DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 654]

44 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

You may be right, but I can't say the road from "story changing" to "hiding something" is a direct as this makes it sound.

Just because some deception involves someone changing a story, doesn't mean that all changed stories are deceptive. It seems illogical to admit the very thing you were intending to hide, and then later decide to go back and hide it. You can't unring a bell....

I've told this privately, but my life was literally saved by a first-responder. I was not alone (there were probably 30 of us), but I directly interacted with him over the course of probably two hours. 

And yet, if he were sitting next to me right now, I would not know it. I know his name and some general elements of how he looked. If you showed me 10 pictures of people within that general outline, and there wasn't anything that stood out about any of those 10 (like a huge schnozz or blond hair and big ears), I'd be as likely to say that any of them were or could be the guy. I might also, in retrospect, have to consider that maybe I didn't get as good a look at him as I thought--even though I know for a fact I did.

But I'd have to wonder even for myself, not being able to really pinpoint this person I interacted with, if maybe I just didn't see him as well as I thought. (Which, again, I did.)

In times of trauma, we do not code memory the same way. This cannot be discounted (and frequently is in this case). It's risky to compare someone in what was clearly a trauma state, to someone in their right mind, and IMO unwarranted to say that her inconsistencies are deception, any more than mine would be. 

I get it, acute traumatic events can affect memory, but I think this is different.

Look at the events in sequence..

Tina and Flo give a detailed description of Cooper to produce sketch A, Flo doesn't like the sketch so it is predominantly from Tina's input..

Sketch A is to be revised with the input of all witnesses, Tina rejects it.. and re-iterates support for sketch A.

Tina states she did not see Cooper's face straight on.. and elsewhere says she didn't see him well because he was bent over... sounds odd.

The FBI uses Tina as their primary witness viewing images to eliminate suspects.

 

So, Tina wanted sketch A to represent Cooper against the views of other witnesses.. when it was to be revised she claimed she didn't she his face straight on and her description oddly became both vague and precise..

Does anybody believe Tina did not see Cooper's face...  she is largely responsible for sketch A.

We know sketch A was a bad sketch and using that sketch for about a year certainly had a negative impact on the case. 

Tina was specific early for sketch A then became vague, misleading and reluctant to support sketch B..

Either she was deceitful about sketch A or her later statement about not seeing Cooper's face..

This is NOT consistent...

It is one or the other.. there is no middle.

Tina is hiding something,,

Edited January 9, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Math of Insects 95]

3 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I get it,, but I think this is different.

lets's look at the events in sequence..

Tina and Flo give a detailed description of Cooper to produce sketch A, Flo doesn't like the sketch so it is predominantly from Tina's input..

Sketch A is to be revised with the input of all witnesses, Tina rejects it.. and re-iterates supports sketch A.

Tina states she did not see Cooper's face straight on.. and elsewhere says she didn't see him well because he was bent over... sounds odd.

The FBI uses Tina as their primary witness viewing images to eliminate suspects.

 

So, Tina wanted sketch A to represent Cooper against the views of other witnesses.. when it was to be revised she claimed she didn't she his face straight on and her description oddly became both vague and precise..

Does anybody believe Tina did not see Cooper's face...  she is largely responsible for sketch A.

We know sketch A was a bad sketch and using that sketch for about a year certainly had a negative impact on the case. 

Tina was specific early for sketch A then became vague, misleading and reluctant to support sketch B..

Either she was deceitful about sketch A or her later statement about not seeing Cooper's face..

It is one or the other.. there is no middle.

Tina is hiding something,,

She was 22, and female, in the world of 1971. It is just as likely she either came to doubt herself or wanted to avoid conflict or ridicule, as that she is part of some conspiracy or willful plot. Not only that, she's had 50 years to come clean about something that her 22-year-old self would have done out of bad judgment. 

Your conclusion may be right, but I don't think the information leads there in any direct or reasonable way. She was a human for 22 years before this and for another 50 so far after it. Anything that occurred is far more likely to be a quirk of human nature than some kind of plot.

[FLYJACK 654]

3 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

Anything that occurred is far more likely to be a quirk of human nature than some kind of plot.

False choice.

It does support a theory when you add in other information.. not a plot or conspiracy.

[Math of Insects 95]

37 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

False choice.

It does support a theory when you add in other information.. not a plot or conspiracy.

Fair enough, though I wasn’t suggesting a choice, just degrees of likelihood. Someone not wanting to appear contentious or wrong would also be “hiding something.” It sounds like you mean she was hiding a particular thing. Whatever that thing is is not directly suggested by any quirk of her behavior, IMO, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other elements you’re not mentioning that do.

[georger 194]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

I get it, acute traumatic events can affect memory, but I think this is different.

Look at the events in sequence..

Tina and Flo give a detailed description of Cooper to produce sketch A, Flo doesn't like the sketch so it is predominantly from Tina's input..

Sketch A is to be revised with the input of all witnesses, Tina rejects it.. and re-iterates support for sketch A.

Tina states she did not see Cooper's face straight on.. and elsewhere says she didn't see him well because he was bent over... sounds odd.

The FBI uses Tina as their primary witness viewing images to eliminate suspects.

 

So, Tina wanted sketch A to represent Cooper against the views of other witnesses.. when it was to be revised she claimed she didn't she his face straight on and her description oddly became both vague and precise..

Does anybody believe Tina did not see Cooper's face...  she is largely responsible for sketch A.

We know sketch A was a bad sketch and using that sketch for about a year certainly had a negative impact on the case. 

Tina was specific early for sketch A then became vague, misleading and reluctant to support sketch B..

Either she was deceitful about sketch A or her later statement about not seeing Cooper's face..

This is NOT consistent...

It is one or the other.. there is no middle.

Tina is hiding something,,

It's an impasse. And a quick slide into: Tina is hiding something,,   with no way to prove that!

Once again the identity of Cooper falls back on forensic information, which is lacking and debated. Kaye's attempt at dna information got corrupted by self contamination, which is a bit humorous. 

The Cooper case is cursed .......... by too many cooks and experts all clashing. The net result of that is no consensus on anything, ending in boredom and gridlock on the Ulis Channel, the foremost expert in the World on the DB Cooper case now moving to Seattle!

Edited January 9, 2023 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

23 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

Fair enough, though I wasn’t suggesting a choice, just degrees of likelihood. Someone not wanting to appear contentious or wrong would also be “hiding something.” It sounds like you mean she was hiding a particular thing. Whatever that thing is is not directly suggested by any quirk of her behavior, IMO, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other elements you’re not mentioning that do.

More of a CYA...

Even Flo suggested Tina was hiding something..

[FLYJACK 654]

5 minutes ago, georger said:

It's an impasse. And a quick slide into: Tina is hiding something,,   with no way to prove that!

Once again the identity of Cooper falls back on forensic information, which is lacking and debated. Kaye's attempt at dna information got corrupted by self contamination, which is a bit humorous. 

The Cooper case is cursed .......... by too many cooks and experts all clashing. The net result of that is no consensus on anything, ending in boredom and gridlock on the Ulis Channel! 

The thing is, Tina is hiding something from the FBI.....

She may know more about Cooper than she is telling the FBI.

[georger 194]

5 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

The thing is, Tina is hiding something from the FBI.....

She may know more about Cooper than she is telling the FBI.

All kinds of people have said that: Cook, Smith, Tosaw, .........

These people claim to know Tina better than Tina knows herself.

Edited January 9, 2023 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

20 minutes ago, georger said:

All kinds of people have said that: Cook, Smith, Tosaw, .........

These people claim to know Tina better than Tina knows herself.

Well, we know her statements to the FBI were contradictory/inconsistent.

and I have evidence that her camp tried to front run a large scale Cooper ground search.

Why,, because she needed to publicly plant a narrative in case Cooper and the money was found.

Edited January 9, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Math of Insects 95]

53 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

More of a CYA...

Even Flo suggested Tina was hiding something..

It's certainly possible that she was, I just think we need to be aware that "hiding something" might have meant something different than what we think. Maybe she was nice to him and regretted it. Maybe she felt she'd failed in her new job somehow. Maybe she realized there was a point where she had a chance to stop it all and didn't. Maybe she realized she couldn't be of more help to the FBI, and wished she could. Maybe he said "I'm going to jump now, don't tell anyone," and she didn't tell anyone. Maybe she accepted $5800 from Cooper and later threw it out the open door in a burst of regret.

Or maybe she felt traumatized and confused and didn't have any model for how to proceed next (which I can vouch is a thing).

I'm not saying you're off-base for the suggestions you're making, just that I think in general we diminish the role trauma plays in people's responses. MANY things can look like non-responsiveness, and even when they are C'ing someone's A, it's often for a very different reason than we think from the outside.

[FLYJACK 654]

28 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

It's certainly possible that she was, I just think we need to be aware that "hiding something" might have meant something different than what we think. Maybe she was nice to him and regretted it. Maybe she felt she'd failed in her new job somehow. Maybe she realized there was a point where she had a chance to stop it all and didn't. Maybe she realized she couldn't be of more help to the FBI, and wished she could. Maybe he said "I'm going to jump now, don't tell anyone," and she didn't tell anyone. Maybe she accepted $5800 from Cooper and later threw it out the open door in a burst of regret.

Or maybe she felt traumatized and confused and didn't have any model for how to proceed next (which I can vouch is a thing).

I'm not saying you're off-base for the suggestions you're making, just that I think in general we diminish the role trauma plays in people's responses. MANY things can look like non-responsiveness, and even when they are C'ing someone's A, it's often for a very different reason than we think from the outside.

The problem with the trauma explanation is that her only inconsistency involves Cooper's facial description,, all the rest is consistent and detailed. If it were due to trauma then we'd see more widespread inconstancies...

In other words, isn't it odd that the trauma would be isolated to the description of Cooper's face..

Taken on its own it suggests evasiveness/deception... not what that deception is.

Edited January 9, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Math of Insects 95]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

The problem with the trauma explanation is that her only inconsistency involves Cooper's facial description,, all the rest is consistent and detailed. If it were due to trauma then we'd see more widespread inconstancies...

In other words, isn't it odd that the trauma would be isolated to the description of Cooper's face..

Taken on its own it suggests evasiveness/deception... not what that deception is.

Understood. For whatever it's worth, I personally can describe many, many things in great detail about the day I keep referring to, and yet can't tell you a thing about the face of the guy who saved us, beyond the most general elements (race, rough age range, very rough height). I can tell you his name, and I've since read his story around the day, but if you interviewed me even a couple of days later I wouldn't have been able to tell you much more than that. As I say, as of now he could be the guy drinking coffee next to me and I wouldn't know.

Flip side, if you talked to me that night I would have been able to be very specific. 

That's why I caution against using logic-brain to decode trauma brain. Some stuff imprints, some doesn't, and the pattern is random and weird-looking sometimes. 

Even the money hunt is completely explainable to me, and familiar to me based on something I did too. We don't find it easy to process what is called "single-blow" trauma; we fire off in all directions and it's all a mess up there. I can see her sort of instinctively wanting to close that open door, so to speak.

With the usual caveat that you might be right and correct. I just find everything you're mentioning completely explainable and not at all surprising, given the trauma of a 22-year-old woman being told that for all she knows, at any moment the plane she is on will explode and she will die. That state of lizard-brain jumpiness does crazy things to the normal coding we do.  /horse

[FLYJACK 654]

5 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

Understood. For whatever it's worth, I personally can describe many, many things in great detail about the day I keep referring to, and yet can't tell you a thing about the face of the guy who saved us, beyond the most general elements (race, rough age range, very rough height). I can tell you his name, and I've since read his story around the day, but if you interviewed me even a couple of days later I wouldn't have been able to tell you much more than that. As I say, as of now he could be the guy drinking coffee next to me and I wouldn't know.

Flip side, if you talked to me that night I would have been able to be very specific. 

That's why I caution against using logic-brain to decode trauma brain. Some stuff imprints, some doesn't, and the pattern is random and weird-looking sometimes. 

Even the money hunt is completely explainable to me, and familiar to me based on something I did too. We don't find it easy to process what is called "single-blow" trauma; we fire off in all directions and it's all a mess up there. I can see her sort of instinctively wanting to close that open door, so to speak.

With the usual caveat that you might be right and correct. I just find everything you're mentioning completely explainable and not at all surprising, given the trauma of a 22-year-old woman being told that for all she knows, at any moment the plane she is on will explode and she will die. That state of lizard-brain jumpiness does crazy things to the normal coding we do.  /horse

This is different,, Tina detailed Cooper's face for "Sketch A" a few days later... then almost a year later when the sketch was to be redone she claimed she didn't see his face..

That is not the same situation you are describing.

[FLYJACK 654]

and Tina's ex said the FBI was watching them...

[georger 194]

6 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

This is different,, Tina detailed Cooper's face for "Sketch A" a few days later... then almost a year later when the sketch was to be redone she claimed she didn't see his face..

That is not the same situation you are describing.

Its easy to quarterback now - 50 yrs later! Tina is an easy target. People want or expect perfection.  (not going to happen)  Recall one camp said Tina was a 'vegetable',   traumatised beyond use. Tosaw, Smith, Cook ... until that turned out to be wrong!

Intentional deception?   Trauma syndrome?  That would require exceptional proof.

Give the woman a break!  Sometimes a cigar is ...................... you know how that goes. There is no evidence Tina was party to the crime.                

Edited January 10, 2023 by georger

[olemisscub 461]

20 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I get it, acute traumatic events can affect memory, but I think this is different.

Look at the events in sequence..

Tina and Flo give a detailed description of Cooper to produce sketch A, Flo doesn't like the sketch so it is predominantly from Tina's input..

Sketch A is to be revised with the input of all witnesses, Tina rejects it.. and re-iterates support for sketch A.

Tina states she did not see Cooper's face straight on.. and elsewhere says she didn't see him well because he was bent over... sounds odd.

The FBI uses Tina as their primary witness viewing images to eliminate suspects.

 

Doing more deep dives into the dates of the sketches and the comments we have, it seems that Flo's issue was with the initial sketch, not Comp A. 

 

 

[ParrotheadVol 70]

20 hours ago, JAGdb said:

While I'm not holding my breath, the movie based on Tina's experience on flight 305, is supposed to enter production this year, I'm really curious if anything new will come out of it. I believe it is set to be called "Nod If you Understand".   There is an article linked off of Tina's Twitter page, which admittedly is over a year old, in which she is quoted as saying something to the effect of still having "vivid" memories of the details of the hijacking.  After 50+ years, will she share anything new ?  Is she still under any type of FBI request not to share certain details (I doubt it)?  Is the FBI, in any, way, shape or form involved with reviewing the script (Again, I would be surprised) ?  We will see...

The problem with this movie is that there will be things in it that become "facts" that are not. Hollywood always plays loose with actual events takes their own liberties with the truth. In a sense, they sometimes change history, or at least change perception of it. The Zodiac movie is a great example. A lot of people watched that movie and took it all as fact. It was not, though some of it was. Unlike Zodiac however, I doubt this movie will introduce any suspects. I don't think it's that type of movie, as it's more about Tina. Still, I suspect that even with Tina involved, there will be things they get wrong, either deliberately or just out of ignorance. It will be nearly impossible to convince the newcomers that are led to this case through that movie that those things, regardless of their significance, are inaccurate. Just me, but I would be very skeptical about anything "new" that came from it.

[olemisscub 461]

11 minutes ago, ParrotheadVol said:

The problem with this movie is that there will be things in it that become "facts" that are not. Hollywood always plays loose with actual events takes their own liberties with the truth. In a sense, they sometimes change history, or at least change perception of it. The Zodiac movie is a great example. A lot of people watched that movie and took it all as fact. It was not, though some of it was. Unlike Zodiac however, I doubt this movie will introduce any suspects. I don't think it's that type of movie, as it's more about Tina. Still, I suspect that even with Tina involved, there will be things they get wrong, either deliberately or just out of ignorance. It will be nearly impossible to convince the newcomers that are led to this case through that movie that those things, regardless of their significance, are inaccurate. Just me, but I would be very skeptical about anything "new" that came from it.

Rob Bertrand's DB Cooper screenplay "The Sky Way", which won several awards, is the one that I wish a big Hollywood movie had used. It's as close to the 302's as you could possibly get. The only fictional narrative that he inserts at all into that screenplay is that when Tina rejects the money from Cooper, he tells her that he's going to leave it in a safe place for her and whenever it is found she'll know that he lived. The last scene of the movie after Cooper jumps is a flash forward to Tina at her convent watching the Tena Bar money find on the news and just smiling or something like that. 

[FLYJACK 654]

11 hours ago, georger said:

Its easy to quarterback now - 50 yrs later! Tina is an easy target. People want or expect perfection.  (not going to happen)  Recall one camp said Tina was a 'vegetable',   traumatised beyond use. Tosaw, Smith, Cook ... until that turned out to be wrong!

Intentional deception?   Trauma syndrome?  That would require exceptional proof.

Give the woman a break!  Sometimes a cigar is ...................... you know how that goes. There is no evidence Tina was party to the crime.                

Did Tina see Cooper's face...

If yes, why did she later claims twice that she didn't.

If no, then why did she produce sketch A and was the FBI go to for vetting suspect images.

She is hiding something and that may be information that identifies Cooper.

This is likely a CYA, not a conspiracy or plot..

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Doing more deep dives into the dates of the sketches and the comments we have, it seems that Flo's issue was with the initial sketch, not Comp A. 

 

 

In the Unsolved Mysteries episode Florence said..

 

 

[olemisscub 461]

4 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

In the Unsolved Mysteries episode Florence said..

 

 

 

 

It's like they forgot there were multiple composites. 

Nevertheless, her "adamant insistence" that the sketch was wrong was for Mr. Wavy Hair guy. I always assumed it was about Bing, but it wasn't since Bing didn't yet exist on Nov 25th when she made those comments. 

[Nicholas Broughton 52]

On 1/8/2023 at 6:15 PM, FLYJACK said:

From a book...

https://books.google.ca/books?id=BVmrIisC9xwC&pg=PT123&lpg=PT123&dq="lyle+cameron"+"honduras"&source=bl&ots=sIo5do5i05&sig=ACfU3U38az44tQIHZCl1B0LO3hW85F8xsg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAkrie-rb8AhUpMTQIHa3BD70Q6AF6BAgYEAM#v=onepage&q="lyle cameron" "honduras"&f=false

I’ve spoken to his son Lyle Jr and his granddaughter Amber extensively. His death is it’s own mystery I’ve went down the rabbit hole on. They believe and I tend to agree with them after conducting my own research into LC’s crash in Honduras that the CIA took him out. I reached out to the lone survivor of the crash Victor Vinson aka Cajun Vic who somehow thought to take his seatbelt off as the plane was going down which allowed him to be ejected out miraculously saving his life. I found it really interesting that the day after we spoke on the phone the page on his website for his name brand chain of Cajun food trucks that detailed his entire story of the crash was removed from the site. Here is Vic undergoing jump training with Lyle earlier on in that trip they took to Honduras. 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Nicholas Broughton

[Math of Insects 95]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Did Tina see Cooper's face...

If yes, why did she later claims twice that she didn't.

.....

She is hiding something and that may be information that identifies Cooper.

This is likely a CYA, not a conspiracy or plot..

Again, or she just didn't want to be involved in this matter any more, and thought it was easier just to say she didn't see him than to have to relive it over and over.

We live here in the future. Just imagine, for a moment, being a 22-year-old young woman sitting in an airplane where you have no idea, second to second, if or when it will blow up and end your life. She had no reason to believe death wasn't going to come in a fiery blast at any moment--and that series of "moments" lasted for hours.

She was in a terrorist incident.

If at then-23 she decides it's easier just to say she didn't see anything than to have to keep reliving it, that would not be the slightest bit surprising or out of the ordinary. 

It's certainly worth checking to see if something else is there, but it's important to remember that the "something else" would be the surprising thing, not very real fact of having survived a terrorist threat to her young life. 

[FLYJACK 654]

10 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

Again, or she just didn't want to be involved in this matter any more, and thought it was easier just to say she didn't see him than to have to relive it over and over.

We live here in the future. Just imagine, for a moment, being a 22-year-old young woman sitting in an airplane where you have no idea, second to second, if or when it will blow up and end your life. She had no reason to believe death wasn't going to come in a fiery blast at any moment--and that series of "moments" lasted for hours.

She was in a terrorist incident.

If at then-23 she decides it's easier just to say she didn't see anything than to have to keep reliving it, that would not be the slightest bit surprising or out of the ordinary. 

It's certainly worth checking to see if something else is there, but it's important to remember that the "something else" would be the surprising thing, not very real fact of having survived a terrorist threat to her young life. 

Respectfully, that just does not make sense. She was shown suspect images for years.. AFTER she claimed she didn't see Cooper's face.

[olemisscub 461]

3 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

Again, or she just didn't want to be involved in this matter any more, and thought it was easier just to say she didn't see him than to have to relive it over and over.

We live here in the future. Just imagine, for a moment, being a 22-year-old young woman sitting in an airplane where you have no idea, second to second, if or when it will blow up and end your life. She had no reason to believe death wasn't going to come in a fiery blast at any moment--and that series of "moments" lasted for hours.

She was in a terrorist incident.

If at then-23 she decides it's easier just to say she didn't see anything than to have to keep reliving it, that would not be the slightest bit surprising or out of the ordinary. 

It's certainly worth checking to see if something else is there, but it's important to remember that the "something else" would be the surprising thing, not very real fact of having survived a terrorist threat to her young life. 

I mean, maybe we should just take her at her word. Maybe she just kept her eyes front the whole time she was seated and was scared to possibly antagonize him by looking at him. Then later on when she's ferrying the parachutes and even when he offers her the money, he may have been purposefully not meeting his gaze during that time. 

Flo seemed to get the best look at him because her chief interactions with him all came from before he was a threat to her. Alice may have also got some decent looks at him since she no doubt glanced back there many times during the flight just to make sure everything was OK.