DB Cooper

[olemisscub 466]

11 minutes ago, georger said:

When did Gregory pick this photo out?  The date. In 1971 or later?

Nov 25th

[georger 197]

11 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Nov 25th

Something is going on. Gregory's perceptions seem to be totally different from the stews etc. His colors are different - he claims special expertise given his commercial painting background. How can so many people be wrong and Gregory right...  by a LARGE margin ?

Edited November 27, 2023 by georger

[olemisscub 466]

20 minutes ago, georger said:

Something is going on. Gregory's perceptions seem to be totally different from the stews etc. His colors are different - he claims special expertise given his commercial painting background. How can so many people be wrong and Gregory right...  by a LARGE margin ?

Gregory isn’t wildly far off. He used the term russett to describe Cooper’s suit and Tina called it brown. So I tend to agree that his suit wasn’t black. The people who claimed that his suit was black were likely just visualizing his raincoat/topcoat, which was definitely black

[georger 197]

36 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Gregory isn’t wildly far off. He used the term russett to describe Cooper’s suit and Tina called it brown. So I tend to agree that his suit wasn’t black. The people who claimed that his suit was black were likely just visualizing his raincoat/topcoat, which was definitely black

Russet? That to me is a little strange. Brown normal. Russet not typical. But my original question wasnt cloths but the head photo Gregory chose. That choice is way off the mark from what others said and chose... I just dont understand the wide difference making Gregory's choice stand alone? Very plainly, I wonder if there are psychological issues going on with Gregory? He previously described getting a lot of attention from the FBI being shown hundreds of photos through a large number of sessions. He said he finally got annoyed with all the attention and the time this was taking... ?  It appears the FBI tagged Gregory as an important witness vs others possibly including the stews? At the end of the day someone in the fbi has to pick and chose or draw a balance ?    

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, georger said:

Russet? That to me is a little strange. Brown normal. Russet not typical. But my original question wasnt cloths but the head photo Gregory chose. That choice is way off the mark from what others said and chose... I just dont understand the wide difference making Gregory's choice stand alone? Very plainly, I wonder if there are psychological issues going on with Gregory? He previously described getting a lot of attention from the FBI being shown hundreds of photos through a large number of sessions. He said he finally got annoyed with all the attention and the time this was taking... ?  It appears the FBI tagged Gregory as an important witness vs others possibly including the stews? At the end of the day someone in the fbi has to pick and chose or draw a balance ?    

He worked at a paint shop so he knew colours... Russet is a reddish brown and can range to almost black.

That image was head shape only,,, not the details and other features. The shape isn't far off the sketch.

Edited November 28, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

50 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

He worked at a paint shop so he knew colours... Russet is a reddish brown and can range to almost black.

That image was head shape only,,, not the details and other features. The shape isn't far off the sketch.

The head shape is consistent with essentially every witness description, with Alice's head shape selection, and also consistent with photos of Allen Cooper and Donald Murphy, two men we know that the stews picked out of photo lineups as looking like Cooper. Hell, all Nancy House could remember was that he had dark hair and a narrow face. 

Cooper 100% had a narrow face with a sharp chin. 

[georger 197]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

He worked at a paint shop so he knew colours... Russet is a reddish brown and can range to almost black.

That image was head shape only,,, not the details and other features. The shape isn't far off the sketch.

ok ...

[CooperNWO305 146]

Olemiss. Do you have the names for these redactions starting on page 24? All the talk about narrow or wider etc gets confusing in that they don’t say “make it wider by 2 centimeters” etc. It would be quite an undertaking, but it would be interesting to see a pictorial of what witness said what off of what sketch and if we knew what they meant by narrow wider etc or had the actual ID kit or Nat Geo pics as reference too. One could argue many points on these sketches given the lack of agreement. Some say Mitchell’s does not count or Flo’s because she was stressed or Tina’s because she claims she only saw him head on, and only with sunglasses. I can say that the other day playing poker, this guy took off his sunglasses and looked totally different. He was middle aged. This seems like a good undertaking to pursue. 
 

https://dbcooperhijack.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Various-Witness-Descriptions-2.pdf

[olemisscub 466]

25 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Olemiss. Do you have the names for these redactions starting on page 24? All the talk about narrow or wider etc gets confusing in that they don’t say “make it wider by 2 centimeters” etc. It would be quite an undertaking, but it would be interesting to see a pictorial of what witness said what off of what sketch and if we knew what they meant by narrow wider etc or had the actual ID kit or Nat Geo pics as reference too. One could argue many points on these sketches given the lack of agreement. Some say Mitchell’s does not count or Flo’s because she was stressed or Tina’s because she claims she only saw him head on, and only with sunglasses. I can say that the other day playing poker, this guy took off his sunglasses and looked totally different. He was middle aged. This seems like a good undertaking to pursue. 
 

https://dbcooperhijack.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Various-Witness-Descriptions-2.pdf

The one about the looking Mexican on page 24 is Gregory.

Page 25 is Labissoniere. 

26 is again Gregory

27 is a repeat of the info from Page 25, so it's Labissoniere again. 

28, the Nov 21 one is Gregory and Nov 22 is Labissoniere. 

29 is either Bill or Spreckel, but likely Spreckel. 

30 is Labissoniere. 

31 is Labissoniere.

32 is Gregory

It's important to remember that the majority of what you're seeing there are criticisms of the Bing sketch. Only pages 28-30 are criticisms of Comp B. 

The ID kit would be nice to have and what we were just discussing slipped through all of our fingers last week on Ebay. I was so pissed when I saw that someone had sold one of those that it gave me a migraine. Been looking diligently for that book for over a year. 

Interestingly, we do have this sketch on the right that was actually drawn by Spreckel. I've FOIA'd for a high res scan of it. I'll certainly post it whenever I receive it. 

[georger 197]

3 hours ago, olemisscub said:

The one about the looking Mexican on page 24 is Gregory.

Page 25 is Labissoniere. 

26 is again Gregory

27 is a repeat of the info from Page 25, so it's Labissoniere again. 

28, the Nov 21 one is Gregory and Nov 22 is Labissoniere. 

29 is either Bill or Spreckel, but likely Spreckel. 

30 is Labissoniere. 

31 is Labissoniere.

32 is Gregory

It's important to remember that the majority of what you're seeing there are criticisms of the Bing sketch. Only pages 28-30 are criticisms of Comp B. 

The ID kit would be nice to have and what we were just discussing slipped through all of our fingers last week on Ebay. I was so pissed when I saw that someone had sold one of those that it gave me a migraine. Been looking diligently for that book for over a year. 

Interestingly, we do have this sketch on the right that was actually drawn by Spreckel. I've FOIA'd for a high res scan of it. I'll certainly post it whenever I receive it. 

Back in the day, physical anthro used a socalled 'ethnic facial profile' chart - a holdover from the German Somatotype theory of the 1940s. The American psychologist William Herbert Sheldon promoted this theory in America. The chart purported to show skull and facial types representative of various racial and ethnic groups. The first time I saw the Bing Crosby profile it reminded me of these ethnic charts and I wondered what ethnic skull shape Cooper represented. It struck me that Cooper's skull shape was very distinctive or representative of something - ???

I am sure sketch artists like Rose would have been well aware of these charts or even a part of their professional training ...

To me, Cooper's profile in the Bing sketch is very distinctive but I cant put my finger on what ethnic or racial traits it is representative of .... based on my own physical anthro training... back in the Stone Age! His skull shape fits an old formal profile ? It would be interesting to know Tom's reaction based on his Greek ethnicity ...

Today the old somatotyping ethnicity charts have been further refined by reference to genetic Haplotypes ?  Cooper's physical traits could represent a very specific haplotype.

Edited November 28, 2023 by georger

[georger 197]

Here is Tom's old page on the sketches. Read the text!  The initial sketch done at Reno was entirely based on Gregory's representation.  Days later the first FBI sketch appeared based on other witnesses. This literally creates a conflict between Gregory and all other witnesses. There is no way around this fact. Who is correct ie. closer to the real DB Cooper image? The difference between Gregory and the consensus from everyone else is astounding!

Now we have others chiming in 50 years later offering their expertise!

Will the real DB Cooper please stand up!

Edited November 28, 2023 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

16 minutes ago, georger said:

Here is Tom's old page on the sketches. Read the text!  The initial sketch done at Reno was entirely based on Gregory's representation.  Days later the first FBI sketch appeared based on other witnesses. This literally creates a conflict between Gregory and all other witnesses. There is no way around this fact. Who is correct ie. closer to the real DB Cooper image? The difference between Gregory and the consensus from everyone else is astounding!

Now we have others chiming in 50 years later offering their expertise!

Will the real DB Cooper please stand up!

Nope, not even close

It doesn't say that sketch 1 was entirely Gregory,, Sketch 2 was the stews, including Tina who said she never saw his face. Sketch 4 was stews and passengers..

and Sketch 1 and 4 are very close if you account for the "line art" characteristics. The outlier is sketch 2... What influence did Tina have if she didn't see his face??

[georger 197]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Nope, not even close

It doesn't say that sketch 1 was entirely Gregory,, Sketch 2 was the stews, including Tina who said she never saw his face. Sketch 4 was stews and passengers..

and Sketch 1 and 4 are very close if you account for the "line art" characteristics. The outlier is sketch 2... What influence did Tina have if she didn't see his face??

Really!

So you are saying Kaye's description is wrong ?  Nope not even close?   How far or how close is it? 

So who did Las Vegas/Reno interview for their sketch, ?  What's your source(s) ?

Edited November 28, 2023 by georger

[olemisscub 466]

1 hour ago, georger said:

 The initial sketch done at Reno was entirely based on Gregory's representation. 

 

That was Tom being confused by what he was reading. Tracking the first day or two of the sketches is very complicated, so it's understandable he'd get that mixed up. That drawing that came from Vegas was done using Tina's description without her real-time assistance. There is a 302 that specifically states that it was drawn using Tina's description. Gregory did go through the Facial ID Catalog on Nov 25th though, so that might be the confusion. Roy Rose didn't get out to see the stews until Nov 26th. However, the FBI had already sent Rose the catalog selections from Gregory as well as from Flo and Alice and maybe a handful of others. So I'd be curious to know if he had already drawn a rough outline of the first Bing sketch using the ID kit numbers before he got to the stews and then made in person adjustments OR if Bing was completely created on the fly. This is one of the reasons I'd really like to get that Facial ID Catalog. I'd be interested to see if some of those early ID kit selections from the 25th made it into the Bing sketch. That would give us our answer to whether Bing was drawn on the fly. 

[FLYJACK 654]

3 minutes ago, georger said:

Really!

So you are saying Kaye's description is wrong ?  Nope not even close?   How far or how close is it? 

So who did Las Vegas/Reno interview for their sketch, ?  What's your source(s) ?

YOU are misrepresenting a general statement by Tom.

He did not say the sketch was exclusively Gregory and there is no evidence that it was.

 

[georger 197]

4 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

That was Tom being confused by what he was reading. Tracking the first day or two of the sketches is very complicated, so it's understandable he'd get that mixed up. That drawing that came from Vegas was done using Tina's description without her real-time assistance. There is a 302 that specifically states that it was drawn using Tina's description. Gregory did go through the Facial ID Catalog on Nov 25th though, so that might be the confusion. Roy Rose didn't get out to see the stews until Nov 26th. However, the FBI had already sent Rose the catalog selections from Gregory as well as from Flo and Alice and maybe a handful of others. So I'd be curious to know if he had already drawn a rough outline of the first Bing sketch using the ID kit numbers before he got to the stews and then made in person adjustments OR if Bing was completely created on the fly. This is one of the reasons I'd really like to get that Facial ID Catalog. I'd be interested to see if some of those early ID kit selections from the 25th made it into the Bing sketch. That would give us our answer to whether Bing was drawn on the fly. 

Jesus Christ! 

[georger 197]

1 minute ago, FLYJACK said:

YOU are misrepresenting a general statement by Tom.

He did not say the sketch was exclusively Gregory and there is no evidence that it was.

 

I stayed up all night trying to compose a MISREPRESENTATION - asshole!

[Chaucer 103]

On 11/27/2023 at 11:31 AM, FLYJACK said:

The missing minute mark.

I did a deep analysis of the minute marks,, measuring the distance between and computing speed..  there is some error in the marks so I had to compute the distance and deviation from the mean...  I analyzed the entire flightpath.

The data was clear... the missing mark is between 19:59 and 20:05.. (the green line in pic)

This is a basic summary of the underlying analysis..  the red lines are equal and for 5 seconds. The green line is longer and should represent 6 seconds but there are only 5 seconds marked. The missing mark is in there. it may be due to some sort of rounding I don't know for sure but there is a missing mark in there based on the average speed of travel. The extra distance can't be accounted for due to slight variations in airspeed. It is too large. 

Conclusion, the times written are accurate, that means 20:05 and beyond is accurate. There is no shift in minutes. It is incorrect to move Cooper's LZ one minute further along the path.

Wait. So you conclude that there is in fact a missing plot point between 7:59 and 8:05, but dismiss it as a rounding error? Then, based on this, you conclude the times after 8:05 are accurate? Am I understanding you?

How do you account for the DME report at 8:21?

[CooperNWO305 146]

8 hours ago, olemisscub said:

The one about the looking Mexican on page 24 is Gregory.

Page 25 is Labissoniere. 

26 is again Gregory

27 is a repeat of the info from Page 25, so it's Labissoniere again. 

28, the Nov 21 one is Gregory and Nov 22 is Labissoniere. 

29 is either Bill or Spreckel, but likely Spreckel. 

30 is Labissoniere. 

31 is Labissoniere.

32 is Gregory

It's important to remember that the majority of what you're seeing there are criticisms of the Bing sketch. Only pages 28-30 are criticisms of Comp B. 

The ID kit would be nice to have and what we were just discussing slipped through all of our fingers last week on Ebay. I was so pissed when I saw that someone had sold one of those that it gave me a migraine. Been looking diligently for that book for over a year. 

Interestingly, we do have this sketch on the right that was actually drawn by Spreckel. I've FOIA'd for a high res scan of it. I'll certainly post it whenever I receive it. 

What are your thoughts on the Spreckel sketch? It seems very close to the Bing Crosby.  Did he just agree with the others or independently come up with that? I don't think I ever saw this one. Good find.

[olemisscub 466]

1 hour ago, CooperNWO305 said:

What are your thoughts on the Spreckel sketch? It seems very close to the Bing Crosby.  Did he just agree with the others or independently come up with that? I don't think I ever saw this one. Good find.

Well, the one on the left is obviously the Bing sketch and he used it as a template. Spreckel merely adjusted the width of the forehead one-sixteenth of an inch (according to the agent).

 

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, Chaucer said:

Wait. So you conclude that there is in fact a missing plot point between 7:59 and 8:05, but dismiss it as a rounding error? Then, based on this, you conclude the times after 8:05 are accurate? Am I understanding you?

How do you account for the DME report at 8:21?

Not exactly,, more accurately there is a six minute span based on that distance/speed but with only five segments. 2 of those segments are far too long. That suggests the plots in that section are not equal minute marks.

I can only speculate. 

There nothing that says all these marks were plotted at exactly equivalent minute marks, we have been assuming that. It may be that they recorded the plots noted with times and the other marks are only meant to track the path and not necessarily minute increments. 

I suspect this,, The segments vary far too much where there are no times marked. 

There is some marking position error on the map as lat.long was manually marked on it so I don't know how much or if that plays a role. 

The segments are too far apart right before 20:05 and too close together at Portland.

In other words.. the unmarked plots represent the path and the time marked plots are accurate. There are unmarked plots that are twice the distance of others. The plane didn't reduce speed by half.

 

I think the Soderlind 23 DME at 22:22 and the Harrison :22 reports are accurate..

Isn't DME a straight line,, so the plane is almost 2 miles up as well so isn't DME an angle.. not 23NM along the ground.

IMO, the 8:18 was not accurate, perhaps the writer glanced at a clock or watch and read the hands wrong,,  a few minutes after the 3 instead of after the 4 mark..  that is a guess.

But, I have been working on something regarding the marks and path around Portland,, they are too close together..

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, CooperNWO305 said:

What are your thoughts on the Spreckel sketch? It seems very close to the Bing Crosby.  Did he just agree with the others or independently come up with that? I don't think I ever saw this one. Good find.

Yup, he just scribbled on the sketch...

I have a different version than was posted..

Hard to tell but looks like added shoulders? thicker hair, maybe wider, something with nose and perhaps neck..

[Robert99 37]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Not exactly,, more accurately there is a six minute span based on that distance/speed but with only five segments. 2 of those segments are far too long. That suggests the plots in that section are not equal minute marks.

I can only speculate. 

There nothing that says all these marks were plotted at exactly equivalent minute marks, we have been assuming that. It may be that they recorded the plots noted with times and the other marks are only meant to track the path and not necessarily minute increments. 

I suspect this,, The segments vary far too much where there are no times marked. 

There is some marking position error on the map as lat.long was manually marked on it so I don't know how much or if that plays a role. 

The segments are too far apart right before 20:05 and too close together at Portland.

In other words.. the unmarked plots represent the path and the time marked plots are accurate. There are unmarked plots that are twice the distance of others. The plane didn't reduce speed by half.

 

I think the Soderlind 23 DME at 22:22 and the Harrison :22 reports are accurate..

Isn't DME a straight line,, so the plane is almost 2 miles up as well so isn't DME an angle.. not 23NM along the ground.

IMO, the 8:18 was not accurate, perhaps the writer glanced at a clock or watch and read the hands wrong,,  a few minutes after the 3 instead of after the 4 mark..  that is a guess.

But, I have been working on something regarding the marks and path around Portland,, they are too close together..

 

FlyJack, the Harrison time of 8:18 is undoubtedly correct since he was on the phone link when the crew reported that the 23 DME time over the ARINC radio link.  The ARINC teletype message had to be "processed" and then typed into the system and the 8:22 time is when the teletype operator pressed the send button.  This has been discussed at length previously.  Harrison worked in a highly time-oriented industry and had plenty of experience reading clocks and his own wristwatch which he probably set to GMT every day.

The 23 DME was probably actually reading something between 23.0 and 23.9.  And the DME reading is the actual straight-line distance between the airliner and the antenna of the DME instrument on the ground.  The vertical distance of the airliner above the DME instrument is 10,000 feet minus the altitude of the DME station above sea level.

So doing a little trigonometry reveals that the airliner's ground distance from the DME station is only a few hundred feet less than the DME reading in the cockpit. This small distance can be ignored in view of the quality of the data. 

[FLYJACK 654]

11 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, the Harrison time of 8:18 is undoubtedly correct since he was on the phone link when the crew reported that the 23 DME time over the ARINC radio link.  The ARINC teletype message had to be "processed" and then typed into the system and the 8:22 time is when the teletype operator pressed the send button.  This has been discussed at length previously.  Harrison worked in a highly time-oriented industry and had plenty of experience reading clocks and his own wristwatch which he probably set to GMT every day.

The 23 DME was probably actually reading something between 23.0 and 23.9.  And the DME reading is the actual straight-line distance between the airliner and the antenna of the DME instrument on the ground.  The vertical distance of the airliner above the DME instrument is 10,000 feet minus the altitude of the DME station above sea level.

So doing a little trigonometry reveals that the airliner's ground distance from the DME station is only a few hundred feet less than the DME reading in the cockpit. This small distance can be ignored in view of the quality of the data. 

Sure, there is some variability/delay with the 8:22 time.. 

but there are two 8:22 times noted for the 23 DME and we don't know the time source for the 8:18 time notation, just speculation..

The 8:22 time is close to matching the flight timing,, the 8:18 is the outlier, both can't be correct.

but I am working on something regarding the timing and location around Portland.. that may alter the location and times,, It doesn't affect N of Portland.

[georger 197]

Let's just reverse engineer DB Cooper. AI may soon make that possible. Reporting from colleagues at a Denver conference, this is being suggested as a 'game'. Design your own DB Cooper. Artist renderings in the case could soon generate a whole genetic rendering, which theoretically could then be compared to any real genetic information anyone has !

Discussion:    Some reported genes appear to influence different parts of the face. PRDM16 is linked to the length and the prominence of the nose as well as the width of the alae, SOX9 is thought to be related to the shape of the ala and nose tip, variation in SUPT3H is thought to influence naso-labial angle and shape of the bridge of the nose, while centroid size (squared root of the squared distances of all landmarks of the face from the centroid) and allometry (relationship of size to shape) have been linked to PDE8A and SCHIP17 genes, respectively, (Cole et al., 2016). Eye width and ear – nasion distance and nasion -zygoma – eyes distances are linked to C5orf50. There is some evidence to suggest that there are additive genetic effects on nose shape involving SOX9, DCHS2, CASC17, PAX1, RUNX2, and GL13 and chin shape, SOX9 and ASPM. In addition, it is likely that one or more genes influence the whole shape of the face as well as more localized facial regions (Claes et al., 2018). A significant number of genes are integrally involved in cranial neural crest cells and patternation of the craniofacial complex (e.g., C5orf50, MAFB, and PAX3).

Edited November 29, 2023 by georger