11 11
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

The unusual salt found on the tie is consistent with the hunter process of manufacturing cp ti. RMI was the only company in the world still using this process. That’s why RMI is suspect as the source for the cp ti. 

How do we know for certain that RMI was the only company in the world using this process? When did the other companies stop? Did RMI state they were the only ones or did someone call all the other companies? I’ve heard this before, and I don’t doubt the honesty of the people, I’d just be curious to see some solid proof. It just seems too easy that they’ve narrowed down where the titanium came from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

In order to REALLY solve your question, what is needed is to attend a convention consisting of the people who do this stuff. Work with titanium, that is. A CONVENTION. Conventions aren't just for drinking and hiring some dancing girls. You get information and viewpoints from everywhere. It's a gathering of the experts, a meeting of the minds. 

For example, here is one being held in Chicago in October. The real experts will be gathering there from over 30 countries, and it isn't the only one. 

Just Google on Titanium convention and see what I mean. Singapore, Ireland this year, even your straight trade shows. If you came armed with full reports on the tie and the available information about it from the two analysis that were done, you will get the answers you seek. You won't find them on Google.

You will find them by talking to the people who know everything there IS to know on the subject. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrade1812 said:

Most of the effort regarding Kaye's findings on the tie have been toward explaining the results away, rather than attempting to find the tie's origin. Unfortunately.

I meant the results of both analysis. The ones he posted. Probably doesn't matter since no one I know in the case is planning to go to Chicago. 

Share this post


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

How do we know for certain that RMI was the only company in the world using this process? When did the other companies stop? Did RMI state they were the only ones or did someone call all the other companies? I’ve heard this before, and I don’t doubt the honesty of the people, I’d just be curious to see some solid proof. It just seems too easy that they’ve narrowed down where the titanium came from. 

The Ti sponge did not match RMI,, the "salt" did. That "salt" can't be exclusive to RMI.

 

sodium and Ti sponge is used in pyrotechnics... the round silicon spheres found on the tie suggest formed in a high temp,,  perhaps a firework or hand held sparkler.. military flare/incendiary??

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Over at the Cooper Forum, they are discussing Ted Braden again as possibly being Cooper. Same problem as a couple of the other suspects:  Braden has blue eyes. 

When you view the video over at YouTube (part one) about Braden by Drew Beeson, there is a large, full-front shot of Braden. Blue eyes. Front and center. You can see it on the video at the 5:27-32 mark. 

When researchers put up someone as a suspect who had RECENT, and extremely HEAVY military experience as being Cooper...my first question is always this:

Why would someone with so much recent combat and jump experience attempt to leap from the rear of a 727 at night, and come SO totally unprepared to do so? This is my main problem with both Sheridan Peterson and Ted Braden. Plus the fact that both of them have blue eyes. I have this same problem whenever someone forwards a suspect with a recent...and extensive...jump and/or military history. Even McCoy was smart enough to wear boots and a jump suit. 

(Before you bring up Christiansen and try to place him in this same group, let me say that at the time of the hijacking, as far as we know...KC had not performed a jump in 25 years.) 

EDIT: To address the question of eye color on Cooper, you might mistake brown for hazel or hazel for brown, or whatever...but blue eyes are distinctive and hard to miss, or to misrepresent as some sort of brown shade. If you want to see the difference between hazel and brown, go HERE at Quora and view the two pictures. 

IMHO only...any suspect who has BLUE EYES should be eliminated from contention. And if you start talking about colored contact lenses via 1971, you should know something about them. They were not the color contacts of today. I have SEEN them worn by a couple of people back in those days. In fact, one of them was an NWA stew. Color contacts in 1971 did not allow your pupil to be seen. They looked like mini-versions of sunglasses installed over your eye and were VERY noticeable. In fact, they looked kind of weird. You looked like a damn zombie. This is why most people did not wear color contacts back then. They were more than obvious. I asked this NWA stew about the color. She said it was in case one came out, they were easier to find. But she looked weird and you noticed it right away. (Imagine someone with eyes completely BLUE, and WITHOUT a black pupil in the center.) Her name was Karen, and I talk about her on page 12 in the excerpt from my autobiography, Cooperland

Edited by RobertMBlevins
Tired of people forwarding suspects with blue eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not Braden, he doesn't match the Cooper description, has unique features and there is no evidence other than his jumping skills.. 

"It is felt Unsub was not an experienced criminal because of his mannerism exhibited after he received the ... ransom money. Unsub reportedly became somewhat childish,
in his actions and comments while counting the money."

Braden isn't the type to become childish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Because of the limited information that we can 100% certify about the hijacker, at SOME point you have use the best criteria to either include...or dismiss...at least a few of the suspects that come along. Otherwise, where do you draw the line?

I believe blue eyes to be one of the exclusion criteria. I also think it is more likely that if Flo Schaffner wasn't sure on the eye color, she would have said that. ("I didn't really notice,' or "I never saw what color they were.") But her story was that Cooper's eyes were brown, and she never retracted that. So I think we can accept that she got at least one good look at his eyes. 

Criteria is limited. There are no scars on Cooper, no moles that anyone has mentioned, no real distinguishing features. They even argue about his height and his hair. So what do you have to go on to eliminate suspects? It's tough. One of the few things going is the eye color. That's why, in the lack of other really good evidence that points to a particular suspect, you almost HAVE to eliminate anyone with blue or green eyes. 

BradenBlue.jpg.524ddf176d4f797523d364e4305fd4b1.jpg

Same thing for Sheridan Peterson:

1803401165_SheridanPetersonMugshotCHINA1992.jpg.ff02e863da3c79bc077e4b08a3b907e5.jpg

"If they are blue...it just won't do..." B) If either of these guys had ended up in court, you can just see Johnnie Cochran telling that to the jury. Or maybe Faye Dunaway would tell us the score:

NoMoreBlueEyes.jpg.4544442b6d2429361246463a3145135c.jpg

Edited by RobertMBlevins
"No...this is a STOLEN 1932 Ford Cou-Pay..." (coupe) My fave quote from Dunaway.

Share this post


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

Because of the limited information that we can 100% certify about the hijacker, at SOME point you have use the best criteria to either include...or dismiss...at least a few of the suspects that come along. Otherwise, where do you draw the line?

I believe blue eyes to be one of the exclusion criteria. I also think it is more likely that if Flo Schaffner wasn't sure on the eye color, she would have said that. ("I didn't really notice,' or "I never saw what color they were.") But her story was that Cooper's eyes were brown, and she never retracted that. So I think we can accept that she got at least one good look at his eyes. 

Criteria is limited. There are no scars on Cooper, no moles that anyone has mentioned, no real distinguishing features. They even argue about his height and his hair. So what do you have to go on to eliminate suspects? It's tough. One of the few things going is the eye color. That's why, in the lack of other really good evidence that points to a particular suspect, you almost HAVE to eliminate anyone with blue or green eyes. 

BradenBlue.jpg.524ddf176d4f797523d364e4305fd4b1.jpg

Same thing for Sheridan Peterson:

1803401165_SheridanPetersonMugshotCHINA1992.jpg.ff02e863da3c79bc077e4b08a3b907e5.jpg

"If they are blue...it just won't do..." B) If either of these guys had ended up in court, you can just see Johnnie Cochran telling that to the jury. Or maybe Faye Dunaway would tell us the score:

NoMoreBlueEyes.jpg.4544442b6d2429361246463a3145135c.jpg

Agreed.  The favorite defense of the eye color is along the same lines as the age defense that the Rackstraw and McCoy people use.  They cite that witness testimony or witness remembrance is sketchy.  I was listening to a podcast on the DC  Sniper this morning and a professor from Iowa State was talking about how the witnesses in that case were all over the place.  The big difference between the Cooper case and some of these other cases like the DC sniper is that the Cooper witnesses had a long time to look at him.  If the rationale used by the Rackstraw group on age, or the blue eyed folks was legitimate, then why would the courts ever use witness testimony for cases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Witnesses do make errors...

In the Hahneman hijacking the captain positively ID'd the wrong guy when shown pictures.. he looked similar to Hahneman.

and just like the Cooper case witnesses thought the original sketch was good but not perfect.. 

We are relying on witness recall.. height is very poor for recall as there is no imprint or reference, it is subjective. Hair is actually very good for recall as that image is imprinted on memory.

 

If we are going to list all military personnel with jump experience as legit suspects we will have a list so long it would be worthless...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opening up the suspect list to the following would increase the number of suspects considerably

Males between the age of 28 and 55 (Rackstraw and McCoy were 28)

Males with blue eyes or brown eyes (hazel would be brown). 

Anyone with skydiving or military parachute experience that fits those ages (that would be anyone who served in the 101st Airborne, 82nd, 17th, etc.).  All air crews who wore harnesses/chutes, pilots, etc. etc.

Any females who got gender re-assignment surgery like suspect Barb Dayton

Anyone with an American accent, to include those from Canada or those who came to the US as youths.

Etc. Etc. Etc.  My point is that if we don't narrow it down, then the possible list is huge.

I predict that if this case is solved, that Cooper will have had brown eyes and will have been over 40 at the time of the hijacking.

Share this post


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

Doesn't the Cooper description say "possibly" brown eyes? I didn't think anyone had said that he for sure had brown eyes.

I think the reason the FBI put 'possibly brown' on the wanted poster is because only one confirmed witness actually saw Cooper without his sunglasses, other than the ticket agent, who couldn't be expected to remember such a thing after the fact. 

Without a second witness to the eyes, it's unlikely the FBI is going to say DEFINITELY brown. I will tell you the guy I trust with the witness reports, and that's the guy who was allowed to examine the original notes taken by the FBI agents:  Geoff Gray. According to Gray, Flo Schaffner was pretty definite on the eye color. The excerpt on this from Gray's book, page 91 in hardcover:

Quote

'Flo tells the Feds that she saw the hijacker without his sunglasses. She was the only one to see Cooper's eyes. What color were they?

"Brown," she says. 

And about how old was he?

"Mid-forties," she says.'

It's a tricky point all around, I'll admit. But the fact that Flo gave a definite color is significant. And it wasn't blue or green, which would be much easier to notice. This leads me to believe she was right. Her interaction with Cooper went on for a couple of minutes prior to him putting on the sunglasses. So she may have gotten a good look at him in plain sight as it were. 

First, there is the approach. No sunglasses at this point. He gets her attention and hands her the envelope with the note. She puts it into her purse. He gets her attention a second time, (this is now two looks at Cooper) telling her she should look at the note. My opinion is that once she read it, then the first thing she's going to do is look at him again, to get a read on the guy who just handed her a note like that. Most people would do that, rather than looking out a window or at the ceiling. They are going to gauge the person who just ruined their whole day, even if they don't realize that's what they are doing. It's a psychological reaction. 

Another interaction: Flo sits next to him. He shows her the bomb. Still no sunglasses. 

Another interaction: Tina has been listening and comes over to both of them. Still no sunglasses. There is a discussion on who is going to go to the cockpit, and Cooper finally decides to let Flo go forward, while Tina takes her place next to Cooper. It is about this time that Cooper puts on the sunglasses...i.e. when Flo gets up from the seat, and Tina takes her place. 

Tina could have seen the hijacker's eyes prior to sitting down, but she either didn't notice the color or didn't remember. But she does not dispute it when Flo tells the Feds they were brown. We also know that Tina DID get a look at Cooper while she was listening to Flo and Cooper, but we don't know what she may have told the Feds later. Perhaps she even AGREED that Flo was right, but it is hard to say. But there was a short window during the time she was listening to the two of them. By the time Flo and Tina exchanged seats, the sunglasses were on. 

My thought is that at some time during all these things, Flo DID get a few good looks at Cooper's face and that's what she remembered. That his eyes were brown. 

Later, all three stews do the Facial ID Catalog stuff with the Feds. None of them dispute Flo's assertion Cooper's eyes were brown. 

However, since only a single witness (Flo) gave an eye color, the FBI would have no choice but to say 'possibly'. I use the Occam's Razor on this one:  Since Flo positively asserted that Cooper's eyes were brown, with no 'maybes' or 'not sure' stuff, she was probably right. She's the only person who got a few good looks at Cooper without his sunglasses. 

Two other Flo-related interactions with Cooper and without the sunglasses: When she took his drink order, and when Cooper boarded the plane. "Welcome, aboard!" etc. She took his drink order before he gave her the note. 

That is now THREE good interactions with Cooper without the glasses, and one general one, i.e. boarding. The boarding 'look' at him is probably a non-starter, but the last three are definitely meaningful. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins
edited some details

Share this post


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

I think the reason the FBI put 'possibly brown' on the wanted poster is because only one confirmed witness actually saw Cooper without his sunglasses, other than the ticket agent, who couldn't be expected to remember such a thing after the fact. 

Without a second witness to the eyes, it's unlikely the FBI is going to say DEFINITELY brown. I will tell you the guy I trust with the witness reports, and that's the guy who was allowed to examine the original notes taken by the FBI agents:  Geoff Gray. According to Gray, Flo Schaffner was pretty definite on the eye color. The excerpt on this from Gray's book, page 91 in hardcover:

It's a tricky point all around, I'll admit. But the fact that Flo gave a definite color is significant. And it wasn't blue or green, which would be much easier to notice. This leads me to believe she was right. Her interaction with Cooper went on for a couple of minutes prior to him putting on the sunglasses. So she may have gotten a good look at him in plain sight as it were. 

First, there is the approach. No sunglasses at this point. He gets her attention and hands her the envelope with the note. She puts it into her purse. He gets her attention a second time, (this is now two looks at Cooper) telling her she should look at the note. My opinion is that once she read it, then the first thing she's going to do is look at him again, to get a read on the guy who just handed her a note like that. Most people would do that, rather than looking out a window or at the ceiling. They are going to gauge the person who just ruined their whole day, even if they don't realize that's what they are doing. It's a psychological reaction. 

Another interaction: Flo sits next to him. He shows her the bomb. Still no sunglasses. 

Another interaction: Tina has been listening and comes over to both of them. Still no sunglasses. There is a discussion on who is going to go to the cockpit, and Cooper finally decides to let Flo go forward, while Tina takes her place next to Cooper. It is about this time that Cooper puts on the sunglasses...i.e. when Flo gets up from the seat, and Tina takes her place. 

Tina could have seen the hijacker's eyes prior to sitting down, but she either didn't notice the color or didn't remember. But she does not dispute it when Flo tells the Feds they were brown. We also know that Tina DID get a look at Cooper while she was listening to Flo and Cooper, but we don't know what she may have told the Feds later. Perhaps she even AGREED that Flo was right, but it is hard to say. But there was a short window during the time she was listening to the two of them. By the time Flo and Tina exchanged seats, the sunglasses were on. 

My thought is that at some time during all these things, Flo DID get a few good looks at Cooper's face and that's what she remembered. That his eyes were brown. 

Later, all three stews do the Facial ID Catalog stuff with the Feds. None of them dispute Flo's assertion Cooper's eyes were brown. 

However, since only a single witness (Flo) gave an eye color, the FBI would have no choice but to say 'possibly'. I use the Occam's Razor on this one:  Since Flo positively asserted that Cooper's eyes were brown, with no 'maybes' or 'not sure' stuff, she was probably right. She's the only person who got a few good looks at Cooper without his sunglasses. 

Two other Flo-related interactions with Cooper and without the sunglasses: When she took his drink order, and when Cooper boarded the plane. "Welcome, aboard!" etc. She took his drink order before he gave her the note. 

That is now THREE good interactions with Cooper without the glasses, and one general one, i.e. boarding. The boarding 'look' at him is probably a non-starter, but the last three are definitely meaningful. 

I agree with Robert, again.  We disagree on some other things, but probably agree on more than we disagree on.

The "possibly brown" is used to support suspects with blue eyes. Plain and simple.

On Unsolved Mysteries Flo was adamant about remembering the eye color and his eyebrows.

Question for Parrothead or any others, if the FBI said "possibly brown" then why not say "possibly blue" or "possibly green"???

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said possibly brown, meaning "dark eyes", not  possibly light or possibly blue.

 

"From information the subject is described as white male, mid 40's, 5'10" to 6', 170 to 180 pounds, average to well built, olive or swarthy complexion, medium smooth, dark brown or black hair parted on left side, combed back, sideburns to low ear level, dark eyes, probably black or brown. Subject wore a dark suit,white shirt, with narrow black tie. He wore dark glasses with plastic rims (possibly prescription lenses) most of the time. He had dark overcoat and was described as cool and calculating. His voice was low. He spoke intelligently and was a heavy smoker of Raleigh filter tip cigarettes."

 

 

Share this post


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

They said possibly brown, meaning "dark eyes", not  possibly light or possibly blue.

 

"From information the subject is described as white male, mid 40's, 5'10" to 6', 170 to 180 pounds, average to well built, olive or swarthy complexion, medium smooth, dark brown or black hair parted on left side, combed back, sideburns to low ear level, dark eyes, probably black or brown. Subject wore a dark suit,white shirt, with narrow black tie. He wore dark glasses with plastic rims (possibly prescription lenses) most of the time. He had dark overcoat and was described as cool and calculating. His voice was low. He spoke intelligently and was a heavy smoker of Raleigh filter tip cigarettes."

 

 

Good way of putting it.  "possibly brown" meaning probably dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Good way of putting it.  "possibly brown" meaning probably dark.

better,, "dark eyes", probably/possibly brown, the most common (or rarer black or dark grey)

Eyes were dark,,, NOT possibly blue.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

Question for Parrothead or any others, if the FBI said "possibly brown" then why not say "possibly blue" or "possibly green"???

 

I couldn't remember the exact wording that was in the description and who it was that actually seen his eyes without the glasses. That's why I asked.

Share this post


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

better,, "dark eyes", probably/possibly brown, the most common (or rarer black or dark grey)

Eyes were dark,,, NOT possibly blue.

Flyjack - I tend to agree with this. At least it makes sense. But, I do have to point out that a few posts ago you were pointing out that the FBI certainly looked at people that were shorter than what was in the description and that we couldn't be sure about the height. OK, fair enough. But let's remember, they also looked at people that did not have dark eyes, including Sheridan. So, by your own logic, how sure can we be about the dark eyes?

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.

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.

11 11