FLYJACK

Fuel truck driver said cabin was dark...

According to Tom Kaye the McCrone particle analysis isn't precise.. The particles are not necessarily alloys.. So, Ulis's claim that the particles only came from Rem Cru based on a general patent is nonsense.

On the 727 there are two cabin emergency flashlights behind the last row of seats...

727 lighting,,

With the new disastrous doc and Ulis once again playing the media fiddle there are lots of new people and with that lots of misinformation polluting the public discourse... (look at the reddit group and the Fenn group), just crazy stuff... I see this as an advantage.. there is a greater bifurcation between the serious and ridiculous. As for science,, the only thing that we need is new DNA from the tie,, is that even possible now?

Fingerprints of "no value" from ashtray.. or rear door, lav and seat area. Isn't that odd. Page -120- The Real McCoy..Eleven prints, either partials or smudged, were sent that night back to the FBI Fingerprint Division. "We photographed and lifted anything we could find," Ricks said. "We knew Flight 305 was going to get a lot of attention. At the same time we knew it was useless." Two days later, 26 November 1971, Red Campbell received a teletype from FBI headquarters, confirming their educated appraisal about the smudges: "Finger prints found on Flight 305 of no value."

Cooper bills were entered into NCIC.. none ever turned up, we forget about this.

When they landed and checked the back Tina had to turn on the lights... Makes you wonder,, did he remove his sunglasses, how dark was it, did he use the spotlights and was there any light in the stairwell for airstair controls.. Could he have had a flashlight? Even with "reading lights" on it would be dark, perhaps that is why he missed the tie..

Must have been some light,, I have no idea how the lighting worked in a 727-100 but maybe there were switched lights above the seats,, have to look into that.

Good grief,, Ulis is going down another rabbit hole,, the patent does not tie the particle only to Rem-Cru. Titanium and Antimony in those percentages is not unique to Rem-Cru.. classic Ulis exaggeration.

That means Cooper prepped to jump and left the tie with no lights in the cabin... Did he have a flashlight?

In was in his "going to Mexico" demands

Air Force pamphlet.. Can be downloaded here.. https://ia904500.us.archive.org/3/items/b3218282x/b3218282x.pdf

I have read some nutty comments on the Cooper forums over the years but that one is off the charts crazy.. Too bad Chaucer finds life so meaningless.. but the personal attacks and threats.. not cool, dude. Chaucer did make an error no matter how much he tries to weasel out of it.. his density number was 0.0544 which needs almost 200x to reach the density of water. Obviously grossly wrong, not just a different opinion but ridiculous on its face.. He also claimed the money/bag would float to TBAR.. about 10 miles or 3-4 hours float. Now, the real number is just below the density of water, which means it would float briefly until it absorbed the water and displaced the air.. a wet canvas bag full of water and wet money can get very heavy.. I would guess a few minutes maybe 5 tops, the bag is not air tight. Now, I don't believe based on my analysis of the evidence that the bag landed in or next to the River. I do have some other TBAR scenarios... two of them really good and two so-so.. but let's say it did for sake of argument, there would be no difference whether the bag sank or not for a single bundle of several packets to end up on TBAR.. Chaucer and a few others are still stuck on the idea that the three packets could have only arrived separately.. so it had to be in the container.. they reverse engineer a scenario with a false premise. However, the money went to Cooper in rubber banded bundles of packets, not individual packets. The money was in order and the FBI said it was one bundle... So, it is far more likely that the 3 packets arrived in one rubber banded bundle.. as the bands deteriorated the 3 bundles separated slightly. In this case, it doesn't matter if the bag sunk or not. You don't need the money delivered to TBAR in a container. Spring is the seasonal high water level which would be above the money find spot. Likely, the bundle gets pushed along the bottom to its spot which is effectively the River bottom at that time. I tend to believe that the rounding wear on the money was from rolling along the River bottom. A wet bundle rolling along the bottom rounding off without affecting the rubber bands.. I know that the Columbia is sandy and the Willamette is gravelly... nobody has really tested this rounding. If it was in a bag or not, if a dredge or flood played a role to put it on the beach isn't the big point... The real TBAR question is how and when did the money get into the River. If it was in a Spring from 72-79 then where was it from the night of hijacking until it entered the River? I don't think we will ever know.. unless somebody has first hand knowledge and admits it, we will only have theories.

That makes more sense... Though we will never know,, I lean toward Cooper tossing the dummy chute because it had no seal, no packing card and was soft.. and appeared to be tampered with. If he had opened it and used it for some money you'd expect to find some pieces of it left on the plane.

I don't really have an opinion on that but it is odd that there were no bits of the dummy chute remaining if he had cut it open for those white cords.. Perhaps Cooper put some money in the dummy chute and tied it to himself as well as the money bag.. but my understanding is that once the chutes are opened they would be near impossible to close on the plane.

Transcript ep 2 https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=1418&t=54971 ep 3 https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=1418&t=54972 ep 4 https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=1418&t=54973

I don't think they were already on there but maybe a parachute expert can chime in.. It looks like those white cords were attached to the outside handles... If so, then Cooper may have opened up the dummy chute to get those white cords... Here is a Vietnam era chute... shows the straps/handles that the white cords were tied to on the Cooper chute.

I think this came up before.. From Kaye, a total of 79.6 feet of pink cord is missing... but we don't know if it was removed by Cooper or later,,, FBI report only 2 lines were cut.. Cooper likely used 28.2 ft to tie the bag to his waist.. Tina said he initially tried to put the money in the container but abandoned that.. those short white cords may have been his attempt to attach it to himself due to no D rings. However, those cords are white not pink,, so did they come from the dummy chute??

You need to admit you were wrong to yourself.. I don't really care, I know you got it wrong as it was obvious and I just pointed it out... not trying to colour anything. This is a simple and obvious error. Your comment indicates you are still unwilling to account for your error.. this is your pattern and problem. You used the volume of the bag as the density of a solid.. You were WRONG, not just using different data points, you used the wrong numbers because you didn't fully understand the calculation. Clearly, you want to appear to be right more than get to the facts... not a good characteristic for a "researcher".. Take the "L", people respect that.

OK, I watched episode 1 and it is very underwhelming... not good. Very basic, covers the hijacking in general and throws in Rackstraw stuff.. We have seen it all before. you can see it here, but I am sure it will get taken down shortly. Watch it ASAP.

"Additionally, if the bag was tightly secured as suspected, the money would not have been able to fan out and sink until it became free of the bag." Huh,, where does that come from.. it doesn't make sense, the bag and money only needs to absorb water to alter density, You know what it means. You are obfuscating. The money can't fan out and sink if it is inside of a tightly secured bag. That's a different statement than "it only needs to absorb water to alter density". Your error was using the size of the bag and not the money itself. There was no error because we don't know the size of the actual bag used. If you had read my post, you would have seen that I used the dimensions from Eric Ulis. There are many descriptions of the size of the bag. I chose one of them. Regardless, if you had read my post, you would have seen that I did the same calculations with just the money, and it was still less dense than freshwater. The bag is not solid, not water or air tight. Who is claiming it is? Not me. A canvas bag tied at the top would absorb and be infiltrated by water fairly quickly... How do you know how the bag was tied? How do you know how DBC secured it? What does "fairly quickly" mean? A minute? 20 minutes? An hour? The money and bag would initially float Then why are you trying to pick a fight with me about it? but sink when it absorbed the water Of course, I'm not saying it would float forever. just like the single packet in Tom Kaye's experiment. How can a packet of money tightly packed inside of a bag behave the same way as a packet dropped freely in water? They would not have the same surface area. You or your expert should have caught the error when the number was just 0.0552, a ridiculous number. Again, there was no error. If you had read my post, you'd see that. There is a difference between an error in calculation and plugging different numbers into a formula. Beyond that you need to account for the diatoms and Rataczak's claim that he called Soderlind before the suburbs of Portland. Yes, there were two comms from Rataczak. One immediately and one delayed. My post is related to the buoyancy of the money bag. ------------- You were wrong and can't admit it so you dance around it making semantic excuses.. You claimed the money needs to fan out free of the bag to sink. WRONG You used the size of the canvas bag as if it were a solid item. WRONG Your argument is that the bag would float supports your TBAR theory, you never acknowledged that it would be brief like Kaye's packet experiment. So, WRONG You and your so called expert did commit an error, 0.0544 is a ridiculous density number for that object, it should have been caught there as a bad input and rechecked. WRONG You didn't just plug in different numbers you used the WRONG numbers based on the WRONG assumption. Garbage in garbage out. You just can't handle being wrong and you keep trying to put a round peg in a square hole,,, What do we really have, the money/bag was slightly below the density of water and would float until it became saturated which was probably a very short time.. this tells us nothing about TBAR and in no way supports your theory. Your argument was flawed, your conclusion was flawed and somehow it is my fault for pointing it out. Everybody makes errors,, some just make them more often than others.

D.B. Cooper: Where Are You?! Season 1, Episode 1 Take the Money and Jump Transcript https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=1418&t=54970 Nothing new, just the basics...

"Additionally, if the bag was tightly secured as suspected, the money would not have been able to fan out and sink until it became free of the bag." Huh,, where does that come from.. it doesn't make sense, the bag and money only needs to absorb water to alter density, I believe the three TBAR packets arrived as part of a single banded bundle, not individually, that is how they went into the bag, rubber banded bundles of packets. We already know the money would float briefly before sinking.. Your error was using the size of the bag and not the money itself. The bag is not solid, not water or air tight. A canvas bag tied at the top would absorb and be infiltrated by water fairly quickly... The money and bag would initially float but sink when it absorbed the water just like the single packet in Tom Kaye's experiment. A single packet would act the same way. You or your expert should have caught the error when the number was just 0.0552, a ridiculous number. Beyond that you need to account for the diatoms and Rataczak's claim that he called Soderlind before the suburbs of Portland. Yes, there were two comms from Rataczak. One immediately and one delayed.

Chaucer's calculations are completely wrong... He is using the dimensions of the bag, not the dimensions of the money. The bag is not solid or water or air tight. I get 801 cu inches for the money, that is 13,126 cu cm. (there are several estimates given for the money size) 1 packet of 100 bills.. 0.5 thick x 2.61 wide x 6.14 long = 8.0127 cu inches x100 packets = 801 cu inches or 13,126 cu cm (801 inches is about 10 x 10 x 8) I get a slightly less weight number than 10.35 kg but we'll use it for comparison. plug in numbers... density = 0.7885 just below the density of water. (0.0552 is ridiculous and should have been caught as such) Now, with a 0.7885 density just below water the money bag would float initially until the money absorbed enough water to put it over the density of water at 1. With a slightly less weight as I calculated the density would drop a slight amount but the effect remains. Exactly what Tom Kaye found with the single packet, floated initially then sank as it became water saturated. also, the money went into the bag in banded bundles of packets, not individual packets.