CooperNWO305

20 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

It sounds like Eric talked to Tom. It does look like an impression from a pin but it also does look bigger than a pin hole around it, to me it could be a burn. Where is that in relation to the whole tie? I’ve only seen closeups. 

Ok, it looks visible now. Seems to me that a cigarette could have come in contact with it. EU mentioned it would be under the overcoat (not sure I see that). 

13 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Looks like it could be in pics but Tom handled the tie..

Tom would have identified it as a burn..

My guess is no,, Tom would have noticed it as a burn when he handled the tie, maybe ask Tom..

Another image shows a surrounding indentation, that indicates some type if pin was attached..  not a burn.

 

Tom believed it was a tie tack impression/hole, he handled it and would have noticed if it was a burn..

 

It sounds like Eric talked to Tom. It does look like an impression from a pin but it also does look bigger than a pin hole around it, to me it could be a burn. Where is that in relation to the whole tie? I’ve only seen closeups. 

For those who don’t follow the Facebook group, EU posted an interesting thought about the tie. It looks as if one of the tie tack holes may actually be bigger than a normal pin and could possibly be a burn vs a hole. Far right on pic. 

11 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

To specify, I think that setup only applies to front pack bailout rigs. As always I could be wrong, but I don't think there are any back chute bailout rigs that do not have integrated harnesses. The crewman would not be able to attach that by himself.

 

Actually he would have. One, the dropzone would have a few for their pilots and people taking observer rides, and Cossey may refer to them as 'his' because he runs the loft and does the rigging on them. Second, I think he would have one of his own. When an instructor puts out static line students, he does not jump with them. Especially if he has another load waiting, it's more efficient for him to just ride down with the airplane. If he's wearing a full rig with main and front reserve, it's big, cumbersome, and in the way. It's easier to just wear a smaller, sleeker, lighter bailout rig with no front reserve, and that was a common practice.

 

It is unlikely that the dropzone would have any of those independent harness with front pack bailout systems. That was a military aircrew item, and not prevalent in the civilian sport arena, either jumpers or aerobatic pilots. The front reserves they would have would be for reserves on freefall rigs with mains.

Dudeman. How dangerous is it if he tied the front to the harness of the back chute? Basically substituting para cord for the D rings. Seems very dangerous and I’d think if he had to use it, it would have broke. I’m wondering why he takes the front with him or throws it out. He did make a good amount of cuts on the risers. 

21 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

When you say left pull do you mean that it's on the right side of your body and you pull toward the left?

Most things are made with righties in mind. Parachutes too I’m guessing. Would a left handed person want to modify a rig? Or would rig modifications just be made to make things easier and not consider if the person was left or right handed. As I remember, Cossey claimed he modified a rig. Or someone said it. 

Were there left and right side pulls? At first thought you’d think a lefty would want a left pull, but thinking that made me think of packing gear in the Army, on yourself and on a vehicle (tank). Everyone had to be the same should someone else need to get to the gear quickly, specifically the first aid kit. I remember skydiving instructors having to pull jumper’s ripcords, and my guess is those always had to be in the same place for safety. One of the more experienced skydivers might be able to comment on whether the handle location was often changed. 

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

I found in my research that aircrew's used either front or back bailout rigs and that terminology was used from WW2 on.. they didn't seem to use both..  this suggests Cooper may have expected 4 independent rigs with harnesses, not just two sets. McNalley got and used a front chute with a harness.

For something like a C-47, they would sit in a rack and get put on quickly for an emergency bailout.. 

My research is in line with Fly’s. I talked to some Navy guys of the era about a plane named the Twin Beech. Beechcraft. Recon plane and had other uses. They sent me pics and this info. This would indicate that air crews would know harnesses and chutes but may never have jumped. Makes me think of a life preserver drill you’d do on a ship, but may not have gone overboard. 
 

“The aircrew would wear parachute harnesses but the QAC chest packs were stowed in the cabin. In the SNB-5P/RC-45J they stowed quick attach chest pack parachutes on the back of each of the forward cabin seats on bungees and hooks and the aft seat ‘chute was stowed under the seat on the floor with similar bungees and hooks as can be seen in the photo. The pilots stowed their QAC chest packs on a shelf right across from the entry door. The door could be jettisoned to bail out.”

18 minutes ago, haggarknew said:

Couldn't get authorization?  Very hard to believe that they couldn't get authorization, in my humble opinion.

Have you ever dealt with the US Government? This does not surprise me at all.

Was Reynolds Metals in Portland looked at? I seem to remember some chatter about an Alcoa plant and was wondering if that is the same place?

2 hours ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

 

It’s been a crash course in metallurgy to say the least!

Working completely independently from each other, both groups zero in on the exact 3 particles and then independently both decide on RemCru? How is that possible?  Eric was talking about this well before anyone else.

I don’t think anyone is saying that box was filled with all the particles. My observation is in line with many others, and that is we don’t know where the tie was before or after. When there are stories of FBI agents wearing it at parties as well as 14 DNA profiles and Tom’s DNA, then one has to wonder. 
 

My stance as been the same for years. The tie probably came from some industrial setting. Tracing that to one location is impossible, regardless of how much we’d like to do that. For a large group of people who disagree with Eric on things, it’s unusual to now see them agreeing with his research on the particles. 
 

One final note. There is this push to go upstream on the particles, as in where were they manufactured? Why not go further upstream and find where they were mined or refined? But better yet, why not go downstream to where these elements were used? You guys say “metals”. Do you realize how many metals related companies were in the US in 1971? We helped win WWII. The US went to the Moon in 1969. This discussion is fun, but the lectures are getting tiring. 
 

None of the elements on the tie are uncommon. None. Some are just more common than others. Find some uranium or plutonium and then we have a lead. 
 

When will we have scientists with documented degrees in science at the Masters or PhD levels giving us credible information? Has McCrone weighed in?

I’ll say this to both teams about both suspects. If the tie theory fell apart, is your guy still a good suspect? Age? Description? Background? If you found someone at RemCru who fit the profile better, would you consider him? How do you know you found everyone that worked at those companies in 1965? I can’t even find out who worked at an office a year ago. 

I don't see Cooper as a skydiver, but the narrative for a while was that there was no way he was a skydiver because he chose the military chute and a skydiver would have chosen the civilian one. That term "luxury" has been burned in my brain for years, but lately I'm sensing that it simply was not luxury.  So one of the reasons we discounted skydivers may not be a valid reason anymore.  I still think there are other reasons though that indicate he was not a skydiver to the level of a Sheridan Peterson.

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

The description of Cooper's back chute was inconsistent, but the good front reserve was consistent..

A 24 ft ripstop.

So is the general feeling now that both back chutes were both actually more military vs one being military and one being civilian (military modified chute) and that they were essentially the same?

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

I know what you’re insinuating, but I’ve not seen or heard any actual evidence of that. Not comfortable casting those aspersions.

I must have missed this one, or have forgotten.  Aspersions on Tina or on LD or on DB Cooper?

37 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I’d be interested in seeing that. Perhaps FlyJack could find that as well. I just looked through her 302’s and couldn’t find it. In both of her 302’s this is the initial demand from Cooper.

What's interesting is in the pic I have from the book, this middle paragraph is removed, so it reads as "as soon as this lowering of the door and stairs were accomplished in flight.."  So from the book, it seems contradictory, but from the actual 302 it is not.

7 hours ago, olemisscub said:

I’m aware of what you’re saying. He even says “they can lower it from the cockpit” (obviously incorrect and maybe a brain fart thinking it was like a C-130)

However, what Fly is saying is that Cooper

First wanted stairs lowered AFTER takeoff

Then wanted stairs lowered BEFORE takeoff 

Then wanted stairs lowered AFTER takeoff.

If you read it verbatim that is the correct sequence of events. So I was asking him if there was anything else other than the one communication I highlighted to indicate he ORIGINALLY wanted stairs lowered after takeoff (because neither the witness statements nor anything in the ATC logs indicate this initial desire for stairs to be lowered after takeoff) 

I argued this one with Eric back in June. 3 times in that communication they mention stairs lowered in flight.  It is also in a 302 from Tina (it is in Martin's book), I don't have it handy, that says lowered in flight, but then a few lines down she contradicts that.

My argument to Eric was not necessarily that one was right or wrong, but that there is ambiguity, and therefore I can't buy into this absolute statement that he wanted to jump near Seattle.  My issue with Seattle is that it is urban, and there is a lot of water there. Cooper is taking a huge risk jumping near there versus something more suburban like outside of Portland.  He also does not know when that plane will hit 10,000 feet, so if he planned to have some time to freefall or to get that chute open.  He did jump near Portland, so I give that some weight.

3 hours ago, georger said:

DNA report on specimen K2 Langseth, in Part77:  

This concerns pages 263/264 a two part report in Part77,  which is a report on a specimen “K2”  identified as a buccal swab from one Jason T Langseth,  a suspect in the DB Cooper hijacking. Langseth’s dna is being compared with one or more multi donor partial profiles the FBI has, to determine if Langseth can be ruled in or out as a suspect. Langseth was ruled out after a comparison of nine (9) loci + AMEL for sex in the CODIS13 system.

Page 264 shows the Langseth  profile obtained.  This illustration is not DB Cooper’s profile! It is Langseth’s profile only.

This new information may suggest that the multi-donor profile the FBI Lab was using, consisted of at least nine loci to a statistical standard certainty, it felt confident in using for comparisons.

After pages 263/-264 other 302s through pages 268, 281, 296 etc  document other dna comparisons the FBI made; with suspects such as Weber, Christiansen, etc. Its interesting reading if nothing else.

Attached: the Langseth profile, and a Codis13 chart.       

Yea we aren’t likely to get Cooper’s DNA readout. I remember years ago hearing that they had 9 loci, but it was told to me with the caveat that I could not chat about it. So some of you guys had some good inside info, which is a good thing. The DNA thing has always fascinated me, both from a Cooper standpoint and from personal family research. I’ve had my DNA uploaded for a while, and that gives one a whole new insight into how people are related. The Golden State Killer case went back to 4th cousins (I’ve read 3rd too). They had 1,000 people to look at. Even if those 1,000 were still alive, that’s 1,000 out of 350 million in the US. The chances of DNA matching or two people being related is very very low. So when there is a DNA match, it is pretty foolproof. 

12 minutes ago, georger said:

I have that somewhere ...

Someone identify the 302 in Part 77 that contains the image below posted today?

I need to see the whole 302 and any related 302s.  What is the page number in Part 77 for this 302 image?  

Does the new 302 date from April 2 2002?

You people need to provide page numbers for any 302s you post! How is anyone supposed to find them without identification of page numbers! ?

 

The most recent release Part 77. Page 263-264 on the PDF, lower right corner says DB Cooper-33623

4 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Yes, a match can connect somebody to the tie but no match does not eliminate somebody from being Cooper. 

Think of it like unidentified fingerprints found near Cooper's seat...  

If you find a match that connects somebody, but if you don't match that doesn't eliminate.

The tie DNA is not confirmed to be Cooper's.. 

The FBI was fishing for a match..

 

Yea, that's my concern, that the DNA is not really Cooper's.  However, if it is his, then the odds of someone's partial profile matching this partial profile are astronomically low, so if someone was ruled in, there's a good shot he could be Cooper. I checked my notes and I was tracking 13 STR locations for CODIS.  I also read that they can go up to 22 locations.  But even with the 9 locations they have for "Cooper" that would narrow the field down a lot.  But at this point I think you'd need to exhume a body or find something of theirs still in storage.  The FBI won't be doing this.

37 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

They were not certain the DNA was Cooper's... (likely belongs) that means not matching does not really eliminate.

 

Wow. This is news to me.  I'm guessing it is off the tie.

25 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

We have the "canonical five" plus I'm quite certain I've ID'd Richard Simmons' statement (Vault 22, Page 4). We're missing the rest of these. We do have two that have yet to be ID'd, which are in Vault 22, page 3 and page 5. I've not come across any other unidentified witness statements from that night in the Vault. Maybe FlyJack has. 

"canonical five" is that Tina, Flo, Alice, Mitchell and ????

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Indeed.

I’d like to see more 302’s regarding the hair slide. The last time it pops up in a 302 is 1985. It’s called “Q2” in the 302’s.

Also, 302’s of the missing passenger interviews. We are missing about 10 of them. 

Also, the 302 from Vegas to Seattle confirming that they destroyed the cigarettes. Should be from 2002-2003 time frame.

10 missing interviews? As in those passengers were interviewed and we just don't have those yet, or are those additional interviews with the passengers already interviewed once?

Interesting that they actually posted a DNA profile of a suspect.  This is not the DNA process used for an Ancestry.com though.  I'd be curious what their Cooper profile looks like and if all these locations have data for Cooper too.  This shows 9 locations. I'd have to dust off my DNA notes, but I think the standard was 13 locations.  Georger might be able to comment some.  If they were ruling someone out, then they must have this below info for Cooper.

I'm guessing that someone in the FBI is reading the forums.  This latest release as the Shelton lead, EHS, a blurb on Sheridan Peterson, DNA stuff, etc.  I still need to read through the rest.

EDIT: Duane Weber DNA tested too.

How did the Reca team find this Jeff guy, or did Jeff come to them?