47 47
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Let me get this straight. You dismiss minutia and base your theory on a couple of packing cards, no actual record of delivery of any Cossey-provided chutes to SeaTac, and ignore evidence that Cossey lied to the media for years...as well as him providing a bullshit story regarding the biggest parachute find in Cooper history...and expect people to accept all this?

These cards you quote come from the Reno FBI office. Same guys who lost some of the most vital evidence in the case, the cigarette butts and god knows what else. You don't have a single page from any FBI file (so far) that validates the idea that Earl Cossey provided chutes to the hijacker, although they do indicate he packed them some months prior to the crime.  

Unless I see something better than what is already officially known by several sources, this is what I think:

The report by Seattle FBI agent John Detlor is accurate, Hayden gave a true account in his interviews, and Cossey BS'd both the media and the FBI for years. And when they finally dump a chute in his driveway that very well could be Cooper's, he writes it off with another lie. He knew that chute wasn't made of silk. But he told everyone in the media who called him at his home about it that it was. 

It was at that point the Seattle FBI realized he was a poor witness. A Bic lighter could have revealed all that with a simple test, which the FBI probably did when they brought that chute back to their office in Seattle. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I DO know they had about three additional days to do their own study on it before they went in front of the media. Inquiries were coming in from news sources worldwide. 

Discovering that Cossey was full of it, and the chute was nylon, found in the 'right place, was the right color, and the right size,' (quote from them after the discovery) they also realized it probably WAS from the hijacking so many years ago. And that was the exact point they brought down the hammer on any further public releases about it, and refused to reveal HOW they came to the conclusion it wasn't Cooper's...which was almost certainly a whitewash of the whole thing. 

My money says they figured out it probably WAS Cooper's, and decided to keep that information under wraps. No body with the chute, no container, no harness, no money. If the chute was Cooper's they also realized he walked away after a successful landing. For the previous 28 years, they had gone on record as saying they thought Cooper was dead. (After the Tina Bar money discovery) Must have been a real shock to them to realize they were wrong about that all along. 

This is what they were saying more than five years after they said it WASN'T. I wonder why they would say that. Hmm. 

The packing cards are evidence.. 

You still don't understand, Deltor NEVER EVER states that both of Hayden's chutes went to Cooper. Hayden has ZERO knowledge of his chutes after he sent them in. Deltor, Hayden and Cossey's conjecture are all irrelevant and do not explain or undermine the discrepancy of the packing cards. You are defending and repeating your position without any real argument. 

You need to explain the packing card discrepancy and you haven't done that, not even close.

I tried to figure out a plausible explanation and could only come up with one explanation.. the chute Hayden received back wasn't the one left on the plane.

So, which chute did Cooper jump with?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, haggarknew said:

As per last few posts...  I thought I had read somewhere that the state patrol delivered Hayden's chutes? Wasn't one (or two?) delivered by private vehicle by someone not named in the F.B.I. docs? Is it possible that Cossey misled the public about the public about the Amboy chute on orders from the F.B.I. ?

The State Patrol delivered the two chest chutes from Skysports. Hayden's two back chutes were delivered by cab and Cossey claimed he sent in two back chutes by cab but that isn't confirmed elsewhere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

If Cossey actually sent in two backpacks, why did he not use his contacts with the Seattle FBI to try and get one or both of them returned to him? Hayden got his back simply by paying a lawyer $250 to send in a request by letter. They didn't even argue about it. They contacted him and two agents met up with him and gave it back. 

He claimed he did get one back...  From Cossey's perspective he thought/claimed both chutes sent to Cooper were his and Cooper used the NB8. That leaves the one left on the plane. However, that was Hayden's so IF Cossey did get one back it was the one he sent in that didn't go to Cooper.

I think you have to put yourself in the minds and perspectives of the people at the time..

Hayden isn't lying, he is expressing his belief based on his perspective at the time. That doesn't mean he is correct.

Both Cossey and Hayden believed theirs were the only two back chutes sent in and used. Therefore, each believes the other is a liar.

 

Bottom line is,,, Based on the packing cards not matching both of Hayden's chutes are accounted for and Cooper could not have jumped with either of his. So, we have to move to determine the source for the chute Cooper used. Cossey is just the best explanation regardless of his sometimes unreliable statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Kaye has found more data..

 

He writes..

"So now this info suggests:


The money got wet around July and was then buried.
The money find does NOT support the western flight path
It does not support Cooper digging a hole on the beach on his way out of town. 
It brings the dredge theory back into play (but it is still weak in that you can't get bundles intact through a dredge)


It suggests that the money event happened in a displaced time frame from the jump event." 

 

A displaced time frame is big...


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

The State Patrol delivered the two chest chutes from Skysports. Hayden's two back chutes were delivered by cab and Cossey claimed he sent in two back chutes by cab but that isn't confirmed elsewhere.

 

I thought agent Carr at one time stated that two chutes (back chutes ?) were delivered to Boeing field by cab before being sent to Sea-tec by a private vehicle driven by an unnamed individual? I think I read this at Bruce Smith's website. I think it was in an article pertaining to Cossey, possibly around the time of his death?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There's a sucker born every minute"

and no shortage of bad DB Cooper docutainment programs..

 

Ulis is good at self promotion,, Cooper research not so much.

 

"The Final Hunt For D.B. Cooper follows D.B. Cooper expert Eric Ulis, who has spent over 7,500 hours investigating the mystery including analyzing evidence, interviewing witnesses, reading 20,000+ pages of FBI case files and exploring important locations. Ulis believes that he’s found the true location where Cooper landed during his daring dive. He has assembled a team of specialists to explore the untouched Washington backcountry, federally restricted wildlife refuge land, to hunt for the missing evidence Cooper left behind. Armed with new information, the team will travel to parts of Washington state that have never been searched attempting to solve the only unsolved skyjacking in United States history. It is produced by Lost Arts Pictures in association with 3BMG. Grant Cross, Ross Weintraub, Myles Reiff and Eric Ulis serve as executive producers. Max Micallef serves as executive producer for History."

 

https://deadline.com/2020/02/laurence-fishburne-historys-greatest-mysteries-titanic-roswell-1202861301/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support people monetizing their work but Ulis's work was stolen from Sailshaw and others and used to build a BS narrative by adding extreme speculation, bias and conjecture while ignoring facts.. He stole my research and perverted it to support his theory. He was never a true researcher seeking the truth and facts, he was goal seeking from the start to sell a narrative. He launched personal attacks when I challenged his speculation with facts from the FBI files. That was the tell..  His agenda was to sell his extremely speculative theory and himself. He was never pursuing the truth.

Production companies are not motivated by the truth either, they seek stories that gain audiences..  to make money.

Eric is the man behind the Cooper Con. He found a sucker.

 

I'd expect a rush of Cooper productions as we near the 50th Norjak anniversary.

 

but, I have to chuckle at the idea of Ulis getting paid to lead a production crew through a forested area looking for Cooper evidence based on an entirely bogus narrative.. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I support people monetizing their work but Ulis's work was stolen from Sailshaw and others and used to build a BS narrative by adding extreme speculation, bias and conjecture while ignoring facts.. He stole my research and perverted it to support his theory. He was never a true researcher seeking the truth and facts, he was goal seeking from the start to sell a narrative. He launched personal attacks when I challenged his speculation with facts from the FBI files. That was the tell..  His agenda was to sell his extremely speculative theory and himself. He was never pursuing the truth.

Production companies are not motivated by the truth either, they seek stories that gain audiences..  to make money.

Eric is the man behind the Cooper Con. He found a sucker.

 

I'd expect a rush of Cooper productions as we near the 50th Norjak anniversary.

 

but, I have to chuckle at the idea of Ulis getting paid to lead a production crew through a forested area looking for Cooper evidence based on an entirely bogus narrative.. 

 

Flyjack, you post is a bunch of self-serving nonsense.  I doubt if Eric Ulis has stolen anything from anyone and he has certainly done his homework.

Congratulations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Flyjack, you post is a bunch of self-serving nonsense.  I doubt if Eric Ulis has stolen anything from anyone and he has certainly done his homework.

Congratulations!

Eric certainly has you fooled.. He also used your self serving theory to concoct his factless narrative. 

A am sure he has done his homework, he has just completely failed the assignment. While ignoring facts, Eric has layered assumptions, speculation, opinion and conjecture into a sellable narrative. It is a fact-less one created in his own mind.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Eric certainly has you fooled.. He also used your self serving theory to concoct his factless narrative. 

A am sure he has done his homework, he has just completely failed the assignment. While ignoring facts, Eric has layered assumptions, speculation, opinion and conjecture into a sellable narrative. It is a fact-less one created in his own mind.

 

My "self serving theory" is one of only a handful of things in Cooper World that is actually based on facts.  Have you actually done anything that is based on proven facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

My "self serving theory" is one of only a handful of things in Cooper World that is actually based on facts.  Have you actually done anything that is based on proven facts?

Your theory is speculation.. it is not a fact. I have uncovered many facts and most I haven't even posted.

I have no interest in discussing the details of your theory or Eric's fictional narrative. You are both intellectually dishonest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Palmer report..

"The upper layer consisted of six inches to eight inches of reworked beach sand and is the sand which contained the fragments and bundles of the recovered money. This sand also contained soda pop cans and other debris, which were not severely damaged or rusted. The (lower) post dredging sand contained older soda pop cans, rusted nails and spikes, and other rusted artifacts, which were in a much more deteriorated condition."

 

The money was in the upper 6-8 inch sand layer which contained other debris that was not severely damaged or rusted..

That indicates the money was deposited recently.

 

According to Ulis, to support his fictional narrative he made up the fallacy that the money can't self bury but miraculously the other "fresh" debri in the same layer can... 

 

 

palmer1.jpeg.b0cf438a6bf683beaeb53a8195bb7528.jpeg

palmer4.jpeg.566d14594c8056a65db5e23e08fac3f7.jpeg

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also,, dredge unlikely..

 

"The channel is maintained at 40 feet in depth and all the material above 40 feet is dredged out. The dredge "Washington" of the General Construction Company did the dredging on this project. It had a 24 inch pipe with wiper bar inside the pipe. The wiper bar keeps larger objects such as rocks from passing through the pipe. _______ stated that it would be possible for a 16x16x4 inch package to get through the pipe; however, it is likely that a package that size or a human body or parts thereof would be broken into pieces by the auger then passed through the pipe and deposited on the beach. The material deposited on the beach was spread with tractors probably over a area of 50 yards in each direction."

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I support people monetizing their work but Ulis's work was stolen from Sailshaw and others and used to build a BS narrative by adding extreme speculation, bias and conjecture while ignoring facts.. He stole my research and perverted it to support his theory. He was never a true researcher seeking the truth and facts, he was goal seeking from the start to sell a narrative. He launched personal attacks when I challenged his speculation with facts from the FBI files. That was the tell..  His agenda was to sell his extremely speculative theory and himself. He was never pursuing the truth.

Production companies are not motivated by the truth either, they seek stories that gain audiences..  to make money.

Eric is the man behind the Cooper Con. He found a sucker.

 

I'd expect a rush of Cooper productions as we near the 50th Norjak anniversary.

 

but, I have to chuckle at the idea of Ulis getting paid to lead a production crew through a forested area looking for Cooper evidence based on an entirely bogus narrative.. 

 

 

22 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I support people monetizing their work but Ulis's work was stolen from Sailshaw and others and used to build a BS narrative by adding extreme speculation, bias and conjecture while ignoring facts.. He stole my research and perverted it to support his theory. He was never a true researcher seeking the truth and facts, he was goal seeking from the start to sell a narrative. He launched personal attacks when I challenged his speculation with facts from the FBI files. That was the tell..  His agenda was to sell his extremely speculative theory and himself. He was never pursuing the truth.

Production companies are not motivated by the truth either, they seek stories that gain audiences..  to make money.

Eric is the man behind the Cooper Con. He found a sucker.

 

I'd expect a rush of Cooper productions as we near the 50th Norjak anniversary.

 

but, I have to chuckle at the idea of Ulis getting paid to lead a production crew through a forested area looking for Cooper evidence based on an entirely bogus narrative.. 

 

These shows always have to add some excitement to hook the audience. I’m curious to see if they “find” any clues out there. I think it is highly unlikely that Cooper landed there or was there, so it will be interesting to see what pieces they find out there and how they add excitement to the show. 
 

At this point I’m glad to see shows about the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

 

These shows always have to add some excitement to hook the audience. I’m curious to see if they “find” any clues out there. I think it is highly unlikely that Cooper landed there or was there, so it will be interesting to see what pieces they find out there and how they add excitement to the show. 
 

At this point I’m glad to see shows about the case. 

It depends on context...

If they represent Ulis's theory as highly speculative and critically challenge it then that is good. However, I expect them to present it as fact and that taints the public perception. The public will be sold Eric's nonsense theory and that is a CON.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

The upcoming documentary won't go very far with the viewing audience if at the end the audience feels cheated, as they did in D.B. Cooper - Case Closed?

That was a complete fiasco because Rackstraw (smartly) refused to speak a word to them, and also because Tina Mucklow rejected Rackstraw as the hijacker. That show went from possible boom to an absolute bust at the end. NYT reporter Billy Jensen was a part of that production, and later distanced himself from it. I was emailing him back and forth for a while after the show came out. He said two basic things:  He was frustrated because the more senior members of that production were ignoring things that Jensen thought pointed to Rackstraw's innocence. His second 'big point' was that he wanted nothing further to do with the show, or the pursuit of Rackstraw as the hijacker. I don't want to go overboard talking for Jensen, so I won't add any further to this assessment. Truth is, he never ventured anything more to me than those two points. 

(Although let's face it...if we're talking about Rackstraw, he wasn't exactly Mr. Perfect LOL. He may have even killed his own stepfather and gotten away with it.)

But he certainly wasn't DB Cooper. 

The one thing I could never figure out with Tom Colbert and his team was how they came to the idea that a guy 29 years old with blue eyes was Cooper. Geez, Louise. Nothing told them they might be on the wrong track with that? They had to be led into the Reality Hotel by Tina Mucklow. She booked them a room on the top floor, penthouse suite, and went on her way back to Springfield.

It was also supremely foolish of them to offer up a six-photo array to Mucklow where NONE of the other pictures were of a DB Cooper suspect. Only Rackstraw's mug, and five unknown people. If they had laid out ALL the main suspects and Mucklow ID's someone other than Rackstraw as the hijacker...at least they could have taken credit for it. Instead, they bet everything on Rackstraw and got burned. I was able to get a screenshot from the show to show this is what they did...it's buried on either C or D drives somewhere, maybe one of the backup flash drives, but I did post it here once at Dropzone after (guess who) Shutter challenged me on it. It's back there in pages somewhere. 

This upcoming documentary featuring EU will attempt to prove that Sheridan Peterson is Cooper. EU will probably sprinkle in a few lies about Peterson here and there to 'prove' his point. Then you have some people boonie-crashing around the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge looking for 'evidence' in an effort that EU probably knows himself is hopeless. When they come up with zip, all it will do is make EU look more foolish than he already is now. We're probably looking at D.B. Cooper - Case Closed: The Sequel. 

I don't mind watching another Cooper documentary, though. I just don't expect much will come of it. If Eric Ulis has Candyland dreams of a movie pointing to Sheridan as the hijacker, he can forget it. I found out long ago that any movie that accuses someone of a crime, someone who has not been formally accused...and that person's family is still living...that studios won't go near such a project, especially with a private citizen...unless they can get a signed release from either the person himself (Sheridan) or if he is no longer living...the family. And I can assure you that Sheridan Peterson's family will sign no such document. Not in this life, not even in the next. I was required to get a release from KC's family in order for THAT project to move forward. EU will never get such a release from Sheridan's family. 

Why? Because Sheridan himself, as well as his family members, are PISSED OFF at anyone and everyone who has proposed he was Cooper. They know better, and they don't like it. And they know all about EU, I can tell you that with confidence. It's even possible that the legal eagles at the production company doing the documentary will tell the director that they can't bring up Sheridan's name publicly in the show. It invites an instant lawsuit, made easy by the fact that Sheridan was already investigated by the FBI, freely gave a DNA sample, and cooperated with them fully without asking for a lawyer. If the show is dumb enough to bring up his name...they would just be asking for it. 

They will find something. A tin can or a shoe, and it will be blown out of proportion like the media always does every day. A&E can’t do a show just about a search in the woods. Eric is not a guest either, he’s helping produce it, so it will likely feature Sheridan too. I have to imagine the Rackstraw people are a little bent out of shape about another suspect getting attention.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Kay's update...

"All,
Attached is the last and most conclusive diatom picture from 377's bill. It shows a completely intact A. formosa sandwiched between two layers of bills.  This finding shows that the formosa had to float into that position while the bills were fanned out in the water.  It would be impossible for a diatom to work its way in between the bills while they were buried and under compression. We have now examined all the fragments from 377's bill so this will be the last update."


Tom Kaye

 

This indicates the money was in the Columbia River around May/June... it rules out the human burial and demonstrates there was a delay between Norjak and the money landing on TB. It eliminates many of the theories. (including one of mine)

IMO, this plus the Palmer report indicating the money was found in the top sand layer with "fresher" debri suggests the money landed on TB within a few years of the 1980 find.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Andrade1812 said:

To what depth are diatoms found? 

That is not a simple question,, it depends on the diatom and the material.

A. Formosa in non-motile, some diatoms are motile.

I found a sampling that had A. Formosa down to 10cm in lake sediment. Other diatoms much further. That is a soft nutrient rich environment under water not a course sand bar. 

I am still looking for more on A. Formosa specifically in sand...

Kaye seems to suggest the A. Formosa wouldn't penetrate the course sand or into a tight packet. The seasonal bloom doesn't match Norjak.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Andrade1812 said:

Where are the diatoms found in the water column? Are they in the top meter or do they appear deeper?

Deeper, but there are variables, light/water mix/diatom/nutrients..

 

I have read A. Formosa has been found at a depth of 10 m in a lake (study not the Columbia R)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
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.

47 47