ExBlue

No, really. Unless...no, I can't. I have to take it to the grave. Well, I guess I can't take it with me. My mechanic's ex-wife's former next door neighbor knows a guy who said he heard an ex-con tell a priest that he knew a guy who always greeted people with "Hi Jack!" and then noticed he had a set of Cooper tires on his car. Should I call the Seattle office of the FBI?

I'd decided to only watch from afar here but I'd earlier exchanged a few PM's with some folks and mentioned I had a book with some pics of Braden circa 1966 but that my scanner was down. Well, she's back up so here is a page courtesy of "SOG: Team History and Insignia of a Clandestine Army," by Jason Hardy and Michael Tucker, MilSpec Publishing. To me, Braden has a pretty serious receding hairline that has his hair covering mostly the back half of his head; he has a little tuft of hair just above his forehead. I'd think his hair would've gotten worse five years later. I don't have an informed opinion either way with regard to DBC but you guys can discuss.

After having spent all of three days here, allow me to offer some unsolicited advice. While I understand that the idea of taking this thread information and creating another user group has been presented and rejected, I believe that idea should be revisited. To put it bluntly, people like 377, Orange1, EVickiW, the exiled Snowmman and a few other halfway lucid individuals, some of whom have PM'd me, should pull chocks and secede from this disjointed union. You can take this thread, clean up the massive amount of redundant questions, idiotic feuds and conspiracy theories and start a new clan. Granted, many of the invitees may not get along but in a more controlled setting, this animosity might be somewhat alleviated. Essentially, what I see is a unique group of posters with serious analytical skills and solid research methods who would like to have academic level discussions--but not always--about this case. There is some great information here. Or, this sane and normal aforementioned group can stay here, be pounded by the feuds, outlandish theories and redundancy but neither generate nor seek new and fresh ideas. I suppose there is no harm in that but I sense some here would like to splinter and create a more structured setting. I'm in the middle and would not want to join a new group; I wanted to see what was here and ask a few questions but then sit back and absorb rational information put forth by the more learned among me. As it stands now, this thread has genius and dimwitted all rolled into one and for FNG's like me, that makes it no fun. Thanks

Just out of curiosity, how do those of you who state with utmost certainty that the FBI "has done this," or "has not done that" know those things as the gospel truth? Has the FBI told you that or are you assuming? Sure, leaks are possible but to what extent? I'm not so naive as to believe everything the government tells me but how many of you guys are sitting side by side with the FBI and "co-investigating" and have access to every single file and document the FBI possesses on this case? I try to see things in their simplest forms and I'm wondering how so many people here "know" without a doubt what or who the FBI has tested/not tested/interviewed etc. It's crystal clear to me that any investigative agency with an open case is not going to share everything, even if leaks occur. I know that from experience; I've seen it on homicide cases etc. Some media types with contacts can ferret out info but never all of it. Thanks.

I think he's on it. After having studied this 40 year old case for approximately 45-50 minutes, I concur. No experience means either a very gifted individual with a serious plan that will get him alive and in one piece on the ground, or a really stupid individual.

I would think Braden is off the screen for reasons we may never know but I'd bet the FBI does. I don't think it's conspiriacy related (nor do I think you do). I think someone being HALO qualified would make them a better candidate but not by much. An experienced static line jumper--think old school paratrooper--would probably be silly enough to attempt the jump even if he'd never had any freefall/skydiving/HALO training. One pretty common attribute of old school paratroopers is a bit of craziness. As for the tie and bar, Carr said both were plain vanilla types and nothing special.

Speaking of "expanding the Cooper franchise," it occurs to me that Winston Groom and Robert Zemeckis missed an opportunity to add a great piece of American folklore to "Forrest Gump." Imagine a scene where Forrest is in the Pacific Northwest for a ping pong tournament and ends up sitting next to Cooper. He might even help him chute up. As Cooper exits, Gump shouts (now use Gump's voice here): It was nice meeeting yooou!

Earn a Master's on Uncle Sam's dime and start teaching at a community college. Indeed. Occam's a smart dude.

Mrs. Weber, Did you ever wisely accept the advice some suggested and hire a PI? All of your questions about where your husband was and who he associated with can be found if you have the right person doing the job. The FBI will never look at any of your information because your husband has been ruled out--they don't want the information for a reason. If you really want to know the truth about your husband, hire a reputable PI and I'm sure paperwork can be found. You won't like what is found--he was a wandering man who was in and out of jails and nothing more--but you can put all of this behind you.

Mr Blevins, Thanks for the reply. I actually like your theory--at least it has some meat on it--but I've never read your book. I have no clue why there is so much animosity between you and some others and I don't want to know. I enjoyed listening to your theory as much as the others put forth here. Who really knows? EVickiW, Thanks. But I'm not retired, just former. But sometimes I wish I'd stayed to retire! Longtimelurker, Way back in the thread--like 56 million pages ago--there was discussion about the guy not actually jumping. It was ruled out in some rather scientific jargon but the experts concluded something called "bump" showed that he indeed jumped.

As an FNG here, and after having read through most of both threads, two things strike me about this discussion: 1) Once upon a time, there was some serious, analytical debate based on solid research, but I think that time has passed. There was an FBI agent here throwing you guys some bones and listening--pity he apparently had enough and moved on to greener pastures. 2) What remains of the serious discussion and logical reasoning is clouded by a handful of individuals who offer redundant and irrelevant information, yet the community tolerates it and rarely gets super nasty with, for example, the lead offender. In all seriousness, I think that's a compliment to the maturity of most of the community.

Thank you for your reply, Mrs. Weber. Unfortunately, there is just too much outlandish information in your stories to make me a believer in Duane Weber being Cooper. Kennedy's tie; the Bay of Pigs; the rifle that looked like the one that killed MLK. Again, as a former LEO, my experience tells me that the FBI has probably done, in the normal course of the investigation, many things you have asked them to do. But that doesn't mean they publicize it nor would they share it with you--why would they? Because you asked? It doesn't work that way.

Oh yeah. I know who Braden is. There is talk among SF Vietnam vets--a few I've talked to about this case, anyway--that he could be the man, but I've never heard them say why or go into detail. I think given the type of crime, timeframe and Cooper's exit, it's quite normal for them to think Cooper was one of their own.

Thank you. The day I heard news of this new suspect, a friend of mine who was an SF officer in Vietnam called me. After we talked a bit, I said I was hoping he was calling to confess he was Dan Cooper. He made me laugh when he said he sure hoped it was an SF guy, otherwise he'd "be really disappointed."

The Cooper hijacking has always been a fascinating case to me. When I heard about the latest "new suspect," I jumped online, let Google do some work and came across this site. What a thread. There is some serious research here, especially in regards to the flight path, the jump timeline and how and where the recovered money arrived at its discovery location. It's very impressive. On the other hand, there is also a lot of bickering between authors and "insiders" that detracts from what could be a valuable resource. As the age old idiom goes, "I have no dog in this fight." I have never met anyone here and I'm not writing a book. It's just a very interesting case. I'm not a jumper--I was a "leg" in the army--and I was a street cop in one of the nation's largest cities for about eight years. I have read most--but not all--of both threads and it took for freakin' ever--as in days. But it was too intriguing to stop. Thankfully, I office at home. IMO, Jo Weber has the most interesting and entertaining take but I find it highly unbelievable. After so many years, no solid, concrete evidence--just tons and tons of highly circumstantial and suspect leads. I can't understand--though I know Mrs. Weber can--how she can't see the truth and how so many people have said "It's not your husband," and have pointed out why and yet she persists. Her twists, turns, always adding "I just remembered" things, straying into highly implausible side theories such as the Mafia, CIA, MLK, breaking codes etc. are ludicrous. Her penchant for leaving "secret" or supposedly tantalizing clues--claiming more information but not wanting to reveal it; stating she can't reveal this or that until further research is done; pulling out some story she claims she's never told so that it better fits her agenda etc.--just adds to her overall lack of credibility. She has so many spokes and feelers laid out in every direction because she's looking for any tiny thing that might fit her husband being Cooper. But even with her spider web of thoughts reaching out into the world, the evidence is never there, no plausible connections ever made. An individual saying they held something in their hand, heard someone say something, had a relative's or friend's account written down, and so many other questionable assertions, are not evidence. There are so many things that she says happened but has not one shred of proof, save for the commutation and a few other docs, but they get her nowhere with regard to tying her husband to Cooper. The manner and rationale in which she attempts to connect the dots is so disjointed and convoluted it made my head hurt. Isn't it possible--indeed plausible--that a lifelong thief and con man showed his true colors one last time? One final, glorious lie, perhaps? Isn't it also possible that nothing was said? I don't see "whitewash" or "cover up" here; I see a 40 year investigation that has become so twisted with myth and legend that unless Cooper is found dead in the mountains clutching the money, the myth will always be bigger than the truth, whatever it may be. Evidence will be unintentionally misplaced; documents misfiled or accidentally destroyed--it happens, especially with such a complex and very long investigation. As for Mrs. Weber, the massive amount of info she has freely posted tells me that she is a conspiracy theorist and will never accept that her husband was not Cooper, no matter what. Whatever the FBI or anyone comes up with is shot down and answered with, "Well, they have the wrong prints for my husband!" or "The DNA has been compromised!" and discrepancies that are most likely human error are magnified to conspiracy level. The FBI will never win, which is why, I'd guess, they are reluctant to waste their time and return phone calls or emails coming from Mrs. Weber. They have ELIMINATED Duane Weber and that's that. I get this feeling that Mrs. Weber wants to be a big part of this grand adventure and wants to interject herself into the case at every turn; people like this are not unusual. They have an extreme desire to be "in the know" and attempt to make their presence much more important than it really is, if even relevant at all. She wants to "own" the story, IMO, and enjoys the attention. I respect the tenacity of Mrs. Weber but I just don't find her story even close to credible. After so many years of searching, why has she not found the smoking gun? Or even a little wisp coming out of the barrel? The most likely and rational explanation is because her husband was not Cooper. Even true warriors who participated in top secret activities have backgrounds and can be found, along with at least some idea of what they were doing. Take the guys who ran recon with SOG or the men who were with the Phoenix Program in those days--highly secret stuff but if you had their names you can easily find them and see that they were once SF or SEALs etc. and the fact that many aspects of their work have long since been declassified. I'd also wager they were not convicted felons with less-than-stellar backgrounds. As for this latest suspect, unless the FBI has something much more solid than what has been presented thus far, how does this differ from the other supposed Coopers? Lots of weak circumstantial stuff here. One poster says there is solid evidence--so we'll see. On the cigarettes, I recall early in this second thread that Carr said the cigarettes were gathered and properly processed, sent back, and then disappeared. So they did what they could in 1971 and the cigarettes have either been accidentally destroyed or were misplaced--not at all unusual for evidence dating back 40 years. So they could have found them or they are using whatever evidence was extracted from them way back when. But he clearly said they were processed for evidence and then were lost sometime later. Of course, like so many other statements here, are we even sure the cigarettes or the evidence connected to them are being looked at? As a former LEO, I've always thought the FBI has withheld some clues--statements the suspect made; crime scene info that only the suspect would know (if he were still alive); or very good DNA or print data they can compare to a suspect but have never been able to do so. Someone today posted that a physical descriptor may be an example of what they held back. My experience also makes me believe that just because person "X" or person "Y" doesn't believe the FBI did this or did that--i.e. dig into a person's background or looked at multiple sets of prints--doesn't mean it didn't happen. The FBI doesn't have to divulge their every step just because someone wants them too; that's irrational thinking. Just because someone wants to know, they have to tell them? It's a federal criminal investigation and just because someone thinks they are right in the middle of it, they don't have a right to be privy to the investigation's confidential findings or methods. Great postings and thank you for allowing me to share my lengthy opinion.