DB Cooper

[CooperNWO305 146]

Flyjack: What are you seeing in terms of a bulge? Where is it?  I go back and forth on whether Cooper had help, or if somewhere along the line there was money changing hands.  I could argue both sides, but do not have proof either way.  People in their 20's do stupid things sometimes.  If we found out for sure that a stew got money, or even helped in some way, I would not be surprised, but I also would not be surprised if it was a solo job.

Robert: You have done some research on other hijackings.  Did the FBI or law enforcement question all passengers, crew, maintenance workers, etc. in all of those?

I wonder if the FBI assumed that this would be solved quickly, and therefore it was not economical or logical to go down into the weeds of everything.  In their shoes, I would have focused on catching the guy right there and then, and may not have taken the time to do more detailed work.  If you know you'll catch him soon, why go through all the hassle?

I personally would like to see pictures of every passenger, and worker involved in that flight.  Names, place of birth, etc.  Not that it would necessarily help right now, but someday if this is solved or we have a good suspect, there will be an opportunity to see if we can really tie things back.

Himmelsbach put the crew above suspicion.  That does not seem to be the standard procedure in a crime now.  A bank robbery investigation would likely look at the employees first.

 

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Flyjack: What are you seeing in terms of a bulge? Where is it?  I go back and forth on whether Cooper had help, or if somewhere along the line there was money changing hands.  I could argue both sides, but do not have proof either way.  People in their 20's do stupid things sometimes.  If we found out for sure that a stew got money, or even helped in some way, I would not be surprised, but I also would not be surprised if it was a solo job.

Robert: You have done some research on other hijackings.  Did the FBI or law enforcement question all passengers, crew, maintenance workers, etc. in all of those?

I wonder if the FBI assumed that this would be solved quickly, and therefore it was not economical or logical to go down into the weeds of everything.  In their shoes, I would have focused on catching the guy right there and then, and may not have taken the time to do more detailed work.  If you know you'll catch him soon, why go through all the hassle?

I personally would like to see pictures of every passenger, and worker involved in that flight.  Names, place of birth, etc.  Not that it would necessarily help right now, but someday if this is solved or we have a good suspect, there will be an opportunity to see if we can really tie things back.

Himmelsbach put the crew above suspicion.  That does not seem to be the standard procedure in a crime now.  A bank robbery investigation would likely look at the employees first.

 

Coat, deep left front pocket,, she has her hand in there in one pic and a bulge in the other pic.. a money packet is 0.5" thick.

I don't think that any of the crew was "involved" in the hijacking. 

I am just exploring a theory,,,  that Tina didn't return the money to Cooper and kept it, she or somebody close to her discarded it into the Columbia R around 1978/79 when she resided several miles upstream of TBAR.. money washed up on TBAR. There would have been nothing wrong with taking the money from Cooper, it has happened in other hijackings.. but it was returned. Maybe, it just never came up..

Everyone just accepted Tina's story about returning the money, to me it sounds sketchy. Only two people know the truth, Cooper and Tina. Today, the FBI would never just accept that story.. back then they put Tina on a pedestal and used her testimony to guide the case, big mistake if she was compromised.

 

BTW: I am super excited to have resolved a 45 year old mystery, not Cooper but another case I have been working on. The affected parties are trying to find an equitable resolution.. At some point it will probably make the news. This one is really cool...

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

No Georger, pay attention,,,  maybe, you might solve something.

You got the timeline completely screwed up before when I laid it out earlier.

The evidence indicates the other stews were OFFERED ransom money (packets) much later as they left.. not that they took it..

Cooper was alone with Tina for some time.. when she took the money and claimed to return it and after the other stews left the plane.

 

BTW,, Tina claimed she handed back the money claiming it was against company policy,, then later Cooper offered the other stews ransom money and all of them a measly tip, if Tina told Cooper no gratuities then why did he offer it again.

Edited April 10, 2020 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

Let's count Georger's lies, he is incapable of reason so he always resorts to lies..

 

per Georger..

The FLYJACK Tina/Cooper Money Theory:

* Tina and Cooper were lovers. Met when Cooper was a janitor in Tina's high school back in Pennsylvania. LIE
* Tina responsible for the money plant at Tina Bar. LIE
* Tina was given money by Cooper on the plane  TRUE - evidence is bulging pocket in Tina's coat pocket seen in post high jacking photo at Reno. MAYBE, there is other evidence
* Tina knows the fate of DB Cooper due to her personal relationship with him. LIE
* Tina was co-conspirator with Dan Cooper in the Cooper skyjacking. LIE
* Tina confided to Rataczak and FBI she and Dan Cooper had a prior relationship. LIE
* FBI knows Tina was co-conspirator in the DB Cooper hijacking. LIE

There will be more Tina Mucklow - Frederick Wm Hahneman (DB Cooper) revelations. Presented by the famous crime solver expert: FLYJACK aka BULLJAX.  LIE

 

Lies, lies, lies...  why does Shutter put up with your crap... you are toxic to his forum and the case in general. 

 

Seven lies out of eight claims...  over a decade into the Cooper case and you've got nothing, accomplished nada.. but stale case knowledge (you can't even get the facts straight) and lies to protect your fragile ego.. 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

UNSURELOCK,,

Contrary to Shutter's BS assertion, I am not the spammer..

Now Shutter is just making up stuff.. They could have pointed out the relevant facts below but chose to lie instead.

 

One of the stews thought Cooper was wearing prescription sunglasses.

Of course Hahneman wore prescription glasses and used dark PLASTIC RIMMED sunglasses for his hijacking..

 

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by FLYJACK

[dudeman17 267]

41 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

the spammer

I thought it was Derek. He always starts with pictures of Klansnic. Of all the degenerate crap he posts, I wish he'd repost that picture of the Ruby-Oswald Punk Band. That was actually funny.

[FLYJACK 654]

I figured it out,,

 

It is the Cooper Vortex, it drives people insane.. they abandon all reason and humanity. 

 

Shutter just said that making intentionally false claims is not lying.. huh, what..

 

Once the Vortex gets you,, there is no return. If you can get out now, run. It is world of crazy.. and it is coming for you.

Scientology has nothing on the power of the Vortex...

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

What I believe it completely irrelevant... You can see that there is a bulge in Tina's coat pocket, we don't know what is in there.. it is something.

Remember, Tina asked for some ransom money and TOOK it into her possession. She claimed she then returned it citing a company policy not to accept gratuities, yet she took it. That is the only money we know of that was separated from the ransom money. It is the only ransom money we now of that was in the possession of somebody other than Cooper. Tina resided a few miles upstream of TBAR within a few years of the money discovery. TBAR money is the only Cooper money to be found.

The only "evidence" that Tina returned the money to Cooper is her claim, there is nothing else to confirm it.. Only Cooper and Tina know the truth.

Back then Tina's story was just accepted. Today, that would never happen. 

It is completely irresponsible to NOT consider this as a theory for the TBAR money. Anybody that says they don't accept this are rejecting a theory based on speculation... there is zero evidence to reject it. The right answer is obvious, you don't fully reject or fully accept it. It is a theory.

Too many Cooper sleuths operate in a binary mode, accept or reject based on conjecture.. they ignore the 3rd option. NEITHER.

The case never advances without vetting theories, something went wrong with this investigation early that undermined the case. The most important witness used by the FBI was Tina, IF she was compromised the investigation was doomed.

Edited April 12, 2020 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

1 minute ago, RobertMBlevins said:

 

Flyjack:  Well, as far as your pocketing-the-money idea regarding Tina, I will accept it as a theory, sure. I'm willing to do that. But there is scant evidence to support that theory. There are no witnesses. No one actually SAW Tina keep any money. She was known to be heavily religious, even before she became a nun. There is no evidence she has done a single dishonest thing in her life. Just not much there to go on. But as I said, I will accept it as another theory in the case. 

 

 

You have it backwards,, there is no evidence to support Tina's claim that she returned the money to Cooper.

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, RobertMBlevins said:

No, that is not backwards. People are innocent until proven guilty, or at least until enough evidence can be gathered against them to support their possible guilt. The presumption of guilt without evidence is not only unfair, it is a slippery slope. The available evidence, which is mostly circumstantial, (her known character and background, and being a heavy witness in the Cooper case) leans more toward the idea she did not try keeping the money. Not saying you're wrong, but you need more than a slight bulge in a picture. Something, anything. 

That is just false, innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard in court. If you adhered to this in an investigation then NO THEORY could ever be investigated, it is a self defeating paradigm.

You are making the mistake everyone does, you assume a theory must proven as fact to pursue it. <<  this is irrational. 

 

This is a theory, it is not fact.

 

I have already covered the circumstantial evidence that supports this theory.. 

 

Tina asked for and took possession of the ransom money.

Tina's excuse for its return and the timeline doesn't make sense.

Tina is the only known person to possess any ransom money other than Cooper.

Cooper offered the other stews ransom money much later as they left.

It appears Tina has something resembling the size/shape of packets in her coat pocket.

Tina resided a few miles upstream of TBAR within a few years of the money discovery. The only Cooper money ever found.

The TBAR money find is consistent with somebody tossing it in the Columbia River a few miles upstream and within a few years prior to its discovery. Money washing up on a place called Tena Bar is just a coincidence. The money was not planted or ever meant to be found.

The money was found far from Cooper's LZ with no obvious means of natural transport.

Tina's body language was very sheepish, head low and avoidance,, right after the hijacking.

Tina had emotional/mental issues around the time and after the money was discovered. 

Tina hid out for years in isolation in what some describe as "witness protection".. 

There is ZERO evidence to confirm Tina's claim that she handed back the money.

During the hijacking Tina developed a good relationship with Cooper. Both were from Pa (midwest). (I don't believe they knew each other before the hijacking)

Finally, the Cooper case was a big failure for the FBI, they relied extensively on Tina, if she was compromised that may explain it. If Tina did keep the money she took from Cooper and discarded later, the entire case makes sense.. 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

Good point, I meant to be more general and say "midwest".. rather than Pa..

 

Asking for some money and taking it by hand is possession whether it is returned or not.

 

Flo claimed Tina was hiding something...

 

Tina was the only one acting sheepish.

 

You are relying on your assumption of Tina's motives and behaviours to discount, you know none of those.

 

So, what evidence is there to support Tina's claim,, all I read are lots of baseless assumptions..

[dudeman17 267]

How many money packets did Tina handle? If she only handled / had (temporary?) possession of one packet, it would be hard to use her as a reason for the three packet Tena Bar money.

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, dudeman17 said:

How many money packets did Tina handle? If she only handled / had (temporary?) possession of one packet, it would be hard to use her as a reason for the three packet Tena Bar money.

That is unknown..  only Cooper and Tina know.

but she was also alone with Cooper after the other stews left.

Tosaw's theory was that Cooper put the money Tina gave back into his coat pocket landed in the Columbia and that was the money that washed up on TBAR.

 

[FLYJACK 654]

26 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

It has been firmly established, despite Robert99 and Eric Ulis' claims to the contrary that NWA, the ATC, military SAGE radar, and Air Force jets knew exactly where that jet was every minute. After it got past Portland, I can't say. The money did not drop out of the sky. 

Yeah, the evidence suggests the money arrived within a few years of the find..

Probably went into the river in spring and washed up on TBAR soon after...

[FLYJACK 654]

I found a voice recording from the 60's. I am about 90% certain it is Hahneman but still trying to get 100% confirmation.

It brings up a point nobody has considered...

Did the FBI play voice recordings of any major suspects to the witnesses?

There is no indication from the files that they ever considered it.

 

I don't know if witnesses could recognize Cooper's voice now, after almost 50 years.. 

 

For example, I can hear a unique speech pattern/cadence/accent for Sheridan Peterson...  each suspect would have their own voice characteristics.

All we got was low, intelligent and no discernible accent.

Edited April 14, 2020 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

Found a bill that matches a Cooper serial number..  

L00000004B

unfortunately it is a "1" Dollar bill not a twenty, I did not realize the same numbers were repeated on different denominations..

 

 

[The Cooper Vortex 73]

Latest episode out now!

https://thecoopervortex.podbean.com/e/db-cooper-was-ingrained-in-my-memory-keith-hirshland/

 

I hope that one day I'll be able to post an episode with Flyjack. (Flyjack, hint hint.)

[dudeman17 267]

Robert, apparently you don't read your pm's.

The other day you posted,

On 4/20/2020 at 4:21 PM, RobertMBlevins said:

...this week....

I have posted about... ...a pointed inquiry to ***... ...and not a single comment of interest...

 

I'm still interested in one of your last inquiries. To the Sky Sports guy.

[FLYJACK 654]

This is extremely important and IMO overlooked by everyone. Even the FBI got this wrong.. they asked a Penny's manager and he claimed the Cooper tie was a few years old.. they FBI took his opinion.

 

The Cooper tie was manufactured between spring of 1964 thru end of 1964...  depending on inventory turnover it was likely sold mid 1964 to mid 1965. 

 

The Cooper tie was around 6 years old not 1 - 2 as the FBI claimed.

 

 

Hahneman's work history and environment matches the tie's timeframe and particle environment.

 

 

I posted this info on Shutters toxic forum and emailed people this around Jan 2017,, Eric Ulis later claimed it was his research and when I pointed it out he began calling me a liar and a troll to discredit me.. for a year now. Eric is a liar and a fraud. I posted this on Shutter's site to contribute to the case knowledge not for credit but now I see that was a mistake. Since Eric is fraudulently trying to take credit for it,,, I'll post details for everyone here.

 

 

Since I don't have full access to Shutter's site.. I'll post the email from Feb 2 2017...

 

 

The BOLD is updates.


The Cooper tie was actually around 6 years old, manufactured around 1965 +/-. This means it was purchased 1964-1966 and used for a longer period than thought.

The logo on the primary Towncraft tie label used the funky “P". That style label was used from 1964+. This is not new news.


What is new is the timeframe for the unique secondary label. The “SNAPPER” label with a single patent. Both unique labels only existed 1964-1965.

The secondary label “Snapper” had a single patent on it, 2972750 filed in 1959. (Note, the Cooper tie was misaligned and missing the last 0). That "Snapper” label changed in late 1965/66 to add two entirely different later patents. So, the Cooper tie with both those labels was manufactured in a very narrow window around 1965 and very hard to find examples of. 

 

For about 35 Towncraft tie samples that I found online all have the later dual patent numbers due to a much longer manufacture window 1966+.

I also found that the Patent label on the Cooper tie is trimmed or misaligned cutting off the last number in the patent and the exclamation mark at the end of “ITS A SNAP TO SNAP ON!". Since the left side looks offset as well, it appears to be a manufacturing flaw with the entire label offset. I finally found a full label identical to the Cooper tie. Turns out the patent was filed 1959 and issued 1961.. All the other ties with the same TOWNCRAFT label had two completely different patents filed 1965. Also, these ties are mass produced as "Snapper" by France Neckwear CO. NY, they produced "Snapper" ties all over the world and just added store branding labels, including Sears..

So, the Cooper TOWNCRAFT label is 1964+ and the unique patent number is 1959-1965 (late).. 

This is the patent number on the Cooper tie, 2972750 but missing the last 0 as the label is either trimmed, altered or misaligned in the manufacturing process.

Cooper tie patent..

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2972750.pdf

The later TOWNCRAFT ties have late 1965 patent#s 3220015 and 3222684

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3220015.pdf

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3222684.pdf


Dating the primary label for 1964+, the “P” was redesigned by New York design firm Peter Schladermundt Associates in 1963.

 

I later found that the new funky "P" logo was first introduced and the rollout began on Nov 24, 1963.

 

I think this graphic was done by Sluggo and was posted here on DZ. Old images are gone now.

 

 

 

I found another indicator on the tie that dates it to after spring 1964,,, NOT 1963.. but I'll hold back that info.

 

top left - sample matching Cooper tie with single patent number to 1965
bottom left - sample 1966+ Towncraft snapper with dual patents 1966+

top right - you can see the “snapper” label underneath is offset, can see the IT on bottom line and the 5 patent digit, missing last 0.. 

 

 

 

 

Actual Cooper tie with cut off right edge. missing last 0 and !

 

 

 

 

1966+ Towncraft tie with the two later patent numbers.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by FLYJACK

[dudeman17 267]

Robert, please check your pm.

[dudeman17 267]

William Goldman, the prolific author and Academy Award winning screenwriter, in one of his 'Adventures in the Screen Trade' books, recounts the following story about Robert Redford. Goldman wrote the screenplay for 'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid', one of Redford's early major starring movie roles, and arguably the role that solidified him as a star. Working with Redford, Goldman said, was a pleasant experience. He was personable, approachable, funny, and just a nice guy. A few years later, they worked on another movie together. This time, Goldman said, Redford was a changed man. He was aloof, curt, humorless, and generally an asshole. Of Redford in particular, and Hollywood successes in general, Goldman said, "I don't know what happens to these people, but it sure happens fast."

------------

Mr. Blevins, check whose house you're in. This is a skydiving website. I'm probably the last current skydiver who reads this thread. Most of the other older, current jumpers on this site think this thread should be shut down. Between all the bickering that goes on, and Derek's crap, they're probably right. You often use this place like a personal blog. Now I've always been fascinated by the Cooper case, and you've always (usually) seemed personable, and Flyjack often has interesting things to say, so I follow along.

An old skydiver gave you a contact for another old skydiver who might have information on the parachutes that Cooper was given. You announced that here, even asked for questions to ask, and promised to report that information here. If ever there was new information on this case that would interest a skydiver, that would be it. Now you're going to hoard that information like a cur dog guarding his bone?

I'm not the 'peanut gallery', as you call them. Against popular opinion, I've always been fair with you. That's why I tried to ask you about this in a PM. And you won't even read it?

I'm starting to understand why people get frustrated with you.

Edited April 29, 2020 by dudeman17

[FLYJACK 654]

There are other non skydiving threads here.. this thread has few posters but many viewers, you know who your are,,, FBI bots and Georger?  maybe 30-60 views per hour.

But, there is a Cooper paradox at play, since the case is both collaborative and competitive that means research becomes real IP and disclosing all becomes counter-productive. There are many things I haven't or won't disclose publicly.

However, a skydiver's take on Cossey would be interesting and it wouldn't be material to the case.

The Cooper environment is so toxic and unproductive that there is actually no upside to disclose information.. if I had to start over, I wouldn't post anything. 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

Did a quick search..

Amazon.com  "Into the Strom"?? Kindles are free,,, what is the scam,, a virus in download?

https://www.amazon.com/kindle-dbs/entity/author/B087Q3CL24?_encoding=UTF8&node=618073011&offset=0&pageSize=12&searchAlias=stripbooks&sort=author-sidecar-rank&page=1&langFilter=default#formatSelectorHeader

Another Amazon listing,,

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B087MC3WJC/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i1

Facebook ID,, fake

https://www.facebook.com/john.downey.92560281?comment_id=Y29tbWVudDozNzY2NzE4MjE2NzMyNTAwXzM3NzMyMDk5Mzk0MTY2NjE%3D

Fake image.

https://generated.photos/face/joyfull-white-adult-male-with-short-brown-hair-and-brown-eyes--5e6863b56d3b380006e9a2dd

https://www.amazon.in/Greatest-Japanese-Prison-Escape-technique-ebook/dp/B0879HSKXL?dchild=1

 

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by FLYJACK

[The Cooper Vortex 73]

New episode out tonight! DB Cooper and The Thrill of the Chase with Mindy Fausey and Stephanie Thirtyacre. They believe Forrest Fenn could be DB Cooper. If you've never heard of Forrest Fenn I'd highly recommend it, if you have heard of him then I know you'll listen.

https://thecoopervortex.podbean.com/e/db-cooper-and-the-thrill-of-the-chase-mindy-fausey-and-stephanie-thirtyacre/

[dudeman17 267]

On 4/29/2020 at 4:55 AM, RobertMBlevins said:

Well, first off...Robert Redford isn't an asshole. He just did the life he wanted. He bailed from the Hollywood scene and since then has made the film business even bigger than it once was with his Sundance operations. That's a given. 

I know it's a skydiving website. I don't care if they close or delete this thread. That's up to the guys in charge. 

I know you don't post at the Peanut Gallery. I already know the people who do, for the most part. 

If people get frustrated with me, there are two main reasons. The first is they want to be you, or they are jealous of you. The second reason is because I generally give it to people straight. There is enough baloney, backstabbing, and bullshit in Cooperland already. You need one information source that doesn't have an agenda that twists truth for their own purposes. Or attacks others unfairly. Or openly supports the things I listed above. It is what it is, as the saying goes. I've never been one to just take things without standing up for what is right. I'm not changing that policy now. I've done the videos, the fifty-plus articles at WordPress, established the Cooper Space at Quora, done the book, made the deal. Anyone with a bit of common sense who reviews all those things will figure out the truth on their own. No one needs me to stand up for myself. The work speaks for itself, and at some point you have to withdraw from feeding the trolls and let them eat cake. These people lie not only about me, but many others involved in the Cooper case. Geoff Gray, Skipp Porteous, others. You could build your own mountain on their lies. 

Don't misunderstand. You are not a troll. But there are plenty of them out there, and I will feed them no longer. I don't have to, I don't need to, and it only encourages them. 

I don't know if Robert Redford is an asshole, I've never met the man. And unless you know him personally, you don't know either. (I have enjoyed his movies, including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and its bookend, The Old Man and the Gun.) I was quoting William Goldman, who worked with him on a number of projects. But the point of the story was NOT about Redford. It was about the effect that Hollywood can have on people. Having lived most of my life in Southern California, and having had a few encounters with 'the biz', I can attest to that myself. And I'm seeing a bit of it here.

As for jealousy, I think you were referring to the 'gallery', not me, but I'm not jealous of anyone. I set out for a life of adventure, and I've sure had it. I've had way more than my share of the funnest days on the planet. I wouldn't trade my dirty bare feet for anybody's.

Robert, you talk a lot about telling it straight and doing the right thing, but I think you're dropping the ball on that here. I'm not privy to your exchanges with the guy that gave you the contact for the Sky Sports guy, but from the exchanges that I had with him, I don't think he gave you that contact solely for your own personal benefit. I think he gave you that contact because you, as a writer and researcher, would know the questions to ask him as pertains to the case. And I think he was expecting you to share that information with us, as you said you would. You told this forum, and later told me in a PM, that you would share that information. So are you a man of your word or not?

I can understand your frustration with 'the gallery', as you refer to them, but I think you're being a bit petulant with the rest of us because of their actions.

I'm not saying any of this to bag on you, I'm just trying to convince you to do what you said you would.