DB Cooper

[georger 194]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Yes, we don't know for certain but the most probable is that the money came from the River. To claim it could not have is intellectually dishonest and outside the bounds of objectivity.

They have a bias. When the most likely or probable challenges their construct they reject it to maintain that construct. Georger even resorted to a lie about Tina and even suggested the money wasn't wet.. that paper bands would have left evidence after years,, ridiculous mental gymnastics..

R99 and Ulis need to move the flightpath, they have not done that. Ulis's burial/retrieval theory is silly. Even if Cooper somehow managed to be on TBAR nobody buries money in the sand at the high water line of a River.. there are millions of better places to bury or hide money.. then the retrieval,, just ridiculous, Eric doesn't realize the money spot was well underwater by April 72.. He just made up something to fit his narrative and even adapted it when the diatom stuff came out..

We can think up many scenarios that are far more plausible than those..

The question.. How..   When did it get into the River and Why did it go into the River. It that all the money that went into the River or only part...

Was it intentional, accidental, human, nature or both...

Why would somebody intentionally toss the money into the River,, only if they perceived it as a liability. But when, was there a delay.. If there was a delay it probably wasn't Cooper himself. Why would somebody other than Cooper perceive the money as a liability?? So, maybe it was accidental.... it got into the River unintentionally.. then how.. an event. Or did a bundle fall off the plane and end up in the River later?

Revise your sermon, sir!

They have a bias. When the most likely or probable challenges their construct they reject it to maintain that construct. Georger even resorted to a lie about Tina and even suggested the money wasn't wet.. that paper bands would have left evidence after years,, ridiculous mental gymnastics..

I never said any such thing. Why do you always post lies in "sermons" ?  

Likewise the actual Columbia River looks like this - is there any subject on Earth that you and NickyB dont know more abut than any one else! Your sermons and personal attacks are so boring. As anyone can see with their own eyes, Tena Bar does not sit on a turn in the river, but after and before turns in the Columbia ... I really question your ability to handle ordinary facts. You do keep things stirred up by distorting reality and pulling things out of context -  like a carnival huckster! 

Edited January 25, 2023 by georger

[georger 194]

This is so crazy ............ FJ's harassment!

Georger has never said the money was not wet! 

[FLYJACK 654]

On 1/23/2023 at 8:54 PM, georger said:

I think you are missing the options! What if the money is not in water - what happens to paper straps then? 

 

Boom.. we know the money was wet.

You have said for years that there was no evidence on the money of paper straps so they didn't exist.. 

I said they would have completely dissolved in a short time leaving no trace.. which is true..

You LIED when you said Tina meant "rubber bands" she was contacted and asked..

and I am correct about the river current... I never said TBAR is on the turn, it is after. The turn causes the current to head toward the E side right at TBAR not the West side as R99 claimed. That is what rivers do..

 

So, everything you contribute is a lie or a distortion or a smear and now you want to play the victim..

Why are you even here, all you do is undermine and fight the advancement of this case..

For you and R99 to claim the money could not come from the River is as insane as Ulis's crazy burial/retrieval theory... It is outside the realm of objectivity.

Edited January 25, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 37]

3 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Robert, I can see your point about the debris moving up 20 feet.  However, saying that no debris goes on shore there simply cannot be true. Is this what you are saying?  There was a time I wondered about how something would get so far up the bank, and then I saw a picture of flooding at the Fazios.  This was after I had visited the Fazios, so I remember being shocked at how high the water had actually gotten.

About 10 years ago, more or less, Dr. Meyer Louie and I visited Tena Bar and had the good fortune to encounter a fellow named "Jon" who said he had visited Tena Bar almost every day for the past several decades.  He had the key to the Tena Bar gate so he may have known what he was talking about.  Anyway, he pointed to a railroad tie just a few feet from and slightly lower than the Tena Bar gate and said that the river water had never been above that tie even during its worst flooding.

The above was discussed in detail here long ago.

But to repeat, I have never seen any appreciable debris at Tena Bar.  What little I saw could easily be accounted for by the fishermen and the debris from the marina that is in the Caterpillar Island channel.

[Robert99 37]

23 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Boom..

You have said for years that there was no evidence on the money of paper straps so they didn't exist.. 

I said they would have completely dissolved in a short time leaving no trace.. which is true..

You LIED when you said Tina meant "rubber bands" she was contacted and asked..

and I am correct about the river current... 

 

So, everything you contribute is a lie or a distortion or a smear and now you want to play the victim..

Why are you even here, all you do is undermine and fight the advancement of this case..

You are not correct about the river current.

Even if the money bag did not land in the river, it would not have been possible for it to stay dry.  I made it a point to be in the Portland/Vancouver area during late November 2009 and it rained off and on all day every day.  That was typical late November weather there.

Finally, Cooper jumped into some very bad and wet weather.  It was raining in Portland/Vancouver at the time he jumped and there were also rain showers there when he boarded the airliner.  So Cooper and everything with him was going to get soaked that evening. 

[FLYJACK 654]

38 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

You are not correct about the river current.

Even if the money bag did not land in the river, it would not have been possible for it to stay dry.  I made it a point to be in the Portland/Vancouver area during late November 2009 and it rained off and on all day every day.  That was typical late November weather there.

Finally, Cooper jumped into some very bad and wet weather.  It was raining in Portland/Vancouver at the time he jumped and there were also rain showers there when he boarded the airliner.  So Cooper and everything with him was going to get soaked that evening. 

Huh,, I never said anything about the money being dry that was Georger, take it up with him,

What's on second...

and I am right about the current.. after a bend the current is driven toward the opposite side.

If you don't think the money could have come from the River then you are not being objective.

Edited January 25, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Math of Insects 95]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I used to think it was more likely Cooper died, now less likely.

The jump was very survivable if he pulled based on jump data. Hard to imagine he couldn't pull. Possible but not likely.

No body was found and you have to move the LZ further South to have him land in the Columbia, the evidence does not support this. It is also hard to imagine Cooper intentionally jumping over a city. If he landed in Lake Merwin or the Lewis the TBAR money gets very hard to explain.

So, for Cooper to have died, his body would have to be undiscovered with the chute but the money somehow got moved to the Columbia River and TBAR.. of course that is possible but less likely.

Cooper could have landed safely with the money,, if for example,, he paid some random guy for a ride,,  the guy gets nervous and tosses the money in the River...  or he gave money to a stew and that money ended up in the River..

 

IMO, the most likely is Cooper landed safely between the Lewis and Battleground and either lost some/all of the money or he gave some to somebody at some point. That money ended up in the Columbia.

 

 

 

I see that last scenario (the ride) as fanciful. Where's the guy who gave the ride then? Now TWO people have kept that completely silent for all those years? It seems like a non-starter to me--possible only in the way that "all things are possible."

I find the parachute data (percentage of chutes that ever fail, etc) uncompelling for this case. It may have been informative that night or the day after, but we live in the future, when not a single trace of the parachutist has ever been seen or heard from again, except some money in the same region he jumped into. 

The very site we're on has an entire thread for injuries and fatalities. It's not as rare as the data make it sound when quoted in isolation. His conditions were far from ideal.

The abstract facts are: he was last seen/known jumping into woods (in bad weather), and was never seen again. Years later some of his belongings were found in the same woods. If it were anyone but Cooper, we'd have no real trouble decoding what happened. But we have something invested in his survival, so we perhaps put more weight into certain elements than we otherwise would.

And if his chute didn't open, the ugly truth is that there wouldn't be much body to find.

I know the problem with this is the missing persons aspect, but I find that far easier to surmount than the question of what he did or didn't do next, since this one failed. Just went back to PTA meetings and Saturday catch with the kids? That doesn't match the rest of the venture.

IMO, if he didn't die, he also didn't last long after this, either because he died during the "next one" or was caught trying. 

But I still think the connect-the-dots lead to never leaving the woods, until something arises that shows otherwise. I keep trying not to end up there, but can't make anything associated with him surviving, seem more likely than him not. 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

42 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

I see that last scenario (the ride) as fanciful. Where's the guy who gave the ride then? Now TWO people have kept that completely silent for all those years? It seems like a non-starter to me--possible only in the way that "all things are possible."

I find the parachute data (percentage of chutes that ever fail, etc) uncompelling for this case. It may have been informative that night or the day after, but we live in the future, when not a single trace of the parachutist has ever been seen or heard from again, except some money in the same region he jumped into. 

The very site we're on has an entire thread for injuries and fatalities. It's not as rare as the data make it sound when quoted in isolation. His conditions were far from ideal.

The abstract facts are: he was last seen/known jumping into woods (in bad weather), and was never seen again. Years later some of his belongings were found in the same woods. If it were anyone but Cooper, we'd have no real trouble decoding what happened. But we have something invested in his survival, so we perhaps put more weight into certain elements than we otherwise would.

And if his chute didn't open, the ugly truth is that there wouldn't be much body to find.

I know the problem with this is the missing persons aspect, but I find that far easier to surmount than the question of what he did or didn't do next, since this one failed. Just went back to PTA meetings and Saturday catch with the kids? That doesn't match the rest of the venture.

IMO, if he didn't die, he also didn't last long after this, either because he died during the "next one" or was caught trying. 

But I still think the connect-the-dots lead to never leaving the woods, until something arises that shows otherwise. I keep trying not to end up there, but can't make anything associated with him surviving, seem more likely than him not. 

 

The ride example is not meant to be specific but an example that Cooper may have given money to somebody after the jump.. and that money ended up in river. Tom originally tossed that out.. it is not one of my theories.

All other parachuting hijackers survived..  the military jump data is strong for survival.. the fact is if he pulled his survival rate is very high.

It wasn't necessarily woods.. the area is mixed with open fields.. I always thought a tree landing would be fatal,, but that isn't true, I learned that a tree landing isn't a big deal. The area is not that remote.

If his chute didn't open there would be a body with a chute.. not finding it leans toward survival but not conclusive.

Missing person is a push,, doesn't mean anything. 

But, the chute may have been found and ruled out based on Cossey's wrong description..

So, we can't actually claim nothing was found, nothing was confirmed, big difference.

 

I think his survival based solely on the conditions is in the high 90's... if he pulled he survived.

Toss in the other variables and it gets more complicated.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 463]

Neat image of Cooper Copycat Francis Goodell's money bag. Looks to be roughly the same dimension as the package described by Milnes: 1 foot x 1 foot x 8 inches. While not exact it's a decent analog for Cooper's money bag.

[Math of Insects 95]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

If his chute didn't open there would be a body with a chute.. not finding it leans toward survival but not conclusive.

Of all the things related to this case, the one I most wish I wasn't able to say I know something about, is this one. It turns out it's the one thing I have some "expertise" on.

Without going into too much detail, there just wouldn't be much to find. The best reference point I can give is when David Letterman used to chuck stuff off a 5-story tower. Remember that almost none of it landed with a "thud," like in the movies. In fact, the whole point of that schtick was to watch what actually happened to the stuff.

Human bodies are essentially water balloons. There's not much holding us together. An impact in a car at 40mph is plenty enough to kill us. What happens to us after a fall at terminal velocity is not pretty, and doesn't leave much over. It's not like in the movies. 

I see the "auger" statement made here; that is not how physics works. We are the water balloon, the earth is the brick wall. That energy has to go somewhere. It goes into the water balloon. 

It is not the slightest bit unimaginable that this happened under some brush, and by the time the spring or summer came around, anything organic was eaten by animals and anything else was covered over by debris. 

The point is, a body not being found does not in any way mean one didn't fall there. The more rare outcome would be to find one.

[georger 194]

5 hours ago, Math of Insects said:

I see that last scenario (the ride) as fanciful. Where's the guy who gave the ride then? Now TWO people have kept that completely silent for all those years? It seems like a non-starter to me--possible only in the way that "all things are possible."

I find the parachute data (percentage of chutes that ever fail, etc) uncompelling for this case. It may have been informative that night or the day after, but we live in the future, when not a single trace of the parachutist has ever been seen or heard from again, except some money in the same region he jumped into. 

The very site we're on has an entire thread for injuries and fatalities. It's not as rare as the data make it sound when quoted in isolation. His conditions were far from ideal.

The abstract facts are: he was last seen/known jumping into woods (in bad weather), and was never seen again. Years later some of his belongings were found in the same woods. If it were anyone but Cooper, we'd have no real trouble decoding what happened. But we have something invested in his survival, so we perhaps put more weight into certain elements than we otherwise would.

And if his chute didn't open, the ugly truth is that there wouldn't be much body to find.

I know the problem with this is the missing persons aspect, but I find that far easier to surmount than the question of what he did or didn't do next, since this one failed. Just went back to PTA meetings and Saturday catch with the kids? That doesn't match the rest of the venture.

IMO, if he didn't die, he also didn't last long after this, either because he died during the "next one" or was caught trying. 

But I still think the connect-the-dots lead to never leaving the woods, until something arises that shows otherwise. I keep trying not to end up there, but can't make anything associated with him surviving, seem more likely than him not. 

 

Its wasnt generally recognised or advertised as such, but the FBI Lab made one attempt to look for evidence  related to the Ingram money's history. They examined sand types and anything else unusual, found between the bills. I have cited that lab report before.

Recall that Himmelsbach was pushing the Washougal washdown theory. He asked his agents to cite it when dealing with the press. But, the Lab did not find any sand or other particles related to Washougal geology. They only found sand types 'consistent with Columbia River water'. 

Had the Lab found anything that tied the Ingram bills to the Washougal you can bet a press conference would have been called, and Himmelsbach would have announced Cooper and his money landed in the Washougal basin. So far as I know including Tom Kaye's work, nothing has ever been found that ties the money to anything but the Columbia sedimentary basin. The Washougal is a metamorphic region. This is a bit interesting. So far as Lab analysis is concerned nothing has been found that even ties the money to the SeaFirst Bank, any airplane, DB Cooper, or the pyramids in Egypt! Lab analysis has so far shown the money to be surprisingly neutral except for its Columbia river water byproducts.

This could be because the Cooper money was transported to the Columbia river basin almost immediately after landing. So far as the Lab is concerned, the Cooper money never spent time anywhere else on Earth!

Edited January 26, 2023 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, Math of Insects said:

Of all the things related to this case, the one I most wish I wasn't able to say I know something about, is this one. It turns out it's the one thing I have some "expertise" on.

Without going into too much detail, there just wouldn't be much to find. The best reference point I can give is when David Letterman used to chuck stuff off a 5-story tower. Remember that almost none of it landed with a "thud," like in the movies. In fact, the whole point of that schtick was to watch what actually happened to the stuff.

Human bodies are essentially water balloons. There's not much holding us together. An impact in a car at 40mph is plenty enough to kill us. What happens to us after a fall at terminal velocity is not pretty, and doesn't leave much over. It's not like in the movies. 

I see the "auger" statement made here; that is not how physics works. We are the water balloon, the earth is the brick wall. That energy has to go somewhere. It goes into the water balloon. 

It is not the slightest bit unimaginable that this happened under some brush, and by the time the spring or summer came around, anything organic was eaten by animals and anything else was covered over by debris. 

The point is, a body not being found does not in any way mean one didn't fall there. The more rare outcome would be to find one.

Letterman's stuff landed on concrete..

It depends where you land, there are a lot of soft spots out there, if you land in a tree or vegetation or in a field there would be something with an unopened chute and a money bag. It is possible he landed in water or in deep brush that nobody can check though it is a low probability..  Even if he was splattered the chute and money bag would be out there..  

But the problem you have to get there is it requires him failing to pull the ripcord.. that is very unlikely.

Jumpers have said that if he pulled the ripcord he most certainly survived.. 

So, your died in the jump theory hinges more on whether he pulled the ripcord or not rather than finding a body.

Edited January 26, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Math of Insects 95]

30 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Letterman's stuff landed on concrete..

It depends where you land, there are a lot of soft spots out there...

Not really. This is counter-intuitive and fortunately most people haven't had to consider any of this. But...water will kill you just as dead as concrete. Sand, mud, grass--it's no different. It's not about whether the surface you hit is soft, as it is about the density of what's under it. The energy has to go somewhere. It isn't going downward into the surface of the earth, which means it has to go upward.

Drop a water balloon from an airplane onto a kid's sandbox, and the result will not be a water-balloon-sized indentation in the sandbox, no matter how soft the surface is. It will be a broken water balloon, every time.

You are right, with objects that might absorb the energy--tree branches or forest canopy--the equation changes. Some people even survive those jumps/falls, miraculously. But now we're back to talking about longshots. Most of what would be hit there, would be earth. Plenty of skydivers have died this way, it's just a small percentage compared to those who have jumped successfully. 

30 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Jumpers have said that if he pulled the ripcord he most certainly survived.. 

So, your died in the jump theory hinges more on whether he pulled the ripcord or not rather than finding a body.

I agree with all that as stated. I don't have a "died in the jump" theory, I'm just saying the raw facts would suggest someone disappeared forever that day or shortly after, and the only reason we resist that conclusion is because it sucks as an end to this story.

As for whether it happened from landing or anything else, I don't personally have a position on that. I just think it's not *unlikely* for the way he died or disappeared, to have been from a jump issue of one kind or another, since it's not like that's the world's safest endeavor.

Or maybe he broke his legs and starved to death. Or maybe he walked through the wrong person's back yard on the way out. Or maybe he was Hahnemann and lost the money this time to had to try to get it next time. The facts removed from Cooper--someone takes a risky jump from a plane in bad weather, is never seen again, and years later some of his stuff is found in the general area--tell a pretty straightforward tale. It's just an annoying one.

[FLYJACK 654]

3 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

Not really. This is counter-intuitive and fortunately most people haven't had to consider any of this. But...water will kill you just as dead as concrete. Sand, mud, grass--it's no different. It's not about whether the surface you hit is soft, as it is about the density of what's under it. The energy has to go somewhere. It isn't going downward into the surface of the earth, which means it has to go upward.

Drop a water balloon from an airplane onto a kid's sandbox, and the result will not be a water-balloon-sized indentation in the sandbox, no matter how soft the surface is. It will be a broken water balloon, every time.

You are right, with objects that might absorb the energy--tree branches or forest canopy--the equation changes. Some people even survive those jumps/falls, miraculously. But now we're back to talking about longshots. Most of what would be hit there, would be earth. Plenty of skydivers have died this way, it's just a small percentage compared to those who have jumped successfully. 

I agree with all that as stated. I don't have a "died in the jump" theory, I'm just saying the raw facts would suggest someone disappeared forever that day or shortly after, and the only reason we resist that conclusion is because it sucks as an end to this story.

As for whether it happened from landing or anything else, I don't personally have a position on that. I just think it's not *unlikely* for the way he died or disappeared, to have been from a jump issue of one kind or another, since it's not like that's the world's safest endeavor.

Or maybe he broke his legs and starved to death. Or maybe he walked through the wrong person's back yard on the way out. Or maybe he was Hahnemann and lost the money this time to had to try to get it next time. The facts removed from Cooper--someone takes a risky jump from a plane in bad weather, is never seen again, and years later some of his stuff is found in the general area--tell a pretty straightforward tale. It's just an annoying one.

but it wasn't a risky jump if he pulled the ripcord,, 

I thought that it was for a long time but the data and jumpers convinced me that the jump itself in those conditions was easily survivable.

[CooperNWO305 146]

15 hours ago, Math of Insects said:

I see that last scenario (the ride) as fanciful. Where's the guy who gave the ride then? Now TWO people have kept that completely silent for all those years? It seems like a non-starter to me--possible only in the way that "all things are possible."

I find the parachute data (percentage of chutes that ever fail, etc) uncompelling for this case. It may have been informative that night or the day after, but we live in the future, when not a single trace of the parachutist has ever been seen or heard from again, except some money in the same region he jumped into. 

The very site we're on has an entire thread for injuries and fatalities. It's not as rare as the data make it sound when quoted in isolation. His conditions were far from ideal.

The abstract facts are: he was last seen/known jumping into woods (in bad weather), and was never seen again. Years later some of his belongings were found in the same woods. If it were anyone but Cooper, we'd have no real trouble decoding what happened. But we have something invested in his survival, so we perhaps put more weight into certain elements than we otherwise would.

And if his chute didn't open, the ugly truth is that there wouldn't be much body to find.

I know the problem with this is the missing persons aspect, but I find that far easier to surmount than the question of what he did or didn't do next, since this one failed. Just went back to PTA meetings and Saturday catch with the kids? That doesn't match the rest of the venture.

IMO, if he didn't die, he also didn't last long after this, either because he died during the "next one" or was caught trying. 

But I still think the connect-the-dots lead to never leaving the woods, until something arises that shows otherwise. I keep trying not to end up there, but can't make anything associated with him surviving, seem more likely than him not. 

 

Yes, skydiving deaths occur.  I used to read the back of the skydiving magazine at the place I skydived, that's where the recent deaths were reported.  As I remember, we were most concerned with bumping into another jumper (not an issue with Cooper) and then concerned with hitting power lines (Cooper may have hit those, but then where is the body?). Point is, skydiving deaths occur for many reasons.  The percentage of jumps to deaths is very low.  Many of the deaths occur due to an accident in the air, or on the landing.  If Cooper got the chute open, then history would lean towards his survival.  How many skydivers die from a no pull? How many of those no pulls were due to hitting another jumper, or having a heart attack, etc?  Once you dig into the deaths, the percentage of deaths to jumps is very digestible.

It also seems that you're suggesting if he didn't pull that there would not be much to find.  No body? No parts? No bones? Do the bones disintegrate? What about clothes? The rig, the money bag?

You stated "I agree with all that as stated. I don't have a "died in the jump" theory, I'm just saying the raw facts would suggest someone disappeared forever that day or shortly after, and the only reason we resist that conclusion is because it sucks as an end to this story."

I disagree that the only reason we resist the conclusion is that it sucks as an end to his story.  Most of resist this conclusion due to our interpretation of the information.  I personally think people like to say he died simply because that's what they've been reading for years.  Sure, he could have died, but I lean towards him living.  Plenty of cases go unsolved forever.  I find dying in the jump a lot more exciting than he took a flight home and went back to his blue collar job and then died when he was 80.

 

[dudeman17 267]

16 hours ago, Math of Insects said:

And if his chute didn't open, the ugly truth is that there wouldn't be much body to find.

 

12 hours ago, Math of Insects said:

Of all the things related to this case, the one I most wish I wasn't able to say I know something about, is this one. It turns out it's the one thing I have some "expertise" on.

Without going into too much detail, there just wouldn't be much to find. The best reference point I can give is when David Letterman used to chuck stuff off a 5-story tower. Remember that almost none of it landed with a "thud," like in the movies. In fact, the whole point of that schtick was to watch what actually happened to the stuff.

Human bodies are essentially water balloons. There's not much holding us together. An impact in a car at 40mph is plenty enough to kill us. What happens to us after a fall at terminal velocity is not pretty, and doesn't leave much over. It's not like in the movies. 

I see the "auger" statement made here; that is not how physics works. We are the water balloon, the earth is the brick wall. That energy has to go somewhere. It goes into the water balloon. 

It is not the slightest bit unimaginable that this happened under some brush, and by the time the spring or summer came around, anything organic was eaten by animals and anything else was covered over by debris. 

The point is, a body not being found does not in any way mean one didn't fall there. The more rare outcome would be to find one.

 

Balderdash.

A body does not just explode into obliteration like a water balloon on impact. It's more like a sack full of steaks, sausages and bones. Sure, stuff breaks, cracks, splits, leaks, and what-not. But the body as a whole usually remains pretty much intact. Even on hard-as-concrete sun baked desert dirt.

If Cooper went in, it might be grim and gory, but he would be laying there easily recognizable as a body, still in the rig and his clothes.

[FLYJACK 654]

The general thought pattern for new Cooper people is that they initially believe he most likely died in the jump but as they learn more they shift toward survival.. that is based on learning the data and information from jumpers.. not from wanting him to have survived.

Take the jump in isolation, set aside the other variables like money find, search, missing people and no body.. in Cooper's jump conditions, over that terrain the jump was very survivable if he pulled. The primary determinant for life or death for Cooper was whether he pulled or not. It is possible he pulled and died but that is a very low probability. 

When you fold in all the other variables it becomes a complex system that can't be analyzed easily or even linearly.

[Math of Insects 95]

47 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

Balderdash.

A body does not just explode into obliteration like a water balloon on impact. It's more like a sack full of steaks, sausages and bones. Sure, stuff breaks, cracks, splits, leaks, and what-not. But the body as a whole usually remains pretty much intact. Even on hard-as-concrete sun baked desert dirt.

If Cooper went in, it might be grim and gory, but he would be laying there easily recognizable as a body, still in the rig and his clothes.

With respect, it's not balderdash, nor us the situation you're describing "usual." It's possible, and is one of the states a body might be found in, depending on other factors. But it's not more likely than a far worse state. You are describing the skinny end of a bell curve, but characterizing it as the bell.

It's one thing to say "I've seen situations where this didn't happen." It's another entirely to present any other situation as balderdash. I can assure you, it is very much not. 

As for whether he would "be laying there easily recognizable as a body" etc., people keep forgetting: whatever might have been true that night or the next day, would cease to be true within days. Animals would finish off any organic matter that was left, whether it was in "your" state or "mine." They would not take any care in disposing of anything wrapped over or around that matter. It would be torn apart and scattered. If this happened in an area with a lot of underbrush, that stuff would very easily never be found. 

[Math of Insects 95]

1 hour ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Yes, skydiving deaths occur.  I used to read the back of the skydiving magazine at the place I skydived, that's where the recent deaths were reported.  As I remember, we were most concerned with bumping into another jumper (not an issue with Cooper) and then concerned with hitting power lines (Cooper may have hit those, but then where is the body?). Point is, skydiving deaths occur for many reasons.  The percentage of jumps to deaths is very low.  Many of the deaths occur due to an accident in the air, or on the landing.  If Cooper got the chute open, then history would lean towards his survival.  How many skydivers die from a no pull? How many of those no pulls were due to hitting another jumper, or having a heart attack, etc?  Once you dig into the deaths, the percentage of deaths to jumps is very digestible.

It also seems that you're suggesting if he didn't pull that there would not be much to find.  No body? No parts? No bones? Do the bones disintegrate? What about clothes? The rig, the money bag?

You stated "I agree with all that as stated. I don't have a "died in the jump" theory, I'm just saying the raw facts would suggest someone disappeared forever that day or shortly after, and the only reason we resist that conclusion is because it sucks as an end to this story."

I disagree that the only reason we resist the conclusion is that it sucks as an end to his story.  Most of resist this conclusion due to our interpretation of the information.  I personally think people like to say he died simply because that's what they've been reading for years.  Sure, he could have died, but I lean towards him living.  Plenty of cases go unsolved forever.  I find dying in the jump a lot more exciting than he took a flight home and went back to his blue collar job and then died when he was 80.

As I mentioned to FJ, we don't need statistics, because we live in the future. It may also be be rare to die in a car crash on the way to the corner store, but that doesn't mean anything to the person it happens to. I find the "statistical" element of that argument uncompelling.

While it's true that some cases go unsolved forever, it is infinitely more true that things go missing in the woods and are never found. Since the last place he was, was heading into the woods, and years later some of his stuff was found there, I think any presumptions have to start with him never leaving there. Look at the difficulty people are having finding a famous actor who disappeared on a hike last week. If anyone should be locatable, you'd think it would be him.

A much broader truth, axiomatic among LE, is that sooner or later everyone talks and everyone's caught. The exceptions are notable exactly for this reason. Add that to the natural order of things in the woods and I think the presumption has to remain that he either never left there, or else maybe tried something else shortly after and died or was caught in the commission of it. 

The thing is, if there had been tantalizing clues to the contrary over the years, then rejecting the "obvious" would make some sense. But the fact is that since the money find there has been no indication that this person lived. In order to get him "alive," some pretty fanciful scenarios have to be painted. I personally keep wanting to climb on board with any of them, but can't make any of them more elegant than the obvious.

[CooperNWO305 146]

3 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

As I mentioned to FJ, we don't need statistics, because we live in the future. It may also be be rare to die in a car crash on the way to the corner store, but that doesn't mean anything to the person it happens to. I find the "statistical" element of that argument uncompelling.

While it's true that some cases go unsolved forever, it is infinitely more true that things go missing in the woods and are never found. Since the last place he was, was heading into the woods, and years later some of his stuff was found there, I think any presumptions have to start with him never leaving there. Look at the difficulty people are having finding a famous actor who disappeared on a hike last week. If anyone should be locatable, you'd think it would be him.

A much broader truth, axiomatic among LE, is that sooner or later everyone talks and everyone's caught. The exceptions are notable exactly for this reason. Add that to the natural order of things in the woods and I think the presumption has to remain that he either never left there, or else maybe tried something else shortly after and died or was caught in the commission of it. 

The thing is, if there had been tantalizing clues to the contrary over the years, then rejecting the "obvious" would make some sense. But the fact is that since the money find there has been no indication that this person lived. In order to get him "alive," some pretty fanciful scenarios have to be painted. I personally keep wanting to climb on board with any of them, but can't make any of them more elegant than the obvious.

I think you are arguing just to argue and to be a contrarian. That's ok, it is a technique in this case and keep things interesting.  You're clearly someone who understands math and logic, so that's what makes me think you are just arguing.  To say the statistical element is uncompelling is kind of odd coming from someone who understands the math.  If there are millions of successful skydives a year and thousands of combat bailouts in history that were successful, then those statistics are compelling, and should give an indication of what will happen in the future.  Of course there will be outliers, and if you are the one guy who dies doing something, then yea it matters to you, and yes there are always exceptions to the rule.  You say "things" go missing in the woods all the time and then use one example of the actor who recently went missing.  How often do humans go missing in the woods and then are never found? What about ones that are part of a massive manhunt? You also are not mentioning that the jump likely occurred in a flat open area, fairly well populated.

I agree with Flyjack, the question is whether or not he pulled, everything flows from that.  But even if he didn't pull, there are still a lot of things that have to happen for his body to go completely unseen.

You're throwing out exceptions to the rule and then trying to get people to think those exceptions are common. Exceptions happen, but you're acting as if the exceptions will happen or did happen. Possible, but how probable? 

[Math of Insects 95]

1 minute ago, CooperNWO305 said:

I think you are arguing just to argue and to be a contrarian. That's ok, it is a technique in this case and keep things interesting.  You're clearly someone who understands math and logic, so that's what makes me think you are just arguing.  To say the statistical element is uncompelling is kind of odd coming from someone who understands the math.  If there are millions of successful skydives a year and thousands of combat bailouts in history that were successful, then those statistics are compelling, and should give an indication of what will happen in the future.  Of course there will be outliers, and if you are the one guy who dies doing something, then yea it matters to you, and yes there are always exceptions to the rule.  You say "things" go missing in the woods all the time and then use one example of the actor who recently went missing.  How often do humans go missing in the woods and then are never found? What about ones that are part of a massive manhunt? You also are not mentioning that the jump likely occurred in a flat open area, fairly well populated.

I agree with Flyjack, the question is whether or not he pulled, everything flows from that.  But even if he didn't pull, there are still a lot of things that have to happen for his body to go completely unseen.

You're throwing out exceptions to the rule and then trying to get people to think those exceptions are common. Exceptions happen, but you're acting as if the exceptions will happen or did happen. Possible, but how probable? 

I’m not arguing just to argue, and will politely back out of this particular exchange. The contentious back and forths here are a detriment, IMO, and kept me from posting here for a very long time. Best to you.

[FLYJACK 654]

37 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

As I mentioned to FJ, we don't need statistics, because we live in the future. It may also be be rare to die in a car crash on the way to the corner store, but that doesn't mean anything to the person it happens to. I find the "statistical" element of that argument uncompelling.

While it's true that some cases go unsolved forever, it is infinitely more true that things go missing in the woods and are never found. Since the last place he was, was heading into the woods, and years later some of his stuff was found there, I think any presumptions have to start with him never leaving there. Look at the difficulty people are having finding a famous actor who disappeared on a hike last week. If anyone should be locatable, you'd think it would be him.

A much broader truth, axiomatic among LE, is that sooner or later everyone talks and everyone's caught. The exceptions are notable exactly for this reason. Add that to the natural order of things in the woods and I think the presumption has to remain that he either never left there, or else maybe tried something else shortly after and died or was caught in the commission of it. 

The thing is, if there had been tantalizing clues to the contrary over the years, then rejecting the "obvious" would make some sense. But the fact is that since the money find there has been no indication that this person lived. In order to get him "alive," some pretty fanciful scenarios have to be painted. I personally keep wanting to climb on board with any of them, but can't make any of them more elegant than the obvious.

I think you have put yourself in a logic trap..

There are two distinct points here..

Premise A, The jump was very survivable in those conditions and terrain,, yes, very survivable if he pulled and a no pull is very rare.

Premise B,  There was no evidence found.. no body, no chute.

You have combined them to conclude B negates A..... this is logically incorrect.

Whereas, the negation of B (body is found) negates A (survival).. is True.

but we have, the affirmation of B (no body) negates A (survival) is not True.

 

There could be many reasons why nothing was found that don't include Cooper dying in the jump. 

Cooper dying in the jump is primarily determined by wether he pulled or not and not because a body was not found.

 

Edited January 26, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Math of Insects 95]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I think you have put yourself in a logic trap..

There are two distinct points here..

Premise A, The jump was very survivable in those conditions and terrain,, yes, very survivable if he pulled and a no pull is very rare.

Premise B,  There was no evidence found.. no body, no chute.

You have combined them to conclude B negates A..... this is logically incorrect.

Whereas, the negation of B (body is found) negates A (survival).. is True.

but we have, the affirmation of B (no body) negates A (survival) is not True.

 

There could be many reasons why nothing was found that don't include Cooper dying in the jump. 

Cooper dying in the jump is primarily determined by wether he pulled or not and not because a body was not found.

 

 

 

 

That’s not quite what I am saying, though. I was pushing back against the idea that nothing being found meant that he couldn’t have died out there. It’s the subsequent 50 years of nothing ELSE surfacing, that makes it more and more likely that the last place he was seen, was the last place he was.

 

I think this exchange has run its course, though. Everyone’s position is pretty clear. I respect the brainpower represented here and appreciate the perspectives. Thanks for engaging on it.

[FLYJACK 654]

1 minute ago, Math of Insects said:

That’s not quite what I am saying, though. I was pushing back against the idea that nothing being found meant that he couldn’t have died out there. It’s the subsequent 50 years of nothing ELSE surfacing, that makes it more and more likely that the last place he was seen, was the last place he was.

 

I think this exchange has run its course, though. Everyone’s position is pretty clear. I respect the brainpower represented here and appreciate the perspectives. Thanks for engaging on it.

Nobody here has ever made the argument the no body meant he couldn't have died... that I can recall.

Maybe, some on the facebook group.. I don't read it.

The last place he was seen was on the plane.. not in the woods.

 

[CooperNWO305 146]

43 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Nobody here has ever made the argument the no body meant he couldn't have died... that I can recall.

Maybe, some on the facebook group.. I don't read it.

The last place he was seen was on the plane.. not in the woods.

 

I've definitely used the "no body" means he likely didn't die in the jump.  Key word is likely.  If he jumped over the Pacific ocean, I would not use the same logic of "no body means he likely survived."  Or if we knew for sure he landed in a fast flowing river that flowed into the ocean.  However, I expect to find a body in the area that he jumped.  If he jumped into Chernobyl, then maybe not, given that there were not people living there or searching there.

Note: I use the totality of information here to come to a probability that he survived.  If $200k was found at Tena Bar, I might lean more towards death than I do. There are just so many things that point to survival.  I could argue that he died, but it is a  lot harder.  Typically the argument that he died uses outliers and other various ways to spin an argument. There are terms that exist for this, but I'll defer to you Fly on what those are.  OleMiss probably knows them too from his experience in law.  EDIT: This wiki page kind of gets at what I'm saying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

To summarize:

Cooper likely planned the jump, therefore he wanted to survive.  The leap was not forced on him like say a pilot in a B-17 going down in flames over Germany.

He uses a device specially designed for survival (parachute).

He jumps in survivable conditions over a flat area in November. In a populated area, not a city, but not wilderness either.

We have not found a body.

We have only found 3% of the money.

This is one of the biggest manhunts in history, and still is today.  People hike and walk that area all the time.

For all the news, no one has come forward with a missing person that truly could be Cooper.

 

If we were on the Facebook group, we'd get a cliche like "Occams Razor" or "The absence of evidence is not evidence."  Oh well.  The majority of the information indicates he likely survived.  If people were to wager a bet and truly be held accountable to that bet, I suspect they would say he lived.  So what is happening is that people like to say he died, when in reality they should be saying "maybe he died."  I say he "likely lived" not "maybe he lived"

Edited January 26, 2023 by CooperNWO305
none