18 18
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

(edited)

Somebody tell Eric that it is not a FACT that the three packets arrived separately.

This is his MO,, he elevates conjecture to fact then ridicules any objections.

They likely arrived as one rubber banded bundle of packets, as the rubber bands deteriorated the three packets were left. The claim that rubber bands were intact is nonsense, look at the money, no way they were "intact", there were fragments that crumbled right away. We have no evidence for the location of the rubber band fragments on the packets.

The money went to Cooper in rubber banded bundles of multiple packets of 100 bills each. To arrive on TBAR separately the packets had to be removed from their bundle prior. They were in the same order and packaging as they were given to Cooper per FBI.

What is amazing is that people accept this type of argument from Eric. If it isn't Eric's view, it is "magic" and "not embedded in reality".

 

Eric...

"It's amazing to me how many people simply discount that three individual packets were found, on top of each other, with rubber bands still intact yet very brittle, 8 years after the fact.

Any theory that magically describes these packets floating and burying themselves together, especially months or years after the skyjacking, strikes me as not embedded in reality."

 

The rubber bands don't last long in the wild,

Palmer Report, money arrived within a year of find, in top layer with "fresher" debris

Money likely arrived as one bundle of packets,

Diatoms, Spring river immersion,

Money found at high tide line.

== Spring 1979 into the river and deposited on TBAR, (most likely)

 

.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

The money went to Cooper in rubber banded bundles of multiple packets of 100 bills each.

Is there enough proof that the money bundles were taken out of bank straps and rebounded within rubber bands before Cooper took possession?

I find it kindof odd that in the McCoy hijacking (not long after) they did not bother to put the 500k of bundles into rubber bands.

Most banks at the time had (given all the extortion for money) bundles ready to go for such events without having to reshuffle/record SN and bind with rubber bands. 

Edited by Coopy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Coopy said:

Is there enough proof that the money bundles were taken out of bank straps and rebounded within rubber bands before Cooper took possession?

I find it kindof odd that in the McCoy hijacking (not long after) they did not bother to put the 500k of bundles into rubber bands.

Most banks at the time had (given all the extortion for money) bundles ready to go for such events without having to reshuffle/record SN and bind with rubber bands. 

The indication via Larry Carr was that the bundles were made random,, Carr incorrectly believed that the individual "packets of 100" were made random and rubber banded, they were not. The bundles of packets were.

The only conclusion is that the bundles of packets were rubber banded and made random.

There is no evidence the packet "straps" were altered.

Now, were the packets in rubber bands, bank straps or both? That isn't known for sure, there is more evidence for bank straps but they could have had rubber bands as well.

The takeaway is... the claim that money arrived as three separate packets but together is an assumption not a fact. It is more likely they arrived in one rubber banded bundle as Cooper got them.. and as the rubber bands holding all the packets together deteriorated the packets fell slightly apart.

 

Share this post


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

You are essentially claiming that if Hahneman was Cooper, the FBI would have arrested him. They didn't so he isn't Cooper.

That is just a false argument. There are many reasons why they may not have charged him...  

They just botched it, there was high level interference or they couldn't put him on the plane.

Without giving all the details I have, I believe it was all three.. based on evidence.

 

The FBI has never eliminated Hahneman or given any reason.. they have for many other suspects.

 

 

Sure they arrested him. For hijacking a commercial aircraft. It's well-known that in my younger days I had a few scrapes with the law. I never did an armed robbery, but let's use that as an example. The first thing detectives do when questioning you, beyond giving you the Miranda warnings, is to start asking about OTHER robberies on the books. 

It seems inconceivable to me that the FBI would arrest him for almost an identical crime and NOT question him or check out whether he was Cooper as well. As you say, according to the sketches he was a dead ringer for Cooper. Unless you believe the FBI was completely brain dead, they would have checked him out for the unsolved case that was done in almost an identical manner. And just seven or eight months into the Cooper investigation, no less. 

Maybe the reason Hahneman isn't in the Cooper files is that they discovered early-on that he was not involved with the Cooper caper. If you could get your hands on the files regarding Hahneman, I am certain you will find entries in those files where they DID check him out. And...that he must have been dismissed as a suspect for Cooper almost right away. To put him on the plane, all they would have to do is show his mug shot and/or pictures provided by family, and show them to the stews, the ticket agent, the passenger witnesses, etc. We're not talking about years down the road after the crime, either. Just a few months after Cooper. 

If you want to prove Hahneman was Cooper, you are looking in the wrong place. You should FOIA the Hahneman files. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Sure they arrested him. For hijacking a commercial aircraft. It's well-known that in my younger days I had a few scrapes with the law. I never did an armed robbery, but let's use that as an example. The first thing detectives do when questioning you, beyond giving you the Miranda warnings, is to start asking about OTHER robberies on the books. 

It seems inconceivable to me that the FBI would arrest him for almost an identical crime and NOT question him or check out whether he was Cooper as well. As you say, according to the sketches he was a dead ringer for Cooper. Unless you believe the FBI was completely brain dead, they would have checked him out for the unsolved case that was done in almost an identical manner. And just seven or eight months into the Cooper investigation, no less. 

Maybe the reason Hahneman isn't in the Cooper files is that they discovered early-on that he was not involved with the Cooper caper. If you could get your hands on the files regarding Hahneman, I am certain you will find entries in those files where they DID check him out. And...that he must have been dismissed as a suspect for Cooper almost right away. To put him on the plane, all they would have to do is show his mug shot and/or pictures provided by family, and show them to the stews, the ticket agent, the passenger witnesses, etc. We're not talking about years down the road after the crime, either. Just a few months after Cooper. 

If you want to prove Hahneman was Cooper, you are looking in the wrong place. You should FOIA the Hahneman files. 

 

Hahneman was not co-operating after he was caught for his hijacking.

Of course he was investigated, even the crew thought he was Cooper, he is briefly in the Cooper FBI files but name redacted even though he died long ago.. which is not necessary if he was dead and eliminated as a suspect. 

I did FOIA..   you won't prove Hahneman was Cooper from FBI files, you prove it by forensically putting him on the plane and that is extremely difficult for any suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 hours ago, Andrade1812 said:

The crew thought Hahneman was Cooper?

I don't know anything about that myself. Flyjack would have to explain. But I will give him one thing. They did the same thing (question and investigate) with Richard McCoy in regards to the Cooper crime. They couldn't pin it on HIM, either. And he was also non-cooperative right to the moment he got forty years in the Fed pen. So yes, there is that. 

It's occurring to me that maybe the FBI was dropping the ball all over the damn place, and that most of the witnesses were junk. If either of those men had been Cooper, the FBI should have easily been able to prove it once they had those men (Hahneman or Richard McCoy) in custody. It's kind of bizarre. The stews' testimony alone after a good, solid lineup should have done it. 

The whole thing seems so obvious. They bring in the stews and maybe two or three of the passenger witnesses, maybe even the ticket agent. One at a time they present five guys to each witness individually. One of them is Hahneman. Or McCoy, in a separate lineup. You have them speak, turn to the right, the left, the usual spiel. 

"That's him," says Tina Mucklow and a couple of other witnesses. We're talking less than a year later. Slam dunk, case closed, we go to trial, or a guilty plea on both of the hijackings in exchange for dropping one charge and allocuting to both crimes fully in Federal court.  (Most of you know what 'allocution' means, but just in case, it means providing the details in court of how you did the crime.) This is offered sometimes in exchange for a lighter sentence. 

No wonder the FBI never solved the case. Maybe they were at a low point, like the Army was just after Vietnam. B)

FLYJACK: Over the last year, I have developed a back-door connection with one of the stews on 305. PM me for details. Maybe it's time this person saw some good pictures of your suspect. I can't guarantee the results, but everyone deserves a chance at proving their suspect...that means me, you, or anyone other than the famous Bob K or the Spammer. I have a post about this already at the new forum. (Frankly, I'm no longer posting anything critical to the Dropzone website, due to the non-participating members of Shutter's place, who look at everything here, but make their responses to these things second-party only, and only at the other site.) 

However, I think that the folks who have lately participated in discussions HERE...and who are ALSO members of Shutter's place...are pretty solid people. At least you can say they have some guts. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


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

If you missed the announcement, you missed it. I wasn't leaving it up at Dropzone for more than a few hours. B)

 

Some of us can't/don't check the site every couple of hours. If we can't/don't see it till later in the afternoon or evening, did we do something rude to where we don't deserve to see announcements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

Some of us can't/don't check the site every couple of hours. If we can't/don't see it till later in the afternoon or evening, did we do something rude to where we don't deserve to see announcements?

Fair enough. One reason I took it down was because I thought it might be TOO much information, and could possibly violate my confidentiality agreement with the movie studios involved with the Cooper movie. (Yes, it's still on, although because of Covid some things were put on hold for a while.) Most likely a summer shoot next year, with an October 2021 release. 

Here is the short version:

After three and a half years under the confidentiality agreement, it happens that my option contract renewal came up again this month. We started switching to payments to me every six months, instead of once a year. But this time I refused to sign the extension, and turned down (another) four-figure check. 

I said that after so long keeping all the secrets, it was time for THEM to come forward. I would not sign the extension unless they did. And I gave some pretty good reasons why all the secrecy was no longer necessary. Frankly, I was also tired of taking all the heat, (people calling me a liar about a movie even BEING in the works) and reading silly posts at a few websites. 

A few days later, I got a response. The production companies, and a well-known actor who will serve as Exec Producer on the movie, have agreed to a press release. Since the current option expires at the end of the month, Cooper fans should expect some announcement (probably starting with Variety Magazine) very soon. My answer to them was that I would sign the extension and accept the check on the same day the press release appears. They were okay with that. 

And at that point, except for revealing exact details on the script of the picture, I will FINALLY be released from the confidentiality agreement. After three plus years, you can bet this is a big weight taken from my shoulders. When this press release comes out, if someone else doesn't post it here to Dropzone, I will do it myself. B)

I also said in my deleted post that there was no use in asking me to embellish on all of this. I won't answer questions publicly at Dropzone about it, but only at the private forum. There are positive and (unfortunately) negative folks who read this site who would use my comments in their usual sick/weirdo way, generally anonymously. This isn't some cheap ploy to get you to join that private website. Because it IS private, we will never get the traffic or number of people who already post at the places most Cooper fans and investigators hang out:  Dropzone and the D.B. Cooper Forum. That's expected. And that's as it should be. However, I set up that site just in case somewhere private was needed to discuss certain issues not to be made public, and now it is needed. 

One thing has changed at the private forum. At one time, I was allowing people not known in Cooperland to join, after I did a bit of screening to ensure they were who they SAID they were. New registrations are now restricted only to known folks in Cooperland, or to people I know personally. And yes, there is some minor screening of new members involved before you are allowed to view the site or post. 

"Trust," as Kurt Russell once said in The Thing, "is a hard thing to come by these days..."

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...

While I obviously disagreed with the way you handled the Sky Sports guy issue, I would actually urge you to reconsider that position you're taking with the movie people.

You signed their contracts, agreed to their terms, and cashed their checks. So why would you renege on that now? The time it takes to puzzle a movie together, especially when it's fuckered up by this Covid crap, that's their business, not yours. I'd suggest you just keep their terms and wait it out. Why should you care what people you don't like on sites you're not welcome at have to say?

I'm going to disagree with something you said a while back. For a writer to option his work for a movie deal is not 'selling out'. It's a reasonable business goal for a writer, and you're fortunate to have gotten the offer. You know that old saying, 'nothing succeeds like success'? It's blatantly true in the movie biz. The people who make decisions in Hollywood, well I'll again quote Goldman: "Nobody knows anything." The decision-makers largely are not artists, they're business people who wouldn't know talent or an original idea if it slapped them in the face. They depend a lot on resumes. People trying to get into 'the biz' have a hard time getting their first break because the decision-makers think that if someone hasn't worked yet, they must suck. But if someone does, by whatever serendipity, get a break, then those idiots now want to know what they're missing out on. So you're about to semi-retire and move to So Cal? Gee, would you like your next career to be a potentially lucrative one in Hollywood? Well the fact that you've got a book currently being produced would make it a whole lot easier for you to get a literary agent and pursue that. You got anything else that might make a good movie? Maybe that 'Pilot Down' story? Do you think Hollywood ever produces movies based on science-fiction stories? Why, Robert, why would you want to risk screwing that up now by getting a reputation for being 'difficult'? If I was you, I'd cash their check, keep my mouth shut, let the movie people do what they do, and secretly thumb my nose at 'Cooper folk' who give you a hard time.

Just a thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
Quote

'You signed their contracts, agreed to their terms, and cashed their checks. So why would you renege on that now? The time it takes to puzzle a movie together, especially when it's fuckered up by this Covid crap, that's their business, not yours. I'd suggest you just keep their terms and wait it out. Why should you care what people you don't like on sites you're not welcome at have to say?'

You must have missed the part where they agreed to my terms regarding the current extension...

Quote

"A few days later, I got a response. The production companies, and a well-known actor who will serve as Exec Producer on the movie, have agreed to a press release..."

I was never obligated to renew each time the option came up. I did it because I believed in the idea of the movie. Only this time, I asked them to back me up publicly, which Cooper fans probably want, and have been looking forward to anyway.

I guess they decided I was right. I had already hinted a few months ago that it was time for that. The idea of 'people' talking about this or that was a secondary consideration. As far as being banned from Mountain News or Shutter's DB Cooper Forum, I couldn't care less about that. To me, being banned by either of those places is like being told you've been banned from visiting the South Bronx after midnight. Mountain News is where the anonymous trolls and haters hang out. The Cooper Forum is somewhat better, but not a place I want to be associated with, even if I could. 

In other words, you get used to it with very little effort. B) 

No one likes to be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement, and then having to carry the secrecy load for more than three years alone. Me included. 

I will no longer discuss this issue at Dropzone. I have created a special thread elsewhere about it at the new forum. 

EDIT: I'm moving to So Cal because I was offered a free house between Oceanside and San Diego by mom-in-law, and because all my family, including my kids, moved to either So Cal, Arizona, or Nevada years ago. Gayla and I are the last holdouts in Washington. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins
Picture removed. Not necessary to the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
20 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

You must have missed the part where they agreed to my terms

No I didn't miss that part. That's precisely the part that prompted me to respond. But once again you totally missed the point.

 

22 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I said that after so long keeping all the secrets, it was time for THEM to come forward. I would not sign the extension unless they did. And I gave some pretty good reasons why all the secrecy was no longer necessary.

 

20 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I had already hinted a few months ago that it was time for that.

That's not your decision to make. It's theirs.

 

20 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

No one likes to be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement

Attached to a movie contract, I don't think most writers would mind that at all.

 

20 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

The idea of 'people' talking about this or that...   I couldn't care less about that.

That's hard to believe against...

22 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Frankly, I was also tired of taking all the heat, (people calling me a liar about a movie even BEING in the works) and reading silly posts at a few websites. 

 

22 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

There are positive and (unfortunately) negative folks who read this site who would use my comments in their usual sick/weirdo way

...and the dozens of multi-paragraph posts you've made railing about just that.

------

 

I'm not trying to antagonize you, Robert. I'm trying to help you. Instead of pestering the producers to agree to your terms, you should be hitting them up to Taft-Hartley you into the WGA and introduce you to a good agent.

Edited by dudeman17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Discussion on this issue is closed. At Dropzone, anyway. 

(Others are free to do so if they wish. I simply have no further comments about it myself. Not publicly.)

Thanks for the free WGA advice, but I don't have 24 units with signatory companies, and I have better things to do with $2,500. ^_^ 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I finally did a thorough analysis of the money find location...

Based on pics, video and maps... statements during the find that it was found at the high tide line.

Granted it is 40 years after the find...

 

1979 image.. money find = red dot

tbarmoneyspot.jpg.d9ac06c8a94dfe1fef3b0ad30d01a464.jpg

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

I finally did a thorough analysis of the money find location...

Based on pics, video and maps... statements during the find that it was found at the high tide line.

Granted it is 40 years after the find...

 

1979 image.. money find = red dot

tbarmoneyspot.jpg.d9ac06c8a94dfe1fef3b0ad30d01a464.jpg

 

After I had Id'd a spot, I measured the distance from the red dot to water's edge via Google earth and overlays = about 20 yards / 60 ft (Map is dated 9/29/79)

This article..

"A gaping pit, about 20 yards from the water's edge, showed the spot where Brian Ingram found the three packages of bill's Sunday"

"spot that obviously is sometimes under water as the river fluctuates"

 

 

20yardswater.jpeg.5708403f54ba9a09e05599a63b47ba3b.jpeg

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
Quote

"It does probably raise as many questions as answers...perhaps more," said agent Paul Hudson, coordinator of the digging efforts.

That guy should have started picking stocks for a living. B) He might have ended up richer than Bill Gates. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The takeaway from info at the time of the find is that the money was found at the current (Feb 1980) high tide line not above,,  

You don't need the 72 or 74 flood event.. that is a red herring. It could have been deposited by normal high water. Tom's diatom work indicated a spring, not the year.  Palmer's conclusion was within a year of the find.. the money was found in the top layer with "fresher" debris.

 

The evidence indicates money went into the River and onto TBAR in Spring time closer to the find in 1980.

 

Share this post


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

The takeaway from info at the time of the find is that the money was found at the current (Feb 1980) high tide line not above,,  

You don't need the 72 or 74 flood event.. that is a red herring. It could have been deposited by normal high water. Tom's diatom work indicated a spring, not the year.  Palmer's conclusion was within a year of the find.. the money was found in the top layer with "fresher" debris.

The evidence indicates money went into the River and onto TBAR in Spring time closer to the find in 1980.

Well, I will buy that. (Money deposited years after the hijacking) On a non-scientific level, I often go around to a few of the same campsites up in the Olympics, maybe the Cascades, occasionally near some river or other. People bury their trash at these places sometimes. Cardboard, clothing, whatever. Maybe this stuff gets buried during the summer, which is the most common time because that's when people often go out to the woods in the PNW. 

You come back after a single winter, a series of rains and snow, the clothing is rotted and the paper and cardboard stuff turned to mush. I never bought into the idea that paper money could survive for nine years in the open elements of the PNW. Not a chance, although paper money is probably a bit tougher than clothing or cardboard. 

In other Cooper-related news, I hear EU has canceled this year's Cooper Con. 

In OTHER Cooper-related news, Bruce Smith is quoted saying "Not for all the tea in China..." (would he have worked with me on the script for the upcoming movie) I have no comment on that except pity for the guy. I told Bruce once that if they had made a film based on HIS book, and HE had made the same offer to me that the production companies wanted to do with him, I would have jumped on the opportunity in a heartbeat. But he made his choice and looking back now, it was probably the best for everyone involved. I will no longer hold that decision against him. I thought he was a fool. Now I just think it is sad. 

Because of the Covid pandemic, I also think I've sponsored my last Cooper Campout. Meh. Too bad, really. But they're canceling everything except Christmas because of Covid, so I guess it was expected. I get the feeling it will be a crappy Christmas for everyone, especially the people who lost a friend or family member to the virus. Roughly 48,000 Americans were killed in the ten years of the Vietnam War. We're approaching four times that number of deaths from Covid-19 in just a few short months. It's difficult for me to think about, but it does make you re-assess your priorities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI - since Kenny is a topic over here.....I was in Bonney Lake last weekend getting my oil changed, I thought I'd drive by Kenny's old house (the print shop).  It has been torn down -- it's just a vacant lot now.

As far as Kenny goes, the story is full of contradictions.  Robert -- if we were to hypothesize that Kenny was Cooper, did he get away with the money?  Given what we now know (he bought a house on a rural highway no bigger than a trailer for $15,000 and didn't put up any of his own money to buy it, and his entire net worth when he died is mostly explained by some wooded land he bought in 1962 and sold in 1991), if Kenny were Cooper, he didn't get away with the money.  The only real financial largess was the $5000 loan to Bernie's sister....A plausible explanation for that was it was Bernie's money in the loan.  Why would he tell his sister it was Kenny's?  Anyone who's ever loaned money to a family knows the answer to that one --you're less likely to get it back.  

I know we've been down this road many times.  We know where it leads.  :(

 

 

 

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.

18 18