DanCooperHimself

I know Dan Cooper’s “grudge” - he had $200,000 less than he desired. The whole lay-offs thing, the “grudge” is too deeply read. It was a financially motivated crime. Darren had a lady on his podcast saying that he did it to show it could be done. If so, why not ask for a Mickey Mantle Baseball Card and four parachutes. Or a Monet and four parachutes. Both easier to transport. The guy was a greedy MF who wanted money. I like the whole CIA/Interpen Goon angle. I really do, but it’s what makes a better story and fiction can be more enjoyable than the fact that a lone middle aged man wanted money, got it, and was so unremarkable that he had nobody to tell or wasn’t missed if he slammed into the ground or took a swim.

The Questionable Efficacy of the D.B. Cooper Likenesses: A Sketchy Basis for Identification At the heart of the enduring intrigue and continued investigation are the sketches—images of the suspect as recounted by eyewitnesses. However, these sketches, while iconic, should be viewed with a considerable degree of scepticism. The assertion that someone might be a person of interest based on a resemblance to a sketch is, upon scrutiny, deeply problematic. Here's the rationale: First and foremost, the existence of two markedly different sketches underscores the inherent unreliability and subjectivity inherent in their production. Composite sketches are derived from human memory, which is notably unreliable and prone to alteration—especially when under duress. Witnesses of the hijacking experienced considerable stress, and it stands to reason that their recollections of Cooper's visage were compromised by this. The sketches amplify this issue by presenting conflicting interpretations of Cooper's features. If we find ourselves unable to reconcile the disparities between two likenesses intended to represent the same individual, how can we possibly rely on them as definitive means of identification? It is also crucial to remember that these are drawings, not photographs. Artists can only capture so much from verbal accounts, and their individual style, coupled with the influence of suggestive questioning, can greatly impact the final depiction. A sketch can only offer a resemblance, not an exact replication. It cannot encapsulate the subtleties of a person's face with the accuracy of a photograph. Consequently, the idea that an individual could be conclusively linked to a crime based on a sketch likeness is fundamentally unsound. Consider the described features of 'Cooper'—a protruding lower lip, a narrow face, middle-aged. These characteristics are not distinctive identifiers; rather, they are fairly commonplace and could apply to an extensive number of men from that time period. Venturing into a crowd in search of these features, one would likely encounter multiple men fitting the description. It's akin to searching for a specific needle in a haystack, except the haystack is as vast as a nation, and the needle may not even resemble the preconceived image. The passage of time and the inevitability of physical transformation further erode the reliability of the sketches. As years pass, people age, their features alter, weights fluctuate, and hairstyles evolve. The sketches represent a moment in time, one that rapidly diminishes in relevance as the years accumulate. It's conceivable that even Cooper himself, if viewing the sketches in the present day, might fail to recognise the man in the drawing as his former self. Finally, the psychological element must be considered. The yearning for resolution in a mystery as captivating as Cooper's can result in confirmation bias—the tendency to perceive what one wishes to perceive in a sketch while discounting inconsistencies. Consequently, numerous individuals have been unduly scrutinised based on these sketches, their lives disrupted by an unsubstantiated association with a notorious crime. Although the D.B. Cooper sketches are emblematic components of this enigmatic narrative, their utility as instruments for identification is highly dubious. They are not photographs but interpretations filtered through the flawed apparatus of human recollection and perception. To propose that someone might be a person of interest because they bear a resemblance to these sketches is to indulge in speculative guesswork. The true identity of D.B. Cooper remains as elusive as the man himself, and it is doubtful that these sketches will ever lead us to a conclusive answer. Instead, what they offer is a canvas for our collective imaginations—a visage to assign to a faceless tale, but ultimately, we should recognise them for what they are—artefacts of ambiguity, not incriminating evidence.

Agreed! From some chats I’ve had - Benzedrine was passed around like M&Ms at recreational DZs and passed out among the military. The mantra seemed to be, “if Uncle Sam gives it to his men we can have it to”. It didn’t stop a massive cocaine influx when Wee Pablo got a foothold into America in the early 70s. The more vault papers are coming out, the more Agent Tosaw’s book (as Bill refers to him as), is pretty spot on.

Yes! Someone became a covert member of my app community, then all of a sudden they created something remarkably similar using content and materials we published inside of it. Basically they took my/our writings and put their branding on them. Of course I hit the sue button and using a stylometric analyst our lawyer got (expensive), it was deemed authorship was ours, and their winning margin in front of a judge would be practically nil. It was settled. The other side knew it was admissible and black and white.

I appreciate this Dave. So I’m on a Vortex right of passage where I’ve ran my mouth excitedly and been brought back a peg or two today in terms of these letters. One of the coding people I use for app content checks (no real experience in forensic stylometry but handy with code) said that the match is enough to “prosecute but not convict”. What we use is R, because it can be adapted to suit our content, scheduler, plagiarism checks, embedding of videos/fillable activities and so on. Needs further analysis perhaps from software not available to the gen pop to get a totally rock solid definitive answer. It gives a good indicator, it gives a strong direction, but not necessarily a 100% answer. It’s still a remarkable find that Barbs writing can be matched to the Clara letter, but even as a small chance - it could still technically be matched to someone else (remote possibility but not nil). Very encouraging, but not enough to say BEYOND all reasonable doubt that Barb authored the letters. Signature is a good software to give indication for sure, but not enough to state authorship as a resolute fact. What would be needed - at least 3/4 stylometric detection softwares (very expensive to buy, expensive to get a forensic coder to configure them as it’s very niche) at least 3 or 4 other samples of Barbs writings and then a compatible made against all the tests. So there we go. A step in a direction and a viable opening of a line of enquiry, but the end result after an extensive test can still rule Barb out, even at a small possibility.

Thoughts on skepticism about the Stylometry analysis due to the sample size. It’s not a trial for penicillin that worked for one person and then a proclamation that it works without further randomised controlled or clinical trials. Yes drugs and pharmaceuticals need large sample sizes. Same with molecular biology and stuff like that. This is stylometry, a fingerprint. The tech is from 2003 because the detection software is as good as it can be. Human nature and the English language hasn’t evolved. It’s not IOS or Android that needs updated for security and data reasons. If the cops get one fingerprint, they don’t say “it’s only one print we need the whole hand to bust the criminal”. These letters were written in the 1980s. Tested using workable 2003 software. GPS hasn’t really evolved much either because the Earth is the same. A 2003 GPS isn’t going to tell me I’m in New York when I’m really in Derry! New York is in the same location as it was 20 years ago and can be pinpointed with the same tech. Here’s a good creative example. If I paint something and visually I use the same colours as Van Gogh, am I Van Gogh? NO! If Van Gogh painted two paintings and used vastly different colours in each painting is one of them a fake? NO. How the paint is applied, pigments, composition structure are all detectable with visual and stylometric photography. The same methodology is applied to writing - like voice recognition for the written word. Saying 200/300 words aloud is enough for voice recognition software to identify an individual, as is 200/300 written across two letters to pick up the idiosyncrasies, sentence length, SPG and other things that make a written finger print a written fingerprint.

Well, that’s not true Dave. I’ve actually said lots of times that you’re a good guy and you’re duly thanked in the back of my book about DB Cooper. I don’t have an agenda because frankly I’m too busy. I’ve moved on to my next book. What agenda could I possibly have? It’s not like I’m short of publicity, social media followers, a mailing list, subscribers, readers, or media appearances even before coming into the Vortex. Never did I say Gunther made the book up, you didn’t watch the video - in fact I gave him high praise and always have. Il quote you “anything over 55m is a non-starter”. We use stylometry frequently in our business - we have our own app (The EndeeSphere App), and I’ve bought/sold numerous apps over the years so yes I have a good knowledge of programming, coding, editing software, plagiarism detection and more. I used the same software license for all my books, social content, and advertising materials. Id love to talk to you man. You’ve really got the wrong end of the stick here. I’m not anti-Gunther, anti-WJS, anti-Fudeman, I’m pro-discussion and debate. I’ve never gotten personal or been unnecessarily cruel toward you. I don’t sit at night thinking of ways to ruin Dave Fudeman or crap on your research. I have much more pressing matters and see this as a hobby/discussion among friends. There is no anti-Dave faction, there is no conspiracy, I have nothing to gain from sharing my opinions on Cooper matters. I never claimed to be on Hemingway’s level either - he couldn’t lace my boots :)

Couple of questions. What agenda do you think I have? I don’t have “a guy” I have always been in the dead camp. Anyone alive after 24/11/71 was a no from me and this has never changed. Why do I have no business talking about this? What more right do you have to be here than anyone else? When it comes to me being a self-proclaimed novelist il put this to you and as a military man I’m sure you will appreciate it, how about we compare resumes and il flip you for it?

My experience of Stylometry in my writing career and how it’s relevant to Martin Andrade’s ground breaking research in unveiling Barb Dayton as “Clara” as the very likely informant for DB Cooper: What Really Happened in at least in one letter. Stylometry is the forensic application of AI, and study to determine the authorship of anonymous sources or true authorship for disputed authorship of written materials/content. Here’s a couple of my experiences 1) My main gig in life is writing, teaching, content on Autism/ADHD etc and I’ve had cases where my blogs/writings/content were taken by competitors. I sued for plagiarism and using stylometry - it was deemed my content was copied/stolen and they had rebranded my work as their own and it was settled before hearing so no more discussion on that. They were caught RED handed and their defense counsel told them to accept settling and not enter the court because their winning margin was 0. 2) For the writing of my novel ‘Dan Cooper’ - I had to completely change my writing style from Irish/European tone/sentence structure, spelling, grammar etc. I invested heavily in writing courses and research to get this right. I didn’t want my narrator ‘Dan Cooper’ sounding like me or reading like someone would feel JUDE was talking to the reader. From critics, human readers - people who know me picked up some “Jude-isms” and had to keep some European-isms in there to suit a global readerbase. ‘Dan Cooper’ as a novel is Cooper being the narrator and giving his why and how. The closest text to mine in this topic area was DB Cooper: What Really Happened - by Max Gunther which is a remarkable work that we all like. So a sample of my first book was sent to Marty. Then a sample of ‘Dan Cooper’. Despite months of effort to disguise my voice - Marty’s software busted me. It came back that it was me to a much lesser extent than Barb Dayton came back as the author of the letters to Ralph Himmelsbach etc. Barb didn’t write these letters with AI Stylometric detection software so she is considered caught in this regard. I wrote intentionally to disguise myself and it was identifiably me to a point where in a court of law I’d be convicted of fraud if I wrote ‘Dan Cooper’ under a false pen name and claimed it as a TRUE CONFESSION. The software would know it’s me. For those new - Gunther’s book was marketed as an anonymous source work that blurred the lines between fiction and reality in a similar fashion to In Cold Blood by Truman Capote. There was long term debate in the vortex to the authenticity of Gunther’s sources - but as a literary work to leave a legacy of debate for 39 years post release is a remarkable and one-off achievement by an author. Gunther was not dishonest - he told a story that was told to him - most certainly by Barb Dayton. So what does this mean for the DB Cooper Community? 1) Barb Dayton was most certainly not DB Cooper - the informing details provided are contrary to the case evidence uncovered over years. Barb is my favourite Vortex story and I love her. I share Darren’s Schaefers sentiment that I want her to be DB Cooper. 2) That Max Gunther’s work is of no evidentiary value to the case but has been a huge catalyst to discussion and debate almost 5 decades post-pub which is a remarkable and unheard of achievement which every author would be honoured to have. His family should be very proud of the impact of the work for sure. 3) That William J Smith was not DB Cooper. The parallels drawn to him using this text as a piece of evidence are now completely null and void. This research has moved the case forward - it has eliminated 2 people from enquiry. WJ Smith 100% so, Barb 99% so.

For some far out reason, I think the DNA connection could be something else. The Mormon/LDS church in the late 60s and 70s had elements of crime still being investigated today. I’m wondering if the DNA collection had something to do with that and not Cooper?

DNA AND LOSER UNCLE CHARLIE I imagine the scene! All the Cooper sleuths eagerly awaiting the latest set of DNA results with bated breath. It will be an average enough day in our mundane world. Quiet, civilised, with certain sections sniggering at the fact so many are awaiting the identity of the elusive hijacker of Northwest Orient Flight 305 that 99.999999% of the populace, including passengers and crew forgot about by November 24, 1972. To me, Cooper was “loser Uncle Charlie” who had nobody who loved him, no family, no prospects. This guy didn’t/doesn’t have a Jo, Marla, Greg, Ron, or posthumous advocate. Just that weird and borderline creepy Uncle your Mom felt obliged to invite to family occasions and people argued not to be sat next to him at the dinner table. I mean, most loving family men spend thanksgiving with their families - not ditch them for a score. If he was a family man, why not Nov 25, 1971 after a “last meal” with his nearest? Here’s why - he didn’t have anybody who gave the first, fifth, or final f**k about him. When Cooper threw open the tiny canopy with a 25lb weight under him, he saw a black flickering mass below - Lake Merwin or the Columbia. The rig didn’t have Capewells on it so when he plunged into the drink, he’s in a nylon jail cell that ge can’t get out of with a 21lb Looney Tunes Money Bag weighing him down. Cooper became fish food. Then loser Uncle Charlie is lost to history. He had nobody to report him gone, nothing was found because it all sank with him including the bomb/“bomb”, then somehow cash washes up on Richard Fazio’s beach. Loser Uncle Charlie was a vagabond who may have worked in different places, plants, airports, dropzones, wherever. Even if one of his WW2 buddies reported him missing - what foul play was there for the Feds/Cops to look into it? Im very much in the Dead Camp when it comes to Cooper. Hes strangely evaded the “missing presumed dead” title. For me - anyone alive after Nov 24, 1971 is a non-starter. Maybe a new perspective - but if he had a family who loved/cared for him at that time - also a red stroke out. Here’s a list of people the new DNA Analysis could match from the tie and the parachutes. 1) EJ Cossey 2) The Reno National Guard Captain who examined the rigs/packing cards 3) Any agent from the Vegas FBI field office 4) The lab people in Quantico 5) The innumerable postal workers/FBI agents who handed the tie etc when it was sent in the regular mail and passed around like a cheap whore for 20/30+ years 6) Larry Carr 7) Anyone in the Seattle/Portland field offices 8) Tom Kaye 9) Museum staff when the tie was displayed in an FBI exhibit 10) Loser Uncle Charlie who nobody knew, didn’t have a death certificate, was a “pack of smokes Daddy”, and wasn’t a Braden badass or a Trans Icon like Barb. Just a loser glorified aerial kidnapper who drowned with a bag of cash and in inescapable rig on a cold November night. I bet the Reca and McCoy people will still think it was Reca and McCoy though…

I said in my video - he could have been contacted by hoaxers and it gave inspiration for a great novel. Sadly, the book didn’t get many favourable reviews but I really appreciated it. Gunther and the publisher distanced themselves from the work considerably. What’s getting me most is “why would Gunther make all this up it’s too elaborate”. Tolkien made up an entire language for LOTR! Elvish. People have created entire star systems, countries, political movements, Hogwarts and all that. People have done way more inventive stuff than Gunther. All I had to do was put in a preface to my book. I interviewed an anonymous guy back in 2009 and an FBI agent. This is their stories. Maybe Gunther was fooled, maybe Cooper did call him - I’m sure we all want to believe that. One thing is for sure - Gunther wrote an under appreciated novel. His previous works are his own takes on books like “How to Win Friends and Influence People” and “Think and Grow Rich”.

I think you should listen to it and actually listen to what I said in it. You can’t give a critique as scathing as this without watching it. I’m cool with Flyjack’s comments because he listened to it. To start - I’m not a mainly self-published “author” as you put it. I’ve had two books published by Beyond Words - the publisher of The Secret - a very elite and prestigious publisher based in Hillsboro Oregon. I’ve had two non-fiction works published by them - one of which there are talks of converting into a series, and I’ve been on both sides of the non fiction and fiction fences. I'm effusive in my praise for Max Gunther on how well the work is done, how good it was and never once did I disparage him or anyone else. Nor did I say “Gunther made it all up”. To be honest - this video is probably the highest praise Gunther has ever been given publicly. You watched 30 seconds of it and then decided what you thought I said. My books and works have been featured in Forbes magazine and I’ve given two TED Talks and was the recipient of the Living Now Memoir Gold Medal in 2021. Not sucking my own “you know what here”, but in terms of authors I’ve achieved a lot in 4 books. As for the “I’m not disparaging disabilities” comment - that’s extremely below the belt and I expected much better from you than that.