CooperNWO305

Flyjack: Are you of the belief that Cooper jumped with a military rig vs a civilian rig and that he could have chosen either a civilian rig or military rig, but chose the military rig? That's my understanding.

Think about it like this. Have you ever been on a boat and gone through the training in case it sinks? You put on a life jacket, you tie it, you get ready to get in life boats, you talk about what to do, etc. But sometimes you never really actually get into the water. That's the difference between an exercise and the real thing. The military does this all the time, it's called training. Cooper could easily have been an aircrew member who trained for the eventuality of jumping from a plane, but may actually have not ever jumped from a plane. Larry Carr called Cooper a know it all, one who got the broad strokes down, but not the details. Cooper could have had all the practice steps down, and that one day in 1971 decided to take the final step of jumping in the water so to say. Hahneman was an aircrew member, so he would know harnesses, but did he ever jump (until 1972?). He may never have jumped until that one day, but he was comfortable right up to the point that he left the aircraft, so it was not a huge leap for him to go that last few inches.

A good thing about these forums is that the discussion keeps us current on the case and keeps ideas flowing through our brains. I need a refresher often. Question: Today the skydiving rigs are all mainly civilian, and are not similar to military chutes. However, in 1971 the sport was just advancing, and skydiving rigs could be composites of different types of chutes, harnesses, containers, etc. Would someone who had a few skydives under their belt necessarily be familiar with putting on a military harness? Could their jumps have all been with more civilian type gear?

I believe we are talking about the same things, but in different contexts. Putting on a harness quickly indicates that Cooper was familiar with harnesses, but it does not necessarily indicate that he was an experienced skydiver. I think Fly, R99, and I would agree on this. One group that would be good with harnesses would be aircrews. Where we may diverge is on the level of skydiving experience, and whether or not this would have resulted in his survival. I'm of the Martin Andrade school where I think he could have jumped out and been a lot like a pilot or aircrew bailing out of a plane. Most pilots and aircrews that bailed out of planes (B-17s in WW2, F-4's in Vietnam, etc.) would likely have been on their first jump. The intent was not for these guys to jump out of a plane, but to land in the plane. The military does not send all aircrews through parachute training, just basic bail out techniques and survival. Remember, parachutes were for getting out of a damaged plane, they were not meant for fun. In most cases the chutes worked. If a kid jumping from a burning B-17 over Germany could pull a ripcord, then DB Cooper could have too, especially if he did it while sitting on the back stairs. No one was shooting at him, the plane was not in flames. I believe Cooper knew how to put on a harness, but was not a skilled skydiver. He could have had a few jumps. He may have practiced in the military, even gotten on a plane back when there were not as many rules as today. He may have practiced a jump at a place like Elsinore. It is also possible that Cooper never actually parachuted out of a plane, but did have parachute experience. How is this possible? Well, the Navy trained their air crews in parachute techniques using a para sail type set up. Army Airborne used towers.

He would have trouble stabilizing because of a 20 pound bag of money tied to his body, but not because it was dark or he could not see the horizon. If he had any skydiving experience, or parachute free fall training, he would have known to arch his body. He could have done this in the dark, or with his eyes closed.

Heady estimates he jumped at over 300 miles per hour. Lapointe jumped into the snow. Within 7 months of Cooper, 5 men jumped from similar planes and survived. Even most in the FBI have Cooper landing between Battleground and Orchards. I've personally seen that area, and can attest that it is flat as a pancake. There are many open fields. I'd have to see a topographical map from 1971, but I think it was likely as open then as it is now, if not more. What is difficult to do is put ourselves back to before we knew the details of the jump, and then look at it objectively. The big problem is that the narrative was put out that Cooper died, so people believed it. Had it started out that Cooper lived, things might be very different. We know he likely had a good chute for survival (maybe not for steerability). He had a chute to wrap himself in to stay warm It was not freezing cold. Life would have been uncomfortable, but survivable. No body was ever found, and had it gone into the ocean, it would have had to travel a ways, over dams and obstacles. 10,000 bills left that plane, yet only 300 were found. We know bank tellers stopped looking for the bills fairly soon. Cooper could have spent the money. The FBI who says he died still decided to keep the case open for over 40 years, spend millions of dollars on it, and had a list of 1,000 suspects. That's a lot to do for a dead man. The list goes on. To me there is way more information indicating survival than death.

R99. What are your thoughts on the copycats who survived? Where is the other $194,000 dollars that did not end up on Tina Bar? Where is the body? I’m of the belief he survived. When I started I may have been 50/50. Bottom line for me is that his death/survival is debatable and the FBI narrative is misleading when it says he likely died. Maybe they want it that way, to keep Cooper thinking he is safe. I wonder if they actually did find more $20s. It took 20 years for them to tell us about the tie.

R99-I don’t know where the Bohan stuff came into this. You state that there is no evidence DB Cooper survived. What is the evidence that he died? What evidence would be required to lean towards his survival?

Is anyone an editor on Wikipedia? Can you help? I've noticed the second paragraph of the Wiki article on DB Cooper basically says he died in the jump. The footnote reference is tied to an official FBI page. Seems kind of wrong that the page says he died, and to prove it, they use a FBI site, the one group that wants everyone to believe he died. I was under the impression that most skydivers and researchers think he probably survived, or at least are 50/50 on it. When Wiki is the main site for info on Cooper for the majority of the public, and they see that he died, I think it reduces interest in the case. If people thought he might be alive, it might raise interest. This is what it says: "Available evidence and a preponderance of expert opinion suggested from the beginning that Cooper probably did not survive his high-risk jump, but his remains have never been recovered" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper

Didn't some conversation take place at an Orioles game or something over beers? I thought I read that somewhere.

I think he's under contract and can't speak about things. I'll check with him. :)

Robert-The suspect pool is full of supporters with current or former security clearances. An 18 year old kid can join the Army and get a security clearance, so lets not use that as evidence of a suspect. Edward Snowden had a security clearance. The list of people like him goes on and on. The name dropping in this case is laughable. My uncle's neighbor's cousin's friend's father's Army buddy's dog was a FBI agent and he thinks xxx was DB Cooper. CASE CLOSED!

I try not to focus too much on disproving suspects. Although I can. However, in the KC case, today I will only offer this: It seems like a number of suspects have a group of retired FBI agents who support that suspect. In the case of Reca, there are agents, and voice recognition experts, etc. The Rackstraw team has a whole group of retired law enforcement too. DB Cooper was one person. He may have had help, but it was still just one guy. So, all these suspects with FBI and other law enforcement backing simply can not all be DB Cooper. Therefore, a large portion of these retired agents are wrong. Kenny has FBI agent Jarvis. Peterson has FBI agent Mary something. Reca too. Rackstraw. Even McCoy has an agent who claims he shot DB Cooper. When Larry Carr comes out and puts his support behind a suspect, then I may start paying attention.

One thing to remember is that Cooper put on the harness/chute quickly and with ease, and did not need any instructions. He has been accused of doing things haphazardly, but this part of the hijacking does not indicate someone who was winging it.

I'm thinking some of the same things as you dudeman. I've said it before and will repeat it. Storing a dummy chute anywhere near a real chute is akin to storing cyanide tablets in your medicine cabinet next to your aspirin. You just don't do it. Something about a dummy chute smells bad to me. Sending Cooper a dummy chute is not something out of the realm of possibility. The FBI had snipers ready to shoot him, why not try to kill him with a dummy chute, or like dudeman said, try to make it so he can't take a hostage?

The Universal Studios late November 1981 release could play a possible link if you believe Max Gunther and his Clara story, or even if you don’t. “Cooper” contacted Max in early 1972, and quickly fell off the radar. For some reason, Max was not contacted again until early 1982, by Clara, “Cooper’s” widow. The movie could have reignited a passion in Max, an imposter (Clara), or the actual real DB Cooper. It’s a good way to draw some attention away from a suspect by saying he died in 1982.

Thanks Flyjack. Sifting through it now. I see parts on the money find and the sand layers, as well as a parachute that was found.

Robert: My intent was not to be harsh, but mainly to say that you and most all of us have some sort of agenda, whether it is notoriety, wanting to get attention for a specific suspect, or just wanting to dig really deep into the case. _____________________________________________________________________________________ You wrote the below: But anonymity is the wrong approach if you plan to create a book or answer media questions regarding the Cooper case. Examples of people who realize this: Geoffrey Gray Skipp Porteous Bruce Smith Eric U Almost anyone who has done a Cooper-related book Yours truly ______________________________________________________________________________________ I frankly see this as a little passive aggressive. I've seen you go after a number of these people, but in this post you use them in a positive way. You're all over the map on this. Some days you hate them, but today you like them? You have a bone to pick with Georger and others, but that does not mean that they should not be able to stay private or anonymous. And, just because someone is writing a book or using their real name, does not mean they are above board or of good character. My feeling on all of the anonymity/privacy is this: 1. If someone wants to use a screen name that is not their real name, let them do it. That's the internet. If they want to use different screen names across different platforms (Shutter's site, here, Mountain News) then let them. Who really cares? 2. If someone wants to use their real name, then it does not make someone else less worthy who uses a screen name. 3. If you are using a second screen name to lob attacks (Johnnie Greene), then I do have some issues with that. However, Johnnie seems to only be targeting you, so in your shoes, I'd be asking myself "Did I do something to deserve this?" 4. You can write a book anonymously, it's been done many times, and in the Cooper world. And if you are posting anonymously, it does not mean you plan to write a book. Frankly, writing a book in 2020 does not hold the same weight as it did even 10 years ago. 5. Writing a book does not automatically make you a legitimate person, just because you use your real name. If the book is filled with garbage, all you've done is used your real name to put garbage into the system. I'm not going to give accolades to those people. However, overall I think most of the books out there on Cooper are pretty good. I think Bruce's and Martin's are the two best because they don't push a suspect, and they focus on the case. Your focus on Kenny has been really good for the case, as has Rackstraw, and Reca. That's my two cents.

Cut it out Robert Blevins. We've been through this before. Some people just want their privacy. Your agenda has always been Kenny Christenson, so let's not start throwing rocks from a glass house.

If it worked correctly it would show that we are in fact two different people. My post history should indicate that we are two different people.

If you just want to know the differences, Microsoft Excel can do it very easily. If you want to figure out the patterns of the differences, that's a little harder to do, but possible. PM me on here.

R99: I don't know how effective stylometry is with all the posts out there. There are complexities. It is not just plug and play. However, for someone that posts as often as Georger or a few others, it is hard to hide a certain style, and those of us who read the forum often, start to see patterns naturally. Someone like yourself who has deep theories likely sees the patterns too. The Johnnie Greene posts have a very different flavor than Georger's posts. Possibly the same person, but unlikely. And if Johnnie Greene is the same as Georger or yourself, then it has taken some effort to mask the comments. I just don't see it being you guys. Example: If someone pops up and starts talking a lot about microscopes, diatoms, titanium, then it might be Tom Kaye. If it's about a western flight path, then maybe you or EU. If it is about Klansnic, then it's likely one of two people. But, the Johnnie Greene comments don't seem to have a lot of details about the case, mainly just attacks on one person, Robert Blevins. So it's hard to tie it to a specific person. I'm just guessing off some things I observed. I don't have the time to compare all the comments and tie them to multiple screen names. A similar concept was used in the Unabomber case.

Robert: I'd be willing to bet money that Georger is not Johnnie Greene. Not even close. I have a thought of who it is, based on writing style, and other parts of posts. Georger just does not write like that, he does not take stabs like that. The individual who is Johnnie Greene clearly has an issue with you Robert, whether it is personal, or they feel like they need to target you. My assessment is Johnnie Greene knows a decent amount about the case. I don't have a positive or negative relationship with Georger, just the standard one that most people would have with a scientist/professor/meticulous type. Johnnie Greene is not likely Georger or Robert. If you're going to analyze text, look into a concept called stylometry. Matching screen shots of posts is very different.

Standard bickering between a few of the same people. However, that should not take away from the fact that this discovery is potentially very impactful.

I like the dump theory, whether placed or it was from a house that was torn down. A lot better than many other theories out there.