38 38
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

(edited)

The calculations are not wrong. 

Density = mass/volume

Mass of money bag = 10350 grams

Volume of money bag = 187500 cm squared

Density = Mass/Volume

Density = 10350 grams/187500 cm squared

Density = .0552 cm squared 

Density of water = 1 g/cm squared

Conclusion = buoyant

 

However, while the calculations above are correct, the numbers might wrong be due to the uncertainty of the size of the bag. There have been multiple descriptions of the money bag.

Passenger Cord Zum Spreckel "two foot by 1 foot by one-half foot"

Passenger Robert Gregory "about two feet tall"

Passenger Nancy House "about 10 inches by 12 inches by 18 inches"

NWO Airlines employee at freight desk: "1 foot by 1 foot by 9 inches"

Eric Ulis concludes that it was a SeaFirst Size H which is 75 cm by 50 cm by 50 cm (29.5 inches by 19.5 inches by 19.5 inches). These are the dimensions I used in my calculations. 

Other money bags from that time period measure 28 inches by 14 inches by 0.1 inches. 

We simply do not know the exact dimensions of the bank bag that Cooper jumped with.

The assumption has been that the bag was turgid with money - so much so that he had to try to place the overflow cash in the reserve chute. Perhaps this assumption is wrong. Perhaps the money fit just fine in the bag he was given.

All that said, let's look at just the money without the bank bag. 

$200,000 in twenties = 0.3988 cubic feet or 11293 cubic centimeters in volume

$200,000 in twenties - 22.03 pounds or 9.992 kilograms or 9992 grams in mass

Density = Mass/Volume

Density = 9992 grams/11293 cubic cm

Density = 0.885 g/cm squared

The density of the money alone (if it were just one big block by itself) would have less density than freshwater (1.0 g/cm squared) and would be buoyant. In fact, the money would have to take on well over a third of a gallon of water (1.3 liters) to make it sink. 

However, the money did not enter the water in one big block. It was contained inside a bag of uncertain size and shape. It is also impossible to factor in the mass and volume of the rubber bands and their contribution to the overall density of the money and bag.

Also, according to Tom Kaye, DBC cut about 100 feet of shroud line with which to secure the money bag. Larry Carr has stated that Cooper used this shroud line to wrap the money bag top to bottom and around its sides. We can assume that the money bag would have been tightly secured - especially so since Cooper would not want to risk the losing the money while jumping from the aircraft. How would this much shroud line contribute to the mass or density of the bag?

Considering how tightly the bag would be tied and secured, it would seem unlikely that it would be immediately infiltrated by water. Additionally, if the bag was tightly secured as suspected, the money would not have been able to fan out and sink until it became free of the bag.

We also do not know how porous the canvas of the bag would be, but traditional cotton canvas absorbs water and will provide a level of water resistance to the contents inside for a period of time. That fact, along with its durability and sturdiness, explains the popularity for its use in bags in general. 

The bottom line is that regardless of how you want to calculate the density/buoyancy of the money, the conclusion remains the same: the money bag would float in freshwater - the same conclusion you yourself arrived at.

 

 

 

Edited by Chaucer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Georger,

On Shutter's forum on April 15th, 2021, I posted directly to you about the ability to extract DNA from human hair. You never responded. That said, if DBC's hair sample is found, it could be the key to the case.

Also, georger, on September 15th, I posted that I had submitted a public records request with law enforcement about the Heisson store break in, but was told there were no records currently in existence from that time period. 

Hope that answers a couple of questions you asked on here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 hours ago, Chaucer said:

The calculations are not wrong. 

Density = mass/volume

Mass of money bag = 10350 grams

Volume of money bag = 187500 cm squared

Density = Mass/Volume

Density = 10350 grams/187500 cm squared

Density = .0552 cm squared 

Density of water = 1 g/cm squared

Conclusion = buoyant

 

However, while the calculations above are correct, the numbers might wrong be due to the uncertainty of the size of the bag. There have been multiple descriptions of the money bag.

Passenger Cord Zum Spreckel "two foot by 1 foot by one-half foot"

Passenger Robert Gregory "about two feet tall"

Passenger Nancy House "about 10 inches by 12 inches by 18 inches"

NWO Airlines employee at freight desk: "1 foot by 1 foot by 9 inches"

Eric Ulis concludes that it was a SeaFirst Size H which is 75 cm by 50 cm by 50 cm (29.5 inches by 19.5 inches by 19.5 inches). These are the dimensions I used in my calculations. 

Other money bags from that time period measure 28 inches by 14 inches by 0.1 inches. 

We simply do not know the exact dimensions of the bank bag that Cooper jumped with.

The assumption has been that the bag was turgid with money - so much so that he had to try to place the overflow cash in the reserve chute. Perhaps this assumption is wrong. Perhaps the money fit just fine in the bag he was given.

All that said, let's look at just the money without the bank bag. 

$200,000 in twenties = 0.3988 cubic feet or 11293 cubic centimeters in volume

$200,000 in twenties - 22.03 pounds or 9.992 kilograms or 9992 grams in mass

Density = Mass/Volume

Density = 9992 grams/11293 cubic cm

Density = 0.885 g/cm squared

The density of the money alone (if it were just one big block by itself) would have less density than freshwater (1.0 g/cm squared) and would be buoyant. In fact, the money would have to take on well over a third of a gallon of water (1.3 liters) to make it sink. 

However, the money did not enter the water in one big block. It was contained inside a bag of uncertain size and shape. It is also impossible to factor in the mass and volume of the rubber bands and their contribution to the overall density of the money and bag.

Also, according to Tom Kaye, DBC cut about 100 feet of shroud line with which to secure the money bag. Larry Carr has stated that Cooper used this shroud line to wrap the money bag top to bottom and around its sides. We can assume that the money bag would have been tightly secured - especially so since Cooper would not want to risk the losing the money while jumping from the aircraft. How would this much shroud line contribute to the mass or density of the bag?

Considering how tightly the bag would be tied and secured, it would seem unlikely that it would be immediately infiltrated by water. Additionally, if the bag was tightly secured as suspected, the money would not have been able to fan out and sink until it became free of the bag.

We also do not know how porous the canvas of the bag would be, but traditional cotton canvas absorbs water and will provide a level of water resistance to the contents inside for a period of time. That fact, along with its durability and sturdiness, explains the popularity for its use in bags in general. 

The bottom line is that regardless of how you want to calculate the density/buoyancy of the money, the conclusion remains the same: the money bag would float in freshwater - the same conclusion you yourself arrived at.

 

 

 

"Additionally, if the bag was tightly secured as suspected, the money would not have been able to fan out and sink until it became free of the bag."

Huh,, where does that come from.. it doesn't make sense, the bag and money only needs to absorb water to alter density,

 

I believe the three TBAR packets arrived as part of a single banded bundle, not individually, that is how they went into the bag, rubber banded bundles of packets.

 

We already know the money would float briefly before sinking..

Your error was using the size of the bag and not the money itself.

The bag is not solid, not water or air tight.

A canvas bag tied at the top would absorb and be infiltrated by water fairly quickly...

The money and bag would initially float but sink when it absorbed the water just like the single packet in Tom Kaye's experiment. A single packet would act the same way.

You or your expert should have caught the error when the number was just 0.0552, a ridiculous number.

Beyond that you need to account for the diatoms and Rataczak's claim that he called Soderlind before the suburbs of Portland. Yes, there were two comms from Rataczak. One immediately and one delayed.

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this line from a news story on the Netflix show.

Of course, how Colbert came to suspect Rackstraw in the first place sounds comical. A friend of Colbert’s heard from a friend of a friend who knew a gambler who claimed they knew D.B. Cooper. The gambler turned out to know Dick Briggs, a cocaine supplier and criminal who claimed to be Cooper back in the ’70s and died in 1980. Colbert’s research proved Briggs to be a liar; he’d never even served in Vietnam. So using police connections, Colbert found a narc who knew Briggs back in the day. The narc directed Colbert to Briggs’ old partner, Robert Rackstraw.

Share this post


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

I love this line from a news story on the Netflix show.

Of course, how Colbert came to suspect Rackstraw in the first place sounds comical. A friend of Colbert’s heard from a friend of a friend who knew a gambler who claimed they knew D.B. Cooper. The gambler turned out to know Dick Briggs, a cocaine supplier and criminal who claimed to be Cooper back in the ’70s and died in 1980. Colbert’s research proved Briggs to be a liar; he’d never even served in Vietnam. So using police connections, Colbert found a narc who knew Briggs back in the day. The narc directed Colbert to Briggs’ old partner, Robert Rackstraw.

 

D.B. Cooper: Where Are You?! Season 1, Episode 1 Take the Money and Jump Transcript

https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=1418&t=54970

 

Nothing new, just the basics...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

"Additionally, if the bag was tightly secured as suspected, the money would not have been able to fan out and sink until it became free of the bag."

Huh,, where does that come from.. it doesn't make sense, the bag and money only needs to absorb water to alter density,

You know what it means. You are obfuscating. The money can't fan out and sink if it is inside of a tightly secured bag. That's a different statement than "it only needs to absorb water to alter density".

Your error was using the size of the bag and not the money itself.

There was no error because we don't know the size of the actual bag used. If you had read my post, you would have seen that I used the dimensions from Eric Ulis. There are many descriptions of the size of the bag. I chose one of them. Regardless, if you had read my post, you would have seen that I did the same calculations with just the money, and it was still less dense than freshwater.

The bag is not solid, not water or air tight.

Who is claiming it is? Not me.

A canvas bag tied at the top would absorb and be infiltrated by water fairly quickly...

How do you know how the bag was tied? How do you know how DBC secured it? What does "fairly quickly" mean? A minute? 20 minutes? An hour?

The money and bag would initially float

Then why are you trying to pick a fight with me about it?

but sink when it absorbed the water

Of course, I'm not saying it would float forever.

just like the single packet in Tom Kaye's experiment.

How can a packet of money tightly packed inside of a bag behave the same way as a packet dropped freely in water? They would not have the same surface area.

You or your expert should have caught the error when the number was just 0.0552, a ridiculous number.

Again, there was no error. If you had read my post, you'd see that. There is a difference between an error in calculation and plugging different numbers into a formula. 

Beyond that you need to account for the diatoms and Rataczak's claim that he called Soderlind before the suburbs of Portland. Yes, there were two comms from Rataczak. One immediately and one delayed.

My post is related to the buoyancy of the money bag.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

 

"Additionally, if the bag was tightly secured as suspected, the money would not have been able to fan out and sink until it became free of the bag."

Huh,, where does that come from.. it doesn't make sense, the bag and money only needs to absorb water to alter density,

You know what it means. You are obfuscating. The money can't fan out and sink if it is inside of a tightly secured bag. That's a different statement than "it only needs to absorb water to alter density".

Your error was using the size of the bag and not the money itself.

There was no error because we don't know the size of the actual bag used. If you had read my post, you would have seen that I used the dimensions from Eric Ulis. There are many descriptions of the size of the bag. I chose one of them. Regardless, if you had read my post, you would have seen that I did the same calculations with just the money, and it was still less dense than freshwater.

The bag is not solid, not water or air tight.

Who is claiming it is? Not me.

A canvas bag tied at the top would absorb and be infiltrated by water fairly quickly...

How do you know how the bag was tied? How do you know how DBC secured it? What does "fairly quickly" mean? A minute? 20 minutes? An hour?

The money and bag would initially float 

Then why are you trying to pick a fight with me about it?

but sink when it absorbed the water 

Of course, I'm not saying it would float forever.

just like the single packet in Tom Kaye's experiment.

How can a packet of money tightly packed inside of a bag behave the same way as a packet dropped freely in water? They would not have the same surface area.

You or your expert should have caught the error when the number was just 0.0552, a ridiculous number.

Again, there was no error. If you had read my post, you'd see that. There is a difference between an error in calculation and plugging different numbers into a formula. 

Beyond that you need to account for the diatoms and Rataczak's claim that he called Soderlind before the suburbs of Portland. Yes, there were two comms from Rataczak. One immediately and one delayed.

My post is related to the buoyancy of the money bag.

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

You were wrong and can't admit it so you dance around it making semantic excuses..

You claimed the money needs to fan out free of the bag to sink. WRONG

You used the size of the canvas bag as if it were a solid item. WRONG

Your argument is that the bag would float supports your TBAR theory, you never acknowledged that it would be brief like Kaye's packet experiment. So, WRONG

You and your so called expert did commit an error, 0.0544 is a ridiculous density number for that object, it should have been caught there as a bad input and rechecked. WRONG

You didn't just plug in different numbers you used the WRONG numbers based on the WRONG assumption. Garbage in garbage out.

 

You just can't handle being wrong and you keep trying to put a round peg in a square hole,,,

What do we really have, the money/bag was slightly below the density of water and would float until it became saturated which was probably a very short time.. this tells us nothing about TBAR and in no way supports your theory.

Your argument was flawed, your conclusion was flawed and somehow it is my fault for pointing it out.

Everybody makes errors,, some just make them more often than others.

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
11 hours ago, Chaucer said:

Georger,

On Shutter's forum on April 15th, 2021, I posted directly to you about the ability to extract DNA from human hair. You never responded. That said, if DBC's hair sample is found, it could be the key to the case.

Also, georger, on September 15th, I posted that I had submitted a public records request with law enforcement about the Heisson store break in, but was told there were no records currently in existence from that time period. 

Hope that answers a couple of questions you asked on here. 

The hair is a broken segment of hair, so no root. dna is in the root so no dna via the hair! There are isotopic tests on hair that relate to diet. Tortilla vs fish. Meat vs vegetarian. Mexican diet vs Boston diet etc ...

Edited by georger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

I love this line from a news story on the Netflix show.

Of course, how Colbert came to suspect Rackstraw in the first place sounds comical. A friend of Colbert’s heard from a friend of a friend who knew a gambler who claimed they knew D.B. Cooper. The gambler turned out to know Dick Briggs, a cocaine supplier and criminal who claimed to be Cooper back in the ’70s and died in 1980. Colbert’s research proved Briggs to be a liar; he’d never even served in Vietnam. So using police connections, Colbert found a narc who knew Briggs back in the day. The narc directed Colbert to Briggs’ old partner, Robert Rackstraw.

Some of the people TC is claiming as part of his 40 person team, are not. They are simply individuals TC has talked to then claimed as part of his team.  TC's account of the money find is "impossible", to quote one person TC is claiming as part of this team ... in fact there have always been complaints about how researchers Smith, Cook, Ulis etal have characterised and made claims about the money find and the excavation at Tena Bar. Several are looking for a way to set this straight . . . these people feel that important evidence has been sidetracked and missrepresented by several Cooper authors ...

BTW the name is Geoffrey Gray not Geff Grey, as one suspect pusher is calling him over at the other forum. 

Edited by georger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

OK, I watched episode 1 and it is very underwhelming... not good.

Very basic, covers the hijacking in general and throws in Rackstraw stuff..

We have seen it all before.

you can see it here, but I am sure it will get taken down shortly. Watch it ASAP.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

OK, I watched episode 1 and it is very underwhelming... not good.

Very basic, covers the hijacking in general and throws in Rackstraw stuff..

We have seen it all before.

you can see it here, but I am sure it will get taken down shortly. Watch it ASAP.

 

I plan on sitting down with 12 pack and watching tomorrow evening. 4 hours of bad Cooper is still probably better than anything else I can find. My expectations are not high though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it makes you feel better to say I was wrong, go ahead.

Anyone with a calculator and common sense understands the difference between a calculation error and using different data points. No one knows the exact size of the bag, so you could plug in any number of options and get different solutions. The point is that the bag with the money inside is less dense than freshwater and would float. You, me, Tom Kaye, or anyone else don't know how long it would float, but it would float. 

My posts speak for themselves regardless of how you try to color them. Fin.

Georger, my post about hair and DNA referred specifically to a new technique in which DNA was extracted from the hair itself, not from the root. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

If it makes you feel better to say I was wrong, go ahead.

Anyone with a calculator and common sense understands the difference between a calculation error and using different data points. No one knows the exact size of the bag, so you could plug in any number of options and get different solutions. The point is that the bag with the money inside is less dense than freshwater and would float. You, me, Tom Kaye, or anyone else don't know how long it would float, but it would float. 

My posts speak for themselves regardless of how you try to color them. Fin.

Georger, my post about hair and DNA referred specifically to a new technique in which DNA was extracted from the hair itself, not from the root. 

 

You need to admit you were wrong to yourself.. I don't really care, I know you got it wrong as it was obvious and I just pointed it out... not trying to colour anything. This is a simple and obvious error.

Your comment indicates you are still unwilling to account for your error.. this is your pattern and problem.

You used the volume of the bag as the density of a solid..  You were WRONG, not just using different data points, you used the wrong numbers because you didn't fully understand the calculation.

Clearly, you want to appear to be right more than get to the facts... not a good characteristic for a "researcher"..

Take the "L", people respect that.

Share this post


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

What is the white cord on two spots of the reserve chute for? Also, in terms of Cooper cutting 100 feet of shroud line, is that 100 feet of the outer cord, which would mean five or six strands of small inner cord of 100 feet too? 

2F939BB7-F353-4949-B91F-E78CDC08934C.jpeg

I think this came up before..

From Kaye, a total of 79.6 feet of pink cord is missing... but we don't know if it was removed by Cooper or later,,, FBI report only 2 lines were cut..  Cooper likely used 28.2 ft to tie the bag to his waist..

Tina said he initially tried to put the money in the container but abandoned that.. those short white cords may have been his attempt to attach it to himself due to no D rings.

However, those cords are white not pink,, so did they come from the dummy chute??

 

 

 

v02back.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yea, I think remember hearing that maybe the FBI agents took souvenirs in the form of the para cord. 
 

I’ve theorized that Cooper was good with knots. I’ve seen some old timers and boaters tie knots like I tie my shoes, fast. That white cord could have been on there when he got the chutes. Or he could have tied it. I’m not sure what kind of knot that is. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
12 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Oh yea, I think remember hearing that maybe the FBI agents took souvenirs in the form of the para cord. 
 

I’ve theorized that Cooper was good with knots. I’ve seen some old timers and boaters tie knots like I tie my shoes, fast. That white cord could have been on there when he got the chutes. Or he could have tied it. I’m not sure what kind of knot that is. 
 

 

I don't think they were already on there but maybe a parachute expert can chime in..

It looks like those white cords were attached to the outside handles...

If so, then Cooper may have opened up the dummy chute to get those white cords...

Here is a Vietnam era chute...  shows the straps/handles that the white cords were tied to on the Cooper chute.

 

102861082_7_x.jpg.2dd629979fbb536494cc9532d418f3da.jpg

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2022 at 9:45 AM, FLYJACK said:

 

D.B. Cooper: Where Are You?! Season 1, Episode 1 Take the Money and Jump Transcript

https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=1418&t=54970

 

Nothing new, just the basics...

Transcript ep 2

https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=1418&t=54971

 

ep 3

https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=1418&t=54972

 

ep 4

https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=1418&t=54973

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

I don't think they were already on there but maybe a parachute expert can chime in..

It looks like those white cords were attached to the outside handles...

If so, then Cooper may have opened up the dummy chute to get those white cords...

Here is a Vietnam era chute...  shows the straps/handles that the white cords were tied to on the Cooper chute.

 

102861082_7_x.jpg.2dd629979fbb536494cc9532d418f3da.jpg

I really think he split up the money, even if it was just a small amount. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

I really think he split up the money, even if it was just a small amount. 

I don't really have an opinion on that but it is odd that there were no bits of the dummy chute remaining if he had cut it open for those white cords..

Perhaps Cooper put some money in the dummy chute and tied it to himself as well as the money bag.. but my understanding is that once the chutes are opened they would be near impossible to close on the plane.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

What is the white cord on two spots of the reserve chute for?

 

This did come up before. I think I was the one that noticed that they weren't pink and speculated whether they might be from the dummy chute. But I looked into it and it turns out that they were most likely already there when given to Cooper. They are there to tie the bottom of the container to the harness. The main structural attachments of the reserve to the main harness are those metal clips. But then the bottom of the reserve container would be free to move and flap about in freefall. In earlier and various versions of gear there were straps and or clips to attach the bottom, but with the mix and match of various gear it became easier just to tie it down with those pieces of line. Again, that's nothing structural about the attachment, it just holds the bottom of the container down. That one picture of Linn Emerick standing in front of the rack of reserves at his dropzone, you can see those lines on a few of them.

 

5 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

That white cord could have been on there when he got the chutes. Or he could have tied it. I’m not sure what kind of knot that is. 

 

That's known as a larks head. It's just a piece of line folded in half, the looped end is put through/around the handle and the loose ends put through the looped end.

 

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

but my understanding is that once the chutes are opened they would be near impossible to close on the plane.

 

If you were to try to re-close the packed chute, yes. But if you cut the chute out and just tried to put money in there it shouldn't be that hard to reset the ripcord or just tie it shut.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

 

This did come up before. I think I was the one that noticed that they weren't pink and speculated whether they might be from the dummy chute. But I looked into it and it turns out that they were most likely already there when given to Cooper. They are there to tie the bottom of the container to the harness. The main structural attachments of the reserve to the main harness are those metal clips. But then the bottom of the reserve container would be free to move and flap about in freefall. In earlier and various versions of gear there were straps and or clips to attach the bottom, but with the mix and match of various gear it became easier just to tie it down with those pieces of line. Again, that's nothing structural about the attachment, it just holds the bottom of the container down. That one picture of Linn Emerick standing in front of the rack of reserves at his dropzone, you can see those lines on a few of them.

 

 

That's known as a larks head. It's just a piece of line folded in half, the looped end is put through/around the handle and the loose ends put through the looped end.

 

 

If you were to try to re-close the packed chute, yes. But if you cut the chute out and just tried to put money in there it shouldn't be that hard to reset the ripcord or just tie it shut.

Thanks Dudeman, I was hoping you'd jump on and give us some background.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

 

This did come up before. I think I was the one that noticed that they weren't pink and speculated whether they might be from the dummy chute. But I looked into it and it turns out that they were most likely already there when given to Cooper. They are there to tie the bottom of the container to the harness. The main structural attachments of the reserve to the main harness are those metal clips. But then the bottom of the reserve container would be free to move and flap about in freefall. In earlier and various versions of gear there were straps and or clips to attach the bottom, but with the mix and match of various gear it became easier just to tie it down with those pieces of line. Again, that's nothing structural about the attachment, it just holds the bottom of the container down. That one picture of Linn Emerick standing in front of the rack of reserves at his dropzone, you can see those lines on a few of them.

 

 

That's known as a larks head. It's just a piece of line folded in half, the looped end is put through/around the handle and the loose ends put through the looped end.

 

 

If you were to try to re-close the packed chute, yes. But if you cut the chute out and just tried to put money in there it shouldn't be that hard to reset the ripcord or just tie it shut.

That makes more sense...

Though we will never know,, I lean toward Cooper tossing the dummy chute because it had no seal, no packing card and was soft.. and appeared to be tampered with. If he had opened it and used it for some money you'd expect to find some pieces of it left on the plane.

Share this post


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

If he had opened it and used it for some money you'd expect to find some pieces of it left on the plane.

It is odd that it or nothing of it was left on the plane. If half the canopy and lines were cut off to make it easier to repack as a training device, it might have held some of the money as it was, but that would be a lot of bulk to tie to himself for a little bit of money that might otherwise fit in his pockets or his pants.

 

9 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Thanks Dudeman, I was hoping you'd jump on and give us some background.  

Well that's how I try to earn my keep around here, since most of my comments are either obvious speculation or smart-ass remarks, haha.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

38 38