38 38
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

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.

 

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.

enjoyed in any event!  smile...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2022 at 3:08 PM, FLYJACK said:

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.

You clearly didn't read a thing I wrote, but that's fine. You have your opinions, and I have mine, and they are as inconsequential as most anything in life. DB Cooper is as important as Bachman's guitar. In the grand scheme of things? Meaningless. 

Again, my posts speak for themselves, and if you want to try to think that volume and density are the same thing, then that's on you, not me. If you think a bill sinks because it's saturated, then that's on you, not me. If you think that your numbers are "better" than mine because they are yours, then that's on you, not me. 

I wasn't wrong. What's wrong is misreading a key piece of evidence and thinking that Cooper had 1 inch high hair.

Those who know will see through you and acknowledge the truth.

See, what I have learned in life is that the guy you have to fear isn't the guy who talks a lot of shit at the bar. It's the guy who sits there, sips his drink, and doesn't say a word. The guy who keeps chirping is the one who is insecure with something to prove. The silent guy knows the deal and is quietly deciding if he's going to use his fist, a bullet, or a blade. I know which one I am. Which one are you?

In my opinion, you are a jerk, a troll, a coward, and a bully. Many think this about you, but few are brave enough to verbalize it. I'm plenty brave, and if you'd like to talk about it man to man, private message me a time and a place, and I promise you I'll be there. In fact, I beg you to. 

But, I don't expect you will.

You see, I hate bullies, but I won't allow myself to be antagonized and dragged down to your level like I have in the past. I'm trying to be a better man. I am trying to improve the discourse in this case, and I will no longer allow you to drag me down into the sewage with you.

You sit here and criticize posts that aren't even made on this site. You don't even have the guts to engage others in other forums. You'd rather cast stones from afar.

How sad. How pathetic. 

You know you are welcome to come and post on Shutter's site or Eric Ulis's Facebook page, but I know you won't. As any other bully, you don't have the guts to face the people you mock and insult head on. It's much easier for you to do it from your safe space. It's why you don't share your "evidence" or your "breakthroughs".  It's why you don't show up to Cooper Con or anything like that. You fear that if you actually showed your hand, you'd get laughed out of the building. You're terrified of peer review.

Meanwhile, right or wrong, I post my thoughts and ideas. I'm not a coward like you. 

You'll want the last word I'm sure, so I'll give you that. You get off on the attention like any other narcissistic internet troll. Rather, I am going to give you the one thing you hate the most:  indifference. At the end of the day, you're meaningless. A whisper in the darkness. A tiny blip on the radar. You're not even worthy of a response from me. Unless it's face to face, this is the last time I even acknowledge you exist.

The truth is that when you're dead, no one will give a shit. Not even the people who you think care most about you.

I know you're going to act like a tough guy behind that keyboard - some cutting remark. But I also know - and most importantly you know  - that that thought - that your life is meaningless -  keeps you up at night. There's no escaping it. Outside of this little, insignificant piece of cyperspace - this silly thread on a skydiving website - you are a nobody. Some of us can accept that fact, and others, bullies like you, need to act like cunts to everyone else to prove to themselves that they matter.

Spoiler alert:  you don't.

Now, take the "L".

People respect that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all have personality conflicts with someone else in the Vortex. I’ve never known Fly to be a bully. I’d actually say he’s the exact opposite. He calls everyone out. He’s a peaceful guy who has a lot of case knowledge. So does Georger and so does Blevins. It’s a loss for Fly to not be on the boards. That’s my opinion. This isn’t taking sides.  Chaucer you’ve had some good posts and seem to adapt well. If we get too heated with eachother then it ruins the fun. Maybe you guys should just not respond to eachother. Don’t take this as I don’t feel like knocking some people out sometimes. :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

We all have personality conflicts with someone else in the Vortex. I’ve never known Fly to be a bully. I’d actually say he’s the exact opposite. He calls everyone out. He’s a peaceful guy who has a lot of case knowledge. So does Georger and so does Blevins. It’s a loss for Fly to not be on the boards. That’s my opinion. This isn’t taking sides.  Chaucer you’ve had some good posts and seem to adapt well. If we get too heated with eachother then it ruins the fun. Maybe you guys should just not respond to eachother. Don’t take this as I don’t feel like knocking some people out sometimes. :)

FlyJack, don't let Chaucer get under your skin.  He is NOT as knowledgeable on everything as he claims to be.  One of these days, Chaucer is going to need a very big towel to wipe the egg or whatever off his face.  And you can take that remark to the bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Dorwin vs Rackstraw:

Schreuder backs Rackstraw? That's news to me! What was left on the cutting room floor - what was edited out ? And Dorwin says he is NOT one of Colbert's '40 experts'. Dorwin has never claimed that! Dorwin Schreuder does not need to hang his hat on Colbert's circus wagon. It's absurd. Dorwin was interviewed for 3 1/2 hours. It took less time for the Titanic to sink after hitting an iceberg!     

This is just one example why the media and producers will never solve the DB Cooper case.

Edited by georger
for myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, don't let Chaucer get under your skin.  He is NOT as knowledgeable on everything as he claims to be.  One of these days, Chaucer is going to need a very big towel to wipe the egg or whatever off his face.  And you can take that remark to the bank.

You have a crystal ball ? What's your investment and why! ?

Edited by georger

Share this post


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

You clearly didn't read a thing I wrote, but that's fine. You have your opinions, and I have mine, and they are as inconsequential as most anything in life. DB Cooper is as important as Bachman's guitar. In the grand scheme of things? Meaningless. 

Again, my posts speak for themselves, and if you want to try to think that volume and density are the same thing, then that's on you, not me. If you think a bill sinks because it's saturated, then that's on you, not me. If you think that your numbers are "better" than mine because they are yours, then that's on you, not me. 

I wasn't wrong. What's wrong is misreading a key piece of evidence and thinking that Cooper had 1 inch high hair.

Those who know will see through you and acknowledge the truth.

See, what I have learned in life is that the guy you have to fear isn't the guy who talks a lot of shit at the bar. It's the guy who sits there, sips his drink, and doesn't say a word. The guy who keeps chirping is the one who is insecure with something to prove. The silent guy knows the deal and is quietly deciding if he's going to use his fist, a bullet, or a blade. I know which one I am. Which one are you?

In my opinion, you are a jerk, a troll, a coward, and a bully. Many think this about you, but few are brave enough to verbalize it. I'm plenty brave, and if you'd like to talk about it man to man, private message me a time and a place, and I promise you I'll be there. In fact, I beg you to. 

But, I don't expect you will.

You see, I hate bullies, but I won't allow myself to be antagonized and dragged down to your level like I have in the past. I'm trying to be a better man. I am trying to improve the discourse in this case, and I will no longer allow you to drag me down into the sewage with you.

You sit here and criticize posts that aren't even made on this site. You don't even have the guts to engage others in other forums. You'd rather cast stones from afar.

How sad. How pathetic. 

You know you are welcome to come and post on Shutter's site or Eric Ulis's Facebook page, but I know you won't. As any other bully, you don't have the guts to face the people you mock and insult head on. It's much easier for you to do it from your safe space. It's why you don't share your "evidence" or your "breakthroughs".  It's why you don't show up to Cooper Con or anything like that. You fear that if you actually showed your hand, you'd get laughed out of the building. You're terrified of peer review.

Meanwhile, right or wrong, I post my thoughts and ideas. I'm not a coward like you. 

You'll want the last word I'm sure, so I'll give you that. You get off on the attention like any other narcissistic internet troll. Rather, I am going to give you the one thing you hate the most:  indifference. At the end of the day, you're meaningless. A whisper in the darkness. A tiny blip on the radar. You're not even worthy of a response from me. Unless it's face to face, this is the last time I even acknowledge you exist.

The truth is that when you're dead, no one will give a shit. Not even the people who you think care most about you.

I know you're going to act like a tough guy behind that keyboard - some cutting remark. But I also know - and most importantly you know  - that that thought - that your life is meaningless -  keeps you up at night. There's no escaping it. Outside of this little, insignificant piece of cyperspace - this silly thread on a skydiving website - you are a nobody. Some of us can accept that fact, and others, bullies like you, need to act like cunts to everyone else to prove to themselves that they matter.

Spoiler alert:  you don't.

Now, take the "L".

People respect that.

I have read some nutty comments on the Cooper forums over the years but that one is off the charts crazy..

Too bad Chaucer finds life so meaningless.. but the personal attacks and threats.. not cool, dude.

Chaucer did make an error no matter how much he tries to weasel out of it.. his density number was 0.0544 which needs almost 200x to reach the density of water. Obviously grossly wrong, not just a different opinion but ridiculous on its face.. He also claimed the money/bag would float to TBAR.. about 10 miles or 3-4 hours float.

Now, the real number is just below the density of water, which means it would float briefly until it absorbed the water and displaced the air.. a wet canvas bag full of water and wet money can get very heavy.. I would guess a few minutes maybe 5 tops, the bag is not air tight.

Now, I don't believe based on my analysis of the evidence that the bag landed in or next to the River. I do have some other TBAR scenarios... two of them really good and two so-so..  but let's say it did for sake of argument, there would be no difference whether the bag sank or not for a single bundle of several packets to end up on TBAR..

Chaucer and a few others are still stuck on the idea that the three packets could have only arrived separately.. so it had to be in the container.. they reverse engineer a scenario with a false premise. However, the money went to Cooper in rubber banded bundles of packets, not individual packets. The money was in order and the FBI said it was one bundle... So, it is far more likely that the 3 packets arrived in one rubber banded bundle.. as the bands deteriorated the 3 bundles separated slightly. In this case, it doesn't matter if the bag sunk or not. You don't need the money delivered to TBAR in a container.

Spring is the seasonal high water level which would be above the money find spot. Likely, the bundle gets pushed along the bottom to its spot which is effectively the River bottom at that time. I tend to believe that the rounding wear on the money was from rolling along the River bottom. A wet bundle rolling along the bottom rounding off without affecting the rubber bands.. I know that the Columbia is sandy and the Willamette is gravelly...   nobody has really tested this rounding.

If it was in a bag or not, if a dredge or flood played a role to put it on the beach isn't the big point...

The real TBAR question is how and when did the money get into the River.

If it was in a Spring from 72-79 then where was it from the night of hijacking until it entered the River?

 

I don't think we will ever know..  unless somebody has first hand knowledge and admits it, we will only have theories.

 

Share this post


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

I have read some nutty comments on the Cooper forums over the years but that one is off the charts crazy..

Too bad Chaucer finds life so meaningless.. but the personal attacks and threats.. not cool, dude.

Chaucer did make an error no matter how much he tries to weasel out of it.. his density number was 0.0544 which needs almost 200x to reach the density of water. Obviously grossly wrong, not just a different opinion but ridiculous on its face.. He also claimed the money/bag would float to TBAR.. about 10 miles or 3-4 hours float.

Now, the real number is just below the density of water, which means it would float briefly until it absorbed the water and displaced the air.. a wet canvas bag full of water and wet money can get very heavy.. I would guess a few minutes maybe 5 tops, the bag is not air tight.

Now, I don't believe based on my analysis of the evidence that the bag landed in or next to the River. I do have some other TBAR scenarios... two of them really good and two so-so..  but let's say it did for sake of argument, there would be no difference whether the bag sank or not for a single bundle of several packets to end up on TBAR..

Chaucer and a few others are still stuck on the idea that the three packets could have only arrived separately.. so it had to be in the container.. they reverse engineer a scenario with a false premise. However, the money went to Cooper in rubber banded bundles of packets, not individual packets. The money was in order and the FBI said it was one bundle... So, it is far more likely that the 3 packets arrived in one rubber banded bundle.. as the bands deteriorated the 3 bundles separated slightly. In this case, it doesn't matter if the bag sunk or not. You don't need the money delivered to TBAR in a container.

Spring is the seasonal high water level which would be above the money find spot. Likely, the bundle gets pushed along the bottom to its spot which is effectively the River bottom at that time. I tend to believe that the rounding wear on the money was from rolling along the River bottom. A wet bundle rolling along the bottom rounding off without affecting the rubber bands.. I know that the Columbia is sandy and the Willamette is gravelly...   nobody has really tested this rounding.

If it was in a bag or not, if a dredge or flood played a role to put it on the beach isn't the big point...

The real TBAR question is how and when did the money get into the River.

If it was in a Spring from 72-79 then where was it from the night of hijacking until it entered the River?

 

I don't think we will ever know..  unless somebody has first hand knowledge and admits it, we will only have theories.

 

No Country For Old Men suggests one possible scenario - its a gap that is never going to be filled without solid forensic evidence.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Country_for_Old_Men

Cooper needed a way out of the State of Washington with the money - what did he do - where did he go ? We think the Heisson Store robbery is off the table so Cooper is taking some other path ... to where/how ... or he is in fact dead and the money is sitting somewhere ?

In their last iteration, R99 and Elvis sold the idea that Cooper's body and the money are sitting somewhere "uphill" of the Ingram find location - which is a  little like sending a can of mush to the starving ... the starving gullible will eat anything!  That didn't convince Josh Gates ...

 

Edited by georger

Share this post


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

No Country For Old Men suggests one possible scenario - its a gap that is never going to be filled without solid forensic evidence.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Country_for_Old_Men

Cooper needed a way out of the State of Washington with the money - what did he do - where did he go ? We think the Heisson Store robbery is off the table so Cooper is taking some other path ... to where/how ... or he is in fact dead and the money is sitting somewhere ?

In their last iteration, R99 and Elvis sold the idea that Cooper's body and the money are sitting somewhere "uphill" of the Ingram find location - which is a  little like sending a can of mush to the starving ... the starving gullible will eat anything!  That didn't convince Josh Gates ...

 

Georger, you do not seem to be up to date on this matter.  When last seen, Josh Gates was up to his elbows in the Columbia River at Tena Bar with Eric Ulis in attendance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
6 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Georger, you do not seem to be up to date on this matter.  When last seen, Josh Gates was up to his elbows in the Columbia River at Tena Bar with Eric Ulis in attendance.

This is 2022. You have the wrong year! In the right decade!!  Close but no ceegar.

Edited by georger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, georger said:

No Country For Old Men suggests one possible scenario - its a gap that is never going to be filled without solid forensic evidence.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Country_for_Old_Men

Cooper needed a way out of the State of Washington with the money - what did he do - where did he go ? We think the Heisson Store robbery is off the table so Cooper is taking some other path ... to where/how ... or he is in fact dead and the money is sitting somewhere ?

In their last iteration, R99 and Elvis sold the idea that Cooper's body and the money are sitting somewhere "uphill" of the Ingram find location - which is a  little like sending a can of mush to the starving ... the starving gullible will eat anything!  That didn't convince Josh Gates ...

 

It’s been a while since I saw the movie. What was the scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Robert99 said:

The Victor airway that the hijacked aircraft was on also had a 10,000 minimum altitude limit for obstacle clearance and communications/navigation aids reception.  

This is good.  Page 59 talks about night vision and maintaining it.  Example: Sitting in a dark room for 30 minutes.  Could this be the "lights out" request he made?

Page 69 talks about the actual jump, waiting a few seconds to slow forward momentum and reduce the shock.

Share this post


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

This is good.  Page 59 talks about night vision and maintaining it.  Example: Sitting in a dark room for 30 minutes.  Could this be the "lights out" request he made?

Page 69 talks about the actual jump, waiting a few seconds to slow forward momentum and reduce the shock.

when did he request lights out 'in the rear compartment' ? passage in what document?

Edited by georger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, georger said:

when did he request lights out 'in the rear compartment' ?

Cabin lights off, or dimmed. Not an exact quote.  He wanted the lights off or dimmed.  There has been speculation that this might help his night vision when jumping, as would the sunglasses being worn in the light.  Or the lights could have been to prevent snipers from getting him.

Share this post


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

Cabin lights off, or dimmed. Not an exact quote.  He wanted the lights off or dimmed.  There has been speculation that this might help his night vision when jumping, as would the sunglasses being worn in the light.  Or the lights could have been to prevent snipers from getting him.

what passages say that? Crew interviews or Flight comm Transcript? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
6 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

In was in his "going to Mexico" demands

Thanks --- good memory!

Going to Mexico City - - or any place in Mexico - - nonstop - - gear down - - flaps down - - don’t go over 10,000 feet altitude - - all cabin lights out - - do not again land in the United States for fuel or any other reason - - no one is to come behind the first class section.”

 

 

Edited by georger

Share this post


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

That means Cooper prepped to jump and left the tie with no lights in the cabin...

Did he have a flashlight?

This one is confusing. Did he keep the sunglasses on while wrapping the bag?  If it was dark, then it would be hard to see even without sunglasses. Maybe there was still low light. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Good grief,,

Ulis is going down another rabbit hole,,  the patent does not tie the particle only to Rem-Cru. Titanium and Antimony in those percentages is not unique to Rem-Cru.. classic Ulis exaggeration.

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

This one is confusing. Did he keep the sunglasses on while wrapping the bag?  If it was dark, then it would be hard to see even without sunglasses. Maybe there was still low light. 

Must have been some light,, I have no idea how the lighting worked in a 727-100 but maybe there were switched lights above the seats,, have to look into that.

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