47 47
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

I think he is one of the best witnesses, he got a look at Cooper straight on, unlike Mitchell and some of the Stews.

 

So you're saying that when Flo was lifting the money bag at Cooper's request to feel how heavy it was she didn't get a straight on view of him? Or when he was ordering his drink? Or when he turned around as she sat in the jump seat and spoke to her? Or when she went to the back to get her purse? Or when she was talking to him about destinations they might be going to? Or that Alice didn't see him straight on when she walked over to him and asked him about the parachute? Or when Alice asked him if they could leave? And neither Alice and Flo got a good look at him when he tried to give them tips out of his own wallet?

Tina is the one who said she never saw him straight on which sounds impossible given her interactions with him on the ground in Seattle. I don't really believe Tina when she says that. If you read through her 302's regarding the sketches she clearly doesn't want to participate. So her stating that she never got a good look at him sounds like she just wants to not be bothered anymore. 

I'm going to stick with witness descriptions from people who actually interacted with the man and spoke with him over a guy who says he only got a few looks over his shoulder at him and once when he went to take a piss. 

Edited by olemisscub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think that Mr. Gregory's testimony has some interesting details... it shouldn't be given as much weight as the accounts of the stewardesses, but his report isn't too outrageous to me. He apparently also got a look at Cooper without his sunglasses on, if only briefly.

And for a bit of tinfoil hat time, Mr. Gregory also identified a certain suspect (who I believe to be the man from Egg Harbor) as having a "very strong resemblance" to Cooper, which is some of the strongest wording used for photographic comparisons in the FBI files. That's not a positive identification, of course, but just a tidbit I found intriguing regardless...

Edited by Coopericane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

 

So you're saying that when Flo was lifting the money bag at Cooper's request to feel how heavy it was she didn't get a straight on view of him? Or when he was ordering his drink? Or when he turned around as she sat in the jump seat and spoke to her? Or when she went to the back to get her purse? Or when she was talking to him about destinations they might be going to? Or that Alice didn't see him straight on when she walked over to him and asked him about the parachute? Or when Alice asked him if they could leave? And neither Alice and Flo got a good look at him when he tried to give them tips out of his own wallet?

Tina is the one who said she never saw him straight on which sounds impossible given her interactions with him on the ground in Seattle. I don't really believe Tina when she says that. If you read through her 302's regarding the sketches she clearly doesn't want to participate. So her stating that she never got a good look at him sounds like she just wants to not be bothered anymore. 

I'm going to stick with witness descriptions from people who actually interacted with the man and spoke with him over a guy who says he only got a few looks over his shoulder at him and once when he went to take a piss. 

Sure, I get it you impose motive on Tina the way it suits you and inversely on Gregory when it suits you. That is not an actual argument. It is emotion.

You have no real evidence to discredit Gregory but have anyway.

 

 

30 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

It means he's making crap up. He implies that the stew sitting next to Cooper said this to him. Why would a stew (presumably Tina) say something like that to a passenger? It would have only served to alert a passenger that something was wrong. I call BS on that happening. 

That's fine if you want to put a lot of stock into his testimony, but let's not forget that he also pegged Cooper at 35 and during his work on the sketches he described him as having greasy hair like Nixon and none of that is describing Hahneman (if that's who you think still did this)

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Frankly, I just don't see that argument. You have no idea what Tina said or why.. maybe Cooper told her to say it, who knows. Remember, they moved Mitchell, not Gregory,, 

Gregory said slicked hair as did Flo.. Mitchell said his hair was odd, all black as if dyed. Gregory said marceled, others wavy and curly.. Olive/Swarthy and Latin American was said by others.

Gregory's description is not that different from the others collectively.. I don't see a big conflict in the descriptions, some minor differences but overall close and it is well summarized in the FBI description.

So, again where is the argument to discredit.. I don't see one.

I put all the witnesses together to create a profile..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see following all leads to see where they go. And it may be valid. Or maybe not. I think terms like 'US American currency' are sometimes used simply as figures of speech, to emphasize a concept like 'I want money!', and might have nothing to do with foreign influence. I've seen outlaws in old western movies use such terms in such manner.

-------

22 hours ago, georger said:

BUllsh*t.

Gesundheit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

I can see following all leads to see where they go. And it may be valid. Or maybe not. I think terms like 'US American currency' are sometimes used simply as figures of speech, to emphasize a concept like 'I want money!', and might have nothing to do with foreign influence. I've seen outlaws in old western movies use such terms in such manner.

-------

Gesundheit

In the old west they commonly had gold, silver and many non Gov bank notes... as money..

Not the same as 1971..

That phrase would be extremely rare without a foreign context.. let alone two people on Norjak using it..

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

Personally, I think that Mr. House's testimony has some interesting details... it shouldn't be given as much weight as the accounts of the stewardesses, but his report isn't too outrageous to me. He apparently also got a look at Cooper without his sunglasses on, if only briefly.

And for a bit of tinfoil hat time, Mr. House also identified a certain suspect (who I believe to be the man from Egg Harbor) as having a "very strong resemblance" to Cooper, which is some of the strongest wording used for photographic comparisons in the FBI files. That's not a positive identification, of course, but just a tidbit I found intriguing regardless...

Mr House?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JAGdb said:

I don't work in business or finance, is "negotiable currency" or "negotiable American currency" a valid or frequently used term ?  Doing quick internet searches doesn't return too much.  I see "negotiable instruments" in most of the search returns where things like checks, money orders are listed as examples. But why would he want something like that ?  Is there any benefit in terms of easier redemption ?  I would think that those items are easier to trace.   If the hijacker used the word negotiable, it wouldn't seem incidental.  There would have been some intent behind it, maybe it applies more if you are leaving the country...I don't know.

The phrase "circulated currency" seems more logical as it would help passing the money a little easier or conversely make spotting the bills more difficult for those searching for them.

Money ie. bills are "negotiable" by definition, unless you have Alzheimers or are from a different country with different standards and rules. Or if you have an IQ of 60! Or if you are so nervous you cant zip your pants or think. ................ if Cooper even said this.

Negotiable American currency:" is even worse.  Now you are in the realm of Martians and imbeciles !  Or dolphins or whales trying to make human speech ?  It sounds like something Abraham Lincoln might have said once in a speech forever remembered, etched in stone, on the Lincoln Memorial for all time. 

Said or written only once during the whole hijacking. So it must be super critically important ....  since it was said only once!  Otherwise it would have been said by Whomever 500 times, for everyone to known and remember forever. No questions about the source or the meaning then, like: "B'rashit bara Elohiym..."  In the beginning God made (with his hands) ,,, Bara is a verb reserved for what craftsmen do only with their hands, like rolling clay into a ball when making pots and plates ....

Edited by georger

Share this post


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

Gregory has almost nothing to do with the Cooper going to Mexico argument..

but,

I think Gregory is credible. Everybody dismisses him based on false info.

Others corroborated Latin American/olive features.

He was the closest after Mitchell moved forward.. Gregory stayed in his seat..

So, Gregory was the closet for much of the flight. He was correct. I know everybody gets this wrong at their own peril.

He said in the rear, "believed" row 18, he was not claiming for certain. He said he had an aisle seat and that he looked back, so clearly he was a row or two ahead of Cooper and wasn't claiming the absolute rear seat. He just got the row number wrong, not his position.

Stew said not to look at Cooper,,, what does that mean for credibility. Nothing.

Since Gregory had the aisle seat and looked back at Cooper, he would have had a good view. He also got up to go to the rear restroom but was intercepted by the stew. 

He saw a blonde stew bring the money on the plane.

The brown haired stew is incorrect but that is minor, he did say there were 3 stews a blonde and two brunettes. It could be he mixed up Flo and Tina or the FBI interviewer mixed them up in notes or when he looked at Cooper he saw Flo with him both times.. this is the only inconsistency. So, you want to dismiss his testimony on that.

Gregory was a paint guy, he would have eye for colour and detail and he said the suit was russet which can be very dark almost black. Most would think it was black.

I once bought a sport jacket I thought was black but only when I put it next to a real black I could tell it was actually a russet colour..

That is my view on Gregory, if people want to dismiss him they can go right ahead.. I think he is one of the best witnesses, he got a look at Cooper straight on, unlike Mitchell and some of the Stews.

Gregory was not closest to him for much of the flight according to Bills in his WSHM interview he didn’t move up until the plane started it’s descent to land in Seatac along with everybody else that hadn’t moved up. Gregory was incorrect about this amongst other things. Very little stock should be placed In his testimony.  

Edited by Nicholas Broughton

Share this post


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

No it isn't,, 

My conclusion based on all the evidence is that Cooper initially wanted to jump much further South probably outside the US.. when the range was a problem and the crew negotiated Reno Cooper changed his plan. He had the money and didn't want to be on the plane in Reno for the refuel..

1. Cooper's initial demand was airstairs lowered in flight (changed demand during discussion with crew to open on takeoff) When Reno was in play he wanted to jump early.

2. Cooper demanded to go to Mexico, no stops in US for any reason.. this was impossible, Cooper would not make this demand unless he actually believed it was possible. 

3. Cooper was described as swarthy. Latin American possibly Mexican.

4. [REDACTED]

5. Cooper rejected a refuel stop at LA and San Francisco, said too large wanted a small airport. At this point, he was still thinking he would be on the plane for the refuelling. Why would he care if he was jumping in the PNW.

6. Cooper never gave route instructions. He did not have a specific LZ, if they had flown to Mexico he could have later given specific instructions to an LZ.

7. Cooper was not dressed for a PNW jump.

8. There is no counterargument. People claim Mexico was just a ruse to get the plane heading South, there is no evidence for that and it doesn't make sense. There is no way Cooper would make a demand that he knew was impossible, would be rejected and need to be renegotiated.

 

If Cooper wanted to get to Mexico he could have changed the flight characteristics to get fuel efficiency until he got to Mexico, then he could have had the plane go to high flaps ect. Citing airports were to big was likely just a reason given to reject the suggestion. Wouldn’t cooper be concerned jumping around an area he is just leaving with cops and FBI agents buzzing around? It would of been just as hot as Reno was. What doesn’t make sense is cooper wanting to jump in mexico but then hastily aborts that plan only to jump 30 mins after takeoff from Seattle. Huh??? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

If Cooper wanted to get to Mexico he could have changed the flight characteristics to get fuel efficiency until he got to Mexico, then he could have had the plane go to high flaps ect. Citing airports were to big was likely just a reason given to reject the suggestion. Wouldn’t cooper be concerned jumping around an area he is just leaving with cops and FBI agents buzzing around? It would of been just as hot as Reno was. What doesn’t make sense is cooper wanting to jump in mexico but then hastily aborts that plan only to jump 30 mins after takeoff from Seattle. Huh??? 

There was no reason to reject SF or LA if he was going to jump in the PNW.. he rejected them because they were too large and wanted a smaller airport because he was still going to be on the plane. If he was going to jump in the PNW, he wouldn't care.. When Reno was agreed to, he decided to jump ASAP. It is simple and very rational. 

It makes perfect sense, he has the money, he doesn't need to risk being on the plane when it lands it Reno.. that is why he changed his demand from airstairs lowered inflight to on takeoff when Reno was agreed to. He wanted out ASAP. Being on the plane when it landed in Reno was an unnecessary risk.. 

Everybody gets this wrong, Cooper changed his demand when Reno was in play. His first demand was airstairs lowered in flight. He changed his demand and his plan when Reno was in play..

If the plane could have reached Mexico, Cooper could have given further instructions.. the plan was to refuel in Mazatlan.. but wasn't needed obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

Gregory was not closest to him for much of the flight according to Bills in his WSHM interview he didn’t move up until the plane started it’s descent to land in Seatac along with everybody else that hadn’t moved up. Gregory was incorrect about this amongst other things. His testimony is a complete toss for me. 

He wasn't incorrect,, at some point he was the closest to Cooper and that was when Tina delivered the money and the passengers got up and left the plane. His testimony varies only slightly from others. In fact, everyone's testimony varies slightly as you would expect.

There is no reason to discount Gregory,,  most of what he said was also said by others.

So, what do people actually reject.. all witnesses have slight variations.

IMO, the FBI description blending all witness is very accurate...

This weird obsession with discounting Gregory does back a long way,,

Maybe it was the "russet" suit vs "dark" suit,, russet can be virtually black as a paint guy he would have been able to tell.

shades of russet

shades-of-russet-color-80461b-hex-28325-colorswall.thumb.png.419199132ecb6a4ee4f6ce3b0d1a4a4a.png

Share this post


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

In the old west they commonly had gold, silver and many non Gov bank notes... as money..

Well, that was just one example, and in the scene I had in mind, they weren't choosing between different valuables, they were getting ready to rob a bank of it's cash and were greedily rubbing their hands together in anticipation of what they were about to get those hands on. The point was, the same as I think I've said about the 'collecting enough Raleigh coupons for a Para-Commander' comment, that not all comments are serious, literal and descriptive. Sometimes people just make a quip, a joke, or use a figure of speech, and I think one has to consider that possibility. 'Cold hard cash' doesn't necessarily denote a preference for chilled coins over room-temperature bills.

Share this post


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

Well, that was just one example, and in the scene I had in mind, they weren't choosing between different valuables, they were getting ready to rob a bank of it's cash and were greedily rubbing their hands together in anticipation of what they were about to get those hands on. The point was, the same as I think I've said about the 'collecting enough Raleigh coupons for a Para-Commander' comment, that not all comments are serious, literal and descriptive. Sometimes people just make a quip, a joke, or use a figure of speech, and I think one has to consider that possibility. 'Cold hard cash' doesn't necessarily denote a preference for chilled coins over room-temperature bills.

The problem people are having is that anything is possible,, we are trying to discern was is probable. We can't "prove" these things one way or another. You can always imagine the possible. Our goal is to separate the probable from the possible using the best evidence, logic and reason. 

First, we have the pilots say "American" currency.. that wasn't the FBI lingo.

then Tina said Cooper later told her "US" currency.. that is two..

So, it is very likely Cooper used the descriptor "American/US" for the money..

Second, it would be very rare and odd in 1971 to use the descriptor "American/US" by somebody who has never left the US or planned to or was never exposed to another currency.. very rare.

Those things indicate a foreign aspect to Cooper.

The profile of Cooper also suggests a foreign aspect,, military experience, airplane experience and swarthy/olive Latin American...  his Mexico demand.

The American/US descriptor doesn't prove a foreign aspect but it does support it.

In conclusion, based on all the evidence, Cooper very likely spent significant time outside the US.. probably recently (before NORJAK).

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, olemisscub said:

It means he's making crap up. He implies that the stew sitting next to Cooper said this to him. Why would a stew (presumably Tina) say something like that to a passenger? It would have only served to alert a passenger that something was wrong. I call BS on that happening. 

That's fine if you want to put a lot of stock into his testimony, but let's not forget that he also pegged Cooper at 35 and during his work on the sketches he described him as having greasy hair like Nixon and none of that is describing Hahneman (if that's who you think still did this)

So, this is a big problem in this case,,, just making sh!t up.. to dismiss something you don't like.

 

Here is the explanation.. doesn't sound like BS.

After Mitchell went forward, Gregory was the closest passenger to Cooper, four seats away. He wasn't wrong..

Plane had landed and passenger's were instructed to remain seated.

Stew was standing in the aisle blocking Gregory's seat.

He asked what is the problem, she said don't look back.. Doesn't sound like BS..

Gregory got a (2nd) good look at Cooper as he left..

 

1610919138_ScreenShot2022-09-21at7_17_38AM.png.50b0175aff35abfbf82af6d5f13820e2.png

397232227_ScreenShot2022-09-21at7_18_50AM.png.bb5a3b4486e525d9504fb6c74f3dedc7.png

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert Gregory's description...  

Since most of these were corroborated by other witnesses, what is there to dismiss? all of it, some of it, one item, it makes no sense.

He is a bit low on the age, but that is subjective and can be tough. IMO, Cooper was 45-50..

He said the suit was russet/brown, others said dark.. there may be a bit of conflation between the suit jacket and overcoat.. I do wonder if Cooper ever removed the overcoat..

He used Mexican American, others used Latin American.

He said Marceled/wavy hair,, others said wavy or curly.

His height and weight estimate is close to Mitchell's. Cooper was seated..

He said Caucasian, others said white.

Hair slightly parted on the left, matches other witnesses.

Hair dark black and slicked, Flo said slicked.. Mitchell said dark black as if dyed..

Narrow lips,, others narrow lips..

but overall, very minor differences.. there is no rational reason to dismiss Gregory.

Caucasian, Mexican American possibly American Indian blood
about 35, (later said up to 40)
Swarthy
Jet Black hair, wavy, marceled, greasy sheen, combed slightly back to right, slightly  parted on left
close to head slightly receding in front
eyes unknown, wore dark horn rimmed glasses
remained seated, maybe 5' 9”
estimate 165 lbs
Reddish brown (russet) suit coat with wide lapel, neutral shirt contrasting tie, medium to dark color
 
 
other comments re first sketch
 
hair slicked down
flatter nose
rounded cheeks
high cheekbones
long nose
wide forehead
lips narrower
Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a quick response back from McCrone about possibly seeing data from other tests to see how elements/particles are reported.  Below is what I got.  I think the latest look at the particles is assuming that a line of data (1 of 106,000 lines) shows alloys.  For instance, if it was NaCl then it would be salt. However, I'm of the opinion (Flyjack it seems too) that the NaCl could just mean that the stub picked up Sodium and Chloride and not that they were together forming table salt.  Now, if a microscope actually identified a particle that was an alloy, then we can assume that is accurate. However, we do not know if that particle has an exact corresponding line in the data.

Tom Kaye responded a while back on Facebook that those lines do not mean that they are alloys, just that they were found together.  

Someone with a science background could help here. I searched for Scanning Electron Microscope data output and got a few hits. One read out looked just like the McCrone one in terms of format and column headers.  I was hoping to find one that explained what an alloy would look like on the readout, versus something that was maybe plated with another element, or just found next to each other.

On the Citizen Sleuths site they do say "This data is complicated to look at. Please do not email asking how to interpret it."

 

Response from McCrone.

Client confidentiality is paramount to our business.  Our reports are the intellectual property of our clients.  You will have to acquire the information from the original client.

 

With highest regards,

 

Craig

Share this post


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

The problem people are having is that anything is possible,, we are trying to discern was is probable. We can't "prove" these things one way or another. You can always imagine the possible. Our goal is to separate the probable from the possible using the best evidence, logic and reason. 

First, we have the pilots say "American" currency.. that wasn't the FBI lingo.

then Tina said Cooper later told her "US" currency.. that is two..

So, it is very likely Cooper used the descriptor "American/US" for the money..

Second, it would be very rare and odd in 1971 to use the descriptor "American/US" by somebody who has never left the US or planned to or was never exposed to another currency.. very rare.

Those things indicate a foreign aspect to Cooper.

The profile of Cooper also suggests a foreign aspect,, military experience, airplane experience and swarthy/olive Latin American...  his Mexico demand.

The American/US descriptor doesn't prove a foreign aspect but it does support it.

In conclusion, based on all the evidence, Cooper very likely spent significant time outside the US.. probably recently (before NORJAK).

Second, it would be very rare and odd in 1971 to use the descriptor "American/US" by somebody who has never left the US or planned to or was never exposed to another currency.. very rare.

Those things indicate a foreign aspect to Cooper.

Those words taken in context, indicate somebody in authority trying to communicate somebody else's demands to people who are going to be tasked with fulfilling those demands! Otherwise these words are redundant, irrelevant, confusing. 

The context is not in question. The context is: communication of another person's demands vs. someone trying to communicate 'their' demands. This is "authority speak", pure and simple. You hear this very thing every frikin day between dispatchers and police officers in calls for service. 'Person who is a person called and has a burglar or burglary in his garage which is at his property with a weapon gun ...'

This is a one-way communication.  There is no conversation. No discussion. No clarification. The words of a robot!  Authority-speak. Something a pilot under stress with authority would say. There are probably other examples in the text if you look for them... short redundant bits of information spoken with authority.

Edited by georger

Share this post


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

Second, it would be very rare and odd in 1971 to use the descriptor "American/US" by somebody who has never left the US or planned to or was never exposed to another currency.. very rare.

Those things indicate a foreign aspect to Cooper.

Those words taken in context, indicate somebody in authority trying to communicate somebody else's demands to people who are going to be tasked with fulfilling those demands! Otherwise these words are redundant, irrelevant, confusing. 

The context is not in question. The context is: communication of another person's demands vs. someone trying to communicate 'their' demands. This is "authority speak", pure and simple. You hear this very thing every frikin day between dispatchers and police officers in calls for service. 'Person who is a person called and has a burglar or burglary in his garage which is at his property with a weapon gun ...'

This is a one-way communication.  There is no conversation. No discussion. No clarification. The words of a robot!  Authority-speak. 

Something to consider, at least from my perspective.  Cooper would have thought this one out some, maybe in his mind, maybe on paper, maybe with a partner.  These statements were made early on in the hijacking, so he likely thought about what he would say.  Whatever he did say may very well have been for a reason, as in he didn't wing it in the moment.  Same thing with the name.  I have to imagine that his first interaction with Flight 305 and Northwest is going to involve a name that means something to him, but then again he could have gotten to the counter and made it up on the fly, doubtful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Second, it would be very rare and odd in 1971 to use the descriptor "American/US" by somebody who has never left the US or planned to or was never exposed to another currency.. very rare.

Those things indicate a foreign aspect to Cooper.

Those words taken in context, indicate somebody in authority trying to communicate somebody else's demands to people who are going to be tasked with fulfilling those demands! Otherwise these words are redundant, irrelevant, confusing. 

The context is not in question. The context is: communication of another person's demands vs. someone trying to communicate 'their' demands. This is "authority speak", pure and simple. You hear this very thing every frikin day between dispatchers and police officers in calls for service. 'Person who is a person called and has a burglar or burglary in his garage which is at his property with a weapon gun ...'

This is a one-way communication.  There is no conversation. No discussion. No clarification. The words of a robot!  Authority-speak. Something a pilot under stress with authority would say. There are probably other examples in the text if you look for them... short redundant bits of information spoken with authority.

Well, you are just making that up.. there is no reason for the pilot to add "American" but even so the problem with your claim is..

He also later told Tina "US" currency.

It would be very odd and extremely rare for you to go down to your bank in middle America and engage in a transaction qualifying the money as American or US without any foreign aspect to it. Then do it again soon after.

It just doesn't make sense.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

Well, you are just making that up.. there is no reason for the pilot to add "American" but even so the problem with your claim is..

He also later told Tina "US" currency.

It would be very odd and extremely rare for you to go down to your bank in middle America and engage in a transaction qualifying the money as American or US without any foreign aspect to it. Then do it again soon after.

It just doesn't make sense.

He also later told Tina "US" currency.

No. These are Mucklow's words from he second deposition, not Cooper's words verbatim. You keep telling us Mucklow's words are Cooper's words ... just as you told us Mucklow's words were the bank's words! Mucklow is not giving quotations of other people's statement - Mucklow is explaining things in her own words. Mucklow's words are not Cooper quotations.

Mucklow gave two interviews where she states her recollection of Cooper demands. 

Mucklow #1: " Mucklow then used a plain envelope to write out the demands of the hijacker, listing that he wanted four parachutes including two back packs and two chest packs, $200,000 in cash in small bills, and that he wanted everything by “by five o’clock”.  "

Mucklow #2: ". The hijacker later told (repeated to)  Mucklow that he wanted $200,000 in circulated US currency, "

Mucklow is trying to be specific. She is communicating with the cockpit. So whose words are these? Mucklow's or Cooper's verbatim?  Mucklow can only talk to the cockpit. The cockpit will communicate with the ground.

The money is going to be US currency in any event!    Cooper wants: $200,000 in cash in small used bills.  Cooper wants used bills in small denominations that will be easy to pass.  That is all this is about!

Quite often a cigar is only a cigar!

Edited by georger

Share this post


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

He also later told Tina "US" currency.

No. These are Mucklow's words from he second deposition, not Cooper's words verbatim. You keep telling us Mucklow's words are Cooper's words ... just as you told us Mucklow's words were the bank's words! Mucklow is not giving quotations of other people's statement - Mucklow is explaining things in her own words. Mucklow's words are not Cooper quotations.

Mucklow gave two interviews where she states her recollection of Cooper demands. 

Mucklow #1: " Mucklow then used a plain envelope to write out the demands of the hijacker, listing that he wanted four parachutes including two back packs and two chest packs, $200,000 in cash in small bills, and that he wanted everything by “by five o’clock”.  "

Mucklow #2: ". The hijacker later told (repeated to)  Mucklow that he wanted $200,000 in circulated US currency, "

Mucklow is trying to be specific. She is communicating with the cockpit. So whose words are these? Mucklow's or Cooper's verbatim?  Mucklow can only talk to the cockpit. The cockpit will communicate with the ground.

The money is going to be US currency in any event!    Cooper wants: $200,000 in cash in small used bills.  Cooper wants used bills in small denominations that will be easy to pass.  That is all this is about!

Quite often a cigar is only a cigar!

So what.. Obviously, we don't have Cooper speaking. Witness accounts is all we have.. if you want to go there, you can claim nothing in the 302's is valid because it is somebody's perception or recall.

why would Tina add "US"...  and the pilot add "American".. 

Most likely,,,, because Cooper said it. 

 

Share this post


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

So what.. Obviously, we don't have Cooper speaking. Witness accounts is all we have.. if you want to go there, you can claim nothing in the 302's is valid because it is somebody's perception or recall.

why would Tina add "US"...  and the pilot add "American".. 

Most likely,,,, because Cooper said it. 

 

Obviously, Cooper and Mucklow had a discussion about Cooper's demands, probably what he wanted and the form etc etc etc. Mucklow took her role seriously. Her communications were vital and she realised that. She wanted no screw-ups! She knew what she said and the form it took was important . If she had stipulated ' all bills in a bundle shall be face up and out on all US bills in every bundle...' that amount of detail would not surprise me at all. I am sure Tina and Cooper discussed all of this - and it gave Cooper confidence things were working smoothly to his favor. If there is redundancy in her words its there for a purpose. She's trying to get the job done and communicated - with no confusion or guesswork about what Cooper wants and the form it must take! US American Currency should surprise no one. That essential redundancy is there for a purpose. 

We are talking about a person who has been involved in Biblical studies and language since she was a child, where words and semantics have meaning and get discussed endlessly, from Sunday School as a child forward through Tina's whole life. Tina is aware of the role language plays. During a hijacking language is going to play a vital role! Tina is fully aware of her role and the importance of language . Cooper and the crew were lucky to have her....       

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.

47 47