DB Cooper

[georger 197]

Quote

Sluggo,

If it were anything other than the money he would have stated it. No one goes through the effort Cooper did or any other high profile crime with a cause and not state it once they have the "mic." In Cooper's case the grudge gave him the moral clarity to go through with his plan. We all have that compass that guides our actions. Once we have justification for where the compass points then we as humans allow ourselves to go forward.

In general I agree with your thesis. He was deluded.
Detached from reality even if he had skills and knowledge. Something pushed him over the edge to
risk everything. Anger? Revenge? Dire need? Deep
manic depression? He's thinking and acting on one
level but not on another for critical level (the level
needed for self protection and survival). His personal
needs overrule his conscience, if he had one. He's
detached from reality and lucky he didn't get a bullet through his head, to bring this down to Earth!

Lazy but also driven. You know Ckret, he might have
had a revolver conceiled on his person, that no one saw (in the paper bag?).

Hijacking are an inherently violent act (indirect violence) because they can turn lethal at any instant for everyone on the plane and send everyone in a flash to the full forces of nature. There is less margin
for error in an aircraft vs say on a ship or on land.

Cooper cut through all of that and there is the heart of
his violence and denial. I think this guy could have been very violent in a flash if required, and he kept
the most vulnerable person on the plane with him at his side (along with his bomb) - that pretty much tells
you what Cooper was all about and the stress he placed on himself to keep even five minutes of this going.

Few people could think straight in that kind of stress
which he had to be experiencing, whether he showed
it or not.

[georger 197]

It's not cheesy at all but factual and realistic.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

So let's assume he has technical expertise. ....

Why isnt this technical genius working the futures
market or the gold market vs hijacking an airplane?

First, technical "expertise" and technical "genius" are by no means the same thing.

Then... you're talking 1971. First, may I remind you that the gold price was only floated in August 1971. Not much time to figure out a trading system and implement it by the time of the hijacking! Second, whether you're talking futures, stocks etc - and I don't know how developed or liquid the futures market was in those days but certainly nowhere near what it is now - very difficult for an individual in those days to really make a killing trading. Not like everyone had a PC with internet access to real time prices, their brokers and their pick of trading programmes to download in those days... Finally, even if he was an aeronautical genius, genius often isn't universal and that doesn't at all mean he could make a fortune in the markets. However, I would wager it certainly means he was less likely to hijack a plane, because such an aeronautical genius would probably have a high ranking, high paying, highly respected position. But just having some "expertise" on the other hand... well that could come about in any number of ways (working for boeing, working for an airline, military, skydiving) and might be useful for someone who wants to make a lot of money quickly.

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[snowmman 3]

I know it's easy to zero in on the "technical" expertise, but I'm more impressed by the social expertise displayed by Cooper. And self-control. How come we don't talk about that much...do we all assume it's just natural, anyone can have it/do it, and the technical stuff is the unique stuff..?
I think the technical stuff is the easy part. You can read that in a book.

and we're not just talking one on one? he's controlling a number of people, some indirectly thru a microphone.

Someone yelling "No" and that's it (you don't get any more explanation) is different than someone whining on and on thru the mike. Used to giving instructions and having them obeyed.

Doesn't need to hand out a detailed written out plan like McVoy, because he knows (or thinks?) he can bark out the instructions verbally, have them be understood, and adapt on the fly if necessary. He knows he's not going to forget some detail. It's all in his head.

[snowmman 3]

I'm digging for another clue here.

We're told the tie was found on a seat, is that correct?
was it folded in half on the seat?

I like the idea of "forgotten" but I'm interested in how
it was put down when it was removed.

Maybe was removed while Cooper was standing. He'd have to stand to put the rig on, while the plane was on the ground.

What seat was it found on? Probably not close to 18C
or was it? Maybe he removed it before he got up?

I'm really wondering if it was found neatly placed on the seat, or randomly thrown on the ground or what.

[Ckret 0]

Snowman,

In repsonse to Cooper guessing we could figure out that Bump=jump, so he planted money to throw us off, couldn't happen. We were the first (or reported first) to do the tests lauching cargo out of a 727 with the airstairs in an unlocked position.

[snowmman 3]

thanks Ckret.
Ok, I'm starting to believe all plant theories are nonsense.


Sometimes I think the crazy theories stay around too long (like Duane theories) because we don't go thru the pain of accepting them as true and exploring what that means. So I like to accept a theory, then explore it. Then discard it if necessary. i.e. thesis->experiment->results->new thesis.

I'm having a hard time though with a new jump zone plus money found at Tena Bar story.

Somehow we need more data.

Quote

Snowman,

In repsonse to Cooper guessing we could figure out that Bump=jump, so he planted money to throw us off, couldn't happen. We were the first (or reported first) to do the tests lauching cargo out of a 727 with the airstairs in an unlocked position.

[snowmman 3]

okay, all you pilots will say this is obvious.

But the idea of short, to the point, messages when using a mike, to keep the channel clear, is not a natural behavior for humans, right?

I'm also impressed by how the transcripts and Scott's "will talk to him" phrase almost seem deferential to Cooper. It's like Scott was almost treating him as a peer, if not superior. And that's without seeing the guy.

i.e. Scott seemed to be affected just by the guy's manner of speaking/language. We never hear anything describing Cooper as droning on and on about his worries or whatever thru the mike in the back.

None of the males seemed like they thought they could talk Cooper down. On other hijacks, the crews did talk the person down, when it was obvious they could.

It's like they were responding to an Alpha male in the dog pack. At least it seems that way to me, based on what we know.

[Ckret 0]

The only direct words anyone in the cockpit said to Cooper are or to the effect of, "is everything ok?" all communication went through Mucklow.

[Ckret 0]

The tie was found on a seat, which row and number i'll check. My memory says the seat next to where he had been sitting. I would imagine Cooper took it off well before he actually jumped. According to Hancock, Cooper had the chute on before she deplaned in Seattle. She had walked off the plane and realized she forgot her purse, when she walked back on to get it, she noticed Cooper had on one of the chutes

[Ckret 0]

Orange,

It has been my experience that those who resort to crime don't have the fortitude to do what it takes to make it through hard work and study. They either never made the attempt, or as I believe in Cooper's case, made the attempt but bailed when it became hard work. Most likely that point came when Cooper could no longer relate to others in the work place or convince them his was the better way. the frustration led him to give up and choose the path he did.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

None of the males seemed like they thought they could talk Cooper down. On other hijacks, the crews did talk the person down, when it was obvious they could.

That's an interesting assertion. Do you have transcripts from the other hijackings to back it up?
Personally, if I thought someone had a bomb that could blow me up, I'd probably be pretty deferential too.

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[snowmman 3]

all we need:
1) Wind from the East at Portland
2) 6 mile error in the hand drawn flight path
(more like tracking I5)
3) 3 mile canopy drift (I'm guessing based on the '72 map, at canopy drifts)

then minimal float/money movement needed.

see attached

The bump time estimate can be reasonably fudged to be around the BTG vortac as required for the above.

Shilapoo lake area is interesting. They're planning on doing restoration there...have been discussing plans for years. It used to flood a lot..They have dikes and pumps I believe. Farmland in some area now. A lot is state owned for wildlife sanctuary etc.

But it's nice and remote. Maybe soft ground. Good auger-in potential.

[snowmman 3]

I've posted before. Paul Cini...got grabbed by the throat and hit with a fireax on the head. He had a gun, but he had put the gun down at the time.

old guy in portland next year, claimed he had nitroglycerin, got talked down. (attached..interesting age/name..but obviously not cooper striking again)

This guy got beer:

Calmed by Beer, Jet Hijacker Gives Up to Argentine Police
Los Angeles Times - ProQuest Archiver - Jul 5, 1971
HIJACK. Tranquilized with beer and reassured that the 73year-old U.S.-Argentina extradition treaty doesn't mention crimes in the air, champion long-distance ...

Quote

Quote

None of the males seemed like they thought they could talk Cooper down. On other hijacks, the crews did talk the person down, when it was obvious they could.

That's an interesting assertion. Do you have transcripts from the other hijackings to back it up?
Personally, if I thought someone had a bomb that could blow me up, I'd probably be pretty deferential too.

[snowmman 3]

oh thanks! I had it all wrong. Sluggo should put some of this in his facts vs myth.

So the only communication thru the mike was the "No" response?

I thought there was mike communication about not being able to get the stairs down, which led to the plane slowing.

In any case, you're saying there was minimal mike communication, so we shouldn't intuit much from that.

Be nice to have the exact amount of mike use nailed down.

Quote

The only direct words anyone in the cockpit said to Cooper are or to the effect of, "is everything ok?" all communication went through Mucklow.

[snowmman 3]

this one has longer time estimate to the bump
(or other adjustment of some sort that leads to bump roughly over PDX)

Wind would have to be from the SE roughly?

Maybe no flight path error, but landing instead in Vancouver Lake area..because the canopy drift can't be as far as needed? ...float across Vancouver Lake initially, then flooding somehow travels the money across Shilapoo Lake region.

You can see I'm not a fan of money travel in the Columbia. but I suppose other alternatives lay there.

[snowmman 3]

(this might be the most interesting alternative?)

First: Land in Vancouver Lake. Then:

Money drain towards/down (edit) Lake River on the N side of Vancouver Lake, but take a quick turn and travel ~2 miles down the faint creek I've outlined in the attached.

It may have been more substantial in '71 before. Note it's still there, just doesn't connect to (edit) Lake River. It may have connected in the past, or during flood situations. I've also attached a topo map that shows the faint creek across Shilapoo Lake area (current map, may be different in '71)

nicely, it goes right toward Tena Bar. The '96 info tells us flooding can get water to Lower River Rd. (I'm not sure if that's Lower River Rd on the E side of Shillapoo, or the NW leg that's right next to Tena Bar)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Lake

Vancouver Lake is a large lake just west of Vancouver, Washington, United States, north of the Columbia River and Portland, Oregon), south of Ridgefield, Washington and the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge.

The lake is very shallow, with a maximum depth of 12-15 ft and a mean depth of less than 3 ft. There is an island in the northern half of the lake. The island was formed from tailings of an Army Corps of Engineers dredging project, which dredged around the perimeter of the lake in the early 1980s. Lake River flows from the north shore to the Columbia River near Ridgefield, Washington. Due to seasonal variation in relative river and lake levels, Lake River experiences intermittent flow reversal and flows into Vancouver Lake for considerable periods of time.

The sources for Vancouver Lake's water include a flushing channel (equipped wth tidal gates to control flows) from the Columbia river near the SW shoreline and Burnt Bridge Creek on the NE shoreline, which winds about ten miles through many of the city's residential areas. Until the 1980s this creek was neglected and a major source of pollution for the lake.

Lower River Road leads west out of Vancouver to a park on the shore of Vancouver Lake which includes a large swimming area. A trail leads to Frenchman's Bar Park on the nearby Columbia River.

[snowmman 3]

(edit) note the grudge+money motivation here!

CHP officer talked Frank Goodell, 21, out of it in Jul 1972. Goodell got $455k, handcuffs and a parachute.

I suppose the details of the Cooper case prevented personal contact, so maybe that was more important than any perception of Cooper.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877868,00.html

Just 26 hours later, a Viet Nam veteran with a grudge against the Army for not permitting him to marry his Asian girl friend boarded another PSA plane in Oakland with his own quick-money scheme. Francis Goodell, 21, AWOL from Fort Riley, Kans., demanded $455,000, a parachute and handcuffs from the airline. Airline officials managed to gather the funds and equipment at the San Diego airport. On the return trip to Oakland, Goodell was talked out of his adventure by his lone hostage, Captain Lloyd Turner of the California Highway Patrol.

(edit) Apparently he had two guns

Times Standard, The (Newspaper) - July 7, 1972, Eureka, California
The hijacker, identified by the FBI as Francis Goodell, Manassas, Va., handed over two guns and ... It was the second hijacking of a PSA plane in two days. ...

[georger 197]

Yes, gold was floating at around 35 an ounce in 71. I know from personal experience.

Passage 6:21 and Scott's words in TR#1 of the pi transcripts is where technical competence is seemingly attributed to Cooper directly.

But, regardless of whatever assets Cooper had, he relied on the technical competence and experience
of others to hijack the airplaine. His only real asset was his bomb. Everything else is secondary.

Cooper did not give a technical note of any kind during
the whole hijacking. 'Go here, do that, do this and that
by such and such a time...' is all we know for a fact
he said, written in his single note given Schaffner.
He didn't even specify the parachutes to use!

We have a very small amount of evidence to work
with here. It isn't like he left a resume.

If he had had technical knowledge he would have
used it.

[snowmman 3]

Someone mentioned this before about how the crew supported Cooper.

Maybe the only thing "brilliant" about Cooper was he had this stupid initial idea that came to him while he was on the toilet or something.

So he starts off with it. Then it's like no one ever tells him it's a bad idea...it's like everything that unfolds confirms his initial "from the toilet seat" idea maybe is a good one.

So what does he do? he just keeps on going till he's out the door.

Be interesting to ponder if someone like that CHP officer had been sitting next to Cooper to say "what the hell are you thinking Coop?"

The appearance of confidence and skill we apply to Cooper, may, like you say, have all been a patina applied by the crew. Lack of personal contact etc...what happens is people create images in their minds of what they have in front of them. People assume the worst. (edit: or the best? extremes I guess)
(maybe primal self-preservation thinking from cave-man days)

Cooper knew how to say less, and achieve more.
Like you say, totally dependent on others. Maybe the idea of tapping into whatever fears/desires/needs he saw in people. What makes people act like you want them to? Well first, make whatever you want easy for people I guess. People tend to take the easiest path.

It's like it's one thing to ask for something. It's another thing to not ask, but create a situation where people will likely do what you want.

In the end though, I guess Cooper just came with his wires and flares and an attitude. In his case, it apparently was enough. Lucky guy. but maybe not if Cooper actually died. So who knows.

[georger 197]

Quote

I know it's easy to zero in on the "technical" expertise, but I'm more impressed by the social expertise displayed by Cooper. And self-control. How come we don't talk about that much...do we all assume it's just natural, anyone can have it/do it, and the technical stuff is the unique stuff..?
I think the technical stuff is the easy part. You can read that in a book.

and we're not just talking one on one? he's controlling a number of people, some indirectly thru a microphone.

Someone yelling "No" and that's it (you don't get any more explanation) is different than someone whining on and on thru the mike. Used to giving instructions and having them obeyed.

Doesn't need to hand out a detailed written out plan like McVoy, because he knows (or thinks?) he can bark out the instructions verbally, have them be understood, and adapt on the fly if necessary. He knows he's not going to forget some detail. It's all in his head.

_____________________________________________

He did seperate out Schaffner from Mucklow pretty
quickly, using the more vulnerable of the two to meet
his needs and he relied on that to the end. He ascertained that in general people were bowing to
his demands and he stayed with that to the end.

The critical period came early after Cooper handed his
note to Schaffner and the attention of Schaffner and
Mucklow shifted to Cooper and away from other passengers newly seated on the plane. Two passengers, Richard Simons and his wife (both interviewed at Seattle) got a little upset and it almost unraveled things, if what I am told is true.

Read this carefully: The passengers had taken their
seats and were getting acclimated. Schaffner and Tina
were making their rounds and doing their work. Cooper slips his note to Schaffner. Schaffner slips the note
into her pocket. Cooper has to lean out and get
Schaffner's attention for Schaffner to read the note. Tina and Flo discuss the note and one goes forward to pilot Scott, but Schaffner comes back and is now on station with "our friend in the back".

Hancock wonders what is going on and sputters with eye gestures (seen by some of the passengers) back at Schaffner. Schaffner grimmaces Hancock off, Hancock goes forward to converse with Scott and is
informed.

This is the scenario I have been told.

Passengers begin to feel a little neglected and several
are looking around frankly wondering about the
absence of flight attendants. But people get settled in and Hancock and Muchlow seeing to everyone with Schaffner stuck in the back with Cooper.

Passenger Simmons and his wife turn around and look back at Schaffner attending Cooper alone, then turn back and say something to each other. Simons abruptly gets out of his seat to go back to use the lavatory and heads directly back at Schaffner standing (blocking) the aisle at Cooper's side. Simons is almost
to Schaffner and Cooper suddenly looks up at Simons and "glares defiantely" straight at Simmons with Schaffner now looking a bit stricken (so I am told Simons said).

Simons not wishing a problem (but wondering if there is one) steps to Schaffner's right and Schaffner moves
to let Simons by. Simons edges by Schaffner with Cooper still glaring at him and Simons goes back to the Lav wondering about 'this guy' and what is going on.

(Ckret might know all about this from the interviews
conducted at Seattle. Simmons and his wife were interviewed several times later.)

This is not heresay.

Simons came back out of the Lav and Im not sure where Schaffner was then, but as Simons passed Cooper, Simons looked back at Cooper but Cooper's
head was now low and Cooper did not look up at Simons a second time.

Simons went back to his seat and he told his wife what
had happened. Simon's wife turns around and looks
back at Cooper (Cooper's head still low). Simons and
his wife have a discussion and now they both turn and look back at Cooper, with Schaffner now back with Cooper's and Schaffner and Cooper are talking.

Simon's wife said later that she was a little miffed at how one occupant at the back of the airplane was occupying the flight attendant's time, or seemed to
be, and Mr. Simons himself was miffed at Cooper
glaring at him in a defiant manner as Simon's went
back to the lavatory.

Simons said he and his wife discussed this briefly and decided to let it pass and mind their own business.
But inside the terminal they were flabberghasted that
the person in the back had been hijacking the plane.

So Cooper may have thought he was in control, but
just below the surface things could have unraveled
quickly at any time, with Cooper relying on the context
of the airplane and people's good manners (and his bomb!), to keep order.

I wish to point out that Cooper was never tested. Had
the Simon's wished to make an issue this whole thing
could have unraveled on the spot and who knows what
would have happened. (Very likely unless ordered by Cooper Scott would have returned the plane to Portland where they had just left.)

[georger 197]

Even if it is not true it is a viable theory which connects
known facts, and therefore must be tested until some
better explanation comes forth.

Causation is key. Cause of placard at Toutle. Cause of
money at Tena Bar. (two unimpeachable facts). The
causative link potentially, is a flight path. Cooper bails along the flight path, whatever that was.

If the flight path CAN connect Toutle with Tena Bar then there is a 99.9% Correlation. Correation is not cause. So you then move to causes which connect the facts.

[snowmman 3]

good detail, thanks georger.
Cooper apparently knew about sky marshals, since he mentioned it on the ground.

I wonder if he was giving the glare to ascertain if there were any sky marshalls on the flight...I think it was 377 who made a joke about how their cheap shoes are always a giveaway.

That's how dogs do it. start with the glare and see what reaction they get.

[georger 197]

Quote

The only direct words anyone in the cockpit said to Cooper are or to the effect of, "is everything ok?" all communication went through Mucklow.

________________________________________________

That had better be true or we are all fishing on a
parking lot! Any chance Cooper could have over heard
the communications in the cockpit, or Tina gave Cooper info she had been given from the cockpit ?

Even if he heard or knew everything, I dont see that
it changes the outcome. Cooper was being held by
circumstances beyond his control and his opportunities
for bailing fixed.

examples: time it took to refuel at SEA, the flight path
taken and its contraints, time to get aircraft aloft and configured for a jump, time to suit up, time to resolve
rear door & stair deliemma, weather conditions, money
packing and possible chute issues, visibility issues,
etc.

[georger 197]

Yes! These wind patterns and velocities must be nailed
down. south wind, east wind. I have read both. Wherever
he bails what are the winds aloft and at ground on that
date and time. Something to give a definate direction
to his rate of drift and direction after bailout.

I will reveal that I once even talked to my State Climatologist about this and he could not find exact
data. So, if you find something (I thought you already had?) then you have him beat. (But my guy didnt have
a lot of time to look either - very busy man - so I just
dropped it. )