vMMvTd7YsP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PRA1-PA12,M1 but on the page re June 6 it notes that "the parachute jump as a method of mass deployment rose and fell with World War II, since high attrition rates from injury and scattering of forces made it a liability". A couple of pages later on the book describes how many of the intended DZs were unidentified by the pathfinders because of cloud cover etc interfering with their own drops. It later talks about one colonel ending up with only 150 out of an expected 600 men because most of the drops had gone astray. And more recently: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/NSTLQK_NSTL_QK8234115.aspx QuoteAlthough numerous articles have been published documenting parachute injuries, a search of the medical literature revealed none that detail casualty, attrition, and surgery rates for airborne operations conducted into actual combat. This study examines observed airborne casualty, attrition, and surgery rates in U.S. Army Rangers during combat operations in order to identify risk factors attributed to static-line parachute injuries and provide a comparison to estimated attrition rates. METHODS: Data were recorded on standardized ... There were 4 airborne missions totaling 634 jumpers that resulted in 83 injuries sustained by 76 Rangers (12%). Of those, 27 Rangers (4%) were unable to continue the mission and were subsequently evacuated. There were 11 Rangers (2%) who required surgery following evacuation. ...DISCUSSION: Many factors impact casualty, attrition, and injury patterns. Terrain and equipment load were notable associations analyzed in this study. Looks like a very high load to me; and these guys probably had somewhat better control than the WW2 jumpers? In any case; we have no idea where Cooper's DZ was, or whether it was intended, unintended (jumping later than expected) or if he simply had no idea where he would end up landing...!Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georger 197 #10211 May 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteweather and terrain by the way are not huge deterrents when an operation need to be done... They are if you want to have the majority of your troops being able to walk after they land. All you have to do is look at the injury rates on D-Day landings to see that. And for the most part, they had very specific drop zones already established. A far cry from what Cooper would have been potentially dealing with. Isn't that the point though Quade - the military is prepared to suffer high injury rates to get something done? At least as far as I understand. In one of the extracts I posted a long time ago, I think while we were talking about Christiansen or Gossett, there was a paragraph describing how they would jump in bad weather over uncertain terrain. By the way, am I missing something, or would weather/terrain have any bearing on whether you used SL or freefall to exit? interesting article here: http://www.historynet.com/leonard-rosen-82nd-airborne-paratrooper-in-word-war-ii.htm some extracts: QuoteRosen ...survived four combat jumps in 1943-44. Even among elite paratroopers, such an achievement is noteworthy. Quote...by the time the men were scheduled for takeoff, in fact, the winds had increased to 35 mph, which was 20 mph faster than what was considered safe during training jumps. It was too late to turn back, however, and the mission was too important to forgo the airborne landings, so Gavin and the others proceeded as planned.... It was later estimated that about 80 percent of Gavin’s 3,400 men were dropped from one to as much as 65 miles away from their intended drop zone. (this is re the invasion of Sicily) QuoteThe 82nd suffered 5,436 casualties during its monthlong stay in Normandy — 1,119 from Rosen’s 505th, a loss rate of 55 percent. (it is unclear what % of this was during the drop and what was in fighting on the ground) I don't know how to get this properly http://books.google.co.za/books?id=QFZ8G-SmVk0C&pg=RA1-PA12&lpg=RA1-PA12&dq=injury+rate+paratrooper+d-day&source=bl&ots=6B6SxU3ssg&sig=pAJejRrprbbI5gXzr3PGnkY4MF4&hl=en&ei=E1UZSvX4I5vMMvTd7YsP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PRA1-PA12,M1 but on the page re June 6 it notes that "the parachute jump as a method of mass deployment rose and fell with World War II, since high attrition rates from injury and scattering of forces made it a liability". A couple of pages later on the book describes how many of the intended DZs were unidentified by the pathfinders because of cloud cover etc interfering with their own drops. It later talks about one colonel ending up with only 150 out of an expected 600 men because most of the drops had gone astray. And more recently: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/NSTLQK_NSTL_QK8234115.aspx QuoteAlthough numerous articles have been published documenting parachute injuries, a search of the medical literature revealed none that detail casualty, attrition, and surgery rates for airborne operations conducted into actual combat. This study examines observed airborne casualty, attrition, and surgery rates in U.S. Army Rangers during combat operations in order to identify risk factors attributed to static-line parachute injuries and provide a comparison to estimated attrition rates. METHODS: Data were recorded on standardized ... There were 4 airborne missions totaling 634 jumpers that resulted in 83 injuries sustained by 76 Rangers (12%). Of those, 27 Rangers (4%) were unable to continue the mission and were subsequently evacuated. There were 11 Rangers (2%) who required surgery following evacuation. ...DISCUSSION: Many factors impact casualty, attrition, and injury patterns. Terrain and equipment load were notable associations analyzed in this study. Looks like a very high load to me; and these guys probably had somewhat better control than the WW2 jumpers? In any case; we have no idea where Cooper's DZ was, or whether it was intended, unintended (jumping later than expected) or if he simply had no idea where he would end up landing...! Ive been reviewing all the old posts (taken me days). Several things stand out. (1) very high quality of skydivers responding, generally. These people know their stuff. (2) Survived-Not Survived split almost 50- 50%. Injured-Not Injured split almost 50%. Most common point of uncertainty in all opinions: "the terrain he landed in". Skill level of Cooper does not seem to play as large a role in people's minds as "the terrain he landed in". (3) Primary skill issue cited: Hard pull and stability. Opinions seemed splintered and uncertain on these issues. No consensus. (4) Issue of greatest unanimity (which surprised me!): "The way Cooper tied the money off around his waste". Almost every skydiver who posted brought this issue up independently as something that posed the most vulnerable link, in Cooper's bailout scenario. Almost every skydiver who posted felt Cooper tying the money bag off around his waste was a mistake and posed serious problems for stability and losing the money bag! Almost every skydiver who posted brought this matter up independent of what was being discussed at the time. The unintended consensus of skydivers here is there is a very good chance Cooper got separated from the money bag, whatever happened to Cooper himself. And by extension, the fact the money turned up at Tina Bar almost assures Cooper bailed in the lower quadrant of Washington somewhere before Portland. If there is a consensus on this point by the skydivers who have posted it is that all other considerations of flight path et cetera are secondary to the money turning up at Tina Bar, and the money at Tina Bar relates directly in some manner to the area Cooper jumped into (whether that be in the Washougal, LaCamas, or further west more toward Vancouver). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Orange1 0 #10212 May 24, 2009 Nice summary, Georger. JUst one thing - about stability with the money bag attached. If Cooper was an ex-paratrooper he would have had experience jumping with heavy loads and probably would have known best placement for stability. There is still a question about the tying-on aspect though; at least for SL, as I understand the procedure was that the "pack" would be clipped on, not secured with rope (then once the parachute was open clips are released so that it hangs a few metres below as one descends under canopy. Not sure how it works for HALO jumps). I think the skydiver consensus seems to be that even skydivers sometimes underestimate the forces involved and lose stuff on exit, so if cooper was a novice chances are he would have too.Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Orange1 0 #10213 May 24, 2009 Incidentally, this page has some interesting stuff on the requirements for smokejumpers. http://www.jobmonkey.com/parks/html/smokejumpers.html another page i was reading also mentioned the physical requirements, including carrying a 110-lb pack over 3 miles in under 90 minutes as well as intensive training in, um, fires. We have been so focused on the "jump" aspect we forgot the "smoke" bit I'm surprised Jo has not mentioned anything about Duane's knowledge of fires and fighting them, which would have been extensive if he had indeed been a smokejumper. http://books.google.co.za/books?id=H1bz2kTjyxUC&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=smokejumper+equipment&source=bl&ots=XsdYm93k5d&sig=U-OlNj47RQLuqH0Oh9HpUrpqk1k&hl=en&ei=z6sZSrPUEaX0Mo_C_Z0P&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2 Incidentally, something that was niggling in an extract Georger posted earlier - where Jo had claimed they had seen paople paragliding (though she did not know the term) in 1978 or 1979 and that Duane knew all about it. The first "modern" paragliding flight took place in France in June 1978, according to Wiki. Duane must have been a quick learner. (btw skydivers, it seems the inspiration was an article by Dan Poynter although of course it had been talked about for a while and possibly a few people had launched off cliffs with parachutes before, that seems uncertain though?) Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georger 197 #10214 May 24, 2009 QuoteNice summary, Georger. JUst one thing - about stability with the money bag attached. If Cooper was an ex-paratrooper he would have had experience jumping with heavy loads and probably would have known best placement for stability. There is still a question about the tying-on aspect though; at least for SL, as I understand the procedure was that the "pack" would be clipped on, not secured with rope (then once the parachute was open clips are released so that it hangs a few metres below as one descends under canopy. Not sure how it works for HALO jumps). I think the skydiver consensus seems to be that even skydivers sometimes underestimate the forces involved and lose stuff on exit, so if cooper was a novice chances are he would have too. I thought it was remarkable (and unexpected) that virtually every diver here went straight to the issue of stability and rope tying around waste of the money bag (21lbs) ... this seemed to stand out for divers here in spite of what else was being discussed, and in spite of everyone knowing that paratroopers carry auxiliary loads, etc. Maybe implicit in the thoughts of divers here was or is: 'that Cooper is a novice' ? People didnt say that openly but maybe they were all thinking it? Ckret has always been convinced Cooper was a novice, after Ckret got the opinions of dozens of people including military experts. That said, I think it is the "rope tie" people here saw as the vulnerable issue? Now if D rings and clips had been used or were available, then opinions change. But Cooper actually asked for a back pack to take the money in. He never got the back pack. But how was he going to secure any back pack? And did he ask for a back pack at all because he knew other standard containers he might get, had flaws for securing them? Does the fact he wanted a back pack make him more or less knowledgeable in this whole matter? Maybe he just assumed whatever rigs he would get would have D-rings? (An assumption like that would point to an amateur?). But it is totally obvious the divers here know their stuff! Pages 0-50 prove that hands down. Its a tribute to everyone who posted in that section. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyjack71 0 #10215 May 24, 2009 Quote Incidentally, this page has some interesting stuff on the requirements for smokejumpers. Another page I was reading also mentioned the physical requirements, including carrying a 110-lb pack over 3 miles in under 90 minutes as well as intensive training in, um, fires. We have been so focused on the "jump" aspect we forgot the "smoke" bit I'm surprised Jo has not mentioned anything about Duane's knowledge of fires and fighting them, which would have been extensive if he had indeed been a smokejumper. Incidentally, something that was niggling in an extract Georger posted earlier - where Jo had claimed they had seen paople paragliding (though she did not know the term) in 1978 or 1979 and that Duane knew all about it. The first "modern" paragliding flight took place in France in June 1978, according to Wiki. Duane must have been a quick learner. (btw skydivers, it seems the inspiration was an article by Dan Poynter although of course it had been talked about for a while and possibly a few people had launched off cliffs with parachutes before, that seems uncertain though?) I still don't know what it was - He explained what the guys were hooking up and how they controlled the gliders, kites, or chutes what-ever the heck they are. This was the only time in my life I have ever been upclose to something like this. The walking and carrying of heavy loads and his mention of fire fighting has been addressed, but maybe not in this forum - It could have been Unsolved Mysteries or 101. I know that it has in the past been discussed, but may have been in communications with the FBI or Himmelsbach. I just put together another foot of "stuff" in my closet - so ain't no way I am going to try to find who and when I sent that information to yrs ago. I have discussed these things recently with others. If I repeated statements he made I would be accused of making it up. These things were discussed early on from 1996 to present with others. This connection is mentioned in my "stuff" and all of it is dated. I am no longer able to dig thru the "stuff". Someone else will have to do this someday in the future or they can just destroy it. I never trusted computers and made hard copies and kept a log of everyone I talked to until I got a computer in 2000 - took me a while to learn to use it. Someday - just someday maybe I will be vindicated and not forever known as that damn crazy woman or a liar. Yes, it is true my story evolved with the things I learned and explored and theorized - but I have not lied and always go back to what I do know and do remember. Many people including myself have tried to connect Cooper or a suspect to many things. Someone made a statement not long ago regarding Cooper - implying that the answers may all be very simple.... When I reversed and went back to the basics and what I do know about Duane and analyzed the things he told me and the things he held dear - I think that statement is going to be very true. If you will notice this is where I have come - full circle - right back to the beginning. I had never taken the time to explore the beginning - to research those things he mentioned - I let myself get caught up in all of the Bad things I found about his history. I forgot about the boy and the man he might have been, before crime became a way of life. Obviously he had a problem with authority -hence the 2 situations with the service connections. Somewhere in those early yrs he had a mentor, but in 1950 he fell backward and this spiral did not stop - it was out of control. He finds out in 1971 the will suffer the same fate as his mother. Can anyone imagine what must have gone thru his mind - how he had wasted his life and disgraced his family and that his life stood for - nothing...it was going to end and he was a total failure? I am trying right now to think child-like. What does someone do when they reach that point in their life? Bruce might be good one to answer that and Georger is really good at this kind of thing. If Duane were Cooper - what made him do this and how and why did he do it. Did he have something to prove to someone? I think this is part of the simple answer. It was an irrational choice made by a desparately irrational person. Yeah the answer is simple but no one wants a simple answer...we all try to complicate it.Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JerryThomas 0 #10216 May 25, 2009 Sorry Guys I'm sure I missed alot I Just got back from Las Vegas I'm back home now. But will be leaving for Washougal on Wenesday and will be out of the net for a short time. will keep all informed. Latter Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Orange1 0 #10217 May 25, 2009 Quote But Cooper actually asked for a back pack to take the money in. He never got the back pack. But how was he going to secure any back pack? And did he ask for a back pack at all because he knew other standard containers he might get, had flaws for securing them? Does the fact he wanted a back pack make him more or less knowledgeable in this whole matter? Maybe he just assumed whatever rigs he would get would have D-rings? (An assumption like that would point to an amateur?). Actually now that i think about it... i am wondering if he was planning on attaching the backpack below the chest reserve, or if in fact he never planned on using the reserve anyway (ref the discussion about the dummy reserve being gone) and was going to clip the backpack there? Of course we have no idea of any of this. It has been suggested that he brought carabiners with him, but he was seen tying (the money? was it ever clear exactly what he was seen tying?) around his waist...Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Orange1 0 #10218 May 25, 2009 Why am I not surprised that all of a sudden, despite all the discussion about smokejumpers and not a word being breathed, we suddenly have interest in and intricate knowledge of firefighting too... in response to a (tongue-in-cheek) question? Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nitrochute 2 #10219 May 25, 2009 it is very likely that old cooper had a dificult,if not impossible pull on that NB6. the Parachute Industry Association(PIA) canopy volume charts show the 26' navy conical has a pack volume of 573 cubic inches.The 28' C-9 has a pack volume of 815 cubic inches.That is about 40% more bulk. if the NB6 that cooper jumped did indeed have a 28 ' canopy and NOT the 26 navy conical it was designed and sized for,then cooper most likely died. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nitrochute 2 #10220 May 25, 2009 the nb6 harness that cooper jumped with has no attachment points for a front mounted reserve.and caribeeners are NOT strong enough to withstand opening shock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 377 20 #10221 May 25, 2009 Thanks for the info Nitrochute. Those differences in pack volumes are huge. It's easy to forget that surface area goes up as a square with increasing radius. Sure sounds like a VERY hard pull to me if there was a 28 ft C9 canopy in an unextended NB6 container, although it would be great to have it actually assembled and measured. Why on Earth would Cossey pack such a bailout rig that might not be useable? What is the explanation for that? 3772018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #10222 May 25, 2009 Quotethe nb6 harness that cooper jumped with has no attachment points for a front mounted reserve.and caribeeners are NOT strong enough to withstand opening shock Yes they are, I've had terminal openings with gear much heavier than the cash, clipped with caribineers to the MLW. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyjack71 0 #10223 May 25, 2009 Quote Why am I not surprised that all of a sudden, despite all the discussion about smokejumpers and not a word being breathed, we suddenly have interest in and intricate knowledge of firefighting too... in response to a (tongue-in-cheek) question? I simply let you know that firefighting and ranger training had been discussed before. If you would LIKE to come to my home and you have a few wks to spare please do so - you will find those mentions in communications to Himmelsback and the FBI along with communications with friends. A friend helped because I did not have a computer and only office access. This was all prior to 1998. Like any other discussion a mention of something is cause to revisit an old and shelved piece of information. I am not 30 yrs old and do no have the computer knowledge to have all of this at my fingertips like you and others.Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 377 20 #10224 May 25, 2009 Orange Maybe you are referring to the weak carabiners sold in hardware stores. The kind climbers use can carry VERY heavy shock and static loads. We used them in commercial fishing rigging with zero problems. I tested one by clipping together links about a foot apart on a continuous anchor chain. We set the anchor and backed down hard. No problem if it broke as the chain would still be intact. The device had no problem holding the load, just some slight deformation. 3772018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Orange1 0 #10225 May 25, 2009 twasn't me that said they were weak.. just that cooper may have brought them! just to set the record straight Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 Next Page 409 of 2540 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 47 47
377 20 #10204 May 24, 2009 Georger, You and Jerry and others see Jo as malevolent. I just don't. She just doesn't get me spun up. I think she teases, is blind to evidence against her hypothesis, stubborn, obsessed, but not a bad scheming malicious person. Just my opinion. I know you disagree and see me as naive. 3772018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orange1 0 #10205 May 24, 2009 Quote P.S. From what I am reading this was developed in 1941 but not fully functional until later...in certain circumstances the static line is not feasible...weather conditions and terrain. Huh? the vast majority of non-sport jumps are static line. look at any footage of paratroopers from WW2, it is all static line. the weather conditiions and terrain make no difference to the manner of exit (perhaps static line is more reliable in certain types of weather conditions though). As I understand it, when you are getting a lot of people out an aircraft in a short time at a pretty low altitude - ie most military and smoke operations - SL is really your only option. my husband was a paratrooper, these comments do not come from ignorance! weather and terrain by the way are not huge deterrents when an operation need to be done...Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orange1 0 #10206 May 24, 2009 Quote Georger, You and Jerry and others see Jo as malevolent. I just don't. She just doesn't get me spun up. I think she teases, is blind to evidence against her hypothesis, stubborn, obsessed, but not a bad scheming malicious person. Just my opinion. I know you disagree and see me as naive. 377 I don't see you as naive, but as one of those (rare?) people who always look for the positive side in other people. It's a good trait Jo keeps on claiming she has never changed her story but there are plenty of posts here (most recently by Georger) showing that she does. Personally, as may be obvious, I have just completely run out of patience with her. Even if there are bits of "evidence" she has been holding back, I don't think anyone here believes that whatever they are will be worth anything. Most of the bits she has let out turn out to be nothing but wild conspiracy theories. Certainly, the continuing teases on this front do NOT tally with someone who is tired after a 13-year search and looking for closure.Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georger 197 #10207 May 24, 2009 QuoteGeorger, You and Jerry and others see Jo as malevolent. I just don't. She just doesn't get me spun up. I think she teases, is blind to evidence against her hypothesis, stubborn, obsessed, but not a bad scheming malicious person. Just my opinion. I know you disagree and see me as naive. 377 Thats the kind of expression I appreciate and its well-taken here. Actually I do kind of marvel at Jo's flexibility, given her age. Her mental ability (agility) is far over the curve, as these things go. Jo would be my number-1 candidate for metabolic and neurological tests in her age class. She must have damned good genes! On the other hand, we all see signs of breakage (entropy) now and then. In spite of this Jo forges ahead and few can match her. Most people justs give up after severtal tries, probably a bit mystified and pissed they have been outdone by a 70+ year old woman. So I actually agree with you on your own perceptions along these lines. I also see Jo as ruthless, stubborn, and slightly demented. If Jo actually had a case she would be her own worst enemy. If Jo had a case I would have backed her 100%; she probably senses that. The sorry part is it will all go nowhere. But, it will go further than most of the rest of us will stay with! Jo is completely transparent but also a riddle, all at the same time. It's no wonder people get fascinated... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georger 197 #10208 May 24, 2009 Quote Quote Georger, You and Jerry and others see Jo as malevolent. I just don't. She just doesn't get me spun up. I think she teases, is blind to evidence against her hypothesis, stubborn, obsessed, but not a bad scheming malicious person. Just my opinion. I know you disagree and see me as naive. 377 I don't see you as naive, but as one of those (rare?) people who always look for the positive side in other people. It's a good trait Jo keeps on claiming she has never changed her story but there are plenty of posts here (most recently by Georger) showing that she does. Personally, as may be obvious, I have just completely run out of patience with her. Even if there are bits of "evidence" she has been holding back, I don't think anyone here believes that whatever they are will be worth anything. Most of the bits she has let out turn out to be nothing but wild conspiracy theories. Certainly, the continuing teases on this front do NOT tally with someone who is tired after a 13-year search and looking for closure. When I first told Tom who Jo was I described her as someone who was 'evolving' her story (over time). I still stick with that description. But then I try to put myself in other's shoes and wonder how they see Jo, or what they think. Ckret for example and other FBI people. Jo could be both a curse and a blessing. Before I had ever run into Jo personally or even read any of her posts or articles about her and Duane, I heard her name dropped by an offical person who referred to Jo as "that lady in Florida" and he said it with a grimmace. If nothing else I do think Jo has managed to achieve something she wanted to achieve, which was to place a bur under some people's saddles... I also think and suspect, the Cooper case may be essentially simple. There may be a chain of simple explanations for everything. In fact the ordinary distribution of random events almost dictates that (or something close to that) is the case. And if we had those simple facts, everything else including Jo Weber would become abundantly clear. How much can you pour into a small vacuum? The answer is: " alot and more than most people realise". Jo Weber and the Duane story are in that vacuum somewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #10209 May 24, 2009 Quoteweather and terrain by the way are not huge deterrents when an operation need to be done... They are if you want to have the majority of your troops being able to walk after they land. All you have to do is look at the injury rates on D-Day landings to see that. And for the most part, they had very specific drop zones already established. A far cry from what Cooper would have been potentially dealing with.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orange1 0 #10210 May 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteweather and terrain by the way are not huge deterrents when an operation need to be done... They are if you want to have the majority of your troops being able to walk after they land. All you have to do is look at the injury rates on D-Day landings to see that. And for the most part, they had very specific drop zones already established. A far cry from what Cooper would have been potentially dealing with. Isn't that the point though Quade - the military is prepared to suffer high injury rates to get something done? At least as far as I understand. In one of the extracts I posted a long time ago, I think while we were talking about Christiansen or Gossett, there was a paragraph describing how they would jump in bad weather over uncertain terrain. By the way, am I missing something, or would weather/terrain have any bearing on whether you used SL or freefall to exit? interesting article here: http://www.historynet.com/leonard-rosen-82nd-airborne-paratrooper-in-word-war-ii.htm some extracts: QuoteRosen ...survived four combat jumps in 1943-44. Even among elite paratroopers, such an achievement is noteworthy. Quote...by the time the men were scheduled for takeoff, in fact, the winds had increased to 35 mph, which was 20 mph faster than what was considered safe during training jumps. It was too late to turn back, however, and the mission was too important to forgo the airborne landings, so Gavin and the others proceeded as planned.... It was later estimated that about 80 percent of Gavin’s 3,400 men were dropped from one to as much as 65 miles away from their intended drop zone. (this is re the invasion of Sicily) QuoteThe 82nd suffered 5,436 casualties during its monthlong stay in Normandy — 1,119 from Rosen’s 505th, a loss rate of 55 percent. (it is unclear what % of this was during the drop and what was in fighting on the ground) I don't know how to get this properly http://books.google.co.za/books?id=QFZ8G-SmVk0C&pg=RA1-PA12&lpg=RA1-PA12&dq=injury+rate+paratrooper+d-day&source=bl&ots=6B6SxU3ssg&sig=pAJejRrprbbI5gXzr3PGnkY4MF4&hl=en&ei=E1UZSvX4I5vMMvTd7YsP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PRA1-PA12,M1 but on the page re June 6 it notes that "the parachute jump as a method of mass deployment rose and fell with World War II, since high attrition rates from injury and scattering of forces made it a liability". A couple of pages later on the book describes how many of the intended DZs were unidentified by the pathfinders because of cloud cover etc interfering with their own drops. It later talks about one colonel ending up with only 150 out of an expected 600 men because most of the drops had gone astray. And more recently: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/NSTLQK_NSTL_QK8234115.aspx QuoteAlthough numerous articles have been published documenting parachute injuries, a search of the medical literature revealed none that detail casualty, attrition, and surgery rates for airborne operations conducted into actual combat. This study examines observed airborne casualty, attrition, and surgery rates in U.S. Army Rangers during combat operations in order to identify risk factors attributed to static-line parachute injuries and provide a comparison to estimated attrition rates. METHODS: Data were recorded on standardized ... There were 4 airborne missions totaling 634 jumpers that resulted in 83 injuries sustained by 76 Rangers (12%). Of those, 27 Rangers (4%) were unable to continue the mission and were subsequently evacuated. There were 11 Rangers (2%) who required surgery following evacuation. ...DISCUSSION: Many factors impact casualty, attrition, and injury patterns. Terrain and equipment load were notable associations analyzed in this study. Looks like a very high load to me; and these guys probably had somewhat better control than the WW2 jumpers? In any case; we have no idea where Cooper's DZ was, or whether it was intended, unintended (jumping later than expected) or if he simply had no idea where he would end up landing...!Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georger 197 #10211 May 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteweather and terrain by the way are not huge deterrents when an operation need to be done... They are if you want to have the majority of your troops being able to walk after they land. All you have to do is look at the injury rates on D-Day landings to see that. And for the most part, they had very specific drop zones already established. A far cry from what Cooper would have been potentially dealing with. Isn't that the point though Quade - the military is prepared to suffer high injury rates to get something done? At least as far as I understand. In one of the extracts I posted a long time ago, I think while we were talking about Christiansen or Gossett, there was a paragraph describing how they would jump in bad weather over uncertain terrain. By the way, am I missing something, or would weather/terrain have any bearing on whether you used SL or freefall to exit? interesting article here: http://www.historynet.com/leonard-rosen-82nd-airborne-paratrooper-in-word-war-ii.htm some extracts: QuoteRosen ...survived four combat jumps in 1943-44. Even among elite paratroopers, such an achievement is noteworthy. Quote...by the time the men were scheduled for takeoff, in fact, the winds had increased to 35 mph, which was 20 mph faster than what was considered safe during training jumps. It was too late to turn back, however, and the mission was too important to forgo the airborne landings, so Gavin and the others proceeded as planned.... It was later estimated that about 80 percent of Gavin’s 3,400 men were dropped from one to as much as 65 miles away from their intended drop zone. (this is re the invasion of Sicily) QuoteThe 82nd suffered 5,436 casualties during its monthlong stay in Normandy — 1,119 from Rosen’s 505th, a loss rate of 55 percent. (it is unclear what % of this was during the drop and what was in fighting on the ground) I don't know how to get this properly http://books.google.co.za/books?id=QFZ8G-SmVk0C&pg=RA1-PA12&lpg=RA1-PA12&dq=injury+rate+paratrooper+d-day&source=bl&ots=6B6SxU3ssg&sig=pAJejRrprbbI5gXzr3PGnkY4MF4&hl=en&ei=E1UZSvX4I5vMMvTd7YsP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PRA1-PA12,M1 but on the page re June 6 it notes that "the parachute jump as a method of mass deployment rose and fell with World War II, since high attrition rates from injury and scattering of forces made it a liability". A couple of pages later on the book describes how many of the intended DZs were unidentified by the pathfinders because of cloud cover etc interfering with their own drops. It later talks about one colonel ending up with only 150 out of an expected 600 men because most of the drops had gone astray. And more recently: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/NSTLQK_NSTL_QK8234115.aspx QuoteAlthough numerous articles have been published documenting parachute injuries, a search of the medical literature revealed none that detail casualty, attrition, and surgery rates for airborne operations conducted into actual combat. This study examines observed airborne casualty, attrition, and surgery rates in U.S. Army Rangers during combat operations in order to identify risk factors attributed to static-line parachute injuries and provide a comparison to estimated attrition rates. METHODS: Data were recorded on standardized ... There were 4 airborne missions totaling 634 jumpers that resulted in 83 injuries sustained by 76 Rangers (12%). Of those, 27 Rangers (4%) were unable to continue the mission and were subsequently evacuated. There were 11 Rangers (2%) who required surgery following evacuation. ...DISCUSSION: Many factors impact casualty, attrition, and injury patterns. Terrain and equipment load were notable associations analyzed in this study. Looks like a very high load to me; and these guys probably had somewhat better control than the WW2 jumpers? In any case; we have no idea where Cooper's DZ was, or whether it was intended, unintended (jumping later than expected) or if he simply had no idea where he would end up landing...! Ive been reviewing all the old posts (taken me days). Several things stand out. (1) very high quality of skydivers responding, generally. These people know their stuff. (2) Survived-Not Survived split almost 50- 50%. Injured-Not Injured split almost 50%. Most common point of uncertainty in all opinions: "the terrain he landed in". Skill level of Cooper does not seem to play as large a role in people's minds as "the terrain he landed in". (3) Primary skill issue cited: Hard pull and stability. Opinions seemed splintered and uncertain on these issues. No consensus. (4) Issue of greatest unanimity (which surprised me!): "The way Cooper tied the money off around his waste". Almost every skydiver who posted brought this issue up independently as something that posed the most vulnerable link, in Cooper's bailout scenario. Almost every skydiver who posted felt Cooper tying the money bag off around his waste was a mistake and posed serious problems for stability and losing the money bag! Almost every skydiver who posted brought this matter up independent of what was being discussed at the time. The unintended consensus of skydivers here is there is a very good chance Cooper got separated from the money bag, whatever happened to Cooper himself. And by extension, the fact the money turned up at Tina Bar almost assures Cooper bailed in the lower quadrant of Washington somewhere before Portland. If there is a consensus on this point by the skydivers who have posted it is that all other considerations of flight path et cetera are secondary to the money turning up at Tina Bar, and the money at Tina Bar relates directly in some manner to the area Cooper jumped into (whether that be in the Washougal, LaCamas, or further west more toward Vancouver). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orange1 0 #10212 May 24, 2009 Nice summary, Georger. JUst one thing - about stability with the money bag attached. If Cooper was an ex-paratrooper he would have had experience jumping with heavy loads and probably would have known best placement for stability. There is still a question about the tying-on aspect though; at least for SL, as I understand the procedure was that the "pack" would be clipped on, not secured with rope (then once the parachute was open clips are released so that it hangs a few metres below as one descends under canopy. Not sure how it works for HALO jumps). I think the skydiver consensus seems to be that even skydivers sometimes underestimate the forces involved and lose stuff on exit, so if cooper was a novice chances are he would have too.Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orange1 0 #10213 May 24, 2009 Incidentally, this page has some interesting stuff on the requirements for smokejumpers. http://www.jobmonkey.com/parks/html/smokejumpers.html another page i was reading also mentioned the physical requirements, including carrying a 110-lb pack over 3 miles in under 90 minutes as well as intensive training in, um, fires. We have been so focused on the "jump" aspect we forgot the "smoke" bit I'm surprised Jo has not mentioned anything about Duane's knowledge of fires and fighting them, which would have been extensive if he had indeed been a smokejumper. http://books.google.co.za/books?id=H1bz2kTjyxUC&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=smokejumper+equipment&source=bl&ots=XsdYm93k5d&sig=U-OlNj47RQLuqH0Oh9HpUrpqk1k&hl=en&ei=z6sZSrPUEaX0Mo_C_Z0P&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2 Incidentally, something that was niggling in an extract Georger posted earlier - where Jo had claimed they had seen paople paragliding (though she did not know the term) in 1978 or 1979 and that Duane knew all about it. The first "modern" paragliding flight took place in France in June 1978, according to Wiki. Duane must have been a quick learner. (btw skydivers, it seems the inspiration was an article by Dan Poynter although of course it had been talked about for a while and possibly a few people had launched off cliffs with parachutes before, that seems uncertain though?) Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georger 197 #10214 May 24, 2009 QuoteNice summary, Georger. JUst one thing - about stability with the money bag attached. If Cooper was an ex-paratrooper he would have had experience jumping with heavy loads and probably would have known best placement for stability. There is still a question about the tying-on aspect though; at least for SL, as I understand the procedure was that the "pack" would be clipped on, not secured with rope (then once the parachute was open clips are released so that it hangs a few metres below as one descends under canopy. Not sure how it works for HALO jumps). I think the skydiver consensus seems to be that even skydivers sometimes underestimate the forces involved and lose stuff on exit, so if cooper was a novice chances are he would have too. I thought it was remarkable (and unexpected) that virtually every diver here went straight to the issue of stability and rope tying around waste of the money bag (21lbs) ... this seemed to stand out for divers here in spite of what else was being discussed, and in spite of everyone knowing that paratroopers carry auxiliary loads, etc. Maybe implicit in the thoughts of divers here was or is: 'that Cooper is a novice' ? People didnt say that openly but maybe they were all thinking it? Ckret has always been convinced Cooper was a novice, after Ckret got the opinions of dozens of people including military experts. That said, I think it is the "rope tie" people here saw as the vulnerable issue? Now if D rings and clips had been used or were available, then opinions change. But Cooper actually asked for a back pack to take the money in. He never got the back pack. But how was he going to secure any back pack? And did he ask for a back pack at all because he knew other standard containers he might get, had flaws for securing them? Does the fact he wanted a back pack make him more or less knowledgeable in this whole matter? Maybe he just assumed whatever rigs he would get would have D-rings? (An assumption like that would point to an amateur?). But it is totally obvious the divers here know their stuff! Pages 0-50 prove that hands down. Its a tribute to everyone who posted in that section. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjack71 0 #10215 May 24, 2009 Quote Incidentally, this page has some interesting stuff on the requirements for smokejumpers. Another page I was reading also mentioned the physical requirements, including carrying a 110-lb pack over 3 miles in under 90 minutes as well as intensive training in, um, fires. We have been so focused on the "jump" aspect we forgot the "smoke" bit I'm surprised Jo has not mentioned anything about Duane's knowledge of fires and fighting them, which would have been extensive if he had indeed been a smokejumper. Incidentally, something that was niggling in an extract Georger posted earlier - where Jo had claimed they had seen paople paragliding (though she did not know the term) in 1978 or 1979 and that Duane knew all about it. The first "modern" paragliding flight took place in France in June 1978, according to Wiki. Duane must have been a quick learner. (btw skydivers, it seems the inspiration was an article by Dan Poynter although of course it had been talked about for a while and possibly a few people had launched off cliffs with parachutes before, that seems uncertain though?) I still don't know what it was - He explained what the guys were hooking up and how they controlled the gliders, kites, or chutes what-ever the heck they are. This was the only time in my life I have ever been upclose to something like this. The walking and carrying of heavy loads and his mention of fire fighting has been addressed, but maybe not in this forum - It could have been Unsolved Mysteries or 101. I know that it has in the past been discussed, but may have been in communications with the FBI or Himmelsbach. I just put together another foot of "stuff" in my closet - so ain't no way I am going to try to find who and when I sent that information to yrs ago. I have discussed these things recently with others. If I repeated statements he made I would be accused of making it up. These things were discussed early on from 1996 to present with others. This connection is mentioned in my "stuff" and all of it is dated. I am no longer able to dig thru the "stuff". Someone else will have to do this someday in the future or they can just destroy it. I never trusted computers and made hard copies and kept a log of everyone I talked to until I got a computer in 2000 - took me a while to learn to use it. Someday - just someday maybe I will be vindicated and not forever known as that damn crazy woman or a liar. Yes, it is true my story evolved with the things I learned and explored and theorized - but I have not lied and always go back to what I do know and do remember. Many people including myself have tried to connect Cooper or a suspect to many things. Someone made a statement not long ago regarding Cooper - implying that the answers may all be very simple.... When I reversed and went back to the basics and what I do know about Duane and analyzed the things he told me and the things he held dear - I think that statement is going to be very true. If you will notice this is where I have come - full circle - right back to the beginning. I had never taken the time to explore the beginning - to research those things he mentioned - I let myself get caught up in all of the Bad things I found about his history. I forgot about the boy and the man he might have been, before crime became a way of life. Obviously he had a problem with authority -hence the 2 situations with the service connections. Somewhere in those early yrs he had a mentor, but in 1950 he fell backward and this spiral did not stop - it was out of control. He finds out in 1971 the will suffer the same fate as his mother. Can anyone imagine what must have gone thru his mind - how he had wasted his life and disgraced his family and that his life stood for - nothing...it was going to end and he was a total failure? I am trying right now to think child-like. What does someone do when they reach that point in their life? Bruce might be good one to answer that and Georger is really good at this kind of thing. If Duane were Cooper - what made him do this and how and why did he do it. Did he have something to prove to someone? I think this is part of the simple answer. It was an irrational choice made by a desparately irrational person. Yeah the answer is simple but no one wants a simple answer...we all try to complicate it.Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryThomas 0 #10216 May 25, 2009 Sorry Guys I'm sure I missed alot I Just got back from Las Vegas I'm back home now. But will be leaving for Washougal on Wenesday and will be out of the net for a short time. will keep all informed. Latter Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orange1 0 #10217 May 25, 2009 Quote But Cooper actually asked for a back pack to take the money in. He never got the back pack. But how was he going to secure any back pack? And did he ask for a back pack at all because he knew other standard containers he might get, had flaws for securing them? Does the fact he wanted a back pack make him more or less knowledgeable in this whole matter? Maybe he just assumed whatever rigs he would get would have D-rings? (An assumption like that would point to an amateur?). Actually now that i think about it... i am wondering if he was planning on attaching the backpack below the chest reserve, or if in fact he never planned on using the reserve anyway (ref the discussion about the dummy reserve being gone) and was going to clip the backpack there? Of course we have no idea of any of this. It has been suggested that he brought carabiners with him, but he was seen tying (the money? was it ever clear exactly what he was seen tying?) around his waist...Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orange1 0 #10218 May 25, 2009 Why am I not surprised that all of a sudden, despite all the discussion about smokejumpers and not a word being breathed, we suddenly have interest in and intricate knowledge of firefighting too... in response to a (tongue-in-cheek) question? Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nitrochute 2 #10219 May 25, 2009 it is very likely that old cooper had a dificult,if not impossible pull on that NB6. the Parachute Industry Association(PIA) canopy volume charts show the 26' navy conical has a pack volume of 573 cubic inches.The 28' C-9 has a pack volume of 815 cubic inches.That is about 40% more bulk. if the NB6 that cooper jumped did indeed have a 28 ' canopy and NOT the 26 navy conical it was designed and sized for,then cooper most likely died. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nitrochute 2 #10220 May 25, 2009 the nb6 harness that cooper jumped with has no attachment points for a front mounted reserve.and caribeeners are NOT strong enough to withstand opening shock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
377 20 #10221 May 25, 2009 Thanks for the info Nitrochute. Those differences in pack volumes are huge. It's easy to forget that surface area goes up as a square with increasing radius. Sure sounds like a VERY hard pull to me if there was a 28 ft C9 canopy in an unextended NB6 container, although it would be great to have it actually assembled and measured. Why on Earth would Cossey pack such a bailout rig that might not be useable? What is the explanation for that? 3772018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #10222 May 25, 2009 Quotethe nb6 harness that cooper jumped with has no attachment points for a front mounted reserve.and caribeeners are NOT strong enough to withstand opening shock Yes they are, I've had terminal openings with gear much heavier than the cash, clipped with caribineers to the MLW. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjack71 0 #10223 May 25, 2009 Quote Why am I not surprised that all of a sudden, despite all the discussion about smokejumpers and not a word being breathed, we suddenly have interest in and intricate knowledge of firefighting too... in response to a (tongue-in-cheek) question? I simply let you know that firefighting and ranger training had been discussed before. If you would LIKE to come to my home and you have a few wks to spare please do so - you will find those mentions in communications to Himmelsback and the FBI along with communications with friends. A friend helped because I did not have a computer and only office access. This was all prior to 1998. Like any other discussion a mention of something is cause to revisit an old and shelved piece of information. I am not 30 yrs old and do no have the computer knowledge to have all of this at my fingertips like you and others.Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
377 20 #10224 May 25, 2009 Orange Maybe you are referring to the weak carabiners sold in hardware stores. The kind climbers use can carry VERY heavy shock and static loads. We used them in commercial fishing rigging with zero problems. I tested one by clipping together links about a foot apart on a continuous anchor chain. We set the anchor and backed down hard. No problem if it broke as the chain would still be intact. The device had no problem holding the load, just some slight deformation. 3772018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orange1 0 #10225 May 25, 2009 twasn't me that said they were weak.. just that cooper may have brought them! just to set the record straight Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
