DB Cooper

[Chaucer 103]

3 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

No, I didn't even allude to it..

If you took it that way, it wasn't meant to be..  it is a crazy idea.

That is why I didn't understand your comment... 

I never said that, meant that, believed it or alluded to it.

Fair enough. I won't press the matter, but you do seem to suggest that there was some "insider trading" regarding Tina's brother-in-law. This seems nonsensical since only the FBI knew anything about her being offered money from Cooper, and she told them she refused it. Even if she had accepted it, it's not like the FBI would throw the book at her since she was under duress from a man threatening to kill her and her co-workers. Moreover, the idea that any media report would forestall a planned ground search is woo-woo to the extreme.

Frankly, I find the the "Tina Mucklow Conspiracy Theories" to be tiresome. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Chaucer

[FLYJACK 654]

2 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

Why would Tina get "public and legal scrutiny", if only the FBI knew about Cooper offering her money? 

You're making it seem like her brother-in-law was playing 4 dimensional chess over $6000 that Cooper offered her while she was under duress. 

If money was missing and it was made public then Tina would be looked at by the public..

If money was missing and not made public then the FBI would look at her..

 

[Chaucer 103]

Just now, FLYJACK said:

If money was missing and it was made public then Tina would be looked at by the public..

If money was missing and not made public then the FBI would look at her..

 

What money? All the money was missing.

If they found the money buried in a ditch near Heisson with $6000 missing, you really think they'd come looking for Tina? 

And you really think the FBI would come at Tina guns blazing over $6000 that she accepted under duress?

I think you're thinking the FBI would kill a fly with a flamethrower. 

Weird.

[FLYJACK 654]

Just now, Chaucer said:

Fair enough. I won't press the matter, but you do seem to suggest that there was some "insider trading" regarding Tina's brother-in-law. This seems nonsensical since only the FBI knew anything about her being offered money from Cooper, and she told them she refused it. Even if she had accepted it, it's not like the FBI would throw the book at her since she was under duress from a man threatening to kill her and her co-workers. 

Frankly, I find the the "Tina Mucklow Conspiracy Theories" to be tiresome. 

We know that the sister and brother in law were very protective of Tina.. 

I agree that if she did keep it and turned it in nothing would happen to her, maybe he put it in her purse and she found it later and got scared.. 

This is a polarizing issue because people view Tina as a victim and she was but this news piece brings in a new element.

The problem is when you put all the pieces together it actually makes sense for TBAR.

No, it can't be proven.

[FLYJACK 654]

4 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

What money? All the money was missing.

If they found the money buried in a ditch near Heisson with $6000 missing, you really think they'd come looking for Tina? 

And you really think the FBI would come at Tina guns blazing over $6000 that she accepted under duress?

I think you're thinking the FBI would kill a fly with a flamethrower. 

Weird.

I said if the money was found and some missing, they would look at Tina because she admitted taking some.. naturally.

I never said guns blazing,, I doubt anything would have happened to her.

Her ex husband did say that they were surveilled by the FBI at one point,

[FLYJACK 654]

20 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

What makes it a planted story though? That paper probably had a source within the Mucklow family who told them that story. 

Very unlikely, I doubt Tina is telling anyone outside of her sister and FBI brother in law. Her brother in law would have managed this and tossed the money if she did keep it.

[Chaucer 103]

If money was found with a bundle missing, the media wouldn't look at Tina because they would have no knowledge of her accepting any money. The FBI would not care because it was a fractional amount possibly accepted by a victim under duress. 

This is enough for the FBI to suspend a ground search?

[FLYJACK 654]

1 minute ago, Chaucer said:

If money was found with a bundle missing, the media wouldn't look at Tina because they would have no knowledge of her accepting any money. The FBI would not care because it was a fractional amount possibly accepted by a victim under duress. 

This is enough for the FBI to suspend a ground search?

Maybe, if a bundle were missing there would be public speculation, but more importantly there was no expectation that the fact that she requested and handled some money would remain quiet. They wouldn't know what would be made public. 

The FBI would care what happened to the missing money. I agree that nothing would happen to her though..

If the FBI did find out she had some money then it would become public..

Publishing that newspaper piece gets them in front of all potential outcomes.

It is a strategic move.. they even spun it. Classic front running.

 

but none of this has anything to do with suspending the ground search.

I never said that. 

[Chaucer 103]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Maybe, if a bundle were missing there would be public speculation, but more importantly there was no expectation that the fact that she requested and handled some money would remain quiet. They wouldn't know what would be made public. 

The FBI would care what happened to the missing money. I agree that nothing would happen to her though..

If the FBI did find out she had some money then it would become public..

Publishing that newspaper piece gets them in front of all potential outcomes.

It is a strategic move.. they even spun it. Classic front running.

 

but none of this has anything to do with suspending the ground search.

I never said that. 

Sorry, this simply isn't true. In your original posts you said that the FBI was planning a ground search until March 8th when Tina's article appeared in an newspaper. This implies that the article was a plant by the brother-in-law to make the FBI second-guess the ground search. Is this not correct?

Now, to give you the benefit of the doubt, in that the brother-in-law wasn't trying to get the FBI to suspend the search but rather massage Tina's persona in the media ahead of any potential money find, again I have to ask, if the money was found and a bundle was missing, would the media even know and the FBI even care? 

This seems like overly calculated overkill on the part of the brother-in-law. More likely, I think it is the result of an over active imagination. 

[FLYJACK 654]

9 hours ago, Chaucer said:

Sorry, this simply isn't true. In your original posts you said that the FBI was planning a ground search until March 8th when Tina's article appeared in an newspaper. This implies that the article was a plant by the brother-in-law to make the FBI second-guess the ground search. Is this not correct?

Now, to give you the benefit of the doubt, in that the brother-in-law wasn't trying to get the FBI to suspend the search but rather massage Tina's persona in the media ahead of any potential money find, again I have to ask, if the money was found and a bundle was missing, would the media even know and the FBI even care? 

This seems like overly calculated overkill on the part of the brother-in-law. More likely, I think it is the result of an over active imagination. 

 

I was only conveying that the newspaper article appeared just prior to the search, giving context for the timing of the article..

Neither the article nor Tina's brother in law had any influence on the search whatsoever... I would think the FBI never knew about the article.

I agree it is crazy to think the article impacted the search in any way or was intended to impact the search..

IMO, the article was only intended to front run the results of the search.. if money was found and some missing they would have publicly seeded a slightly false and more favourable narrative..

The article said she was offered and refused because it wouldn't be right..

Tina actually asked for some money and took it, then claimed she gave it back due to company tip policy,, that isn't exactly duress.

 

If some money was discovered missing.. that would likely have been made public and Tina would be under public scrutiny.. and whether anything was made public or not the FBI would scrutinize Tina, that would be an obvious part of their investigation. As a victim, I also do not believe anything would have happened to her.

The motivation for planting that article would be based on their perception of what may happen... to get ahead of all potential outcomes. The actual outcome is not relevant.

Why would the article appear at all.. that article was completely out if character for Tina to publicly reveal case evidence.. the only other remote reason I could come up with would be that her fingerprints could be found on some of the money. But she still broke the rules by publicly disclosing case info.. and if no money was missing she had nothing to worry about.. in fact finding prints would substantiate her money story.

The most likely explanation is that they planted the story because they knew if the ransom money was found, a bundle was missing. If a bundle was missing they would look at Tina,, and other stews.

This was an extensive ground search, there was a good expectation that Cooper and the money would be found.

This topic is polarizing and people get emotional defending Tina because she was a victim,, I get that. If she did end up with a bundle of money, nothing would have happened to her. I don't blame her, but if she did cause a bundle to end up at TBAR she should just say so, nothing would happen to her.

 

But being objective, this is a good theory for TBAR. NOT PROOF.

 

The only money we know of that was separated from the ransom was the money Tina asked for and took. 

The amount was not disclosed but potentially the same as TBAR.

The ransom bundles were made random, meaning there could have been 3 packets in 1 rubber banded bundle.

The money didn't land on TBAR the night of the hijacking, there was a delay before it went into the River during Spring at least a year before being found.

That article setting a favourable narrative appeared right before the extensive ground search.

Tina was moved by her sis and brother in law to about 8 miles upstream of TBAR in 78/79, she then moved to Eugene..

Flo said Tina was hiding something.

The money was rounded off as if tumbling along the bottom of the river.

So, did her brother in law toss the money in the Columbia river about 8 miles upstream in spring 78/79... blocks from Tina's residence..   

We will never know.

 

This is just one theory for TBAR.. It isn't proof.. There are many other theories..

I have another I think is really good but I don't think TBAR will ever be solved.

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

31 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Why would the article appear at all.. that article was completely out if character for Tina to publicly reveal case evidence.

 

You're assuming Tina is the one who spoke to this paper. I think it's far more likely that someone at the paper, the Bucks County Courier Times, had a relationship with Tina's stepmother, as evidenced by the goofy ass article that they wrote shortly after the hijacking using information from the step-mother. 

[FLYJACK 654]

22 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

You're assuming Tina is the one who spoke to this paper. I think it's far more likely that someone at the paper, the Bucks County Courier Times, had a relationship with Tina's stepmother, as evidenced by the goofy ass article that they wrote shortly after the hijacking using information from the step-mother. 

Since Tina's sister is mentioned, it probably came from her or her husband Lee..

Plus the timing, content and context is odd.. right before the search published March 8 and it coveys no other info,,  other than to present a distorted and favourable view of Tina's money interaction.

 

Imagine if there was a random piece saying only,,,  Tina smoked a cigarette with Cooper...  

There may be an innocent explanation but it just doesn't pass the smell test.

[Robert99 37]

12 hours ago, Chaucer said:

Other well known researchers believe that the crew of 305 ignored their prescribed flight path and flew from the Malay Intersection directly to the Canby Intersection without ATC knowing or caring, and then the entire military-security apparatus of the United States either overlooked this fact or actively covered it up for reasons unknown.

Chaucer, your claims above are nonsense.

Air Traffic Control told the airliner crew before they took off in Seattle to "do whatever you have to do and we will keep people out of your way".  Basically, that was the entire "prescribed flight path".  The airliner was free to go anywhere it wanted to.

ATC knew where the airline was during the entire flight from Seattle to Reno since it was transmitting a transponder code during that time.

"The entire military-security apparatus of the United States either overlooked or actively covered it up for unknown reasons" is almost partly true.  The military apparatus didn't overlook or cover up anything that evening.

But the FBI, if that is what you call the "security apparatus", has prevented the unredacted Seattle ATC radio communications transcripts from being released.

Chaucer, it should be noted for your benefit that neither the FBI nor FAA has denied the existence of the unredacted Seattle ATC radio transcripts.  The FBI has prevented their release and the FAA defers to the FBI since this is a criminal case. 

 

[georger 197]

1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

Chaucer, your claims above are nonsense.

Air Traffic Control told the airliner crew before they took off in Seattle to "do whatever you have to do and we will keep people out of your way".  Basically, that was the entire "prescribed flight path".  The airliner was free to go anywhere it wanted to.

ATC knew where the airline was during the entire flight from Seattle to Reno since it was transmitting a transponder code during that time.

"The entire military-security apparatus of the United States either overlooked or actively covered it up for unknown reasons" is almost partly true.  The military apparatus didn't overlook or cover up anything that evening.

But the FBI, if that is what you call the "security apparatus", has prevented the unredacted Seattle ATC radio communications transcripts from being released.

Chaucer, it should be noted for your benefit that neither the FBI nor FAA has denied the existence of the unredacted Seattle ATC radio transcripts.  The FBI has prevented their release and the FAA defers to the FBI since this is a criminal case. 

 

the FBI nor FAA has denied the existence of Unicorns.  The FBI has prevented Unicorns from being released and the FAA defers to the FBI since this is a Unicorn case.

Wa wa ninny nanny noo noo too.   Unicorns must be on the table to read and ride. 

That dasterdly FBI had the UNICORNS - NOW WHAT DID IT DO WITH THEM? FESS UP FBI!

Edited July 12, 2023 by georger

[georger 197]

July 12, 2023

D. B. Cooper and Flight 305: Dan Sowa and the wind

If this is what Sowa did, his estimate for Soderlind would have been consistent with the data at his disposal. Whether this was indeed his methodology, the documentation released so far to the public does not permit us to say. But Soderlind overlooked the probability that the wind would back back (turn anti-clockwise) as the hijacker descended.

edit: [ none of this is fact but a possibility] 

Edited July 12, 2023 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

Anybody think this might be Cossey?

Looks sort of like him..

[WalterRaleigh 8]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

I was only conveying that the newspaper article appeared just prior to the search, giving context for the timing of the article..

Neither the article nor Tina's brother in law had any influence on the search whatsoever... I would think the FBI never knew about the article.

I agree it is crazy to think the article impacted the search in any way or was intended to impact the search..

IMO, the article was only intended to front run the results of the search.. if money was found and some missing they would have publicly seeded a slightly false and more favourable narrative..

The article said she was offered and refused because it wouldn't be right..

Tina actually asked for some money and took it, then claimed she gave it back due to company tip policy,, that isn't exactly duress.

 

If some money was discovered missing.. that would likely have been made public and Tina would be under public scrutiny.. and whether anything was made public or not the FBI would scrutinize Tina, that would be an obvious part of their investigation. As a victim, I also do not believe anything would have happened to her.

The motivation for planting that article would be based on their perception of what may happen... to get ahead of all potential outcomes. The actual outcome is not relevant.

Why would the article appear at all.. that article was completely out if character for Tina to publicly reveal case evidence.. the only other remote reason I could come up with would be that her fingerprints could be found on some of the money. But she still broke the rules by publicly disclosing case info.. and if no money was missing she had nothing to worry about.. in fact finding prints would substantiate her money story.

The most likely explanation is that they planted the story because they knew if the ransom money was found, a bundle was missing. If a bundle was missing they would look at Tina,, and other stews.

This was an extensive ground search, there was a good expectation that Cooper and the money would be found.

This topic is polarizing and people get emotional defending Tina because she was a victim,, I get that. If she did end up with a bundle of money, nothing would have happened to her. I don't blame her, but if she did cause a bundle to end up at TBAR she should just say so, nothing would happen to her.

 

But being objective, this is a good theory for TBAR. NOT PROOF.

 

The only money we know of that was separated from the ransom was the money Tina asked for and took. 

The amount was not disclosed but potentially the same as TBAR.

The ransom bundles were made random, meaning there could have been 3 packets in 1 rubber banded bundle.

The money didn't land on TBAR the night of the hijacking, there was a delay before it went into the River during Spring at least a year before being found.

That article setting a favourable narrative appeared right before the extensive ground search.

Tina was moved by her sis and brother in law to about 8 miles upstream of TBAR in 78/79, she then moved to Eugene..

Flo said Tina was hiding something.

The money was rounded off as if tumbling along the bottom of the river.

So, did her brother in law toss the money in the Columbia river about 8 miles upstream in spring 78/79... blocks from Tina's residence..   

We will never know.

 

This is just one theory for TBAR.. It isn't proof.. There are many other theories..

I have another I think is really good but I don't think TBAR will ever be solved.

 

I think this story would have created the expectation of finding Cooper with the full $200k, and thus created the opposite effect of diverting attention away from Tina (or other crew members) if less than $200k was found.

If one was properly "front-running" the expectation of finding Cooper's body with less than the full $200k, wouldn’t it have made more sense to create a plausible cover story and explanation?  "Tina Mucklow saw Cooper haphazardly attach the money bundles to his person before jumping from the plane, and sources say they would be surprised if most or any of it stayed attached on his descent."

[olemisscub 466]

Also this wasn’t exactly a highly read paper. The Mucklow blurb was in between mention of someone who had a broken ankle, and a dog that fell into a pool.

[FLYJACK 654]

15 minutes ago, WalterRaleigh said:

I think this story would have created the expectation of finding Cooper with the full $200k, and thus created the opposite effect of diverting attention away from Tina (or other crew members) if less than $200k was found.

If one was properly "front-running" the expectation of finding Cooper's body with less than the full $200k, wouldn’t it have made more sense to create a plausible cover story and explanation?  "Tina Mucklow saw Cooper haphazardly attach the money bundles to his person before jumping from the plane, and sources say they would be surprised if most or any of it stayed attached on his descent."

You are overthinking it.. what of it was all still in the closed bag. BUSTED. It would be more risky to manufacture a false story than to slightly fudge what was already told to the FBI.

I think the slightly altered story in the paper was a pre-defense...

Remember Tina asked for some money and took it,,, that doesn't look good.

They knew of an imminent ground search and if they also knew a bundle was missing they would act proactively to get ahead of that being discovered.. it doesn't mean they would have made the right or the best move.

But if a bundle was missing, Tina and the other stews would have been looked at by the FBI. No question.

If a missing bundle was made public then the media and public would have questions and speculation about the stews/crew.

[WalterRaleigh 8]

20 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Also this wasn’t exactly a highly read paper. The Mucklow blurb was in between mention of someone who had a broken ankle, and a dog that fell into a pool.

Agree.  I saw the main point of this blurb about Tina as "see, we raise good honest people here in Bucks County".  Some nice, sweet marmallow filler on a slow news day.  Just a cigar, nothing more.

I suppose everyone perceives these things differently.

[FLYJACK 654]

25 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Also this wasn’t exactly a highly read paper. The Mucklow blurb was in between mention of someone who had a broken ankle, and a dog that fell into a pool.

The idea is to have it out in the public domain to point at later if needed.

[WalterRaleigh 8]

I must admit, the greater theory of Tina's potential involvement in the skyjacking, in particular the Tina Bar money, is very intriguing. Frankly, it's hard to ignore.

As to your narrative, if I am sitting on your jury, the FBI agent brother in law, her living in proximity to Tina Bar, and her general recluse/mysterious behavior all feel like the "dog" of that narrative.  Whereas the tiny news article and its timing feels like the "tail" (at best).

Just offering some outside perspective.

[FLYJACK 654]

6 minutes ago, WalterRaleigh said:

I must admit, the greater theory of Tina's potential involvement in the skyjacking, in particular the Tina Bar money, is very intriguing. Frankly, it's hard to ignore.

As to your narrative, if I am sitting on your jury, the FBI agent brother in law, her living in proximity to Tina Bar, and her general recluse/mysterious behavior all feel like the "dog" of that narrative.  Whereas the tiny news article and its timing feels like the "tail" (at best).

Just offering some outside perspective.

I disagree, that article and timing of it is a significant piece,,  it is completely out of character,, Tina never divulged any case evidence and didn't discuss the case for decades..

It is such a rare piece of info that it stands out.

They even twisted the facts to make her look better... Cooper didn't offer her money, she asked for it..  it came from her or the people around her and it was intentional.

The info about her taking the money was not public, why was it revealed.

Bucks County pop was 434,000 in 1972..  

Clearly, if we knew exactly how it got in the paper and why that timing it would make a difference.

[olemisscub 466]

8 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I disagree, that article and timing of it is a significant piece,,  it is completely out of character,, Tina never divulged any case evidence and didn't discuss the case for decades..

 

Hard to say what Tina actually said to Dirk Summers in 1977. She innocently claimed to the FBI that all she did was show him her scrapbook. Yet somehow her rejecting the money shows up in the 1980 Hustler article, even with her "we can't accept gratuities" line from her 302. 

Suffice it to say that one possible reason why so many of the players either didn't talk or kept their mouths completely shut for so long stemmed from that Dirk Summers/Coffelt crap from 1977 where the FBI "gently" reminded them that they could be prosecuted for running their mouths. 

[Math of Insects 96]

I can't find a way to read that little blurb that way at all. If anything, it would have the effect of introducing her as a likely recipient of some of whatever money might eventually turn up missing. Without that blurb, no one in the public would have known a thing about that offer/interaction.

It's like when Heidi Fliess, the Hollywood Madam was arrested, and all those producers and politicians released statements saying they didn't know her and had never met her. Great, but no one ever said you did, and now everyone totally knows you did. 

It just seems like Mario was looking for a little human-interest story and filled one of the slots with a crazy-to-most-people tale of how a person with a tie to their area had a real-life interaction with a hijacker, and was even offered money by him. I can't see how this would do anything but hurt "brother-in-law FBI agent's sister," if it were put there for the reasons being proposed here.