DB Cooper

[georger 197]

377

CooperSnooper wrote

Quote

• Is there a possible(not necessarily probable) place to hide on the plane and avoid be discovered?

I've looked a lot at my 727 manuals wondering the same thing. I believe the answer is no. I corresponded with two 727 pilots who share the same opinion. The pressure bump from stair rebound strongly suggests Cooper exited aloft.

Hiding on the plane would be an extraordinarily risky gamble even if it were possible. Chances of being found would be high in my opinion.

Welcome to the forum.

377

This has been covered before ad nauseum - its the conspiracy
theorist's favorite. 'Cooper never left the plane. It was a govt
conspiracy'.

One answer to this bullshit is: We never went to the Moon!

Another answer to this gobblewobble is: Every inch of the
plane was search in front of countless witnesses and news
people at Reno with service people even finally boarding the
plane, once the plane was released by the FBI, and Cooper was
nowhere to be found ... the scent dogs indicated his scent
went straight out the back of the plane down the stairs!

Another answer is: it was all a govt conspiracy and Cooper
never left the cabin and was ushered out dressed like a German
Shepperd and/or an FBI Agent, and spent the rest of his life in
Auburn Washington trying to become a celebrity author ...

Another answer is: There is no answer. It's unknowable due
to being beyond the limits of current Stone Age Technology.
A corollary to that is, only people here at Dropzone know and
we know who they are! Jo Weber for one!

[smokin99 0]

RobertMBlevins

.......

I think at some point you have to say enough, and go with what you believe is true. Maybe you can't prove it, and maybe no one else will bother to try, but at this point I believe Jones and I believe Kenny and his friend Geestman were involved.
..........

The only problem I have with any of this is
1. Kenny does not fit the physical or psychological profile.
2. You have backed up none of this with any real evidence.

Far from it.....Even though you ask others to "prove it", you do not offer the same. It's always wait on this or that or you don't trust the forum that you return to on a daily basis because of something that happened several years ago.
Just like Jo and Marla, the Formans, et al, there's just a lot of circumstantial stories that you either can't prove or they don't hold up under close scrutiny. Where you guys always lose credibility is when you try too hard to connect the dots. Cause that's when others start shredding your "evidence".

Seriously...your best bet is to just compare him to the composite drawing, leave it at that, and hope no one really starts looking into the story. Cause they all look like the composite if you squint enough.
Hey..I'm all ears when you can back it up with -at the very least - proof or documentation for the rationale used in your conclusions. Til then......

but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

[georger 197]

smokin99

***Robert 99 says...

Quote

There may have been a slight misunderstanding in the use of the word "down". The cockpit crew apparently thought Cooper meant "down and locked" as in normal ramp operations. Cooper apparently just meant "down but not locked".

Blevins responds: *** Even 'down but not locked' would cause the stairs to drag along the runway. Since no one has ever attempted to do this, the results would be unknown. We know the stairs dragged in Reno during landing. There is no possible way Cooper could know one way or another that dragging the stairs on takeoff might cause sufficient damage to crash the jet. Again: Because no one has tried that, before or since. Not even Air America or the CIA. During the Boeing flight tests, the stairs were lowered in-flight. Conclusion: Without a previous history of ANY 727 trying that takeoff maneuver, he was either guessing, wanted to try it anyway, or didn't really know.

Smokin sez: This is incorrect. I just posted a video of an airlift that showed the 727 taxing and leaving the ground with the stairs down. If they did it then, there is ABSOLUTELY no way that you can say with certainty - as you have - that they didn't do it before. As a matter of fact, it is probably more likely than not that those doing things like airlifts and airdrops either knew it could be done or had done it before. .

robert99 said: .

Quote

Cooper definitely had problems with the aft stair control panel even after being instructed by Tina on how to use it.

Blevins responds:

Quote

Not THAT much trouble. It's a single handle. And we know he finally managed it. You push it, the stairs drop. Maybe he just didn't expect them to drop only 24"-36" initially, as Bill Rataczak and others have testified they will do in-flight. When you are expecting enough room to get down the stairs, and realize there's only a two or three foot high opening, it could be a surprise, especially when you are carrying a big load.

Smokin sez: Woah Nelly. The key word is FINALLY managed it. If the hijacker was wanting to jump out either before the plane left the ground or shortly thereafter (by virtue of wanting to start out with the door open), in reality the jump probably did not occur for some 40ish mins after the plane was in the air. And at least 30 mins from the time Tina saw him tying the money to his waist and joined the rest of the crew in the cockpit. As to a 24 - 36 in opening, also see video with man standing on stairs while several others are hanging on to it. I imagine the stairs would go all the way down just like in the sled test. He had the room - more than likely he had not a clue how to open the stairs.

Now he might have been just twiddling his thumbs or perusing the latest issue of SkyMall, but logical conjecture says he was having plenty enough trouble getting the door open. And was likely getting more nervous as he knew that he was getting further away from where he wanted his dropzone to be - if we go with the Carr assumption that he wanted to jump pretty quickly after takeoff.




Factoid: Nothing you say is going to deter RobertMBlevins or Jo
Weber. Dont you know that by now! Logic and facts and
information is not what they are here for or engaged in! The
only 'information' at stake for them is strong vs weak indications
that they are stimulating interest and can continue, again and
again and again, in the next five minutes to forever. The rest
including the Cooper case or anyone here - they could care less
about! - that is NOT why they are here and active.

[377 21]

G wrote

Quote

it was all a govt conspiracy and Cooper
never left the cabin and was ushered out dressed like a German
Shepperd and/or an FBI agent...

There never was a Cooper. The crew was all in on the scam.

What kind of search dogs? Those German Shepard's can be slackers.
The canine equivalent of donut cops. They get treats and praise when they indicate detecting drug scents so they quickly learn the game of justifying a search of every stopped vehicle.

FBI should switch to Border Collies if they want super smart hard working dogs. But there is a risk. The BCs would be tipping the ACLU on phony justifications for vehicle searches.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[georger 197]

377

G wrote

Quote

it was all a govt conspiracy and Cooper
never left the cabin and was ushered out dressed like a German
Shepperd and/or an FBI agent...

There never was a Cooper. The crew was all in on the scam.

What kind of search dogs? Those German Shepard's can be slackers.
The canine equivalent of donut cops. They get treats and praise when they indicate detecting drug scents so they quickly learn the game of justifying a search of every stopped vehicle.

FBI should switch to Border Collies if they want super smart hard working dogs. But there is a risk. The BCs would be tipping the ACLU on phony justifications for vehicle searches.

377

Well the dogs dont exactly have a political agenda unless its to
be fed, get a few rewards and affection, and have a place to
sleep where they are secure...

The dogs tracked the scent straight down the stairs and out
the back of the plane ... so if Cooper was pretending why was
he on the stairs at all ... ?

And the only place on that plane the dogs found any scent of
Cooper was where he had been and straight down the stairs.
No scent in the cargo hold(s) or anywhere else.

Gray's book fails miserably on the story of the dogs!

Here's a question for ya: were the dogs shipped back with
the plane, just in case a scent match was needed (between
the seat etc) and some suspect back in Washington ?

Let's give Blevins and Weber a chance to invent answers -
and Smokin a chance to do web searches...

[BruceSmith 3]

smokin99

***
..........
• When was the next flight of the N467US plane, or where was it stored while repairing the rear stairs?
.......
.

Hi CS,
Though R99 might be correct that it was flown back to Seattle the next day, I don't know that I've ever seen the answer to this question anywhere.

Do we have any knowledge that it went back into service immediately? The only info that I know of that might have a bearing on this is:

On this forum, Ckret (Larry Carr, FBI) states that Cooper's seat was removed and sent to Quantico.
The sled test was performed on Jan 6, 1972.

Not saying that the plane had to be out of commission for either of these to take place - just throwing it out there fwiw.



Geoffrey Gray told me that the whole plane flew back to Quantico. Others told me it went to Boeing Field in Seattle, or the air field in Renton where the 737s and 727s were built, and presumably repaired.

I have no additional corroboration on this, though.

[smokin99 0]

CooperSnooper

..........

My grand THEORY is that he got on the plane, got his parachutes and money and never jumped. I think he had some place on the plane to hide. The Tena Bar money was a plant that was done later. I believe the research on the rubber bands that states they could not have survived for those years outside and still were intact. Also, three bundles of money in one spot seem to be a plant. In my mind, it would be impossible for three bundles to land in the same spot with intact rubber bands on them, especially since they would have been in the environment for nearly 9 years.

If I didn't say it before, welcome to the forum.

The problem with the money being a plant by Cooper is... what's the purpose to plant something that might or might not ever be found? And why plant it there?

For all intents and purposes you have gotten away with a crime. Why draw any attention to the crime or yourself? Stay as far under the radar as you can. And if you are going to plant the money - why plant it there? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to plant it somewhere along the assumed flight path? It would be in a place where it might be expected to be - essentially erasing the question as to whether it was planted or not -- and by extension that he must have survived in order to plant it. Wouldn't it be a lot better to reinforce their suspicion that you are dead?

The only rationale that I can think of for this is that the hijacker wanted to taunt the FBI with you-can't-catch-me. But then the location still doesn't make sense. Why take the chance that no one would ever dig in that exact spot? There are so many better ways to drop the money where you would know it would be found if that was the objective.

The only other plant story that makes sense to me is if the adult Ingrams got possession of the money somehow and they wanted to be able to turn it in and get the value of the money or a reward without revealing the real way they came about having the money.
Now that one I have to admit I've wondered about.

but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

[smokin99 0]

georger

***G wrote

Quote

it was all a govt conspiracy and Cooper
never left the cabin and was ushered out dressed like a German
Shepperd and/or an FBI agent...

There never was a Cooper. The crew was all in on the scam.

What kind of search dogs? Those German Shepard's can be slackers.
The canine equivalent of donut cops. They get treats and praise when they indicate detecting drug scents so they quickly learn the game of justifying a search of every stopped vehicle.

FBI should switch to Border Collies if they want super smart hard working dogs. But there is a risk. The BCs would be tipping the ACLU on phony justifications for vehicle searches.

377

Well the dogs dont exactly have a political agenda unless its to
be fed, get a few rewards and affection, and have a place to
sleep where they are secure...

The dogs tracked the scent straight down the stairs and out
the back of the plane ... so if Cooper was pretending why was
he on the stairs at all ... ?

And the only place on that plane the dogs found any scent of
Cooper was where he had been and straight down the stairs.
No scent in the cargo hold(s) or anywhere else.

Gray's book fails miserably on the story of the dogs!

Here's a question for ya: were the dogs shipped back with
the plane, just in case a scent match was needed (between
the seat etc) and some suspect back in Washington ?

Let's give Blevins and Weber a chance to invent answers -
and Smokin a chance to do web searches...



Glad to see you made it home from the theater.
Georger, you're absolutely right - seems like we don't know much about the dogs, but it sounds like you do. While I certainly appreciate your vote of confidence, if you already know the answer why don't you just tell us?

but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

[mrshutter45 21]

How about just mailing a 20 to Seattle? go far enough away and from home and just send it to them. it would be absolute proof. no handwriting test needed.

"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI

[BruceSmith 3]

Quote

"...Factoid: Nothing you say is going to deter RobertMBlevins or Jo
Weber. Dont you know that by now! Logic and facts and
information is not what they are here for or engaged in! The
only 'information' at stake for them is strong vs weak indications
that they are stimulating interest and can continue, again and
again and again, in the next five minutes to forever. The rest
including the Cooper case or anyone here - they could care less
about! - that is NOT why they are here and active...."

A superb assessment of the dynamics here. Thank you.

[ParrotheadVol 70]

smokin99

***..........

My grand THEORY is that he got on the plane, got his parachutes and money and never jumped. I think he had some place on the plane to hide. The Tena Bar money was a plant that was done later. I believe the research on the rubber bands that states they could not have survived for those years outside and still were intact. Also, three bundles of money in one spot seem to be a plant. In my mind, it would be impossible for three bundles to land in the same spot with intact rubber bands on them, especially since they would have been in the environment for nearly 9 years.

If I didn't say it before, welcome to the forum.

The problem with the money being a plant by Cooper is... what's the purpose to plant something that might or might not ever be found? And why plant it there?

For all intents and purposes you have gotten away with a crime. Why draw any attention to the crime or yourself? Stay as far under the radar as you can. And if you are going to plant the money - why plant it there? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to plant it somewhere along the assumed flight path? It would be in a place where it might be expected to be - essentially erasing the question as to whether it was planted or not -- and by extension that he must have survived in order to plant it. Wouldn't it be a lot better to reinforce their suspicion that you are dead?

The only rationale that I can think of for this is that the hijacker wanted to taunt the FBI with you-can't-catch-me. But then the location still doesn't make sense. Why take the chance that no one would ever dig in that exact spot? There are so many better ways to drop the money where you would know it would be found if that was the objective.

The only other plant story that makes sense to me is if the adult Ingrams got possession of the money somehow and they wanted to be able to turn it in and get the value of the money or a reward without revealing the real way they came about having the money.
Now that one I have to admit I've wondered about.

You beat me to the punch on this. A plant only works if the money is found. So, anyone who thinks the money was a plant, has to ask their selves, "was finding the money planned as well?".
Now, we are getting into Grey Cop territory and that is not a good place to be.

I think the idea of a plant is ludicrous, at best.

"They were saying he was never gonna make it now, now that daylight had set in. But later that night, they were shining those lights back down on that mountain again." - Todd Snider

[mrshutter45 21]

ParrotheadVol

******..........

My grand THEORY is that he got on the plane, got his parachutes and money and never jumped. I think he had some place on the plane to hide. The Tena Bar money was a plant that was done later. I believe the research on the rubber bands that states they could not have survived for those years outside and still were intact. Also, three bundles of money in one spot seem to be a plant. In my mind, it would be impossible for three bundles to land in the same spot with intact rubber bands on them, especially since they would have been in the environment for nearly 9 years.

If I didn't say it before, welcome to the forum.

The problem with the money being a plant by Cooper is... what's the purpose to plant something that might or might not ever be found? And why plant it there?

For all intents and purposes you have gotten away with a crime. Why draw any attention to the crime or yourself? Stay as far under the radar as you can. And if you are going to plant the money - why plant it there? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to plant it somewhere along the assumed flight path? It would be in a place where it might be expected to be - essentially erasing the question as to whether it was planted or not -- and by extension that he must have survived in order to plant it. Wouldn't it be a lot better to reinforce their suspicion that you are dead?

The only rationale that I can think of for this is that the hijacker wanted to taunt the FBI with you-can't-catch-me. But then the location still doesn't make sense. Why take the chance that no one would ever dig in that exact spot? There are so many better ways to drop the money where you would know it would be found if that was the objective.

The only other plant story that makes sense to me is if the adult Ingrams got possession of the money somehow and they wanted to be able to turn it in and get the value of the money or a reward without revealing the real way they came about having the money.
Now that one I have to admit I've wondered about.

You beat me to the punch on this. A plant only works if the money is found. So, anyone who thinks the money was a plant, has to ask their selves, "was finding the money planned as well?".
Now, we are getting into Grey Cop territory and that is not a good place to be.

I think the idea of a plant is ludicrous, at best.


If you take what Robert99 has been trying to say, things might be easier to explain. we have the place card further North, we have an airliner with a possible bomb on it. why would they fly over populated area's? if you were to fly further east, it would take longer to stay along V23 down to Reno, burning up more needed fuel
getting back on track.

It's not deviating much further off of V23 and makes more sense when you look at the theory itself. why were they looking in the Woodland area in the first place? unanswered questions are a factor here. there is other things that have not been discussed along these lines. closing the mind and sticking to what the original path was is not a proper way to think. I don't know if the path is wrong. I've done some testing that tell different stories I can tell you that. you can't always go by what is presented.

we have nothing but speculation whether or not Cooper could see anything through the clouds, so how would he know where he was? how many things were discussed on the radio/phone patch that we don't know about? where are the details of how the path was made? we hear Carr explain on video that this is "the believed flight path"? the search map photo doesn't show that they really are sure where he landed. it's a wide area they originally searched. I don't know if it means anything but take a look at this photo provided. look at the location of the map the cop is looking at. it's further east and shouldn't be part of the search area. why is he looking at that position? for them to have an idea where he jumped. they sure did look all over the place for him?

the details between Cooper and McCoy are clearly different. almost like McCoy said "let me show you how it's done"

"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI

[BruceSmith 3]

Quote

"...I know you didn't address to me, but since I too made some comments regarding Bruce...in the interest of disclosure -

I happen to have a B.S. in Journalism and have written for a small midwest paper, submitted numerous feature articles published in sports related magazines including interviews with high profile personalities in the airshow and air race industry.

The question of ethics in journalism has always been of interest to me as I had some very insightful classes on the subject...back when I went through the university system, we had to take one type of ethics related class just about every semester.

That's how important they felt the topic was.

A good interview is one that doesn't leave your footprints anywhere within the final product, and that's an honorable goal...opinions or editorializing the content have their place, but measures should be taken to differentiate your slant from the actual facts.

It should be blatantly obvious that 'X' happened and is provable with facts or reliable sources & 'Y' is the writers take on the context.

Most anything else is tabloid.


Funny looking back to when I got my degree...there were those instructors that absolutely nailed the way much of what passes for journalism today 'would come about' in their warnings of what NOT to do back then.

Slippery slope when the journalist injects himself into the story...

When I studied journalism it was an honorable vocation when done well...one worked hard to establish and maintain a trust.

No story was worth compromising your reputation.

While a story very well can 'hurt' someone, a true journalist lets the facts of the story do that, they should never go out of their way to vilify or to slant their personal feelings into it...only a hack or a bully does something like that.

Edited to add:
To be clear ~ I'm not calling Bruce a hack or bully, in truth I've read only a small amount of his published product.

I was just questioning the tactic he himself explained and then qualified. I didn't know then, and still may not fully understand the exact way & why he does what he does...but if my perception is correct - I don't agree with it..."

Thanks for your overview on the ethics in journalism, AirT. I'd like to expand upon your comments and give a clearer picture on why and how I operate as a writer.

What you've described is old-school journalism, and it was practiced best by newspaper reporters. Most good journalists writing for a paper still follow the precepts that you've described.

However, journalism has changed and evolved since your classical paradigms were established.

To begin, how I write is called "narrative non-fiction." That means that my personal journey is part of the story. As a result, my opinions and behavior are integral to the story. In fact, they are essential.

The big questions are: why do I do that, and what are the pitfalls and safeguards for being ethical. Here are my standards.

First, I build upon facts. I write first on what is corroboated and true, and from there I build my narrative.

Every time I interject myself into the story I endeavor to be clear on how I developed my opinions, theories, or gut reactions to the facts as they are presented, such as from a PIO. To me, it is ethical in put myself into the story as long as the reader has a decent shot at understanding my motivations and goals.

As a seasoned professional, I have learned that often I do not get the story I orginally envisioned, usually due to being stonewalled, but I get a secondary story, namely, how I got stonewalled. Often that is a clue to another line of inquiry.

Hence, I always get a story even when my interviewee says nothing. For example, Tina only said five words to me during my visit in 2011, but I wrote 1200 words on how she said them.

Now, many people object that I even went to her front door, but that is a wholly other question. As I have stated, I feel that Tina has a degree of responsibility to society to lend a hand in seeing justice gained.

On the other hand, those who object to any effort to talk to principals in a crime case, such as Tina and Norjak, are contributing to a cover-up in my opinion. Silence, I have learned, allows the powerful to operate in secrecy, hidden in the shadows.

Those cloaked areas are where I and others frequently poke around, and why the narrative non-fiction format is gaining in popularity. In this day and age powerful corporations own all the mainstream media outlets - newspapers, TV and radio. Hence, free inquiry is controlled and usually squashed.

In my experience as a reporter I have learned that all law enforcement spins their story. I prefer to call it lying when their version of the truth is starkly in contrast to the facts, as often happens, but I will give them a little wiggle room in this discussion.

The bottom line is that cops and the main actors in crime stories are well-protected from true investigatory reporters. Most facts are intentionally hidden, and only parsed when the Powers That Be are safe. Hence, reporters, and more troubling their editors, will rarely poke through the cloak of spin that PIOs churn. Hence, it is very difficult to prove or disprove what the PIOs are saying. Raw facts are very hard to attain these days.

That is certainly the case in Norjak. Do you really think that FBI agents don't talk to me because I'm a little too pushy, or I don't play "nice," as Blevs often suggests I be.

Do you really think Lee Dormuth lied to me because I wasn't nice? Hardly. He has an agenda to protect and he knows that I know.

What that agenda is, I don't know. As a result, the most that I can write about are the little skirmishes I have with my interviewees. It's not games we are playing here, but a real-life battle.

Which brings me to the ethics of what happens here on the forum.

I am astonished that of all the family members of confessees or their supporters, such as Jo with Duane, Blevs and good ole Lyle with Kenny Christiansen, or Bradley Collins and his Dad, John Collins, etc - none have reached out to Tina, the crew or the passengers and apologized for their loved one who threatned to kill them 42 years ago.

Remember, so many here say that my visits to Tina have triggered her PTSD, but when are those who claim to be kin of DB Cooper going to take responsibility for the impact of their skyjacker - the guy who started that PTSD long ago.

In my view, one can't get the fame and glory of being related to DB Cooper without taking on the task of giving restitution back to those harmed, even if it is only emotional acknowledgement of the trauma that was delivered on November 24, 1971.

[ParrotheadVol 70]

RobertMBlevins

There's just so little to go on regardng the Tina Bar money. If you think about it too long, you'll get a headache. Ask 377. He owns some of the ransom bills, bought them in Portland at the first symposium I think. He has said sometimes he stares at one of the bills and wishes it could talk to him. I understand this completely.

I'll admit that the location of the found money, when you look at the available road access, etc does not lend itself well to a certain idea. The idea that someone actually drove down there, walked on the beach, and buried the money. I think if it WAS a plant, it was probably done by placing a few of the bundles inside something else and then tossed into the Columbia a bit farther upstream. And that this container, whatever it was, was biodegradable. Possibly a heavy paper bag. Who knows?

I don't think the money got there because the flight path was miles west of the Interstate 5 freeway. I mean that's really a stretch and any allegation suggesting that must be proven. If you look at the 'official' (such as it is) flight map, it shows that 305 was actually jogging a bit to the EAST at the time it passed by the Tina Bar area. Could all the radar be off by more than five miles? Could the chase planes be wrong? Is the tracked flight path that far off from reality? I doubt it. For one thing, if this were true this would make radar and ATC guys so unreliable that commercial aircraft would have been doing mid-air collisions on a regular basis. I think the flight path as shown by the FBI is reasonable.

Shutter has said several times that he doesn't believe the hijacker, once he got his hands on all that money, (just over a million in today's dollars) would be willing to throw some of it away no matter what. I dispute that view. For one thing, if Cooper is caught then the money won't matter. They were giving people 40 years in Federal prison for air piracy back then, and that's pretty much a life sentence. So giving up a few bundles in some effort to hopefully get the FBI off your back seems perfectably reasonable.

Also, I've wondered about the timing of the find and the analysis on the money. Money was found in 1980. Tom Kaye and his team don't believe the money was exposed to the elements for anything close to nine years. We also know the Statute of Limitations was due to run out on November 24, 1976 but that the FBI managed to convince a Federal judge in Portland at the last minute to issue a 'John Doe' warrant. This was news when it happened, and if the hijacker had any smarts at all, or followed the case, (why wouldn't he?) then he found out he wasn't getting off scot-free after all. Must have been a real bummer to know they were going to be searching for him for the rest of his life.

This could easily motivate the hijacker to put a few bundles of the cash into a paper bag and toss them into the Columbia. Look at this from the viewpoint of the FBI and the hijacker. You cannot do this alleged planting on land or away from a major water source. If you do, when someone finds that money, then the FBI is going to start digging around the whole area. Finding no chutes, other money, briefcase, or any body, they will know the hijacker probably escaped with the money. That would do the hijacker absolutely no good. You would have to take a chance and put it in a river, hoping it will wash up someday and be found.

If this is what the hijacker had in mind, it worked. This is because after the money find, the FBI started leaning toward the idea the hijacker died in the jump by splatting into the Columbia...exactly what he may have wanted them to believe. They also started scaling down the investigation, another plus for the hijacker.

The only mistake the hijacker made (assuming it was a plant) was to place MORE than one bundle of the cash into the container. But he may have wanted to increase the chances someone would find something. Who knows? But since three bundles were found together, this makes it almost impossible that they got there by these methods:

1) Falling from the sky.

2) Washing downriver individually.

Total guess, but this is how I think it went: After November 1976, the hijacker - to his chagrin - discovers the FBI is going into permanent overtime on their search for him. (John Doe warrant) He then takes three of the bundles of cash, sticks them in a bag, drives to the Columbia River not too far from Tina Bar, tosses them into the river. Four years later, Brian Ingram finds them. The FBI may want to take a second, harder look at any tiny shards of paper found with the money...to make sure none of them are actually the remains of a paper bag.

Funny Little Attachment Included: This is a letter Kenny got from the president of Northwest Airlines. It is dated on the same day as the Statute of Limitations was due to run out. It doesn't prove anything of course, but if Kenny were ever proven to be Cooper, it would be one of the funniest coincidences in crime history.

The bundles certainly didn't get there individually. But the whole bag of cash could have got there and then the bundles become separated from the rest of the money.

"They were saying he was never gonna make it now, now that daylight had set in. But later that night, they were shining those lights back down on that mountain again." - Todd Snider

[smokin99 0]

RobertMBlevins

.....

Total guess, but this is how I think it went: After November 1976, the hijacker - to his chagrin - discovers the FBI is going into permanent overtime on their search for him. (John Doe warrant) He then takes three of the bundles of cash, sticks them in a bag, drives to the Columbia River not too far from Tina Bar, tosses them into the river. Four years later, Brian Ingram finds them.

For all the reasons I mentioned earlier, this makes absolutely no sense strategically or otherwise. A smart hijacker will stay the course since they haven't found him by now. A smart hijacker will not court trouble by running the risk of someone seeing him bury or throw the money into the river. A smart hijacker who has managed to lay low for almost 5 years is not going to draw attention now. The only way a plant makes sense is if you have the find planned. Otherwise why do it?

Why would the bundles have to fall from the sky or float down the river individually? They could have been together until they got to Tena Bar from the air or water or even land and then all sorts of scenarios: the bag rotted, an eagle thought it was a rabbit, animals disturbed the bag trying to find food, no one has ever disproved the pipe suction dredge theory, the money could have been all together and then a flood took the bag and the rest of the money away. I live in an area that has 100 year floods about every 10 or 15 years. You would be amazed at the stuff that gets brought and then left behind when the waters recede.

The money is a puzzle but any of these scenarios make more sense then a hijacker who has gotten away with it all of sudden deciding he's gonna throw em off the path. Like I said, if he was going to do that it would make a WHOLE lot more sense to do it somewhere closer to the areas that they searched. That would reinforce the speculation that he died.

but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

[smokin99 0]

RobertMBlevins

Funny Little Attachment Included: This is a letter Kenny got from the president of Northwest Airlines. It is dated on the same day as the Statute of Limitations was due to run out. It doesn't prove anything of course, but if Kenny were ever proven to be Cooper, it would be one of the funniest coincidences in crime history. I've always wondered why he skipped the banquet. The flight to Minneapolis for it was free courtesy of the airline, and his family are from the same area.

You've posted this before and as then, I'm still not sure what significance you are trying to give to the date - the date the letter was typed would have nothing to do with the date Kenny received it.

Regardless of the date though, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from the letter. Take it from someone who has been to way too many corporate banquets. There is absolutely nothing strange or unusual about skipping one, regardless of air fare -- and even more especially when you don't care for the company in the first place.

but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

[BruceSmith 3]

RobertMBlevins

Bruce: I won't quote over your entire post. But a couple of points here. First, you aren't Hunter S. Thompson, and even the King of Gonzo Journalism got the story first...before injecting his opinions and actions along the way into those stories.

It's story first, the color afterward. Maybe if you listened to these things, you'd stop getting stonewalled and receive more than five words from Tina Mucklow.

You go for it, Robert. You are obviously well-schooled and clear-minded on how best to approach the principals in Norjak. We eagerly await your reportage.

[mrshutter45 21]

smokin99

***.....

Total guess, but this is how I think it went: After November 1976, the hijacker - to his chagrin - discovers the FBI is going into permanent overtime on their search for him. (John Doe warrant) He then takes three of the bundles of cash, sticks them in a bag, drives to the Columbia River not too far from Tina Bar, tosses them into the river. Four years later, Brian Ingram finds them.

For all the reasons I mentioned earlier, this makes absolutely no sense strategically or otherwise. A smart hijacker will stay the course since they haven't found him by now. A smart hijacker will not court trouble by running the risk of someone seeing him bury or throw the money into the river. A smart hijacker who has managed to lay low for almost 5 years is not going to draw attention now. The only way a plant makes sense is if you have the find planned. Otherwise why do it?

Why would the bundles have to fall from the sky or float down the river individually? They could have been together until they got to Tena Bar from the air or water or even land and then all sorts of scenarios: the bag rotted, an eagle thought it was a rabbit, animals disturbed the bag trying to find food, no one has ever disproved the pipe suction dredge theory, the money could have been all together and then a flood took the bag and the rest of the money away. I live in an area that has 100 year floods about every 10 or 15 years. You would be amazed at the stuff that gets brought and then left behind when the waters recede.

The money is a puzzle but any of these scenarios make more sense then a hijacker who has gotten away with it all of sudden deciding he's gonna throw em off the path. Like I said, if he was going to do that it would make a WHOLE lot more sense to do it somewhere closer to the areas that they searched. That would reinforce the speculation that he died.

was it really 3 bundles? if it was in the bag for a long period undisturbed you would think they might all be stuck together in different area's. only an open mind could help figure this all out. going by the record sure isn't working is it?

"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI

[smokin99 0]

RobertMBlevins

******.....

Total guess, but this is how I think it went: After November 1976, the hijacker - to his chagrin - discovers the FBI is going into permanent overtime on their search for him. (John Doe warrant) He then takes three of the bundles of cash, sticks them in a bag, drives to the Columbia River not too far from Tina Bar, tosses them into the river. Four years later, Brian Ingram finds them.

For all the reasons I mentioned earlier, this makes absolutely no sense strategically or otherwise. A smart hijacker will stay the course since they haven't found him by now. A smart hijacker will not court trouble by running the risk of someone seeing him bury or throw the money into the river. A smart hijacker who has managed to lay low for almost 5 years is not going to draw attention now. The only way a plant makes sense is if you have the find planned. Otherwise why do it?

Why would the bundles have to fall from the sky or float down the river individually? They could have been together until they got to Tena Bar from the air or water or even land and then all sorts of scenarios: the bag rotted, an eagle thought it was a rabbit, animals disturbed the bag trying to find food, no one has ever disproved the pipe suction dredge theory, the money could have been all together and then a flood took the bag and the rest of the money away. I live in an area that has 100 year floods about every 10 or 15 years. You would be amazed at the stuff that gets brought and then left behind when the waters recede.

The money is a puzzle but any of these scenarios make more sense then a hijacker who has gotten away with it all of sudden deciding he's gonna throw em off the path. Like I said, if he was going to do that it would make a WHOLE lot more sense to do it somewhere closer to the areas that they searched. That would reinforce the speculation that he died.

Yeah. The eagle did it?

Look at the map. It is perfectly conceivable that Cooper may have tossed money into the river. And if he did it upriver, that puts it over the flight path. No telling where it ends up. Tina Bar maybe.

But the Big Problem with this 'it got there because he died' or 'flowed downriver by natural means' is because of the condition of the find. Nine years? In the water? Or exposed to the wet weather of Washington State? Hell...that money would have been mush and the rubber bands completely gone.

I think my scenario on any possible plant makes plenty of sense. The timing of it makes sense, it is a close match to why the money was in such good shape, and it gives a solid motivation on why the hijacker would do such a thing.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one, I think.

Yep, the eagle. Or the bear. Or ----- maybe the flippin cattle. Makes a lot more sense than a human trying to throw the FBI off of his trail by throwing it in the river and hoping it doesn't just sink to the frickin bottom. Or hoping that someone finds it how ever many years later. Or hoping that throwing it away from the search area will make them think he died...as opposed to them wondering how in the hell did the money get way over there? What''s that you are so fond of saying....Hello...is anyone in there?

BTW....Where did I say that it floated down the river for nine years? I didn't.

You say things like they are absolute. Like trying to tell people the Amboy chute was pristine when anyone could see that it was tattered and torn. Prove that it would be mush with rubber bands completely gone if the found bundles were buried under sand in a bag surrounded by other bundles for a good portion of that time. That's all I ask. PROVE it. And don't bring up Tom Kaye as per usual because, for all of good and welcome work, he still did not prove it either. Many of his conclusions were based on speculation.

Lol, if we had buried a bundle of ones when this thread first started, we'd actually have something tangible to base our conclusions on.

but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

[Robert99 37]

RobertMBlevins

***.....

Total guess, but this is how I think it went: After November 1976, the hijacker . . .

It is perfectly conceivable that Cooper may have tossed money into the river. And if he did it upriver, that puts it over the flight path. No telling where it ends up. Tina Bar maybe.

But the Big Problem with this 'it got there because he died' or 'flowed downriver by natural means' is because of the condition of the find. Nine years? In the water? Or exposed to the wet weather of Washington State? Hell...that money would have been mush and the rubber bands completely gone.

I think my scenario on any possible plant makes plenty of sense. The timing of it makes sense, it is a close match to why the money was in such good shape, and it gives a solid motivation on why the hijacker would do such a thing.

Blevins, Do you really believe that Cooper would be hanging on to some of the money FIVE YEARS after the hijacking? He could have converted that money to other currencies anywhere in the world in that five year period.

As Smokin has pointed out to you, your scenario of a money plant at Tena Bar is not logical.

Your desperate attempts to keep a "local boy" [read KC] as the hijacker and to have him survive the jump with no evidence supporting either of these ideas, means only that you are still trying to make a buck over KC's grave.

Robert99

[airtwardo 6]

I thank you for the detailed explanation Bruce...I'm certainly clearer on the 'whys & hows' - my perception was not as you've outlined.

Like many on here, perhaps I'm guilty of letting the worst case scenario take the lead in forming my opinion.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[BruceSmith 3]

airtwardo

I thank you for the detailed explanation Bruce...I'm certainly clearer on the 'whys & hows' - my perception was not as you've outlined.

Like many on here, perhaps I'm guilty of letting the worst case scenario take the lead in forming my opinion.

Thanks for giving me a fair hearing.

[georger 197]

ParrotheadVol

******..........

My grand THEORY is that he got on the plane, got his parachutes and money and never jumped. I think he had some place on the plane to hide. The Tena Bar money was a plant that was done later. I believe the research on the rubber bands that states they could not have survived for those years outside and still were intact. Also, three bundles of money in one spot seem to be a plant. In my mind, it would be impossible for three bundles to land in the same spot with intact rubber bands on them, especially since they would have been in the environment for nearly 9 years.

If I didn't say it before, welcome to the forum.

The problem with the money being a plant by Cooper is... what's the purpose to plant something that might or might not ever be found? And why plant it there?

For all intents and purposes you have gotten away with a crime. Why draw any attention to the crime or yourself? Stay as far under the radar as you can. And if you are going to plant the money - why plant it there? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to plant it somewhere along the assumed flight path? It would be in a place where it might be expected to be - essentially erasing the question as to whether it was planted or not -- and by extension that he must have survived in order to plant it. Wouldn't it be a lot better to reinforce their suspicion that you are dead?

The only rationale that I can think of for this is that the hijacker wanted to taunt the FBI with you-can't-catch-me. But then the location still doesn't make sense. Why take the chance that no one would ever dig in that exact spot? There are so many better ways to drop the money where you would know it would be found if that was the objective.

The only other plant story that makes sense to me is if the adult Ingrams got possession of the money somehow and they wanted to be able to turn it in and get the value of the money or a reward without revealing the real way they came about having the money.
Now that one I have to admit I've wondered about.

You beat me to the punch on this. A plant only works if the money is found. So, anyone who thinks the money was a plant, has to ask their selves, "was finding the money planned as well?".
Now, we are getting into Grey Cop territory and that is not a good place to be.

I think the idea of a plant is ludicrous, at best.

I will let you in on a personal secret:

The money story is not what I wanted it to be!

Plant? No money tree has ever been found on Tina's Bar.

[skyjack71 0]

airtwardo

Quote

Blevins, Would you be kind enough to list ANY qualifications that you have, or had at any time in the past, that you feel qualifies you to lecture Bruce Smith on journalism or any other subject.

Blevins, have you ever been employed as a writer or reporter in a position where you were actually paid for your work? How many courses did you take in your junior college days in journalism related subjects? Would the answers to the above questions be "no" and "none"?

Your feel free to lecture anyone on any subject but you are unable or unwilling to explain the errors in the book you claim you wrote.

Robert99

I know you didn't address to me, but since I too made some comments regarding Bruce...in the interest of disclosure -

I happen to have a B.S. in Journalism and have written for a small midwest paper, submitted numerous feature articles published in sports related magazines including interviews with high profile personalities in the airshow and air race industry.

The question of ethics in journalism has always been of interest to me as I had some very insightful classes on the subject...back when I went through the university system, we had to take one type of ethics related class just about every semester.

That's how important they felt the topic was.

A good interview is one that doesn't leave your footprints anywhere within the final product, and that's an honorable goal...opinions or editorializing the content have their place, but measures should be taken to differentiate your slant from the actual facts.

It should be blatantly obvious that 'X' happened and is provable with facts or reliable sources & 'Y' is the writers take on the context.

Most anything else is tabloid.


Funny looking back to when I got my degree...there were those instructors that absolutely nailed the way much of what passes for journalism today 'would come about' in their warnings of what NOT to do back then.

Slippery slope when the journalist injects himself into the story...

When I studied journalism it was an honorable vocation when done well...one worked hard to establish and maintain a trust.

No story was worth compromising your reputation.

While a story very well can 'hurt' someone, a true journalist lets the facts of the story do that, they should never go out of their way to vilify or to slant their personal feelings into it...only a hack or a bully does something like that.

Edited to add:
To be clear ~ I'm not calling Bruce a hack or bully, in truth I've read only a small amount of his published product.

I was just questioning the tactic he himself explained and then qualified. I didn't know then, and still may not fully understand the exact way & why he does what he does...but if my perception is correct - I don't agree with it.

Airtwardo Thank You from the Bottom of my HEART for making that post.

These so called writers forgets that the person who is being interviewed on a subject such at this - are only trying to explain their personal position. When a writer changes things or inflicts his or her personal views about the individual - it can be very harmful. The writer is setting himself up as judge and juror and decides what the court (the reader)will be informed of which is the writers own personal opinion based on his like or dislike of the individual or individuals he has interviewed.

There should be a definite declaration stating the writer is changing what the person has said and that his statements are HIS opinions only and be able to address the opinion. To make an opinion based on argument within a public forum - should NOT be allowed because - then he would have to admit his own words were challenged not only by the person he is speaking negatively of but also reflect ALL other negative remarks - stated regarding his own reactions to said subject.

Blevins has made NO derogatory remarks about Weber or me - not one that I can remember. Bruce inflicts HIS opinions and ignores anything I ever said or claimed. He cannot even write one unobjective page about Jo Weber without stressing his personal opinions of me. It is with this that I REQUEST he not mention Duane Weber or Jo Weber in any part of his book.

More so I respectfully request that he not make any part of my search and/or Claims part of his book.

I request he make NO references to the reader that would reflect his opinions about about my subject, my search and myself as he is unable to do so without inflicting his bastardly & warped opinions regarding anything I have ever said.

He cannot distort and/or alter things to meet his opinionated goal regarding Duane Weber or the woman Weber made his confession to or to relate any discussions regarding me from this thread or that I have apposed in anyway.

UP front - even though I might not have appreciated some of the remarks made about me by Gray. they were done to protect my privacy...He said NOTHING that would distract from my story or my claim - infact on the end he crawls into the RABBIT HOLE right along with me. None of you quiet understood why he handled that last chapter the way he did - but, I got it. Some of that came out in an interview he had with me in my home...and regarded a clipped article found in Duane's old wallet.

Gray perhaps was NOT ready to write a book - but it was a subject that fasinated him and for a first attempt it was OK. AT LEAST he VICTIMIZED no one in his book and he did NOT inflict HIS personal OPINIONS or address the paranormal in relation to a REAL crime involving REAL people and individuals who have come forward about a sujbect He was very respectful of those he interviewed and whose lives have already been altered by their involvement regarding Cooper.

The way BRUCE is doing his book - even if someone found a 20 dollar bill and a confession from a subject - they would NEVER want Bruce in the same room with them or even permit an interview.

Bruce made many derogator personal remarks and pestered the victims directly & indirectly in ways that has been harmful to the indiviuduals and their families. Ex: Tina and her family, Cossey and his family and Jo and her family. HOW many more lives and how much more damage is a "writer" allowed to inflict on victims without being held accountable.

Bruce needs to have LEGAL council before he publishes his book. I think a copy of this post should be made available to all of the victims, subjects, law enforcement (active and retired) and anyone who has a personal interest in the negative things Bruce has said - past and present, related to Cooper.

It is NOT ALL about FREEDOM of press, but things done to deliberately inflame or harm others is a right that should not be attacked after the fact, but before the fact....when it is supposedly an informative article or book that involves many individuals.

Freedom of press and deflamation of character seem to be apposing one another....there are boundary lines and you will note the media abides by certain rules and guide lines. This also applies to Bruce Smith and his book.

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

[georger 197]

RobertMBlevins

There's just so little to go on regardng the Tina Bar money. If you think about it too long, you'll get a h



area.

3 Bundolas!

Play it again el Bundola!

Now see if you can hit the broad side of a barn ???