Leaderboard

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. ----------------- 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!

Isn't the US grand, you even get to buy your own judge!

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.

Not sure if I didn't hit the "submit reply" button or my post got deleted, but I'll try again for posterity. As I become a more and more experienced skydiver a decade into jumping, I am less and less sympathetic to gear with significant failure modes from perceptibly normal operation or minor faults. In the case of the Racer dual RSL, it will try to kill you if you follow instructions in the SIM. This is for sure the worst offender I can think of in that category. That simply should not exist in skydiving. The "borrowed gear - borrowed death" age should have been long over by the time I became a skydiver. I've actually met someone who a Racer almost killed. He bought a rig second hand and downsized into it. He was very heads up, but never in a million years did he think that following something in the SIM would almost kill him. But lo and behold, it did. Even if you're the most heads up skydiver and know to disconnect one side of the RSL in a high speed mal - someone will buy your gear, and selling something with that RSL to someone else is just reckless.

Headline over here ' Sensational upset awakens USA from 100 year cricket hibernation'. I doubt that'll really be the case (it was a BBC headline after all) nevertheless, for anyone who has any interest in the game it was brilliant all round - most especially the super over. As with most unfancied teams who put one over a far bigger and more experienced team, the USA may now have played their 'final'. Time will of course tell.

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.

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

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.

It is staggering the privilege they enjoy while complaining they are victims of the system. Surely they know how heavy handed the justice system can be with everyone else - in fact they actively campaign for it to be even more heavy handed for everyone else except them. Two recent examples come to mind - there's a video doing the media rounds of an utter moron calling into Zoom court on a driving with licence suspended charge... while driving. 30 seconds later his bail was revoked and he was ordered to report to jail that day - and it only took that long because the judge was in shock. Was it warranted? Maybe - but compare and contrast with DJTs contempt after contempt resulting in second chance after second chance. Then one you may be aware of - two european cycling pros turned up to race a major back country event last week and the place they usually cadged food and a shower from had been demolished and they had no plan B. So they found a deserted parking lot, tried to create a car door shield and took a wild shower. Someone called the cops and they spent the night in jail. They weren't even charged with anything but hey, This happens every damn day, to hundreds of people. And if you're not just a glorified tourist and have a shift at work to get to? Probably not going to have that job anymore when you get out. Too bad, so sad. All these so called patrotic Trump supporters crying over how poorly he and his cronies are treated don't even know the fucking country they live in.

And the big problem with that in my mind is that the main reason for having an RSL is that too many people were doing a cutaway and then forgetting to deploy. Now the double sided RSL requires the same group of people to remember to disconnect it if they have a two out. Admittedly a fairly uncommon scenario, but that is part of the reason people forget procedures. The need is uncommon.

This was fun

Between 2001 and 2022, the U.S. spent over $8 trillion on war. The U.S. comprises just over 4% of the world’s population, but we're responsible for 40% of global military spending. And with all that money spent – has global security improved over the same time frame? Economies of scale. We don’t need five branches. One scaled down US Military. We also don’t need sixteen intelligence agencies. Scale it to one.

Not after the SC gets done with them they won’t.

I'm not 100% on the legal details, but my understanding is that the question of whether the actions were motivated by election fraud is the only somewhat questionable aspect of the case. If he'd have paid her off and hidden it regardless of politics, the business records issue would only be a misdemeanor. That's partly why the Trump/defence strategy of denying any of it ever happened was so bizarre. Arguing that he never even slept with her wasn't just non-credible, it was completely irrelevant to the case. They threw away any trust the jury might have had in them for nothing. Anyway, that all plays into just how irredeemably despicable Mike Johnson is. If the bible tells you all you need to know about Mike Johnson's position on any issue, where exactly does it talk about turning up to court to cheerlead for a guy caught secretly paying off the porstar he fucked behind his wife's back? I'll never understand these people. I do believe that Mike Johnson thinks he is a committed Christian - hopefully one day he'll have to come to terms with the fact that he prostituted his faith and morality to serve a man who represents everything Jesus would have hated.

To recap: Trump U - verdict FRAUD Trump Foundation - verdict FRAUD Trump Organization - verdict TAX FRAUD Hush Money - verdict GUILTY Access Hollywood - self confessed sexual predator. And still there are imbeciles who want him to be their head of state and commander in chief.

That kind of describes Hillary Clinton. If she were a man, she'd be considered a hardass who can get things done. Since she's a woman and a liberal (sort of), she's the bitch-devil incarnate. Wendy P.

Used car market ain't what it used to be....

That is exactly right. You can be attracted to whoever you want. That's not immoral. That's not moral. It has no bearing on morality, because morality has to do with how you treat other people, not what's in your head. If some guy is attracted to children? I don't think that's moral or immoral. In fact, I don't care, and don't really want to hear about it. If he wants his girlfriend to dress up like a schoolgirl because it turns him on? Again, I don't care, and as long as his girlfriend is a consenting adult, they can do whatever they like. But if that guy lays a finger on an underage child, then that's both immoral and criminal, and he belongs in jail where he can't do that to anyone else. This is true about every desire, fantasy and orientation out there. Have rape fantasies? Again, I don't care and don't really want to hear about it. If that guy finds a woman who has fantasies about rape? If they set up a scene where some sort of fake rape happens - AND they both consent to it - then again, no problem. But if he ever rapes someone, he belongs in jail. Or what about someone who wants a submissive wife who only has sex in the dark under the covers when her man wants it? I don't care. Maybe he'll meet someone who likes that. Good for them. But if he meets that person, and they start a relationship, and he starts hitting her when she disobeys because that's how he thinks it should work, then we're going to have a problem, and it's time to get the authorities involved. Love guns? Have fantasies about being Dirty Harry and ridding the world of refugee scum? Want to collect guns to support those fantasies? Go for it. Again, I don't really want to hear about it, but if that's what floats their boat, none of my business. But the minute he uses those guns to threaten, injure or kill someone else, then he deserves jail. Starting to sense a pattern here?