DB Cooper

[dudeman17 269]

1 hour ago, Math of Insects said:

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. 

With respect...

Exactly how can you assure me that what I described is not usual, and is far less likely than a much worse state. How many skydiving bounces have you seen?

I have been studying parachuting fatalities like my life depended on it for over forty years. I've been teaching people about parachuting fatalities like their life depended on it for over thirty of those years. I guarantee you I've seen more dead skydivers than everyone else on this thread combined.

[Math of Insects 96]

2 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

With respect...

Exactly how can you assure me that what I described is not usual, and is far less likely than a much worse state. How many skydiving bounces have you seen?

I have been studying parachuting fatalities like my life depended on it for over forty years. I've been teaching people about parachuting fatalities like their life depended on it for over thirty of those years. I guarantee you I've seen more dead skydivers than everyone else on this thread combined.

This is not a contest I have any interest in being in.

Just keep in mind the difference in clothing/protective gear between a skydiver and a regular person, and you’ll understand that there is room in this discussion for both experiences/outcomes.

 

Best to you.

[dudeman17 269]

2 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

Just keep in mind the difference in clothing/protective gear between a skydiver and a regular person, and you’ll understand that there is room in this discussion for both experiences/outcomes.

Many skydivers just wear regular clothes, some even jump naked. Jumpsuits are just cloth, they're designed for flying aerodynamics, not gak retention.

Again, what is your experience in the matter?

[Math of Insects 96]

7 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

Many skydivers just wear regular clothes, some even jump naked. Jumpsuits are just cloth, they're designed for flying aerodynamics, not gak retention.

Again, what is your experience in the matter?

It doesn’t matter. I’ve shared what I know, and so have you. Thanks for your perspective. Best to you.

[CooperNWO305 146]

Some info from USPA on safety and skydiving. Pretty interesting.  Certainly not apples to apples for DB Cooper, but maybe apples to oranges (to me apples and oranges have a lot more in common than not).

https://uspa.org/Discover/FAQs/Safety

Edited January 26, 2023 by CooperNWO305

[georger 197]

3 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

Many skydivers just wear regular clothes, some even jump naked. Jumpsuits are just cloth, they're designed for flying aerodynamics, not gak retention.

Again, what is your experience in the matter?

Strange question: could a person slip off the stairs, without having the stairs recoil  causing a pressure bump? 

[Robert99 37]

12 minutes ago, georger said:

Strange question: could a person slip off the stairs, without having the stairs recoil  causing a pressure bump? 

No.

[dudeman17 269]

5 hours ago, georger said:

Strange question: could a person slip off the stairs, without having the stairs recoil  causing a pressure bump? 

 

5 hours ago, Robert99 said:

No.

I agree with Robert on this. It's not the grace, or lack thereof, of his exit. It's the sudden removal of his weight from the stairs.

[dudeman17 269]

9 hours ago, Math of Insects said:

It doesn’t matter. I’ve shared what I know, and so have you. Thanks for your perspective. Best to you.

I don't mean to be an argumentative jerk, but this is my wheelhouse, where I try to be informative. Unfortunately, I've had far too much experience with exactly this scenario. While there are varying degrees of resulting damage, never, not once, have I seen nor heard of a terminal impact resulting in total unrecognizable obliteration, where there is 'just not much left to find'.

You have not shared what you know, and I am genuinely interested in what you have experienced that makes you think otherwise.

-------

As for animals, I don't have a hunting background so I can't speak as authoritatively, but it's my understanding that with a larger corpse such as an adult human, animals don't rip it apart and carry it off, they feed on it where it lays, which would still leave recognizable remains, particularly skeletal. As well as the clothing and the rig.

[FLYJACK 654]

dudeman17,,

I have a question for you, one that has always intrigued me..

Put yourself in Cooper's position.. you are at the end of the stairs looking into broken clouds you can see the brightest lights but not the ground.

Where or when do you jump, if you pick a dark patch that might be water,, too bright and you land in a city..

What is the thought process and physical process to the jump and timing of the pull.. what would you do? 

FWW.. Hahneman went down the stairs and off backwards..

[georger 197]

1 hour ago, dudeman17 said:

 

I agree with Robert on this. It's not the grace, or lack thereof, of his exit. It's the sudden removal of his weight from the stairs.

Could he have dumped the money over the Columbia and jumped after the left turn indicating he was in Oregon, without any stair recoil/bump ?  

Ive never been convinced he hijacked for money, but for a personal political reason. The sooner he separates himself from the money the better. Its just a theory.

Edited January 27, 2023 by georger

[CooperNWO305 146]

9 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

I don't mean to be an argumentative jerk, but this is my wheelhouse, where I try to be informative. Unfortunately, I've had far too much experience with exactly this scenario. While there are varying degrees of resulting damage, never, not once, have I seen nor heard of a terminal impact resulting in total unrecognizable obliteration, where there is 'just not much left to find'.

You have not shared what you know, and I am genuinely interested in what you have experienced that makes you think otherwise.

-------

As for animals, I don't have a hunting background so I can't speak as authoritatively, but it's my understanding that with a larger corpse such as an adult human, animals don't rip it apart and carry it off, they feed on it where it lays, which would still leave recognizable remains, particularly skeletal. As well as the clothing and the rig.

Dudeman. Would the actual chute ever pop out on impact or many years later if parts rusted and the container opened? I’m guessing we don’t have a lot of examples of what happens to a chute many years later. 
 

Something else that was brought up a while back about a body in the woods are vultures circling the body. 

[FLYJACK 654]

4 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Dudeman. Would the actual chute ever pop out on impact or many years later if parts rusted and the container opened? I’m guessing we don’t have a lot of examples of what happens to a chute many years later. 
 

Something else that was brought up a while back about a body in the woods are vultures circling the body. 

Vultures are different from Buzzards but they are often conflated.. Washington State has both.

I found this area and it is a bit far from the flightpath.. 12-13 miles East.. circling buzzards/vultures is common.

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by FLYJACK

[CooperNWO305 146]

I was thinking about the "he died in the jump" conversation and how that relates to calculating the probability of that happening and him not being found. Typically those conversations refer to unusual or unlikely incidents as proving that it happened, when the reality is that those obscure or unlikely scenarios hint at it possibly happening, not always happening.  So, if I show a few examples of someone no pulling, it does not mean he no pulled, it just means he may have.  Same for a body not being found in the woods, and same for a person disappearing all together.  The issue comes when taking the probability of all three events happening in sequence.  An analogy might be someone saying that if I flip a coin there is a 50% chance it will come up heads, but not telling us that if you flip a coin three times, that the probability of heads coming up three times in a row is not 50%, it is .5*.5*.5 for a probability of .125 or 12.5%.  Cooper would have had to no pull, followed by his body not being found, followed by someone not reporting him missing. 

I had grad course in probability for engineers and scientists (I'm neither one, unless data science is considered), and the field of probability is pretty complex.  I had thought at one point that if I could calculate the probability of a poker hand, then I knew enough about probability. I was definitely wrong.  I'm no pro in probability, but I do like getting involved with it as a hobby, and have used it a good amount in my job.

Now, someone could say that bodies go missing all time.  Ok, but do those bodies usually have a parachute rig attached to them, or a parachute flapping in the wind?  Same for no pulls, there are no pulls, but how often do those really happen?  How about for a guy who has just pulled off a hijacking and is now so close to getting away that all he has to do is pull a rip cord handle? How often does someone go missing and look like the suspect of a worldwide FBI manhunt?  For all of these events to have happened together is really like flipping a coin 5 or 10 times and getting heads each time.  Possible, but very low probability.

 

[Math of Insects 96]

16 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

I was thinking about the "he died in the jump" conversation and how that relates to calculating the probability of that happening and him not being found. Typically those conversations refer to unusual or unlikely incidents as proving that it happened, when the reality is that those obscure or unlikely scenarios hint at it possibly happening, not always happening.  So, if I show a few examples of someone no pulling, it does not mean he no pulled, it just means he may have.  Same for a body not being found in the woods, and same for a person disappearing all together.  The issue comes when taking the probability of all three events happening in sequence.  An analogy might be someone saying that if I flip a coin there is a 50% chance it will come up heads, but not telling us that if you flip a coin three times, that the probability of heads coming up three times in a row is not 50%, it is .5*.5*.5 for a probability of .125 or 12.5%.  Cooper would have had to no pull, followed by his body not being found, followed by someone not reporting him missing. 

I had grad course in probability for engineers and scientists (I'm neither one, unless data science is considered), and the field of probability is pretty complex.  I had thought at one point that if I could calculate the probability of a poker hand, then I knew enough about probability. I was definitely wrong.  I'm no pro in probability, but I do like getting involved with it as a hobby, and have used it a good amount in my job.

Now, someone could say that bodies go missing all time.  Ok, but do those bodies usually have a parachute rig attached to them, or a parachute flapping in the wind?  Same for no pulls, there are no pulls, but how often do those really happen?  How about for a guy who has just pulled off a hijacking and is now so close to getting away that all he has to do is pull a rip cord handle? How often does someone go missing and look like the suspect of a worldwide FBI manhunt?  For all of these events to have happened together is really like flipping a coin 5 or 10 times and getting heads each time.  Possible, but very low probability.

 

Probability is for the future. It becomes irrelevant the moment an actual thing happens. It is a gaslight to try to apply it retrospectively, since whatever happened, happened. 

A pretty good analogy for this whole event might be Malaysia Air flight 370. In isolation, air travel is about as safe a means of transportation as has ever been invented. Airplanes simply do not crash, statistically. You, random person in the world, never have to worry about the plane you are on going down, because statistically speaking, you will never die in a plane crash and neither will anyone you know. Every time you get on an airplane, you have a virtually zero probability of it crashing and you dying.

But that airplane (flt370) was in the sky, and then it wasn't. It and everyone on it were never seen again. Some time later, some small remnants of the plane but not the people were found on earth. Statistically speaking, that airplane simply could not have crashed, and the people on it could not have died in a plane crash.

But the raw facts--it was in the sky, then it wasn't, then it was never seen again, and some time later some remnants of it were found--suggest a specific and single outcome, regardless of statistics.

Those raw facts--was in the sky, then wasn't, then was never seen again, and some time later some remnants were found but no people--exactly describe the DB Cooper situation. It doesn't matter how "safe" skydiving is in isolation, as a matter of probability. We live in the future and have access to real events. In the future (now), he was in the sky, then wasn't, and was never seen again, and some time later some remnants associated with him were found.

If we didn't have an investment in our belief in his survival, these facts would lead to the exact same conclusions as that of Malaysia 370.

[ParrotheadVol 70]

On 1/25/2023 at 12:23 PM, FLYJACK said:

But I don't see Cooper himself throwing money into the River.. he worked for that money,,, if it was tossed it probably wasn't Cooper but somebody else who either found some money in the woods or got it from Cooper.

There was a very messy dump site a few miles upstream of TBAR that was right on a waterway that was connected to the River..  possible but a long shot.

I've always been of the opinion that Coop probably lost the money when he opened his chute. I've wondered though, if he may have decided to rid himself of the money when he saw McCoy get busted with his ransom in his house, dead to rights. That would have been in the spring of 72. If he had already determined that he couldn't spend the money due to the serial numbers being checked, then I could see him ridding himself of it. He wouldn't be the first person to dump evidence in a river. But, as previously stated, burning it would seem a lot less risky. Perhaps, he ran out of matches?

[FLYJACK 654]

22 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

Probability is for the future. It becomes irrelevant the moment an actual thing happens. It is a gaslight to try to apply it retrospectively, since whatever happened, happened. 

A pretty good analogy for this whole event might be Malaysia Air flight 370. In isolation, air travel is about as safe a means of transportation as has ever been invented. Airplanes simply do not crash, statistically. You, random person in the world, never have to worry about the plane you are on going down, because statistically speaking, you will never die in a plane crash and neither will anyone you know. Every time you get on an airplane, you have a virtually zero probability of it crashing and you dying.

But that airplane (flt370) was in the sky, and then it wasn't. It and everyone on it were never seen again. Some time later, some small remnants of the plane but not the people were found on earth. Statistically speaking, that airplane simply could not have crashed, and the people on it could not have died in a plane crash.

But the raw facts--it was in the sky, then it wasn't, then it was never seen again, and some time later some remnants of it were found--suggest a specific and single outcome, regardless of statistics.

Those raw facts--was in the sky, then wasn't, then was never seen again, and some time later some remnants were found but no people--exactly describe the DB Cooper situation. It doesn't matter how "safe" skydiving is in isolation, as a matter of probability. We live in the future and have access to real events. In the future (now), he was in the sky, then wasn't, and was never seen again, and some time later some remnants associated with him were found.

If we didn't have an investment in our belief in his survival, these facts would lead to the exact same conclusions as that of Malaysia 370.

A poor analogy, the plane disappearing had to have crashed in the Ocean.. those people were not trying to evade notice. The missing passengers can be presumed dead. Cooper once on the ground was trying to escape notice, so a missing Cooper or no body does not mean he died.

To draw the conclusion that no body supports Cooper dying in the jump is not logical.

[Math of Insects 96]

14 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

A poor analogy, the plane disappearing had to have crashed in the Ocean.. those people were not trying to evade notice. The missing passengers can be presumed dead. Cooper once on the ground was trying to escape notice, so a missing Cooper or no body does not mean he died.

To draw the conclusion that no body supports Cooper dying in the jump is not logical.

No analogy is exact; there is a lot of real estate between "not exact" and "poor."

In fact, though, there was plenty of chatter after the fact that a pilot or pilots were trying to evade notice. There were a host of conspiracy theories suggesting that the plane had landed secretly on a distant island. We can choose to support those theories by noticing the elements that would feed them--"planes never crash, just look at the statistics." Or we can look at the abstract facts and draw the more likely conclusion--"this one most certainly crashed." You've chosen the "obvious" conclusion in regards to Flt 370, but perhaps the less obvious one with Cooper. 

From the outside--without a stake in the outcome--these two situations are far more closely related than it might seem from "within."

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was saying "no body means he died." I've certainly never said such a thing. I said that absent any additional ongoing indication that he lived, we'd have to assume the last place he was, is the last place he was.

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by Math of Insects

[CooperNWO305 146]

50 minutes ago, ParrotheadVol said:

I've always been of the opinion that Coop probably lost the money when he opened his chute. I've wondered though, if he may have decided to rid himself of the money when he saw McCoy get busted with his ransom in his house, dead to rights. That would have been in the spring of 72. If he had already determined that he couldn't spend the money due to the serial numbers being checked, then I could see him ridding himself of it. He wouldn't be the first person to dump evidence in a river. But, as previously stated, burning it would seem a lot less risky. Perhaps, he ran out of matches?

Interesting point about him possibly being influenced by what happened to McCoy and the money leading to his downfall.  One thing I see in this case is discussion about him spending all the money, or most of it, etc.  If Cooper was a regular blue collar type guy, then even $10,000 of the $200,000 could go a long way for him.  That's a lot easier to hide and a lot easier to spend. He knows he is taking a huge risk by making a big purchase, so that rules out a house, a boat, a car, maybe even rules out a big vacation, fur coat, etc.  But, if he plays it safe and just uses the money for dinners out, maybe gas, a bunch of little things, then there is a lot less chance of him standing out as a big spender.  I think if we had a Cooper suspect and were able to see his bank account statements, then we might see a trend where he used just a little bit less of his paycheck than usual after the heist.  It makes me think of some of my Las Vegas trips where I came back with a lot more cash than I would usually have, even if I did not win much, I still had a lot of cash on me, so rather than use my debit card like I do a lot, I would use that cash for a few weeks, and then get back on the debit card.  My bank statements for those periods would indicate a slight change in habits. Probably too late now, but I do think looking at someone's spending habits may have indicated something was a little off.  He certainly would not want to spend a bunch of $20s from the 1960s in the late 90s.

Edited January 27, 2023 by CooperNWO305

[CooperNWO305 146]

48 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

Probability is for the future. It becomes irrelevant the moment an actual thing happens. It is a gaslight to try to apply it retrospectively, since whatever happened, happened. 

A pretty good analogy for this whole event might be Malaysia Air flight 370. In isolation, air travel is about as safe a means of transportation as has ever been invented. Airplanes simply do not crash, statistically. You, random person in the world, never have to worry about the plane you are on going down, because statistically speaking, you will never die in a plane crash and neither will anyone you know. Every time you get on an airplane, you have a virtually zero probability of it crashing and you dying.

But that airplane (flt370) was in the sky, and then it wasn't. It and everyone on it were never seen again. Some time later, some small remnants of the plane but not the people were found on earth. Statistically speaking, that airplane simply could not have crashed, and the people on it could not have died in a plane crash.

But the raw facts--it was in the sky, then it wasn't, then it was never seen again, and some time later some remnants of it were found--suggest a specific and single outcome, regardless of statistics.

Those raw facts--was in the sky, then wasn't, then was never seen again, and some time later some remnants were found but no people--exactly describe the DB Cooper situation. It doesn't matter how "safe" skydiving is in isolation, as a matter of probability. We live in the future and have access to real events. In the future (now), he was in the sky, then wasn't, and was never seen again, and some time later some remnants associated with him were found.

If we didn't have an investment in our belief in his survival, these facts would lead to the exact same conclusions as that of Malaysia 370.

You are only reinforcing my commentary.  Planes crash, yes, but the odds are very low.  Cooper was not a crashed plane, and saying this is the exact same as Malaysia 370 is just completely off the wall.  You are telling us that we have a vested interest in Cooper surviving and if we didn't, then the calculations or observations would be the same. You are stoking doubt, that is gaslighting.  

Trying to sow doubt by talking in circles and making statements like probability is only or the future. That is complete BS. Complete.  There are many examples of where probability can be used to determine how something occurred, or where an item might be, or say where a plane started it's day or a missile was launched from.

I've seen the trend on your posts.  You like to inject doubt, not conversation. Again, that is a technique people use in this case, and actually online a lot. I can jump into any online conversation and make a few comments that allow me to interject myself, but actually never really take a realistic position.  

I can't be sure that the FBI had someone with Operations Research experience on the case, but I suspect they had people who knew the field. Do we think they did not use probability when determining the search area?  What about using it to determine where to put resources on a case, should it be Cooper or more current terrorists? Probability is used every day, we all do it.  

Keep on trying to gaslight us.

 

 

[Math of Insects 96]

9 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

You are only reinforcing my commentary.  Planes crash, yes, but the odds are very low.  Cooper was not a crashed plane, and saying this is the exact same as Malaysia 370 is just completely off the wall.  You are telling us that we have a vested interest in Cooper surviving and if we didn't, then the calculations or observations would be the same. You are stoking doubt, that is gaslighting.  

Trying to sow doubt by talking in circles and making statements like probability is only or the future. That is complete BS. Complete.  There are many examples of where probability can be used to determine how something occurred, or where an item might be, or say where a plane started it's day or a missile was launched from.

I've seen the trend on your posts.  You like to inject doubt, not conversation. Again, that is a technique people use in this case, and actually online a lot. I can jump into any online conversation and make a few comments that allow me to interject myself, but actually never really take a realistic position.  

I can't be sure that the FBI had someone with Operations Research experience on the case, but I suspect they had people who knew the field. Do we think they did not use probability when determining the search area?  What about using it to determine where to put resources on a case, should it be Cooper or more current terrorists? Probability is used every day, we all do it.  

Keep on trying to gaslight us.

 

 

You have read me wrong, and this second attempt to have a conversation with you will most decidedly be my last. This aggressive and personal tone is a detriment to the board, IMO. 

Edited January 27, 2023 by Math of Insects

[CooperNWO305 146]

11 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

You have read me wrong, and this second attempt to have a conversation with you will most decidedly be my last. This aggressive and personal tone is a detriment to the board, IMO. 

When you respond to my post and use a term like gaslight, then you are being aggressive and personal, whether it is shrouded in fancy words or roundabout comments.  So responding to my post, to me, with condescension, is personal.  You can throw in a term like aggressive and maybe get some attention, but you using fancy words and tactics does not mean you are being "nice" so to say.  It is actually passive aggressive. If you want to act high and mighty, then I'm going to call you out.  Maybe it is your personality and you don't mean to do it.  Doesn't really matter, you do it enough for it to stand out as an issue.  

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, Math of Insects said:

No analogy is exact; there is a lot of real estate between "not exact" and "poor."

In fact, though, there was plenty of chatter after the fact that a pilot or pilots were trying to evade notice. There were a host of conspiracy theories suggesting that the plane had landed secretly on a distant island. We can choose to support those theories by noticing the elements that would feed them--"planes never crash, just look at the statistics." Or we can look at the abstract facts and draw the more likely conclusion--"this one most certainly crashed." You've chosen the "obvious" conclusion in regards to Flt 370, but perhaps the less obvious one with Cooper. 

From the outside--without a stake in the outcome--these two situations are far more closely related than it might seem from "within."

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was saying "no body means he died." My approach is "no other indications of survival in any way for 50 years hence means we have to assume the obvious." 

 

Flight 370 is not even close,,, Cooper was trying to disappear undetected, the plane passengers were not.

The plane had limited fuel, it had to come down.. the probability was very high that it crashed in the ocean.. and the passengers were dead. The plane landing on some Island was extremely unlikely..

The "obvious" here is the most likely conclusion..

Nothing like Cooper.. he was trying to not be detected. 

The "obvious" for Cooper is the most likely based on the jump conditions not lack of substantiated evidence on the ground..

 

What you claimed "to assume the obvious" is really a subjective opinion not based on evidence. Most people start there and drift toward survival as they learn more about the case.

Cooper was not a lost hiker, he wanted to disappear.. 

Edited January 27, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Math of Insects 96]

17 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

What you claimed "to assume the obvious" is really a subjective opinion not based on evidence. Most people start there and drift toward survival as they learn more about the case.

I think this is the crux of it. As you have more of a stake in it, the signs seem to point toward survival. But that's a complicated issue with some layers to cut through. 

I've actually gone the other way, FWIW. I'm certainly not about to plant a flag on any certainty in this case. But each time I challenge my own preconceptions--which I want to be true--I land out with the "least challengeable" being the most direct (meaning, the entire endeavor ending where the trail runs dry). I keep trying to find ways not to land out there, so to speak, and can't make anything else require fewer hoops or assumptions.

[FLYJACK 654]

28 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

I think this is the crux of it. As you have more of a stake in it, the signs seem to point toward survival. But that's a complicated issue with some layers to cut through. 

I've actually gone the other way, FWIW. I'm certainly not about to plant a flag on any certainty in this case. But each time I challenge my own preconceptions--which I want to be true--I land out with the "least challengeable" being the most direct (meaning, the entire endeavor ending where the trail runs dry). I keep trying to find ways not to land out there, so to speak, and can't make anything else require fewer hoops or assumptions.

That isn't a fair comment..

I shifted to a survival bias before I had a suspect... 

That shift was solely based on getting a better understanding on jump data, evidence, conditions and expert opinions. I had thought landing in a forest was deadly, that isn't the case. The terrain was mixed and landing in a tree isn't a big problem.

The lack of confirmed evidence on the ground is and always has been irrelevant.

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by FLYJACK