18E

I'm just not detecting the intelligence in his prep. I think it's a matter of perspective. Why do crime at all in which case? I mean there are 1000s of legit ways of making more money than $200K. There are less risky illegit ways than jumping off a plane to make $200K .... I don't know either btw Anyways, no one knows what he was wearing underneath. Even if it was nothing, let's not forget some people are trained in worse conditions than what DBC attempted. Soldiers / spies / counter intelligence guys etc. put up with far worse and a lot more danger, that to in hostile territories. Often at the face of certain death and no more motivation than an "Order". Crime, on the other hand has motivation far more personal than that-PROFITS OR PERSONAL GAINS. I think while a lot of people question what you are, I think we are completely discounting the power of Human Will. Motivation is a very important aspect to understanding any crime, and thus solving it, and this crime is certainly no different. I see various profiles that can help in determining motivation: 1. Criminal-Thief. Motivation - money. 2. Government Operative. Motivation - orders, duty, loyalty. 3. Begrudged Government Operative. Motivation - revenge. 4. Nutcase. Motivation - none necessary ('Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.' ~ Alfred Pennyworth in The Dark Knight. Let me know if there are other 'types' you can think of that would expand this list.

Well that and a few other things like no one still knows where did he come from and...well...where did he go. The bugger definitely had a hell of an IQ and some serious exposure (not just training and planning I guess).... they say a lifetime of happiness cannot teach you lessons that a few bad days can. I think this man had seen war/intelligence/operations kind of stuff. Yes, in view of such details as this (purpose for multiple parachutes), I can see why a conclusion can be drawn as you state above. Here's what I get hung up on; if a man is well-trained in the art of war/intelligence/black-ops/etc, why does he jump into the November night sky over the Pacific Northwest with the rain, cold, wind and uneven terrain in a suit and dress shoes? (I lived in Western Oregon as a kid and am familiar with the weather). This is hardly being prepared for the elements at 10,000 feet on a cold November night. Also, it seems like very poor preparation for a botched landing that could be off-course and place him in an uncompromising position. I go on a day-long fishing trip and take fishing gear, waders, toolkit, change of clothes, cash, water, emergency first-aid, phone, and even a survival kit in the event something unlooked for happens. This guy was jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 feet into the black-of-night cold of the November Pacific NW into some possible rugged terrain with a requested chute, dressed in a suit/raincoat, no headgear, dress shoes and a bag of money wrapped around his waist. I'm just not detecting the intelligence in his prep.

I always thought he requested the extra chutes to imply he was taking a hostage with him, so the authorities wouldn't sabotage any of the chutes. That's just an opinion. While the airliner was on the ground in Seattle, the flight crew was told (see the ground radio transcripts) that the FAA's Chief Psychologist was predicting that the remaining flight attendant would remain as a hostage and forced to parachute with Cooper and that the airliner would be blown up when they jumped. That was his explanation for the request for 2 back and 2 reserve parachutes. So then if in fact Cooper intentionally asked for two sets of chutes to ensure that the FBI would not tamper with them, giving them the notion that he would take a hostage, one would surmise this was a very smart tactic on his part.

It's an intriguing, unanswered question, which boggles my mind. I have thought through some of the possibilities such as: 1. A second jumper, accomplice 2. A second jumper as a hostage 3. Additional rigs in the event some were unusable 4. Additional resources, as we know paracord was used to tie-down the money sack. It seems to me that there was a question in the plan or some other options that Cooper had in-play that may go unanswered, however I think it is of note that he requested more chutes than necessary for him to make a singular jump.

Any theories on why he asked for 4 chutes with a combination of 2 different styles? Was there a 2nd jumper who didn't jump?

What about motive? I'm not going to take the time to read each and every post up to present to refresh what has been said about a motive, but here are some that I have listed: 1. Mentally disturbed, (obvious if you are going to jump out of a perfectly good airplane into southern Washington, in the rain, at night). 2. Retribution 3. Diversion 4. Fame 5. Government operations 6. Covetousness of $ My conclusions: 1. Likely not mentally ill. He seemed rationale in what he said and how he interacted with the Stews. Also, he showed strong signs of planning, coordination, decision-making, and reason. (Doesn't mean your not crazy, but he had a handle on acting rationale in context). 2. Retribution - made one statement to Tina about getting back. This was weak and really there is no connection. Undetermined. 3. Diversion - undetermined. 4. Fame - he never enjoyed it as defined by the world giving you acclaim and adulation and personally enjoying it. Determined as not a motive. 5. Govt Operator - demonstrated signs of military training and unique competencies that are learned behaviors familiar to Govt operators. Undetermined. 6. Covet money. He got the 200K. At least linked to a motive.

So what is the official FBI profile on Cooper? They use MBTI and have it down to a science. Has anyone every had an opportunity to view the behavioral profile? My best guess: 35 to 45 years of age Former military Experienced in ops Planner, Risk-taker, Thinker, Decisive, low-Esteem, Precise Did he have a wedding band or a imprint of where one would have been on his ring finger? My guess, no. This hike wasn't done for the cash. (No preference for denomination makes it harder to pass larger denom). That means it was done for another reason. What reason?

I can see not much has changed on this MB. Most everyone still pissing on each other's cornflakes. I would only assault myself and invite scorn if to ask if there has been any real discussions to the facts of the case and if anything of relevance has been submitted. I've got my raincoat on and galoshes on.

So, on the eve of the new year I would like to pose an innocent question: What is the required reading, reports, etc on the Cooper case? Also, where can I find them? I am not looking to 'buy into' someone's argument as to who it was, I just want to get good source material on the case and it's facts. Alabama. SEC of course. Best conference in college football. If ND played in the SEC they wouldn't be playing for a national championship.

Okay, first...stop with the book thing. Whether I post here or not makes absolutely no impact on sales. For the 100th time: 97% of our sales come from the wholesale-only Ingram catalog. About two percent from Amazon, and the remaining one percent from direct sales, mostly from deliveries to local bookstores in the Puget Sound area. I spent almost three months creating a detailed report on Christiansen for the Seattle FBI. That is something regarding 'helping solve the case'. Or at least trying to eliminate one of the known suspects. I think Georger's a smart guy, but his posts are increasingly nonsensical and bitter in the extreme. I find myself ignoring his posts more and more. After Geoff Gray emailed me last week and said he NEVER told ANYONE I was 'untrustworthy' or those other things Georger claimed he said...well, I no longer pay attention to Georger much. One big problem around here is that everyone thinks their opinion is the only one that counts, and everyone else is either wrong, or full of BS. Attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message has become the norm. Also...at least three of you who post here (one is known) trashed Regina's article over at Wordpress with the most filthy crap I've ever read. So now I no longer trust anyone around here except 377 and a couple of others. It's part of the reason I decided to withhold the release of the KC report from Dropzone, because frankly...some of you can't be trusted. Cooperland, I have discovered, has a Hate Department. Something I have learned watching this thread: Cooperland on the DZ could be it's very own book. Oh, the drama. Really quite hysterical

Yes, this account is found on pg. 47 and 48 of Skyjack. The hijacker is concerned about the strength of the radio currents on the airplane and that they could accidentally detonate the bomb. The cockpit asks if he is sure and Tina replies that he is not sure. This is in ways my point. This forum contains a lot of other stuff that are indirectly related to the topic or not even remotely, indirectly related. A lot of personalities on here trying to gain the intellectual and moral high ground. Is it true that Gray is one of the few civilians and maybe the only one who has been given access to FBI files and evidence to the extent that he was? If so, this makes Gray's account very important for research purposes. Point being, maybe this question regarding the hijacker's bomb and radio transmission knowledge has been discussed here before. In my estimation, it is an important facet of the account as it is telling of the hijacker. There is much to learn if you think critically with an eye for detail. Gray was allowed access to the original copies of the witness reports taken in Seattle (passengers, Stewardesses Hancock and Schaffner) and the ones in Reno. (Other crew) It's very likely that Cooper, as far as the 'radio signal' stuff, was simply trying to disrupt communications between the FBI and the plane, or something similar. We know he was worried about snipers, because he ordered (or helped do) the closing of the window shades, at least back in Coach. (I haven't checked if he had this done up in First Class) Agent Himmelsbach's opinion is that the bomb was a fake anyway. I hold with this opinion, but of course I have no way of knowing for sure. The real question about the bomb is THIS: Would Cooper be willing to blow up the plane? Would he risk it accidentally going off and killing himself and anyone on board? I think 'no' on this one. Nothing he did pointed to being psychotic or emotionally disturbed. Money-hungry, yes. Psycho, no. And it's easier to construct a fake bomb than a real one. I respect the fact the you likely have more knowledge about the Cooper hijacking than I do, but I do disagree with what you propose as the 'real question about the bomb.' If we are thinking in terms of who the hijacker could be, a profile, then we can conclude the following: - If what he is saying of his concerns is true...that radio transmissions from the plane could cause his electronic circuitry to detonate the explosive, then he has received or been educated in explosives and radio transmission technology. - this would then lead you to believe that he possibly had military training in connection with explosives. - If what he is saying of his concern is not true...that radio transmissions from the cockpit could not ever cause the electronic circuitry to detonate his explosive than we can conclude that it was simply a ploy to exert his further control of the situation as stated earlier. - however, this does not necessarily disclude the fact that he still could have had military training in explosives. Only that he may have wanted to exploit a sitaution to control the the communications between the cockpit and others outside the plane. - And, he did comment that 'he wasn't sure' if the transmissions could detonate his bomb. There is something here. Not too terribly much, but a little light could be gained if someone can confirm his concerns on this subject to be true or false.

Yes, this account is found on pg. 47 and 48 of Skyjack. The hijacker is concerned about the strength of the radio currents on the airplane and that they could accidentally detonate the bomb. The cockpit asks if he is sure and Tina replies that he is not sure. This is in ways my point. This forum contains a lot of other stuff that are indirectly related to the topic or not even remotely, indirectly related. A lot of personalities on here trying to gain the intellectual and moral high ground. Is it true that Gray is one of the few civilians and maybe the only one who has been given access to FBI files and evidence to the extent that he was? If so, this makes Gray's account very important for research purposes. Point being, maybe this question regarding the hijacker's bomb and radio transmission knowledge has been discussed here before. In my estimation, it is an important facet of the account as it is telling of the hijacker. There is much to learn if you think critically with an eye for detail.

well, I'm no bomb expert by any means,but, since the device didn't have a transmitting device (remote control) and he was threatening the explosion by connecting two wires, one would have to believe only a circuit board was used along with the battery to detonate and would not be interfered by radio signals IMO. Would you agree then that his concern would be telling if this were proved to be real concern or a falacy? If the transmitting signals from the plane's cockpit could disrupt the electronic circuitry of his bomb and prematurely detonate it then he has knowledge of explosive's, etc. If the is all bunk, then he is talking out his backside and reveals that he is ignorant of potential interferring technology and explosives. Would this be something to deduce?

18E - where do all of the above questions come from? Since you are new - inform the thread of you source and why you are asking such questions. Some people ask questions to find answers. I simply gather as much obejctive information and consider good questions that can lead to objective answers. I'm not on here to promote, dismiss or be argumentative. I simply am intrigued by the fact that this guy was never caught while up against such fhigh risk factors that history tells us the majority of time would lead to capture or death (still uncertain). It's a phenomonal outcome to a sensatational crime.

Quoteis there not a difference between a electrical circuit vs transmitter circuit? a transmitting device would have a antenna and could be detonated from another radio source as to where a simple electronic circuit would not send or receive any type of radio signals or waves which could detonate prematurely, correct? So then this would be the question: Could a transmitter emiting a signal cause an electronic circuit to become disrupted and/or malfunction? If that is true, and I am thinking back to someone's post about Morotola's warning signs on two-way radion communication in blast areas, then it would warranted that the hijacker could have concern for a premature detonation. Also, then it could be established that the hijacker was more than just a cut-rate poser trying to fake his way through a skyjack with a homeade bomb? Possessing information such as this would give him some credibility as to having knowledge of and experience with electronic circuitry, transmitter frequencies and bomb-making...correct?

Yep, guilty as charged. I read Skyjack a year ago when Gray went public with it and I had read some bits and pieces about the case prior to that. That excerpt on the radio currents is in Gray's book. It seemed 'telling' as do several things that I have asked about in this forum. It seems to me that there are some 'bottlenecks' or 'pinchpoints' where the investigation should hover. I believe myself to be good at critical thinking and questioning. I don't like to get wrapped up in speculation. That is good for drama and sensationalism and can make a good read, but that's about it.

Something I have been thinking about: Q: Why was the hijacker concerned about radio currents accidently detonating his explosive device? Q: Is this a true concern with the in-flight technology of 1971? Q: Does this infer that the explosive device was real? Q: If so, does that also infer that the hijacker was trained in both the construction and use of explosives? Q: Is his concern based on experience? Professional expertise? Knowledge/research? Q: Was it simply a ruse to lead the crew to believe that he in fact had a real bomb when if was only a prop? Q: Shouldn't this have been something he planned for if it was a real concern? Q: What does an accidental detonation because of radio wave interference tell us about the kind of explosive device he may have been carrying?

MeyerLouie, Its hard for me to get beyond the dress and the circumstances surrounding the jump. From a logical standpoint, he did not dress for a jump in the cold night sky of November and the possibility of landing in rough terrain. I can't see this as being intelligent on his part. There are only two things as of now I can argue that undermine intelligence: 1. Poor dress for jumping out of a 727 at 10,000 feet doing 175mph and landing who the hell knows. The unforseen problems with the aftstairs lend to the idea that his timing was interrupted. 2. Not asking for any certain denomination of money

Now ya'll have certainly got the premediated thing down...right? The evidence supporting that?

So does the DBC profile begin to take shape in this way? Experience in skydiving Experience with 727's Knowledge of SOP airline in-flight and ground protocol Potential experience in bomb-making or bomb-faking Knowledge of FBI access to funds (?) Not overly smart, (jumping in suit, dress shoes, overcoat, at night, in cloud cover, undetermined target drop) How am I doing...missing anything?

Ok, I can accept transitional styles in 1971 spanning the 60's and the 70's. It's easy to believe that Cooper could wear clothes that looked early 60's in 1971 and not expect to stand out. Q2: So you are planning to jump from 10,000 feet, in the late November sky wearing a suit and dress shoes with an overcoat over potentially wooded and mountainous terrain. Sounds really cold and really stupid. Why? Q3: Why did he wait to purchase his ticket last at the airline counter? The last person is the first one remembered. Q4: What about the dropzone? What should it have looked like? How could he have known when to jump in order to hit his dropzone?

Maybe. But if that is true then he was not worried about beind ID'd. When you want to get away with a crime before it is committed, don't you want to do everything beforehand to ensure success. The dress doesn't fit. But...it may be inconsequential.

The description given of his dress. The overall description was that of cropped and narrow. That was '60s style (remember the tie...narrow-straight) not early '70s. Seventies was flared and wide. So, Cooper was either oblivious to style, cheap, oblivious to standing out (wouldn't you be easier noticed and ID) or dare I say it...working for the U.S.

Thanks and thanks for the welcome wagon. Q1: Why did Cooper choose to dress out-of-date? He looked 1965 not 1971

my post was in-general, not directed to you specifically mrshutterr45. You were simply the last post on the thread. The Facebook comment made me laugh so thanks for that one. Those people are working to steal others lives for their own. This Cooper thing is crazy. I grew up in the Willamette Valley of Oregon and knew of the Cooper mstery, but then I read Skyjack (Gray's book) and now I can't quit thinking about this thing. And I feel I have a lot of life. The answer is out there. The only thing is...is there anyone alive yet that still holds the truth...crazy