DB Cooper

[olemisscub 488]

This was fun

 

[Cola 49]

4 hours ago, olemisscub said:

This was fun

You produce such great content, can't wait to watch.

 

By choice, the chutes are not my strong point, but maybe this is more fun for thought..

In Tina saying that she did not see Coops tamper with the two large chutes. Is she actually saying that he cut on both front chutes? She has two times noted when he was cutting, seems like it would be further cutting on the one chute but the remark "he was occupied opening one of the parachute packs". Seems odd  that he would open the other, leaves me wondering on what the real semantics are here.

pg. DB-Cooper 26969

pg. DB-Cooper -26977

 

 

To bad we do not have Alice's description on the color of the chute. - Alice's comments:

Edited June 5 by Cola

[olemisscub 488]

22 hours ago, Cola said:

By choice, the chutes are not my strong point, but maybe this is more fun for thought..

In Tina saying that she did not see Coops tamper with the two large chutes. Is she actually saying that he cut on both front chutes? She has two times noted when he was cutting, seems like it would be further cutting on the one chute but the remark "he was occupied opening one of the parachute packs". Seems odd  that he would open the other, leaves me wondering on what the real semantics are here.

To bad we do not have Alice's description on the color of the chute. - Alice's comments:

 

I believe he only ever cut on the one reserve. I think he avoided the dummy chute. It obviously didn't look right and I doubt he wanted it near him, which is why I think he chunked it out the back at some point in between Seattle and Portland. But I have had the same questions you've had about it. When you read through her 302's it does make you wonder whether he also tampered with the dummy chute, but upon further reading it doesn't seem so.

As for Alice, she had actually been skydiving before the Cooper hijacking. Would be interesting to know what she actually said to Cooper about the parachutes. 

[Cola 49]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

I believe he only ever cut on the one reserve. I think he avoided the dummy chute. It obviously didn't look right and I doubt he wanted it near him, which is why I think he chunked it out the back at some point in between Seattle and Portland. But I have had the same questions you've had about it. When you read through her 302's it does make you wonder whether he also tampered with the dummy chute, but upon further reading it doesn't seem so.

As for Alice, she had actually been skydiving before the Cooper hijacking. Would be interesting to know what she actually said to Cooper about the parachutes. 

 

If the dummy chute was goofy and it was obvious something was wrong wouldn't it be to his advantage to cut into it and explore it. See what that X was all about. 

He's taking on huge risk not cutting the chutes on the ground at all and just accepting them as is. Cutting open the chutes is mitigating risk of the unknown through inspection. trackers, holes, cut lines?

What if the plan may have always been to ask for 2 sets and cut one open on the plane to make sure there was no funny stuff therein.

Its killing me that these interviews don't even comport... but I have to be more stoic - lets toast to these disadvantages being our advantage..!

 

Edited June 6 by Cola

[Cola 49]

On 6/5/2024 at 3:10 PM, olemisscub said:

This was fun

 

 

You ever come across a photo of the McNally bag the farmer found? It seems that would have made a great photo op and story for the paper.  

Was the bag intact or did  explode - rip?

[Cola 49]

5 hours ago, olemisscub said:

but upon further reading it doesn't seem so.

 

If the following Ckret post is accurate then Cooper may have been without the line needed for your mini Coops drag bag.  What is the confidence on the drag bag vs this assertion?

Speculation following this line of thinking:

Coops initial thought - attach the bag to the harness with loop, then over the next hour he starts to doubt this idea and scrambles to wrap the money bag further opening the other front pack and unfolding the chute thinking something like a bindle or hobo sack on a stick to wrap the money further. Maybe this gets messy and he strips two cords settles on a drag bag as his best option. 

All speculation:

 

 

[olemisscub 488]

2 hours ago, Cola said:

 

If the following Ckret post is accurate then Cooper may have been without the line needed for your mini Coops drag bag.  What is the confidence on the drag bag vs this assertion?

Speculation following this line of thinking:

Coops initial thought - attach the bag to the harness with loop, then over the next hour he starts to doubt this idea and scrambles to wrap the money bag further opening the other front pack and unfolding the chute thinking something like a bindle or hobo sack on a stick to wrap the money further. Maybe this gets messy and he strips two cords settles on a drag bag as his best option. 

All speculation:

 

 

Larry is mistaken. This was before the Citizen Sleuths showed up and measured how much of the shroud lines were missing. It was something close to 100 feet that Cooper had cut. I think he had plenty of line to do what he wanted. 

[georger 231]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

Larry is mistaken. This was before the Citizen Sleuths showed up and measured how much of the shroud lines were missing. It was something close to 100 feet that Cooper had cut. I think he had plenty of line to do what he wanted. 

from Tom's original  site:

Five cords on the pink parachute had cut lines:
Line #7 had 186 ¾ inches of cord removed
Line #11 had 169 ¾ inches of cord removed
Line #12 had 169 inches of cord removed
Line #15 had 213 inches of cord removed
Line #22 had 217 ¼ inches of cord removed

The length of an uncut cord (including the double-sewn cord used to tie into the cross-connector, the bundle of cords located between the butterfly snap-hook rings in the reserve container) is 218 inches (or 18.2 feet).

Exactly how much suspension line is currently missing from the pink parachute?
955 ¾ inches (or 79.6 feet).

Exactly how much suspension line did D.B. Cooper use to wrap the bundle of money to his waist?
If the investigative search of the plane was conducted a mere 24 minutes after the plane touched down in Reno, NV and the number of cut cords recorded by the search team at that time was two, it suggests that Cooper removed two shroud lines (suspension lines) from the pink parachute. Logically, it seems as though the hijacker would grab two cords at the same time and make only one cut, rather than choosing lines individually and cutting them separately. Lines #11 and #12 seem the most plausible two, being a mere ¼ inch difference in length and located next to each other on the canopy. If D.B. Cooper took these two lines, he took a total of 338 ¾ inches (28.2 feet) of cord with him. If he doubled-up the cords for extra security during the jump, he used 169 ¾ inches (or 14.1 feet) of cord.

Two cords vs. Three cords
Whether two cords or three cords were cut remains a debate. Tina Mucklow asked the hijacker during the flight to cut some of the chute cord for her to possibly use as a safety line when the aft stairs were lowered, so as to not be sucked out of the plane [2]. Mucklow stated that Cooper informed her that she didn't need a cord. Was an additional cord cut from the chute at the time for Mucklow, but never used?

This research was conducted by Carol Abraczinskas, University of Chicago.

[Cola 49]

50 minutes ago, georger said:

from Tom's original  site:

Exactly how much suspension line is currently missing from the pink parachute?

955 ¾ inches (or 79.6 feet).

Well done.....Georger... well done

Last I had we were at 2 lines roughly 14 ft. I'll have to look at 302's again if there is one with these measurements. If anyone has this feel free to post.

I love Tom's specificity of language - a true scientist in consideration and measure in his assessment. 

One record says two shroud lines on 11/26/ 71

The other says 3 shroud lines on 12/21/71

I'm not fond of notes on scanned documents because the lack context, but in 1976 there are these which also say 2 shroud lines  -  any  insights on Serial 48,148,137 are/maybe?

    pg. DB Cooper- 28010

 

 

Edited June 7 by Cola

[Cola 49]

4 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Larry is mistaken. This was before the Citizen Sleuths showed up and measured how much of the shroud lines were missing. It was something close to 100 feet that Cooper had cut. I think he had plenty of line to do what he wanted.

I give it a maybe, I dont know what Larry's reference on this one was.He had access to work product that we don't have. 

Maybe the statement is true. As inferred by Tina's Interview's Cooper seems to have  cut into the chute two separate times. The first time around where he tied the bank bag up like a hobo would a feed sack. That time, he may have exhausted all of the line in front of the stews whom noted this to an interviewing agent. So on takeoff he decided to go in a second time for the drag bag line instead of fastening the bag to his belt or harness or whatever. 

I still like the Dag Bag theory, if he opened both fronts then there is the unaccounted for cordage.

Without the other front chute open, I don't have an answer for how to credit or discredit the records that say 2 lines in Vegas, then 3 lines in Seattle, then 5 lines missing when Tom's team inspected the chute.

I guess it would come down to consideration and or what we know of the conditions of the initial evaluation of the chute at Nellis AFB  by plural men. Who were those men? It's at an AFB so these were riggers themselves.This would be a big deal for those guys. With two guys there are dynamics there. Hey guys lets impress the FBI agents and do a through job? The memo is very detailed.

How do they inspect it in a hanger, on a table in a repack room.

Did anyone ever take shroud lines as a souvenir between 71 and when Tom looked at it?

 

Edited June 7 by Cola

[dudeman17 311]

On 6/4/2024 at 6:55 AM, Cola said:

My take on the chute 302-s is that I have seen more of a reliance on validating or invalidating chutes found along V-23  based on the descriptive detail and Cossey himself ruling these out. What I have not picked up on in the 302's is an invalidation by serial number first then Cossey as a secondary confirmation. It seems to be the procedure that  when a chute comes in they look at against their descriptive detail, which appears to be wish washy, then they check with Cossey for a final visual review and determination.

Correct me if I wrong but I believe the thorn in FlyJacks side was the wish washy-ness of the descriptive detail and reliability of the chute evidence.I believe FLY held onto the possibility that the agency may have indeed collected Cooper's chute at one time but mistakenly/unknowingly ruled it out because they relied on Cossey, whom FLY doubted on accuracy.

I think you're right about this. There is a lot of weird things about the chute info. The FBI seemed to rely primarily on Cossey and his descriptions. But Cossey's descriptions were of his own personal chutes that he initially claimed were given. I think one was a sport main and the other was one of his pilot bailout rigs, the one with the possibly re-positioned ripcord routing. He initially claimed that those were given to Cooper. He was mistaken, but he never seemed to correct that mistake. So some of the found chutes were discounted because they did not match his descriptions. But whether he actually gave those to the FBI or not, SURELY someone at the FBI knew that those were NOT the ones given to Cooper, that he had been given Hayden's chutes instead. Why the FBI never caught on to that is a mystery. As for checking the serial numbers - the found chutes, they never found any harness/containers, right? All they found were canopies? On canopies, the serial numbers are on data panels that are stamped on in ink. In normal use, where the canopy spends most of it's life packed in the container, those data panels are fine. But if that canopy is left out in the woods or floating in a river, where it's exposed to sunlight, moisture, and what-not, that data panel would probably fade away over time. So even if someone knew to look for it, it may not be readable, if visible at all.

[dudeman17 311]

10 hours ago, Cola said:

He's taking on huge risk not cutting the chutes on the ground at all and just accepting them as is. Cutting open the chutes is mitigating risk of the unknown through inspection. trackers, holes, cut lines?

Cutting them open? Yikes! But as for opening them at all to inspect them, considering the spring-loaded pilot chutes and all (on the back chutes), unless he was a rigger and/or knew what he was doing and had at least some basic rigging tools, it would be unlikely that he could get them re-closed properly. So opening them would have rendered them unusable.

-----------------

13 hours ago, olemisscub said:

As for Alice, she had actually been skydiving before the Cooper hijacking. Would be interesting to know what she actually said to Cooper about the parachutes.

Really? I hadn't heard that before. In those days they didn't have tandems, where people can go make a one-time jump and treat it like a carnival ride. Anyone making even one jump had to train through the first jump course, and make a solo static-line jump, where they would be responsible for everything, dealing with their opening, possible malfunction / reserve ride, reading the winds, flying the canopy pattern and landing. That's ballsy, Alice!

[Cola 49]

7 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

On canopies, the serial numbers are on data panels that are stamped on in ink. In normal use, where the canopy spends most of it's life packed in the container, those data panels are fine. But if that canopy is left out in the woods or floating in a river, where it's exposed to sunlight, moisture, and what-not, that data panel would probably fade away over time. So even if someone knew to look for it, it may not be readable, if visible at all.

Parachute Serial number evidence -/insight

Great detail...

Maybe Eric should promote CooperCon as the repository for future chutes that the public may find going forward in the DZ. I'm confident Tom would have some ideas on how to enhance the ink if a new chute was found that had been exposed to the elements. I we can enhance scrolls that are thousands of years old I'm optimistic on this thought.

 

I think there is definitely a possibility that the chute came in, but so many years on I don't see the chute detail coming into full focus in the Vortex and it being settled. Maybe Fly had it or Ryan has it down, I missed the exchange last summer on the chutes.

 

 

[Cola 49]

8 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

Cutting them open? Yikes! But as for opening them at all to inspect them, considering the spring-loaded pilot chutes and all (on the back chutes), unless he was a rigger and/or knew what he was doing and had at least some basic rigging tools, it would be unlikely that he could get them re-closed properly. So opening them would have rendered them unusable.

 

na dude, he was never going to repack them..

Think of the intention in asking for 2 sets.Why? 

In ordering 2 sets that gave him the optionality of which one to use and one set to fully inspect  and look for tampering. 

He was never going to take a stew with him - that's stupidity. I dont think it was a ruse when he asked for 2 sets I think it was more for optionality and inspection.

I think he may have started that inspection with the Dummy chute because it was odd looking. Then he also got into the good front chute just to make sure or for line for Tina or who knows. 

What came first - his awareness that he was not receiving  the knapsack or him cutting into the chute?

Reported Fact: He had one front chute open prior to Tina completing on-boarding all of the chutes and stuff. She was in process. 

Question - his frustration over them not providing the Knapsack was this a reactive statement or an assumption.

Question- did it start out as an assumption by Cooper and would he have clarity on this thru Tina?  Prompting Tina to go out there and check for the knapsack. She returns and tells him for clarity -  they forgot the Knapsack and then he reacts.

Did he start opening the chute before he had awareness that no Knapsack had been provided? That sequence would suggest inspection to me.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7 by Cola

[Cola 49]

12 hours ago, Cola said:

I guess it would come down to consideration and or what we know of the conditions of the initial evaluation of the chute at Nellis AFB  by plural men. Who were those men? It's at an AFB so these were riggers themselves.This would be a big deal for those guys. With two guys there are dynamics there. Hey guys lets impress the FBI agents and do a through job? The memo is very detailed.

How do they inspect it in a hanger, on a table in a repack room.

 

Dudeman - Anyone with canopy experience - is there a standard for the number of lines on chutes from this era? If I were a rigger would expect that 80% or 90%+ of front chute canopy's would have a set standard of say 24 shroud lines? Is there much variance across canopy's for the number of shroud lines in that era. 

 

If they noticed 2 lines missing what are the chances they would have further verified each of the lines to see that it was indeed only 2 missing and not  3 or 4 or 5 lines missing.

I have no answers for why this starts at 2 lines and ends at 5.

If there were only 24 lines in a canopy, I dont think Coops had pulled all 5 lines of the 79ft . Would it be easier to notice the removal of 20% of the lines or 8%. (5 vs 2)

After the evidence was collected, I think someone for some reason took a minimum of 2 lines form the evidence/chute.

So maybe Cooper pulled 2 lines or 3 lines but not 5 lines. 

Is 2 lines enough to tie the money bag and do a drag bag? 3 lines I think woudl be enough, 2 lines maybe just the right amount.  79 ft of lines would that be overkill or double wrapping?

 Anyone ever see an experiment on the DZ of how far 30ft of line will go?

 

DISCLAIMER- Clarification:

I'm posing a lot of questions that can't be answered. I hope the questions come across as wanting to get at a truth. To me we get closer to a truth in making sound inferences, speculations, guesses, experiments... and building some confidence level in our theories and work.  

 

 

Edited June 7 by Cola

[dudeman17 311]

7 hours ago, Cola said:

Think of the intention in asking for 2 sets.Why?...   He was never going to take a stew with him - that's stupidity. I dont think it was a ruse when he asked for 2 sets I think it was more for optionality and inspection.

Sure, it's all speculation...  I have speculated that he may have asked for two sets so that they wouldn't tamper with them for fear that he might make someone else jump with him. I agree that there would be no reason for him to actually do that, but my thought is that just introducing the possibility that he might, might make it less likely that they would tamper with them.

 

6 hours ago, Cola said:

is there a standard for the number of lines on chutes from this era? If I were a rigger would expect that 80% or 90%+ of front chute canopy's would have a set standard of say 24 shroud lines? Is there much variance across canopy's for the number of shroud lines in that era. 

I'm not sure about that.

 

6 hours ago, Cola said:

If they noticed 2 lines missing what are the chances they would have further verified each of the lines to see that it was indeed only 2 missing and not  3 or 4 or 5 lines missing.

Those chutes are pretty basic. Whoever stretched it out to inspect it, any cut/missing lines would be readily apparent.

As for how many lines he cut, how long is that, would he have enough or run out...? My thought is that he cut what he needed. If he had needed more, he would have just cut more?

Edited June 7 by dudeman17

[olemisscub 488]

On 6/7/2024 at 1:44 AM, dudeman17 said:

Really? I hadn't heard that before. In those days they didn't have tandems, where people can go make a one-time jump and treat it like a carnival ride. Anyone making even one jump had to train through the first jump course, and make a solo static-line jump, where they would be responsible for everything, dealing with their opening, possible malfunction / reserve ride, reading the winds, flying the canopy pattern and landing. That's ballsy, Alice!

Yes, she got into it while dating Jim Hancock. Interestingly, Jim would eventually be the one at NWA who calculated Cooper’s descent for the DZ. 

She ended up getting a pilot’s license too. 

[Robert99 47]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Yes, she got into it while dating Jim Hancock. Interestingly, Jim would eventually be the one at NWA who calculated Cooper’s descent for the DZ. 

She ended up getting a pilot’s license too. 

Interesting enough, the FBI also had two different USAF Navigators calculate the descent rate and landing zone. Their names and comments have been posted on this thread.

And oddly enough, the USAF Navigators were not asked to determine the flight path of the airliner.  And they may not have even had access to the flight path information.

Weird things happened in relation to the descent rate and flight path information used in the FBI investigation.

Actually, the descent rate for the jumper and parachute were common knowledge.  The flight path could easily be determined from information held by the Seattle Air Traffic Control Center.  But that would be doing it the easy way. 

[Cola 49]

On 6/7/2024 at 2:09 PM, Cola said:

Parachute Serial number evidence -/insight

Great detail...

Maybe Eric should promote CooperCon as the repository for future chutes that the public may find going forward in the DZ. I'm confident Tom would have some ideas on how to enhance the ink if a new chute was found that had been exposed to the elements. I we can enhance scrolls that are thousands of years old I'm optimistic on this thought.

 

I think there is definitely a possibility that the chute came in, but so many years on I don't see the chute detail coming into full focus in the Vortex and it being settled. Maybe Fly had it or Ryan has it down, I missed the exchange last summer on the chutes.

 

 

Recovered Canopy Serial Number Stencile- credit Tom Kaye Citizensleuths.com

 

 

[olemisscub 488]

On 6/7/2024 at 11:04 AM, Cola said:

 

I'm posing a lot of questions that can't be answered. I hope the questions come across as wanting to get at a truth. To me we get closer to a truth in making sound inferences, speculations, guesses, experiments... and building some confidence level in our theories and work.  

I've just PM'd you. 

[dudeman17 311]

13 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Yes, she got into it while dating Jim Hancock.

Do you know if she made more than one jump, how many, did she get past static-line and into freefall?

[Chaucer 110]

20 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Interesting enough, the FBI also had two different USAF Navigators calculate the descent rate and landing zone.

As you know, I've spoken with both of these gentlemen at length.

Quote

And oddly enough, the USAF Navigators were not asked to determine the flight path of the airliner. 

It's not odd because there was no need for them to do so. There were people far more qualified in the SAGE blockhouse at McChord who had already used the radar data to calculate an accurate flight path. 

Quote

 And they may not have even had access to the flight path information.

They were both supplied with the flight path information. Spangler was supplied with the data within 48 hours of the hijacking and Larson was supplied with the more refined flight path data later on. 

Quote

The flight path could easily be determined from information held by the Seattle Air Traffic Control Center.  But that would be doing it the easy way. 

The flight path was easily determined using the most sophisticated military radar with the greatest radar coverage of the age. To suggest that civilian radar was "better" than SAGE is just nonsense. 

[c99acer 7]

3 hours ago, Chaucer said:

It's not odd because there was no need for them to do so. There were people far more qualified in the SAGE blockhouse at McChord who had already used the radar data to calculate an accurate flight path. 

Do you know how many hours it took these people at the SAGE blockhouse to produce the accurate flight path?

[Robert99 47]

5 hours ago, Chaucer said:

As you know, I've spoken with both of these gentlemen at length.

It's not odd because there was no need for them to do so. There were people far more qualified in the SAGE blockhouse at McChord who had already used the radar data to calculate an accurate flight path. 

They were both supplied with the flight path information. Spangler was supplied with the data within 48 hours of the hijacking and Larson was supplied with the more refined flight path data later on. 

The flight path was easily determined using the most sophisticated military radar with the greatest radar coverage of the age. To suggest that civilian radar was "better" than SAGE is just nonsense. 

Chaucer, your last statement above is just more nonsense.

In all probability, the Seattle Air Traffic Control people had access to the very same radar information that the USAF used.

In instances such as this, the various Federal Government agencies would be operating under a Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies.

It would be unnecessary and a waste of resources for each agency to have its own radar facility and personnel.

[Cola 49]

1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

just more nonsense

That's not the extent of the utter nonsense. 

let these things go