Ckret

All valid points in a world where almost anything is possible.

I would go with all of your points but the last, he thought it out. Just a few points to ponder: -Why not ask for hundreds? He knew he was going to make a challenging jump so if he planned it out why would he not ask for 100's. He only requested negotiable US currency. He got 20's, if he would have said 100's he could have reduced his weight by almost 15 pounds and bulk by a wide margin. -Why not ask for a specific flight path? He never made that request nor did he ever ask the aircrew where along the flight path they were, he just jumped without much of a clue were they were at. -Why not ask for good equipment, ParaComanders were available. I don't have the answers just a guess on my part, but if he planned it to me those seem like important issues that could lead to success or failure. From 1968 to 1972 there were approximately 133 hijackings in the US. They were on the news constantly and it was known airlines would be compliant with demands. It did not take much planning to hand over a note and pack a suitcase with road flares to receive $200,000. It's all of the details missed by Cooper after that leads one to think maybe he didn't put much into it. Maybe he was that cavalier and daring that the details of the jump never bothered him, maybe he winged it and made. If so, hope he calls me, it's going to be one hell of a story.

The experts are two jumpmasters with the Army and the person who packed the chutes Cooper used for his jumps. The packer was also an instructor at Seattle Sky Sports (he was not the one who provided the dummy reserve). They all stated the jump could be done with not much training or skill, under the right conditions and using the right equipment. When they factored in the conditions, equipment and dropzone they all came to the same conclusion, "most likely didn't make it and if he did he probably wouldn't have been able to walk out. Of course almost anything is possible.

Bozo, no I have not jumped day or night, but I never stated I had a knowledge base in jumping, just the investigation to date. Experts at the time were interviewed regarding the jump and gave the opinion that he most likely did not make it and if he did was in no shape to walk out.

One of the factors in the case that has not been resolved is the missing person aspect. It would stand to reason if DB Cooper went missing, someone would miss him. That does not seem to be the case here. It seems as if no one has missed him or did not realize their missing loved one was in fact DB Cooper. That means if DB died the night he jumped he most likely was a loner with few ties to anyone or anywhere. As far as hitting the flask during the flight, none of the witnesses ever stated he was drinking from a flask during the flight nor did they state he smelled of an alcoholic beverage, or acted in an intoxicated state. From this I am sure he had the one drink on the flight and not much more anywhere else. I have poured over the files in this case and have a large knowledge base on the subject matter. If I don't have an answer I have access to the answer in regard to the investigation to date. I did not write the piece, I spoke to the reporter, he wrote the piece.

I am Carr, Having only one drink is not evidence someone is or is not a heavy user of alcohol or that he is even a user of alcohol. It is simply evidence used in making a value statement. What is the most probable statement? Deduced from human behavior it is most probable that whoever DB Cooper was, he was not a heavy user of alcohol. Human behavior would dictate that a person who was a heavy user of alcohol, would have had more than one drink given the circumstances Cooper put himself in. He was on the plane for several hours and drinks were offered to him on several occasions. If he regularly consumed alcohol, reason would dictate he would have accepted the offer. Not to the point of intoxication, but he could have easily consumed four drinks and still have had his wits about him Having written that, DB Cooper may have been an alcoholic and spent few hours out of the day in a sober state. More likely he drank from time to time and used the request for one as a means of passing the note to Schaffner, not quelling thirst.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/119588193341980.xml&coll=7&thispage=1 Well written story about what I am trying to do and why. I would be willing to answer questions about the Cooper case with my theory left out. One request, can we keep it civil?

Your right, but I never indicated there was a new suspect. This case is very similar to any case where there is an unknown subject who needs to be identified. One of the most important questions to answer is, "who did it." Just as in bank robbery investigations, putting out as much known information about the subject to the public is vital in making an identification. I am doing nothing different here. Releasing information about his physical makeup and possible insight into who he was or is, is no more of a violation of national security than publishing bank surveillance photos of a robber along with a physical description. Having said this, I am pulling the cord, way to much hostility here. Sorry if I came on to strong and brought some of it to the surface, but reading over this thread it was here long before I arrived, also I wouldn't want Brenda to hurt herself, holding your breath could be dangerous.

Everything is moving in the right direction. I think all of those who have been dedicated to this case will be very pleased with how things are about to turn.

I am trying clear up some FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) issues before I can actually release information regarding the statements witnesses made upon being interviewed. Most of the information released has not been released by the FBI, but by individuals associated to the case. I hope, once I get clarifications, the case can be freely discussed.

Not using any one persons description as the end all but the totality of all the descriptions. Not one person described him much different than the others. Yes some put him in his 30's most put him in his mid 40's to 50's. Some did not see him standing, others did. He boarded with others, at one point he got up and went to the restroom. When they landed in Seattle he got up in the rear of the plane. He stood with Mucklow as she showed him how the airstairs were lowered. He was standing when he cut open the cute and wrapped the money. Tina watched him put on one of the chutes and on it goes. On Monday I will give you all a brief on how many people gave a description and what it was and how they are related to the case.

Grimmie, you've read the thread, its totally do'able. Where's your spirit of adventure.

If your willing to accept that these individuals were not able to obtain basic physical identifiers for Cooper then he could have been of any race, any height and any weight. The description came from many who saw him, not just Schaffner and Mucklow. Several passengers sat near Cooper and noticed him because of his actions. They reported a physical description of Cooper as Schaffner and Mucklow. As did the ticket agent in Portland. Under the "trust no I-witness" philosophy, there is no base of fact to go from, maybe he was actually a she? Where do you stop? there has to be a baseline of fact, you simply cannot conduct an effective investigation if every human being is a suspect.

There is the key difference, "it happened so fast" Not the same in the Cooper case. Mucklow spent almost five hours with Cooper, I think she could have got the base physical indentifiers correct, especially when the others reported almost the same.

That is a great idea, there is no greater back story than the Cooper case and it is just ripe for a re-introduction into pop culture. It would go like this: The first half of the first show would be a documentary catching everyone up to speed, after all, mention the name DB Cooper to those outside skydiving and they say, "who?" The second half would be dedicated to the theories and those behind them. Then you end the show with four groups of three, three representing the McCoy's, three the Mayfield's, three Weber's and three for the Splatter's. Each group would make a tandem night jump into the area thought close to where Cooper made his jump, each carrying a 25 pound sack of everything they'll need for the next month. Upon landing they will navigate to a camp in the woods around Coopers landing area. The first show will end upon the landing, the second pick up on the hike to the camp. The rest of the shows will be filled with lively debate and different competitions, such as the "escape" played out with "FBI agents" hunting the different groups with paint guns. In the end "America decides" with a call in vote.

In any investigation there are a set on known facts that can't be reasonably disputed, a foundation if you will. From there you move into reported fact, information provided by witnesses both actual observers and those related to the event by some circumstance. Combined with physical evidence, the three form investigative theory which hopefully was derived by careful analysis. It is the theory that drives the investigation in a logical direction, without a solid one you would spin off in directions that would not lead to a resolution. I would urge you to strip away all in your current investigation back to the raw facts, What do you know for sure that no one can reasonably dispute? Make that your baseline. Then add those reported facts that are not in dispute. Now look at the reported facts that are in dispute, where did you get your information and compare it to the information that disputes your reported facts. Where did the person that is disputing your reported facts get their info from. When you go back and look at your investigation to date, I think you'll find many of the reported facts that your basing some of your investigative theory on are actually theoretical fact (he wore makeup, he had a wig.....) The physical description I provided is a reported fact. No matter how much you would like to change it you simply can't throw it out and replace it with theoretical fact so it fits your suspect. If you do, your investigation is doomed to fail. No matter how much someone wants to put DB Cooper's height at 5'8" will never change the fact he was reported to be 6'. You can certainly say it's so but you have to have articulable fact to support the dismissal of the witnesses credibility. But if you discredit the witness on one piece of her statement you may have to discredit all, you can't have it both ways. I gave you the reported facts from the original 302's completed by the agents who personally conducted the interviews. The theory (A.D.D., "know it all" ...) is what I came up with from almost 20 years of experience, actual and reported fact.

Getting caught up on this thread is exhausting, but I have done it. So lets start from the beginning, who was DB Cooper? -DB Cooper was not a drinker, he only had one drink and spilled a portion of that. If someone was a drinker, in a situation like this he would have had more than just one in the five hours he was on the plane. -He was not a chain smoker, he was on the aircraft for five hours and only smoked 8 cigarettes. That would make him a smoker of less than a pack-a-day and this under normal conditions. -He spoke in an intelligent manner and never lost his cool, he was always polite throughout the ordeal. -He had brown eyes (Schaffner saw his eyes before he put on the glasses, he looked directly at her several times urging her to read the note) -He is 5'10 to 6'1 (Mucklow is 5'8 and spent 5 hours with Cooper, she would know if he was her height or taller. Have someone 5'8 stand next to someone 6 feet, the difference is obvious. Better yet, position yourself at a level of 5'8 and look at someone at a 6' elevation. Now spend 5 hours with that person, you'll know the difference. No one put Cooper under 5'10. -He had olive skin (no make-up, neither Mucklow, Schaffner or Hancock made comment on make-up which would have been very obvious. Again, do the math, put dark makeup on someone then sit next to them with your shoulders touching, you can see the make-up.) -He had dark hair, receding with sideburns (no wig, this would have been painfully obvious, if a man was wearing a wig with a receding hair line and side burns everyone would have noticed, especially Mucklow and Schaffner.) -He was med built (no one put him over 190 lbs, in fact most put him 180 or under. Find a man 6 foot 180 lbs, thats a med to thin build.) These are the facts on his physical make-up, if your suspect does not match these you may want to start looking at someone else. DB Cooper had A.D.D, his attention to detail was poor. He got the big picture, but missed the brush strokes. He was also a "know-it-all." The type of person who would learn a few facts and then become an expert on the subject. One of those people who has just enough knowledge to be dangerous. DB Cooper most likely served in the military and upon leaving used his technical training as a contractor in the airline industry, in and around Seattle. He rose to a mid-level management position but when he could rise no further or his project never got off the ground, he quit or was fired, "because no one understood him or were just to stupid to get it." Soon thereafter he ran into big financial problems that had a set deadline for resolution. Just as always he developed the "big picture" for getting the money but the escape was very poorly planned. Would any of you make the following jump? Here are some facts to consider if he survived and if you could pull it off. The weather: Ceiling of 5,000 feet, broken clouds at 3,500, scattered clouds at 1,500. Winds of 12 to 14 knots, light rain showers. The jump: DB's chute was a military style 28' canopy. The planes speed was 173 knots when he jumped at 10,000 feet in full darkness. The landing: Forest with no lights. Possibly mountainous depending upon which theory you buy into. So, You would have to make the jump in a business suit, old military style 28' chute, in a rain storm, at night, no lights, or equipment of any kind. Oh, and you would have to tie an additional 25 pounds to your waist to recreate the weight of money and jump at 10,000' from the back of a plane moving at 200 mph. In the end you'd have to stick the landing in the middle of a forest at about 30 mph with a 14 knot wind. And it goes on and on. Hopefully I will soon be able to answer many questions in this case and perhaps maybe the ultimate one. And yes Grabgrass, FBI agents can read.

Here are some facts to consider if he survived and if you could pull it off. The weather: Ceiling of 5,000 feet, broken clouds at 3,500, scattered clouds at 1,500. Winds of 12 to 14 knots, light rain showers. The jump: DB's chute was a military style 28' canopy. The planes speed was 173 knots when he jumped at 10,000 feet in full darkness. The landing: Forest with no lights. Possibly mountainous depending upon which theory you buy into. The question is, if you were told you could receive $200,000 for a successful "DB re-due" would you do it? You would have to make the jump in a business suit, old military style 28' chute, in a rain storm, at night, no lights, or equipment of any kind. Oh, and you would have to tie an additional 25 pounds to your waist to recreate the money and jump at 10,000' from the back of a plane moving at 200 mph. In the end you'd have to stick the landing in the middle of a forest at about 30 mph with a 14 knot wind. Any takers? And did he make it?