42 42

# DB Cooper

## Recommended Posts

Robert: I generally agree with you on the search area size.  3 minutes of flight time, and a drift of about a mile either way, gives us around 18 square miles.

For anyone who thinks he went into the Columbia, I would suggest making a box of 18 square miles, center it on the flight path, and then center it over whatever drop zone you choose (even center it on the widest part of the Columbia) and then see how much of that 18 square miles covers water and how much covers land.

The answer is that there is much more land in the drop zone than there is water.  You could drop a parachutist out of a plane 100 times, and maybe hit the Columbia a few times.

Imagine a small island in the middle of the ocean, and a parachutist.  What would be more likely, landing in water or landing on land?  The answer is water, not land.  That is the same set up as the Columbia, except in reverse.

Also, even if Cooper landed in the Columbia, that does not mean he landed smack dab in the middle.  He could have landed just a few feet from shore.

Bottom line is that there is a much higher probability that he landed on land than water.

##### Share on other sites

This is a 9 mile by 3 mile box. Just for visual representation. Cooper would have had to jump over the widest part of the Columbia to even have a chance of landing in the river. The river is about 1,000 meters wide at its widest. I may be off by a little there. Based off the pressure bump, he was likely out of the plane before the river, probably over Battle Ground. I used this approach when explaining how he likely did not land in Lake Merwin, and modified it for the Columbia.

Landing in the river is a fallacy. A missing person not accounted for at that specific day and time in 1971? That’s another fallacy.

##### Share on other sites
(edited)

Delete

Edited by CooperNWO305

##### Share on other sites
(edited)

Delete

Edited by CooperNWO305

##### Share on other sites
(edited)
8 hours ago, Chaucer said:

Yeah, I have tried 3 times in 2 years to get in the Forum. Never get approved lol

Check again.

Edited by Robert99

##### Share on other sites

Here is video of a DUMMY... and a reserve with some cord.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CooperNWO305 said:

A missing person not accounted for at that specific day and time in 1971? That’s another fallacy.

What do you mean by this?

##### Share on other sites

People have said Cooper died and have used the missing person argument like Dick Lepsy to explain who he was. The logic is that the reason no one claimed Cooper is because he was a missing person and therefore already missing.

##### Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

People have said Cooper died and have used the missing person argument like Dick Lepsy to explain who he was. The logic is that the reason no one claimed Cooper is because he was a missing person and therefore already missing.

Ok, I wasn't sure what you meant exactly, as it could have been a couple of things.

I don't totally disagree with that, but I certainly haven't seen a suspect that fits it either.

##### Share on other sites

Got an email from Shutter today approving me. Thanks all.

I will be active on all forums as they all offer valuable perspectives.

The primary reason I suggest a splashdown in the river is the money. There is no way the money ended up in Tena Bar without it being in the water. If the money was in the water, then so was Cooper.

##### Share on other sites

A factor that I haven't seen discussed, and I don't know how accurate it is (I'm guessing some of you do), is this:

Cooper's jet is flying at 10.000ft., but that is MSL (above sea level). On that 'Case Closed' doc, it said that the ground elevation was was something like 4500ft. So even with an immediate pull, that puts Cooper under canopy at 5 or 5.5 AGL, (above ground level). That would reduce the possible distance of his drift.

Also, the forward throw of the airplane doesn't last that long (wind resistance), so even with a no-pull, it wouldn't account for a whole lot of distance.

##### Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

Got an email from Shutter today approving me. Thanks all.

I will be active on all forums as they all offer valuable perspectives.

The primary reason I suggest a splashdown in the river is the money. There is no way the money ended up in Tena Bar without it being in the water. If the money was in the water, then so was Cooper.

I disagree. Cooper could have lost the money when his chute opened.

Whether he died, or lost the money when the chute opened, the money being in the Columbia is still hard to explain, imo.

##### Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

A factor that I haven't seen discussed, and I don't know how accurate it is (I'm guessing some of you do), is this:

Cooper's jet is flying at 10.000ft., but that is MSL (above sea level). On that 'Case Closed' doc, it said that the ground elevation was was something like 4500ft. So even with an immediate pull, that puts Cooper under canopy at 5 or 5.5 AGL, (above ground level). That would reduce the possible distance of his drift.

Also, the forward throw of the airplane doesn't last that long (wind resistance), so even with a no-pull, it wouldn't account for a whole lot of distance.

The ground elevation in the FBI LZ was mostly 200 to 600ft with some peaks up to 1200ft..

The FBI used a 3 mile drift as a potential.

##### Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, Chaucer said:

Got an email from Shutter today approving me. Thanks all.

I will be active on all forums as they all offer valuable perspectives.

The primary reason I suggest a splashdown in the river is the money. There is no way the money ended up in Tena Bar without it being in the water. If the money was in the water, then so was Cooper.

Nothing in the Cooper case is that simple..

The money most likely came from the river, some think it was buried by Cooper, I don't.

The Palmer report suggests it arrived within a few years of the find. The diatom found suggests it went into and out of the water in spring, not Nov when hijacking occurred.

To have Cooper landing in the water you need to reject other evidence. It is always possible he did..  but there are other theories that can fit all the evidence better.

I don't think any of them will be proven.

Edited by FLYJACK

##### Share on other sites

Respectfully, I disagree. The simplest explanation is usually the best.

To have Cooper successfully land and escape with the money (But never spend a dime) while simultaneously having some of the decayed money appear 9 years later dozens of miles from the assumed dropzone requires a series of events to occur that are unlikely at best and crazy at worst.
Regarding the diatoms:  they only indicate that the money fanned out in the warmer months, not contacted the water. The bills could easily have been packed tight in the bag for months or years before breaking open and fanning out.
Lastly, Kaye’s analysis indicated the money was on Tena Bar for no more than a year. If true, then why would Cooper plant money 8 years after the crime? He had already gotten away with it? It beggars the imagination.

##### Share on other sites
(edited)
35 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

Respectfully, I disagree. The simplest explanation is usually the best.

To have Cooper successfully land and escape with the money (But never spend a dime) while simultaneously having some of the decayed money appear 9 years later dozens of miles from the assumed dropzone requires a series of events to occur that are unlikely at best and crazy at worst.
Regarding the diatoms:  they only indicate that the money fanned out in the warmer months, not contacted the water. The bills could easily have been packed tight in the bag for months or years before breaking open and fanning out.
Lastly, Kaye’s analysis indicated the money was on Tena Bar for no more than a year. If true, then why would Cooper plant money 8 years after the crime? He had already gotten away with it? It beggars the imagination.

Cooper landing in the Columbia isn't the simplest explanation, it requires rejecting other evidence. The simplest explanation also requires staying inside the goal posts as much as possible.

Bills fan out initially then solidify..

There are theories that do not require Cooper to plant money on TBAR a few years prior...  I don't think he returned or anybody planted the money.

Edited by FLYJACK

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chaucer said:

Got an email from Shutter today approving me. Thanks all.

I will be active on all forums as they all offer valuable perspectives.

The primary reason I suggest a splashdown in the river is the money. There is no way the money ended up in Tena Bar without it being in the water. If the money was in the water, then so was Cooper.

10,000 bills.  About 300 were found at Tina Bar.  If that means Cooper was in the water, then where is the rest of the money?  All 300 bills were found together too.  Most of the money was not likely in the water, so with that logic, Cooper was not in the water.  The case is deep, take a look at some of the theories, you'll find that there are many, and many have nothing to do with Cooper landing in the Columbia.

I'll defer to an aviation expert, but my understanding is that Portland's elevation is about at sea level (50 feet), Seattle is around 150-175 feet.  A man jumping from 10,000 feet at a target around 50 feet, will fall close to 10,000 feet.  If they were over a mountain, then it would be different.

##### Share on other sites

What evidence would have to be rejected for Cooper to have jumped near the Columbia? The 50 year old Ariel dropzone has been dubious for years.

how can you explain Cooper jumping near Ariel, then some of the money ending up buried near At Tena Bar?

##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

What evidence would have to be rejected for Cooper to have jumped near the Columbia? The 50 year old Ariel dropzone has been dubious for years.

how can you explain Cooper jumping near Ariel, then some of the money ending up buried near At Tena Bar?

Why is it dubious? It was only challenged when the TBAR was found. There is no evidence Cooper landed in the Columbia.

The FBI LZ was rejected to fit...  because TBAR couldn't be explained. The evidence for  the FBI LZ didn't change.

I have several explanations, other people have some and there is always the unknown..

Think it through, if Cooper landing in the Columbia is your #1 theory,, a theory that everybody has considered.. then what is your second or third option.. can you think up another option that fits the evidence or do you have only one option.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chaucer said:

What evidence would have to be rejected for Cooper to have jumped near the Columbia? The 50 year old Ariel dropzone has been dubious for years.

how can you explain Cooper jumping near Ariel, then some of the money ending up buried near At Tena Bar?

When did I say he jumped near Ariel? I don't think he jumped near Ariel.  I believe he jumped between Battle Ground and Orchards.  Coincidentally this is very flat terrain too.

The evidence/information I use are the flight transcripts and the FBI map.

Again, there are many theories as to how the money got to Tena Bar.  It looks like you're on the forum now.  Take a look at the money find threads.  Flyjack has some theories too that I personally don't rule out.

It's good to have ideas and theories.  We were all newcomers to this case at one point too.  Some common newcomer beliefs that often change are: He landed in the Columbia.  He died.  He landed near Lake Merwin.  He didn't spend the money. He was CIA. He was Rackstraw.  The crew was in on it.  It was freezing cold that night.  There are many misconceptions too.

##### Share on other sites
On 5/10/2020 at 1:11 PM, FLYJACK said:

I got news that the party involved in a 40+ year old crime/mystery which I recently solved is planning a documentary... and they asked if I'd be in it.

For me, this mystery was far easier than the Cooper case but goes on my resume as a major win and gives my crime/mystery solving research and critical thinking skills big cred..  and it is a very very cool story. Just like the Cooper case it was an intellectual puzzle but in many ways it was more satisfying than the Cooper case.. the case was stone cold and I solved it completely on my own but I controlled the process and environment. It wasn't solved by science, it was solved by reasoning and critical thinking.

The problem for everyone with a suspect in the Cooper case is the forensics and reliance on the crumbs the FBI gives us.. we don't control forensics and only that will 100% put a suspect on the plane. The best anyone can do is to build a circumstantial case so strong that the authorities are forced to apply the forensics, if they really want to solve it. I don't think they do.. at least at the top.

Nice work, Fly. Would love to hear more about it. Congrats!

##### Share on other sites
(edited)

The main reason to reject the Columbia River landing is the pressure bump, the diatoms are also a conflict. That bump marks Cooper's jump, the problem is determining exactly where along the path it occurred. It wasn't as far south as the Columbia.. The Columbia River landing is possible and a valid theory but it loses points for rejecting the pressure bump and FBI LZ evidence.

My analysis... highest probability.

The FBI LZ is generally close.. Cooper jumped along the FBI flightpath 8:11-13, he probably survived. He was likely the person who broke into the store that night and he used the rail tracks next to the store to get out of the area.

The TBAR money went into the Columbia or Willamette in spring of 1979 or 1978... and washed up on TBAR within a short period of time.. days or weeks.

The speculation..

The money was not planted but discarded into the Columbia or Willamette by somebody other than the hijacker. It may have been intentionally discarded by somebody trying to get rid of it thinking it was a liability or unintentionally made its way into the St John's landfill and ended up in the surrounding Slough which empties into the Willamette a few miles upstream of TBAR...

There are many theories that can be drawn from above.. I can think up about 5..

My favourite one is Tina.. but there are others.. this fits all the evidence except the one statement Tina made that she handed back the money.. it is the simplest explanation within the goal posts..

Tina didn't return the money she asked for and received from Cooper. She was in Gresham 1978 and had a nervous breakdown. Her brother in law FBI agent and sister moved her to a Nunnery in Eugene in Spring of 1979. The money was the cause of the breakdown. To protect her, one of them discarded the money in the Spring of 79.. either tossing into the Columbia at Gresham or better into the Willamette near the Eugene Nunnery. The money tumbled down the gravel bottom of the Willamette for a few weeks rounding off the edges and landed on TBAR. The money was 3 packets rubber banded into one SINGLE bundle. TBAR was a natural garbage dump loaded with debris from the river..

This is my top theory.. but there are others.

This content is copyrighted and reproduction in whole or in part by Georger is not authorized. All others are authorized.

Edited by FLYJACK

##### Share on other sites
(edited)

"negotiable American/US currency"

The crowd over at the other forum has completely screwed this up.. they have the facts wrong, the arguments are bogus and the conclusions are wrong.. we went over this and Georger is making the same bogus argument that he made before.

The argument is that an American without foreign currency experience wouldn't qualify a ransom demand with "American" or "US" currency. The word "Negotiable" isn't the point here.

The pilots used "American" and Tina said Cooper later told her he wanted "US", we have two sources. The pilots and Tina.

Bruces' argument was that the crew added it. Problem is the crew was American so why add it,, That argument makes no sense, the American crew added it but Cooper didn't because he was American.. and Tina also claimed Cooper said it to her.

Georger's argument was that Cooper demanded to go to Mexico, so to be consistent he used American/US,, but Georger has the timeline wrong, American/US was used hours before the Mexico demand was made. Cooper already had the money when made the Mexico demand. If Cooper wanted to actually go to Mexico (preplanned) when he asked for the money.. it makes sense.

Enter the newbie Bookman...

He uses examples to make a conclusion that the phrase is not uncommon.. the problem is nobody actually checked his argument.

First, the commonality of the phrase itself isn't the issue. A ransom demand using American/US to describe currency is. It is the CONTEXT...  How many ransom demands by hijackers or bank robbers are made without any foreign influence using "American/US" currency.. The argument is that a ransom demand using American/US without a foreign context is not common.

Second, I checked three of his examples and they all have a foreign context. In fact, those examples actually confirm that the use of the term has a foreign influence/context

So, now newbie Bookman has changed the argument and used examples that confirm the original conclusion, but worse nobody actually checked it..

The argument is a ransom demand using American/US to define the currency by somebody without some foreign influence would be rare. Now, this is consistent with a military person with recent overseas exposure. It doesn't indicate Cooper is not American but that he has foreign exposure..

To state Cooper was not American is too strong..

It would be very rare for a person without foreign exposure to qualify a ransom demand with "American/US" currency.

The irony is the crowd over there has got everything exactly backwards.

Bookman's examples.. you guys can check the others..

international espionage

Germany

International narcotics operation

Edited by FLYJACK

##### Share on other sites
(edited)
7 hours ago, haggarknew said:

Nice work, Fly. Would love to hear more about it. Congrats!

Thanks, it is such a great story, cooler than Cooper..  I tracked down and found a "famous" item stolen over 40+ years ago..

This Covid-19 has messed up things..  I'll explain it later, what it is and how I did it.

Edited by FLYJACK

##### Share on other sites

Martin McNally gave \$\$ to stews...   maybe somebody should ask him about that..

McNally wanted to do another hijacking....   Why not Cooper..

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

42 42