DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 768]

  On 5/21/2025 at 4:01 AM, monk71 said:

Did Norman Hayden describe his chute as an NB-6? Isn't the one Cooper rejected an NB-8? (Now in a museum.)  Or didn't Hayden use these terms?

According to Bruce Smith's site, Hayden claimed that both back chutes were "identical pioneers." If true, he may have meant identical by brand... but not necessarily by container/canopy size nor by color.

Is this the only rigging card?

Do we have images of the other card... that Cooper took out?

Hayden never described the container as an NB6 or any other model .. The one Cooper rejected now at the museum is a Pioneer P2-B-24 early 1940's civilian container with newer harness and canopy. There were many very similar rigs of that era both civilian and military.. The one Cooper used was Olive Drab according to Hayden indicating a military version.

The other card is not available, I have done a FOIA for it..  but there is a description of it in the FBI files, it does not use "NB6".

Hayden described the missing chute as Olive Drab with tan cotton harness. Cossey described it as Sage Green nylon container and Sage Green nylon harness, that is consistent with an NB6, Hayden's description is not. NB6's can be made by different manufacturers but they are Sage Green from the mid 50's.. Hayden said they were the same.. I take that to mean similar but different colours.. Hayden wanted two cheap rigs to meet the regulations for his acrobatic plane, he never intended to use them. The NB6 is very different rigs. Hayden would have bought two similar and cheap rigs to meet regs..

The ONLY source for the "NB6" is Cossey's claim.. he initially believed Emrich grabbed his chutes from Issaquah. Cossey said he was called and the remaining chute was described so he assumed the other chute was his NB6. 

Cossey must have learned within a day or so that Hayden's chutes were used but he never corrected his error or supplied his packing records, he even said in later interviews that he still had the records and could ID the chutes. He told FBI agent Carr the two back chutes came from his house..  He claimed his chute left behind was returned to him, it wasn't, it went to Hayden.. Cossey made an error and lied for years to maintain his initial error. 

To accept "NB6" you have to believe Cossey and believe he knew the chutes came from Hayden the night of the hijacking and reject the contradictory evidence.

Edited May 21 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 768]

  On 5/18/2025 at 1:42 AM, FLYJACK said:

Wednesday,,, 

https://www.discovery.com/shows/expedition-files/episodes/lost-and-found

My guess is Gryder and McCoy... and another Ryan debunking..

Has Josh Gates ever solved anything??

He did do a Reca segment... so, the bar is low...

nailed it..

Josh is the new Geraldo....

 

[olemisscub 533]

  On 5/22/2025 at 2:53 AM, FLYJACK said:

nailed it..

Josh is the new Geraldo....

 

There’s never a bad time for a McCoy debunking video, but I’m glad that I (and you as well it seems) correctly predicted it would be McCoy. These videos take days to make and it was finished in the nick of time. Got it published about an hour before the show aired.

[koppel 5]

  On 5/20/2025 at 3:39 PM, dudeman17 said:

Say what? People are still manufacturing, not just using but manufacturing 2-pin reserve containers with velcro flap closures and round canopies in 2018?? What the hell are you people doing over there?

using them as cushions mostly

[FLYJACK 768]

  On 5/22/2025 at 4:47 AM, olemisscub said:

There’s never a bad time for a McCoy debunking video, but I’m glad that I (and you as well it seems) correctly predicted it would be McCoy. These videos take days to make and it was finished in the nick of time. Got it published about an hour before the show aired.

Well done,, those vids take a lot of work.

Not sure what it will take to finally end the McCoy grift..  Facts don't matter..

Though he did get the tie particles tested, Josh has really disappointed... and gone for the low info audience.

Edited May 22 by FLYJACK

[CooperNWO305 158]

  On 5/22/2025 at 2:53 AM, FLYJACK said:

nailed it..

Josh is the new Geraldo....

 

I didn’t see the Gates show. Sounds like I didn’t miss anything. I did see a lot of hits on my site though, so I guess a rising tide lifts all boats. 

[dudeman17 348]

  On 5/22/2025 at 2:53 AM, FLYJACK said:

Josh is the new Geraldo....

So if I go back and watch the last part of that show, should I believe anything he has to say about James Dean's car?

[FLYJACK 768]

  On 5/23/2025 at 3:31 AM, dudeman17 said:

So if I go back and watch the last part of that show, should I believe anything he has to say about James Dean's car?

Not really,, Josh is not finding or doing anything himself... he is using unproven theories and conjecture from others. 

His show is essentially TV "clickbait".. nothing is proven or resolved. Mostly rehashed stuff. His show is made to be entertaining not informative.

For the Dean car he covers known stuff about it then uses the claim from a guy that he helped seal it in a wall of a building,, this isn't new and was never proven.

 

[georger 263]

I received a notice tonight - For those who do not know, Chaucer and his family, quoting:

Many of you know, but my family suffered a devastating house fire two weeks ago ...

No one was injured but we lost all of our pets... please go to Chaucer's Facebook page for further details. I think Chris and his family have a place to stay and are in recovery mode. Let's all wish them the best !

 

Edited May 25 by georger

[FLYJACK 768]

  On 5/25/2025 at 8:46 AM, georger said:

I received a notice tonight - For those who do not know, Chaucer and his family, quoting:

Many of you know, but my family suffered a devastating house fire two weeks ago ...

No one was injured but we lost all of our pets... please go to Chaucer's Facebook page for further details. I think Chris and his family have a place to stay and are in recovery mode. Let's all wish them the best !

 

That sucks,, nobody should have to go through something like that.

[FLYJACK 768]

NACA (later NASA) test pilot from 1945-1973 George Cooper was the 1954 inspiration for Albert Weinberg's Dan Cooper comic character, changed to Canadian test pilot for the European audience.. 

Perhaps hijacker "Cooper" also used George Cooper as the inspiration for the name Cooper..

Edited May 28 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 768]

FBI agent Baker..  bundle sizes were randomized,, that means various number of packets per bundle.. IMO, I agree, why would he say this if it didn't happen? Bundles were typically stored in 5 packets per each bundle. Easy to quickly randomize the number of packets per bundle.

TBAR money was in the same packaging and order as given to Cooper.

Why would he say this if it didn't happen? Not a typical error to make.

 

[c99acer 8]

  On 5/28/2025 at 2:51 PM, FLYJACK said:

FBI agent Baker..  bundle sizes were randomized,, that means various number of packets per bundle.. IMO, I agree, why would he say this if it didn't happen? Bundles were typically stored in 5 packets per each bundle. Easy to quickly randomize the number of packets per bundle.

TBAR money was in the same packaging and order as given to Cooper.

Why would he say this if it didn't happen? Not a typical error to make.

 

Was this comment by Baker pre- or post- Money Find? Was he influenced by the found condition?

[FLYJACK 768]

  On 5/29/2025 at 1:13 AM, c99acer said:

Was this comment by Baker pre- or post- Money Find? Was he influenced by the found condition?

Right after the money find but before it was counted by the lab..

It still doesn't make sense that he would make up the "randomized bundle sizes"...

[olemisscub 533]

  On 5/29/2025 at 1:44 AM, FLYJACK said:

Right after the money find but before it was counted by the lab..

It still doesn't make sense that he would make up the "randomized bundle sizes"...

I agree that he wouldn't just make that up, but that doesn't necessarily make it true though. We've got Himmy and other agents throughout this case reporting things that they no doubt believed to be true but demonstrably were not true. 

I can see this going both ways, but I think at the moment I'd lean toward them not randomizing bundle sizes. Allow me the honest opportunity to persuade you. Here's my thinking. 

1. Baker was an ASAC in Portland. As we know, NORJAK wasn't a Portland case. Himmy fancied himself a NORJAK agent, but we know he wasn't. What Baker knew about NORJAK would have almost certainly come from what Himmy told him. Being on good terms and speaking frequently with guys like Carr, Detlor, and Fuhriman, I've learned a great deal about the way the FBI offices operate. The agents who are supervisors, ASAC's, and SAC's, are administrators. They apparently get on that track very early in their careers. I remember asking Larry if he ever tried to get an ASAC gig and he explained that he wasn't trained as an administrator so he never would have been an ASAC. It's why someone like Himmy spent 30 years with the Bureau and retired as an SA.

I say all that to say that an ASAC in Portland in 1980 would not have any special knowledge of NORJAK beyond what an SA with the most knowledge of the case told him. Since this concept of them randomizing bundles is nowhere to be found in the files, I think he got that from Himmy. And well, Himmy clearly didn't know shit about the money. Let's look at what he wrote in NORJAK. 

"At the urging of the FBI, $20 bills were used for the ransom". We know that's nonsense. The bulk of the ransom pack was $20's, so that's why Cooper got $20's. No other reason.  This notion that the FBI wanted to weigh Cooper down is demonstrably untrue. He also seems to insinuate that the money came from multiple banks. 

2. If the bundles were being randomized to look hastily assembled, then who gave that order? Who told the bankers to do that? It would have almost certainly had to come from the FBI. Well, we know from the files that the FBI were very, very standoffish at that point. There is no evidence that the FBI had any input into how the ransom items, money or parachutes, were gathered. NWO told the FBI to stand down and they did. We can see evidence of this standoffishness with regard to the money in Milnes' 302 about seeing the bag arrive at the NWO office. All he does is give a description of the bag as it appeared to him upon its arrival. He never touched it or handled it, nor did any of his agents. 

Plus, we have them interviewing Grinnell and asking HIM how the money looked. The FBI needed it on the record because they didn't know how it was packaged since they weren't involved in any way with the money exchange. 

3. So if it wasn't the FBI telling the bankers to do this, then who would have said to do such a thing? Harrison? If he had done so, I'm sure that would have mentioned in his lengthly write-up about the event. 

4. Who would have overseen the execution of this "randomizing of the bundle sizes"? It would have been Bill Grinnell. This is from the transcript of the audio recording of Cunningham's interview with Mr. Grinnell:

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

CC: OK. And you actually saw, at least of, some of the money being placed inside the bank bag.

WG: Yes.

CC: Do you recall if the Cooper money being randomized? You said normally money is placed in bundles of five packets.

WG: Mm-hmm.

CC: Sort of like bricks.

WG: Yes.

CC: Do you recall if Cooper’s money was five packets and then others were three and then others were four, or do you remember them being uniform?

WG: I didn’t see them close enough to know for sure at that stage because when we had the money prepared, we then started splitting up, and I went out to the police car, the plains clothes car, the local police department was providing to be able to head out to the airport. It’s possible, but I can’t say for sure.

CC: Do you…so, when we talk about “preparing” the money, it was ready to go and they just needed to grab it and throw it in the bag, right? Or were there other steps that were needed to be done before it made it into the bag? 

WG: There were other steps being done, and I don’t know if that’s because he requested it, or because someone at the bank was like, “OK, let’s do it this way.” Um, I doubt there was anyone who was in any position to see anymore than what I was seeing. That’s not to make me be the hero, but I was the guy who was moving back and forth and telling everyone “We need to get such and such out here.”

CC: When you say there were extra steps or multiple steps in preparing the money, what exactly were those steps? Did it need to be counted? Did it need to be wrapped a certain way? What types of things needed to be done to the money before it could be placed in the bag, do you recall?

WG: As I remember, and this would be going backwards a little bit from when this event happened…the bank recognized that there could be a situation  where we would have a client or a reason to have money to be made available in a situation like what was happening, and so there was a separate safe within the vault. There were some different bags set up with different denominations in just of a kind of “here’s what we would expect if there was ever a need, a kidnapping or something, what if they want $20,000? What if they want $200,000? What if they want a million?” So we had a place in the vault, and I don’t remember specifically, but I think it was a second safe within the main vault where we had some of that money pre-packaged if there was a need. As much as we could make it ready, we did. His request caused us to pull the money out of the bigger bag, and as long as we could verify it, so we could say, “Yeah, we verified that it left the bank, so it wasn’t anybody stealing anything out of the bag.” 

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
While Grinnell's interview doesn't totally rule out there being some intentional randomization occurring since he wasn't standing there eagle-eyed watching every bundle go into the bag, he does seem to indicate that he was in charge of the operation at that point. Thus, any orders given to the girls in the vault to randomize the bundles would have almost certainly come from him. His testimony gives us no reason to think such a thing was occurring. He doesn't mention such a thing in his 71 interview nor his 2023 interview. 

5. Randomizing bundles doesn't lend itself to a very clean or efficient accounting and increases the likelihood of a miscount. I imagine they'd be far more concerned about giving the hijacker an accurate amount of money over some concern that they need to dupe him into thinking the money was hastily assembled. If the money was in $10,000 bundles, then you just grab 20 bundles, throw them in the bag, and you have a clean accounting. It just seems like an unnecessary effort to have tellers pulling a packet out of one bundle and shoving it into another bundle. 

I think the weight of the circumstantial evidence points toward there NOT being a randomization of the bundles. 

PRO:
- ASAC Baker's quote in 1980.

CON:
- The man supervising the operation at the bank gave no indication whatsoever that they were executing such a plan in his 1971 interview nor in his 2023 interview. Hard to imagine you would omit that your bank was engaging in this effort to dupe the hijacker. 
- It's not mentioned anywhere in the files. 
- Such a directive/suggestion very likely would have come from law enforcement and we know their only involvement with the money was providing transportation.
- Baker was an administrator. He was commenting on a case that wasn't his office's case and that was 9 years old at that point. How would he have information from outside the evidence contained in the files? His source was probably Himmy and I think Himmy has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source in regards to the Cooper case. 

Just my two cents. 

[FLYJACK 768]

You rely on Baker using Himmy and him being unreliable,, that is all speculation.

But, you missed the biggest PRO of all...

There were only 3 packets with rubber bands found on TBAR..

If they were in 5's when landing there and two somehow separated the rubber bands would not have been there. So, it is most likely they arrived as a rubber banded bundle of 3 packets.

If all the bundles went to Cooper in 5's, then two packets are missing form the TBAR bundle..

Either..

The bundles went to Cooper randomized...

or

Cooper removed two packets at some point or somebody else removed them before they landed on TBAR.. why??   this is possible but less likely than the bundle going to Cooper as a 3 packet one. 

Did he actually pull two packets from a bundle and that one end up at TBAR,,  would be really strange..

 

Either two packets were removed before TBAR or the bundles were randomized.

Though we don't know for sure I give a slight edge to the randomized bundle scenario.

 

One more thing to consider.. The FBI said the money was in the same order and packaging as given to Cooper.. They never questioned the two missing packets if the bundles were in packets of 5.

If they knew the money went to Cooper in bundles of 5 packets then the fact that only three were found would have been a big issue,, why were two missing... it was never brought up.

It would lend more credibility to Cooper surviving.. if the FBI knew the bundles went to Cooper in 5 packet bundles.

Edited May 29 by FLYJACK

[georger 263]

  On 5/29/2025 at 4:40 PM, olemisscub said:

I agree that he wouldn't just make that up, but that doesn't necessarily make it true though. We've got Himmy and other agents throughout this case reporting things that they no doubt believed to be true but demonstrably were not true. 

I can see this going both ways, but I think at the moment I'd lean toward them not randomizing bundle sizes. Allow me the honest opportunity to persuade you. Here's my thinking. 

1. Baker was an ASAC in Portland. As we know, NORJAK wasn't a Portland case. Himmy fancied himself a NORJAK agent, but we know he wasn't. What Baker knew about NORJAK would have almost certainly come from what Himmy told him. Being on good terms and speaking frequently with guys like Carr, Detlor, and Fuhriman, I've learned a great deal about the way the FBI offices operate. The agents who are supervisors, ASAC's, and SAC's, are administrators. They apparently get on that track very early in their careers. I remember asking Larry if he ever tried to get an ASAC gig and he explained that he wasn't trained as an administrator so he never would have been an ASAC. It's why someone like Himmy spent 30 years with the Bureau and retired as an SA.

I say all that to say that an ASAC in Portland in 1980 would not have any special knowledge of NORJAK beyond what an SA with the most knowledge of the case told him. Since this concept of them randomizing bundles is nowhere to be found in the files, I think he got that from Himmy. And well, Himmy clearly didn't know shit about the money. Let's look at what he wrote in NORJAK. 

"At the urging of the FBI, $20 bills were used for the ransom". We know that's nonsense. The bulk of the ransom pack was $20's, so that's why Cooper got $20's. No other reason.  This notion that the FBI wanted to weigh Cooper down is demonstrably untrue. He also seems to insinuate that the money came from multiple banks. 

2. If the bundles were being randomized to look hastily assembled, then who gave that order? Who told the bankers to do that? It would have almost certainly had to come from the FBI. Well, we know from the files that the FBI were very, very standoffish at that point. There is no evidence that the FBI had any input into how the ransom items, money or parachutes, were gathered. NWO told the FBI to stand down and they did. We can see evidence of this standoffishness with regard to the money in Milnes' 302 about seeing the bag arrive at the NWO office. All he does is give a description of the bag as it appeared to him upon its arrival. He never touched it or handled it, nor did any of his agents. 

Plus, we have them interviewing Grinnell and asking HIM how the money looked. The FBI needed it on the record because they didn't know how it was packaged since they weren't involved in any way with the money exchange. 

3. So if it wasn't the FBI telling the bankers to do this, then who would have said to do such a thing? Harrison? If he had done so, I'm sure that would have mentioned in his lengthly write-up about the event. 

4. Who would have overseen the execution of this "randomizing of the bundle sizes"? It would have been Bill Grinnell. This is from the transcript of the audio recording of Cunningham's interview with Mr. Grinnell:

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

CC: OK. And you actually saw, at least of, some of the money being placed inside the bank bag.

WG: Yes.

CC: Do you recall if the Cooper money being randomized? You said normally money is placed in bundles of five packets.

WG: Mm-hmm.

CC: Sort of like bricks.

WG: Yes.

CC: Do you recall if Cooper’s money was five packets and then others were three and then others were four, or do you remember them being uniform?

WG: I didn’t see them close enough to know for sure at that stage because when we had the money prepared, we then started splitting up, and I went out to the police car, the plains clothes car, the local police department was providing to be able to head out to the airport. It’s possible, but I can’t say for sure.

CC: Do you…so, when we talk about “preparing” the money, it was ready to go and they just needed to grab it and throw it in the bag, right? Or were there other steps that were needed to be done before it made it into the bag? 

WG: There were other steps being done, and I don’t know if that’s because he requested it, or because someone at the bank was like, “OK, let’s do it this way.” Um, I doubt there was anyone who was in any position to see anymore than what I was seeing. That’s not to make me be the hero, but I was the guy who was moving back and forth and telling everyone “We need to get such and such out here.”

CC: When you say there were extra steps or multiple steps in preparing the money, what exactly were those steps? Did it need to be counted? Did it need to be wrapped a certain way? What types of things needed to be done to the money before it could be placed in the bag, do you recall?

WG: As I remember, and this would be going backwards a little bit from when this event happened…the bank recognized that there could be a situation  where we would have a client or a reason to have money to be made available in a situation like what was happening, and so there was a separate safe within the vault. There were some different bags set up with different denominations in just of a kind of “here’s what we would expect if there was ever a need, a kidnapping or something, what if they want $20,000? What if they want $200,000? What if they want a million?” So we had a place in the vault, and I don’t remember specifically, but I think it was a second safe within the main vault where we had some of that money pre-packaged if there was a need. As much as we could make it ready, we did. His request caused us to pull the money out of the bigger bag, and as long as we could verify it, so we could say, “Yeah, we verified that it left the bank, so it wasn’t anybody stealing anything out of the bag.” 

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
While Grinnell's interview doesn't totally rule out there being some intentional randomization occurring since he wasn't standing there eagle-eyed watching every bundle go into the bag, he does seem to indicate that he was in charge of the operation at that point. Thus, any orders given to the girls in the vault to randomize the bundles would have almost certainly come from him. His testimony gives us no reason to think such a thing was occurring. He doesn't mention such a thing in his 71 interview nor his 2023 interview. 

5. Randomizing bundles doesn't lend itself to a very clean or efficient accounting and increases the likelihood of a miscount. I imagine they'd be far more concerned about giving the hijacker an accurate amount of money over some concern that they need to dupe him into thinking the money was hastily assembled. If the money was in $10,000 bundles, then you just grab 20 bundles, throw them in the bag, and you have a clean accounting. It just seems like an unnecessary effort to have tellers pulling a packet out of one bundle and shoving it into another bundle. 

I think the weight of the circumstantial evidence points toward there NOT being a randomization of the bundles. 

PRO:
- ASAC Baker's quote in 1980.

CON:
- The man supervising the operation at the bank gave no indication whatsoever that they were executing such a plan in his 1971 interview nor in his 2023 interview. Hard to imagine you would omit that your bank was engaging in this effort to dupe the hijacker. 
- It's not mentioned anywhere in the files. 
- Such a directive/suggestion very likely would have come from law enforcement and we know their only involvement with the money was providing transportation.
- Baker was an administrator. He was commenting on a case that wasn't his office's case and that was 9 years old at that point. How would he have information from outside the evidence contained in the files? His source was probably Himmy and I think Himmy has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source in regards to the Cooper case. 

Just my two cents. 

There are or were several different Himms. The official or semi official Himms speaking to the media and select individuals, the Himms who had to communicate with and deal with other officials in the Cooper case especially during the excavation, and the private Himms known by his friends and personal associates such as Jerry Thomas ... so everything Himms did and said is a mixed bag. Himms was different people with different messages in those various roles. Himms had to respond differently in all of those roles. I have never talked to an agent who did not back and support Ralph fully ...... right up to the present day. 

My advice to people who chose to talk about these matters is: you need to stay grounded! Ralph was many different things to many different people at different times. From gardener to FBI agent to husband and partner and friend.

On the money issue: why is Carr and his work/posts about how the money was packaged in the old thread, not being mentioned here?  Once again I am totally perplexed.

Edited May 29 by georger

[FLYJACK 768]

  On 5/29/2025 at 8:11 PM, georger said:

There are or were several different Himms. The official or semi official Himms speaking to the media and select individuals, the Himms who had to communicate with and deal with other officials in the Cooper case especially during the excavation, and the private Himms known by his friends and personal associates such as Jerry Thomas ... so everything Himms did and said is a mixed bag. Himms was different people with different messages in those various roles. Himms had to respond differently in all of those roles. I have never talked to an agent who did not back and support Ralph fully ...... right up to the present day. 

My advice to people who chose to talk about these matters is: you need to stay grounded! Ralph was many different things to many different people at different times. From gardener to FBI agent to husband and partner and friend.

On the money issue: why is Carr and his work/posts about how the money was packaged in the old thread, not being mentioned here?  Once again I am totally perplexed.

CKRET

• DB Cooper
in Skydiving History & Trivia
May 1, 2008 · Report reply

And so I shall Maurico, 

Sorry, I have been crazy busy but I did make some progress. We could not find a photo (yet) of the bag used for the money but I was able to confirm it was like the one I posted, a simple money sack. 

As for the "shocking " information about the money, I spoke with the individual who carried the money from the bank to the airport the night of the hijacking. When I was talking with him he recounted that they were in the vault running the money through the counting machine and strapping the bundles. I didn't catch it at, first but later in our conversation I caught on to the strapping part and said, "wait a minute." "you were strapping the $20.00 bundles with $2,000 paper straps?" He said "yes" and I almost fell out of my chair. 

So I then started putting calls into Brian Ingram. He called me back and we spoke about the discovery of the money. What I found was that the money was not recovered near the water but about 20 to 40 feet from the edge. He said he found it in an area that had recently been covered in water. So I thought, "well not really much of a difference." I then asked for the details about the condition of the money when he found it and he confirmed, after speaking with his parents, that the money absolutely had rubber bands around the bundles. This makes sense because there is no way paper straps would have kept the money together over the years. 

So this all means, on face value, that if the money given to Cooper by the bank had paper straps and the found money had rubber bands....... well you could see how I was a bit perplexed. This would mean that either Cooper lived and repackaged the money or someone found the money and repackaged it. Which would be "par for the course" with regard to this case. 

I then went back and re-interviewed the bank security manager and found out that he wasn't directly involved in packaging the money, only carrying it to the airport. He was relaying what their normal procedure was for processing and packaging money for shipment. 

The funds that were given to Cooper were not pulled from their circulating cash but from a security fund that was prepackaged for these types of incidents. This money was not strapped because the bank did not want any subjects to know where it came from so it was packaged with rubber bands. My head was spinning for a few days until I could get it straight. 

As for the "oscillation" explanation that still stands. The crew was referring to the equipment not the pressure bump. In fact, a hand written log that was being kept as the evewnts unfolded has an entry at 8:11 that the crew reported the cabin pressure was "fluctuating."  

So the time reported when the crew mentioned the oscillations was when Cooper most likely started down the stairs. The further he got down the stairs the more air would be rushing through the cabin. The pressure bump, which would be when he jumped, occurred (according to Rataczak) 10 to 15 minutes after their last contact with Cooper at 8:05.

 

CKRET aka Larry Carr conflated packets and bundles... he didn't get that packets were paper banded and bundles rubber banded. He also incorrectly stated that each packet (100 bills) was randomized, he misunderstood. Bundles were randomized not packets.

Also, Grinnell didn't know if the bundles were randomized.

 

IMO, the balance of evidence tips to randomized bundles of packets. The TBAR money most likely landed as a 3 packet rubber banded bundle.. as it went to Cooper.

Edited May 29 by FLYJACK

[c99acer 8]

  On 5/29/2025 at 5:44 PM, FLYJACK said:

Either..

The bundles went to Cooper randomized...

or

Cooper removed two packets at some point or somebody else removed them before they landed on TBAR.. why??   this is possible but less likely than the bundle going to Cooper as a 3 packet one. 

 

OR

The found money was originally three individual packets, later made into a bundle of one with rubber bands?

Tina only stated the presence of 'bank type bands' and nothing about rubber bands.

[FLYJACK 768]

  On 5/29/2025 at 9:38 PM, c99acer said:

OR

The found money was originally three individual packets, later made into a bundle of one with rubber bands?

Tina only stated the presence of 'bank type bands' and nothing about rubber bands.

Not likely, the original money given to Cooper was rubber banded into bundles of packets and the FBI said it was in the same order and packaging.. 

 

 

[georger 263]

  On 5/29/2025 at 9:57 PM, FLYJACK said:

Not likely, the original money given to Cooper was rubber banded into bundles of packets and the FBI said it was in the same order and packaging.. 

 

 

same order and packaging.. But the FBI did not bother to state what the packaging was! Thank God somebody had the foresight to state it was $20 bills, or was it!, and not pesos ... as usual it generates as many questions as it does answers. Did the agents even know there was a US Treasury Forensic Unit to consult or work with? Apparently not. And no statements from anyone at the bank nailing down exactly how the money was packaged. Nobody cared or thought it would matter. Better to just let the work guess. No exceptions to standard practices... just call the Ingram kid and his mother up 50 years later and ask ... they may know something! Dont interview Tina again. . . . . . Tina is a basket case who doesnt even remember her own name according to . . . Davy Crockett and the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

Edited May 30 by georger

[FLYJACK 768]

Cooper initially asked for two parachutes then four.. not exactly..

Two parachute assemblies means 4, one assembly is a back and front reserve..

He didn't change his parachute request, he clarified it.

[FLYJACK 768]

  On 5/30/2025 at 12:03 AM, georger said:

same order and packaging.. But the FBI did not bother to state what the packaging was! Thank God somebody had the foresight to state it was $20 bills, or was it!, and not pesos ... as usual it generates as many questions as it does answers. Did the agents even know there was a US Treasury Forensic Unit to consult or work with? Apparently not. And no statements from anyone at the bank nailing down exactly how the money was packaged. Nobody cared or thought it would matter. Better to just let the work guess. No exceptions to standard practices... just call the Ingram kid and his mother up 50 years later and ask ... they may know something! Dont interview Tina again. . . . . . Tina is a basket case who doesnt even remember her own name according to . . . Davy Crockett and the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

The FBI was holding back that info claiming only Cooper knew.

but there are several sources indicating packets/flats of 100 bills ($2000) rubber banded into bundles. 

[georger 263]

  On 5/30/2025 at 12:42 AM, FLYJACK said:

The FBI was holding back that info claiming only Cooper knew.

but there are several sources indicating packets/flats of 100 bills ($2000) rubber banded into bundles. 

Presumably, Cooper did not have access to FBI internal communications! So far there is no FBI doc that simply states how the Cooper money was packaged. Nobody thought it was important. Unless they were waiting on Cooper to tell them?  Its a brilliant strategy. Wait for Cooper to divulge the details of the case back to the FBI. Only Cooper would know.  SNAFU.

Edited May 30 by georger

[FLYJACK 768]

  On 5/30/2025 at 2:37 AM, georger said:

Presumably, Cooper did not have access to FBI internal communications! So far there is no FBI doc that simply states how the Cooper money was packaged. Nobody thought it was important. Unless they were waiting on Cooper to tell them?  Its a brilliant strategy. Wait for Cooper to divulge the details of the case back to the FBI. Only Cooper would know.  SNAFU.

Not entirely true.

Edited May 30 by FLYJACK