DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 785]

38 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I'm still curious about why he wouldn't have just hijacked closer to Mexico if that's where he wanted to jump. 

It is impossible to know that....  there could be many explanations.

For my theory the plane would have made it made it to Mexico to refuel even from Seattle.

 

I have guessed...  This is complete speculation and not the only possible explanation.

305 was not his first target,,, he boarded a 727 flying West toward Portland and aborted,,, landed in Portland, never left the airport saw 305 and took it...

Why...

He had the Skychef matches, suggesting he may have taken an earlier flight or was at another airport previously.

They never found any trace of him before the airport,, no taxi, hotel etc.

Cooper was wary about Sky Marshals..

He was possibly from the midwest.. (East)

He was not dressed for a PNW jump... 

There is no evidence flight 305 was "unique" to his plan.. (other than a 727)

This might partly explain the range issue.. if he was to hijack a previous flight and land elsewhere, the distance to Mex could have been less.

There is no evidence 305 was Cooper's only or primary target. 

 

and where did he make the bomb... 

 

Edited September 23 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 582]

6 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

It is impossible to know that....  there could be many explanations.

For my theory the plane would have made it made it to Mexico to refuel even from Seattle.

 

I have guessed...  This is complete speculation and not the only possible explanation.

305 was not his first target,,, he boarded a 727 flying West toward Portland and aborted,,, landed in Portland, never left the airport saw 305 and took it...

Why...

He had the Skychef matches, suggesting he may have taken an earlier flight or was at another airport previously.

They never found any trace of him before the airport,, no taxi, hotel etc.

Cooper was wary about Sky Marshals..

He was possibly from the midwest.. (East)

He was not dressed for a PNW jump... 

There is no evidence flight 305 was "unique" to his plan.. (other than a 727)

This might partly explain the range issue.. if he was to hijack a previous flight and land elsewhere, the distance to Mex could have been less.

 

 

I understand your overall premise, but I don’t think any of that really explains why he wouldn’t have just started out closer to Mexico to begin with. The longer you stay inside the plane the more time law-enforcement has to coordinate against you. 

I guess I’ll make the argument for you. You could argue that perhaps he did begin his day closer to Mexico. Maybe the plane he originally intended to hijack was a flight from Phoenix to Portland or something like that.

[Kamkisky 30]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Go back to the basic demand...

Cooper said going to Mex City can land anywhere in Mex for fuel but not in US.. Mex is well within the 727 range.

Cooper must have believed the plane could make it to Mex to refuel when he made that demand..  because it was impossible and would have been rejected. Cooper would not make a demand he knew was unachievable and had to be rejected.

So, Cooper believed the range was possible but it wasn't then we have only two possibilities. It was not a ruse or attempt to get the plane flying South,,

1 - Cooper was mistaken in his belief.. He somehow got the range wrong flying dirty from takeoff.

or

2 - Cooper's flying dirty demand was misunderstood. He meant flying dirty when stairs lowered inflight.

 

We can't know which one for certain.. but the evidence suggests 2. Cooper had aviation knowledge (flaps, flight plan) and knew refuelling procedures,, somebody with that knowledge would understand drag effect on range..

 

If he had aviation experience he would have had respect for the crew and it still took some convincing for Cooper to accept the need to refuel... IMO, he believed they were setting him up to storm the plane when it landed,, which is why he kept rejecting airports.. Finally, agreed to Reno knowing he would just jump as soon as feasible.

Since his ultimate goal was to escape with the money he saw the opportunity to jump early and took it..

 

The reason he accepts Reno -when he knows he can go to Mexico- is “respect” for the crew? I can’t get there.

Also, if he thought Reno was a setup that’s even more reason to demand Mexico. And of course he would think every time he lands  the plane could be stormed, that’s baked in from the start to all skyjackings.  

[Nicholas Broughton 90]

12 hours ago, Kamkisky said:

This is why debate is good. This post is easily the one you’ve made on this topic that I agree with the most. There’s a fact pattern. And I fully agree on his primary goal. 

Where we part is I don’t think Mexico was ever his goal. And I think his LZ is a matter of magnitudes more important than the other items mentioned. 
 

- He had a chute in his possession. He clearly had determined he trusted it enough he would jump with it. Asking for another is marginal considering the circumstances. 
 

- He has the money. Rigging a bag is annoying…but that’s about it. He clearly trusted his skills in tying it to himself. Asking for another knapsack is marginal considering the circumstances. 
 

- Changing his LZ from Mexico to pre-Reno is a *massive* change. The other two are whatever's comparatively. This one is life and death, freedom or prison.
 

Getting the money is part one, getting away with it is the more important part two. This theory is he completely abandoned his part two because the pilots told him some crap he knew wasn’t true. I can’t get past it. I think most men in his situation tells the pilots no more funny stuff and to fly to Mexico…get this show on the road. 

Let’s look at more apples to apples comparisons. I’ll give two examples. One where he probably thought the pilots/crew were just wrong and one where he probably was thinking LE funny stuff.  When the pilots actually told him something about the aircraft he knew wasn’t true…. that it could not take off with the stairs down. He pushed back on that and had a back and forth with the crew over it…. even made it a point to state that plane could take off with the stairs down before compromising. He seemed to relish the opportunity to show off his knowledge. Same thing happened when he asked what the hold up was on the ground and was told in error that they were just waiting on the chutes to be delivered from McCord. He stated that McCord was either only 20 miles or minutes (unclear which) and it shouldn’t be taking that long or whatever. Why would it be any different if he thought the crew was wrong or the feds were trying to pull a fast one on him when it came to the range limitations? Especially since a range error by the crew or funny stuff by the feds in this instance would be more central to his original plan (if it was Mexico) then the other two circumstances I just mentioned. He also was having none of it when it came to the fueling delays which is another instance he probably perceived as funny stuff. He KNEW it shouldn’t be taking that long and that had him more unhinged then any other time throughout the skyjacking. I completely agree with you that Cooper would of spoken up about it. He didn’t go through all that trouble to make at the very least a true to life bomb down to the correct wiring to have him in the drivers seat just to give up the wheel when he didn’t need to. It makes no sense. I think we can all see that’s where this theory falls totally flat on its face. 

Edited September 23 by Nicholas Broughton

[Nicholas Broughton 90]

13 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

The reason he accepts Reno -when he knows he can go to Mexico- is “respect” for the crew? I can’t get there.

Also, if he thought Reno was a setup that’s even more reason to demand Mexico. And of course he would think every time he lands  the plane could be stormed, that’s baked in from the start to all skyjackings.  

BINGO 

[FLYJACK 785]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

I understand your overall premise, but I don’t think any of that really explains why he wouldn’t have just started out closer to Mexico to begin with. The longer you stay inside the plane the more time law-enforcement has to coordinate against you. 

I guess I’ll make the argument for you. You could argue that perhaps he did begin his day closer to Mexico. Maybe the plane he originally intended to hijack was a flight from Phoenix to Portland or something like that.

This is complete speculation on my part,, but there is one aspect I didn't make clear...

Say he initially boarded a plane in Chicago or someplace East.. heading to Portland and aborted... the plane lands normally in Portland.. If he hijacked it that doesn't mean would have landed in Portland to obtain the money..  He could have redirected it elsewhere to Phoenix or whatever to obtain the money... theoretically, if he hijacked a plane going to Portland, it didn't have to land in Portland for the ransom..

 

Edited September 23 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 785]

46 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

The reason he accepts Reno -when he knows he can go to Mexico- is “respect” for the crew? I can’t get there.

Also, if he thought Reno was a setup that’s even more reason to demand Mexico. And of course he would think every time he lands  the plane could be stormed, that’s baked in from the start to all skyjackings.  

That isn't the reason, that is a factor.. He didn't push back on several things he could have but didn't. Cooper had some aviation knowledge/experience and in that environment people respect pilots.... 

His initial demand was no landing in US, Mexico was OK to refuel,,, So, he knew there had to be a refuelling stop and thought Mexico was safer than the US.. maybe he was right maybe not.. 

He was not fearing a refuelling stop, he was fearing a landing in the US and the opportunity for US authorities to storm the plane..  Right or wrong he felt less secure.

So, stopping in the US vs Mex for fuel isn't a big deal.. except for the opportunity to storm the plane.

With a real/fake bomb he was dead if they stormed the plane in Reno..  We do not know what the discussion was about the range between Cooper and the crew,,, but at some point Cooper just decided he can jump with the money before Reno.. IMO, because he thought it was a setup... that is why he rejected other airports.. If his plan the entire time was to jump blind in the PNW there was no reason to reject other airports.. and no they don't take the coast.

 

You guys are nitpicking with assumptions not evidence..

I can't think of any better theory that fits the evidence and explains some of these things,, like range error and lack of path/directions from Cooper... changing demands,, rejection of airports..

 

You guys have presented no better theories that covers everything so well.....

 

Edited September 23 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 785]

1 hour ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

Let’s look at more apples to apples comparisons. When the pilots actually told him something about the aircraft he knew wasn’t true…. that it could not take off with the stairs down. He pushed back on that and had a back and forth with the crew over it…. even made it a point to say that plane could take off with the stairs down after compromising. He seemed to relish the opportunity to show off his knowledge. Same thing happened when he asked what the hold up was on the ground and was told in error that they were just waiting on the chutes to be delivered from McCord. He stated that McCord was either only 20 miles or minutes (unclear which) and it shouldn’t be taking that long or whatever. Why would it be any different if he thought the crew was wrong or the feds were trying to pull a fast one on him when it came to the range limitations? Especially since a range error by the crew or funny stuff by the feds in this instance would be more central to his original plan (if it was Mexico) then the other two circumstances I just mentioned. He also was having none of it when it came to the fueling delays which he probably was perceiving as feds funny stuff. He KNEW it shouldn’t be taking that long and that had him more unhinged then any other time throughout the skyjacking. I completely agree with you that Cooper would of spoken up about it. He didn’t go through all that trouble to make at the very least a true to life bomb down to the correct wiring to have him in the drivers seat just to give up the wheel when he didn’t need to. It makes no sense. I think we can all see that’s where this theory falls totally flat on its face. 

He didn't push back on the stairs lowered on takeoff, he relented.. that supports my theory,,,  

and there is actually no evidence that he knew a 727 could take off with stairs lowered...  it still isn't clear if that came from the crew or Cooper...

Then you make up some bizarre false equivalency to justify your own assumption... a circular mess..

"Cooper would have spoken up"  that isn't evidence, you don't know what he was thinking. He caved on many other issues he could have pushed back on,,,  that IS EVIDENCE and indicates his behaviour.

To reject this you need evidence... not guesses..

Edited September 23 by FLYJACK

[Nicholas Broughton 90]

44 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

He didn't push back on the stairs lowered on takeoff, he relented.. that supports my theory,,,  

and there is actually no evidence that he knew a 727 could take off with stairs lowered...  it still isn't clear if that came from the crew or Cooper...

Then you make up some bizarre false equivalency to justify your own assumption... a circular mess..

"Cooper would have spoken up"  that isn't evidence, you don't know what he was thinking. He caved on many other issues he could have pushed back on,,,  that IS EVIDENCE and indicates his behaviour.

To reject this you need evidence... not guesses..

To relent typically implies some level of resistance or prior opposition. Cooper needed to offer resistance or opposition to the range limitation claim by the crew for it to support your theory and for the other examples your citing to be valid. No evidence for that. Cooper stating that the 727 could take off with the stairs down is in both of Tina statements. To us mere mortals that qualifies as evidence. But I guess in super sleuth Fly’s mind we are missing something here? Somebody made a mistake….

 "Cooper would have spoken up"  that isn't evidence, you don't know what he was thinking.” 
 

Not claiming it is nor do I have the ability to get in his head. I’d classify it as a logical inference. You’re a goofy fella Fly…. criticizes people for guesswork when your entire premise is a total shot in the dark made-up guess.

Edited September 23 by Nicholas Broughton

[FLYJACK 785]

49 minutes ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

To relent typically implies some level of resistance or prior opposition. Cooper needed to offer resistance or opposition to the range limitation claim by the crew for it to support your theory and for the other examples your citing to be valid. No evidence for that. Cooper stating that the 727 could take off with the stairs down is in both of Tina statements. To us mere mortals that qualifies as evidence. But I guess in super sleuth Fly’s mind we are missing something here? Somebody made a mistake….

 "Cooper would have spoken up"  that isn't evidence, you don't know what he was thinking.” 
 

Not claiming it is nor do I have the ability to get in his head. I’d classify it as a logical inference. You’re a goofy fella Fly…. criticizes people for guesswork when your entire premise is a total shot in the dark made-up guess.

Like I already said we don't know what transpired between the crew and Cooper regarding the range,,,  you assume to know.. you don't..

and this is a theory, like an hypothesis it is tested with facts and evidence not your assumptions and feelings, you and other low level thinkers fail to understand that.

What you think Cooper would have done is completely irrelevant yet you use it.

and not falsifying a theory doesn't make it true..

This is basic logic stuff.....  it is above some of you.

 

But this is the best theory that covers everything,, this is it or something very close..

My track record in this case for theories that later become proven or accepted is stellar...  advancement always starts with a theory,,, 

Edited September 23 by FLYJACK

[lxchilton 10]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Like I already said we don't know what transpired between the crew and Cooper regarding the range,,,  you assume to know.. you don't..

and this is a theory, like an hypothesis it is tested with facts and evidence not your assumptions and feelings, you and other low level thinkers fail to understand that.

What you think Cooper would have done is completely irrelevant yet you use it.

and not falsifying a theory doesn't make it true..

This is basic logic stuff.....  it is above some of you.

 

But this is the best theory that covers everything,, this is it or something very close..

My track record in this case for theories that later become proven or accepted is stellar...  advancement always starts with a theory,,, 

Gainsaying is the word of the day here.

[FLYJACK 785]

56 minutes ago, lxchilton said:

Gainsaying is the word of the day here.

There are actually very few 100% facts in this case....  it is hearsay, witness perception or logical inference..

You only advance knowledge with theories...   rare to find new evidence though I did actually...

but rejecting theories with assumptions is low level thinking,,,  and detrimental to advancing the case..

People confuse a theory with a claim of fact....

 

[Nicholas Broughton 90]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Like I already said we don't know what transpired between the crew and Cooper regarding the range,,,  you assume to know.. you don't..

and this is a theory, like an hypothesis it is tested with facts and evidence not your assumptions and feelings, you and other low level thinkers fail to understand that.

What you think Cooper would have done is completely irrelevant yet you use it.

and not falsifying a theory doesn't make it true..

This is basic logic stuff.....  it is above some of you.

 

But this is the best theory that covers everything,, this is it or something very close..

My track record in this case for theories that later become proven or accepted is stellar...  advancement always starts with a theory,,, 

My view is if it’s not in files then it PROBABLY (more likely then not) didn’t happen. I’d think (I know assuming, shoot me) any discussion between Cooper and the crew regarding the range is significant enough that it be in the files. We know not everything made it into the files but even knowing that….it be a major outlier for this not be. We’re both technically assuming here. It’s just a matter of which assumption is the better one aka more likely to be true based on known information and logic. I think everyone in here but you applies this metric. 

Again. I’m just defaulting to what we know to have transpired in the documentation we have. To suggest something could of happened that really needs to have happened to validate your theory  is a reach and a desperate attempt at defending your position imo. My inference is based on examples in the files of how Cooper reacted in other instances when he felt the crew were either wrong about something or something they told him didn’t pass his smell test. I gave three examples: plane taking off with aft stairs down, parachute delay, and refueling delay. Whether he relented or not is irrelevant, the take away is he spoke up in all three of these instances. Something you seem to want to ignore for your theory. Round peg meet square hole. You are suggesting he either did something completely different from his established MO (said nothing when he knew the crew were wrong) or he followed his MO but the exchange is just not in the files for whatever reason (outlier). Either one of those scenarios has a very low likelihood attached to it for obvious reasons.  Anyone can think outside the box and come up with a theory to address an incongruent data point in this case that can only be dismissed with assumptions and feelings or what I like to call logic. Does that make it any good though? I’ll argue NO and give an example.  When Eric found that bedsheet on Tina bar. I showed him a picture of Lyle Cameron with a homemade wing suit made from a bedsheet in the 1960’s as a joke. That inspired a theory for him though and he thought it could be related and that’s how he landed near Tina bar. He is trying address an incongruent data point (money find) in this case by thinking outside the box, same as you are with this theory. He dropped the theory when Tom tested the bedsheet for Diatoms and found nothing which meant it couldn’t of been there since 71. But the theory remains relevant for my example. You can’t disprove this theory with evidence. Some early “birdmen” like Clem Sohn and  Leo Valentin claimed to have glided for miles on the wing suits they invented. Cooper could have conceivably made a homemade wing suit that worked. He was able to craft a true to form bomb. So who’s to say he couldn’t of made one. Just as you say we don’t know what transpired between Cooper and the crew regarding range well we don’t know the contents of his mystery bag either. It could of been wing suit components for all we know. So you can’t disprove it with with facts and evidence. Only on assumptions and feelings. Does this make it a good theory? Hell no! That’s a bad barometer. I’m all for outside the box thinking. If there is any case that needs it, it’s certainly this one. So we encourage you to go back to outside the boxlandia but return to us with something else because this one ain’t it Fly. 

 

Edited September 23 by Nicholas Broughton

[FLYJACK 785]

10 minutes ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

My view is if it’s not in files then it PROBABLY (more likely then not) didn’t happen. I’d think (I know assuming, shoot me) any discussion between Cooper and the crew regarding the range is significant enough that it be in the files. We know not everything made it into the files but even knowing that….it be a major outlier for this not be. We’re both technically assuming here. It’s just a matter of which assumption is the better aka more likely to be true based on known information and logic. I think everyone in here but you applies this metric. 

Again. I’m just defaulting to what we know to have transpired in the documentation we have. To suggest something could of happened that really needs to have happened to validate your theory  is a reach and a desperate attempt at defending your position imo. My inference is based on examples in the files of how Cooper reacted in other instances when he felt the crew were either wrong about something or something they told him didn’t pass his smell test. I gave three examples: plane taking off with aft stairs down, parachute delay, and refueling delay. Whether he relented or not is irrelevant, the take away is he spoke up in all three of these instances. Something you seem to want to ignore for your theory. Round peg meet square hole. You are suggesting he either did something completely different from his established MO (said nothing when he knew the crew were wrong) or he followed his MO but the exchange is just not in the files for whatever reason (outlier). Either one of those scenarios has a very low likelihood attached to it for obvious reasons.  Anyone can come up with a theory to address an incongruent aspect of this case that can only be dismissed with assumptions and feelings or what I like to call logic. Does that make it any good though? I’ll argue NO and give an example.  When Eric found that bedsheet on Tina bar. I showed him a picture of Lyle Cameron with a homemade wing suit made from a bedsheet in the 1960’s as a joke. That inspired a theory for him though and he thought it could be related and that’s how he landed near Tina bar. He is trying address an incongruent data point (money find) in this case by thinking outside the box, same as you are with this theory. He dropped the theory when Tom tested the bedsheet for Diatoms and found nothing which meant it couldn’t of been there since 71. But the theory remains relevant for my example. You can’t disprove this theory with evidence. Some early “birdmen” like Clem Sohn and  Leo Valentin claimed to have glided for miles on the wing suits they invented. Cooper could have conceivably made a homemade wing suit that worked. He was able to craft a true to form bomb. So who’s to say he couldn’t of made one. Just as you say we don’t know what transpired between Cooper and the crew regarding range well we don’t know the contents of his mystery bag either. It could of been wing suit components for all we know. So you can’t disprove it with with facts and evidence. Only on assumptions and feelings. Does this make it a good theory? Hell no! That’s a bad barometer. I’m all for outside the box thinking. If there is any case that needs it it’s this one so keep trying! Go back to outside the boxlandia and return to us with something else because this one ain’t it Fly. 

 

Sorry,, Nicky but you just don't understand my position... or how an hypothesis is used to advance knowledge.

I figured out the parachute cards, not the FBI.. I did that by noticing something in the files that just did not make sense and created a theory. I kept testing it against the evidence until it was was adjusted into its final form... My first theory wasn't perfect but it evolved. I did the same thing with rubber banded bundles... and got trashed for it.. those guys tried to get me kicked off Shutters site for it... Now, everybody has that position,, except Georger...

Theories advance knowledge through a process of testing them against facts or evidence..  they are not statements of fact.

My theory is really good because it fits in all the evidence and it resolves some questioned issues..  that does not make it true.

When you are or somebody creates an assumption and uses it to dismiss a theory that undermines the process prematurely... You critique with facts or evidence,, that gets us closer to the truth... 

I am really good at this... I find things that don't make sense and form a theory to explain them within the evidence... from there the theory can be adjusted or rejected based on facts... not assumptions. Clearly, there are poor assumptions and good assumptions, not all are equal.

The thing that never made sense was how Cooper got the range wrong... he had aviation and fuelling knowledge. He 100% believed the plane could make it to Mexico...  The crew misunderstanding his flaps/gear down demand is not something that would be shown in the files.. Everybody claimed he was just trying to get the plane heading South,, that makes no sense at all.. He must have believed it because the demand would have to be rejected.. Once you understand Cooper believed the plane could make Mex to refuel everything changes...

These theories are part of the process that moves us closer to the truth..

I haven't heard any other theory that explains all this within the evidence...

 

 

[dudeman17 376]

On 9/20/2025 at 7:25 AM, FLYJACK said:

Yes you did agree with his theory

 

No I never said I believed his theory to be true. I said it sounded feasible. My bottom line is and has always been that ultimately we don't know what is true and likely never will. You guys have discussed the daylights out of this while I was elsewhere, but a few other points to consider...

You didn't give a definitive answer to 'path'. Airliners generally don't just cruise around wherever they feel like, they are assigned to specific designated air routes that account for terrain and traffic. Are there really 'dozens and dozens' of such designated routes from Seattle to Reno that might have taken them over widely varying terrain? That doesn't sound very efficient. If Cooper had done some research, would 23 have emerged as the likely route? I don't think you know the answer to this, I'd be interested in Robert99's take if he's reading. Repeating what they 'might have' done introduces many of the 'assumptions' you so dislike from others. Evidence lies in what they did do.

I think it's more likely than not that Cooper had a compass. If he's not sure where he's going to land, it would pretty much be a necessity. You posted a letter that you think Cooper might have written. I'm not saying I believe that to be true, but if it is...  That letter makes a couple references to using 'what uncle taught me'. That is not some random phrase that he made up. That is a somewhat known term that references military training. And it doesn't generally come from entry level grunts. It's usually used by people further down the rabbit hole of training and experience. If that is Cooper, then he's tactical. All but guaranteed that he has a compass. He does seem familiar with the area. If he's done some time/speed/distance calculations and he watches his direction in flight, he might have a reasonable idea where he is whether he can see lights or not. Nobody is saying that he can target a specific field, but knowing general area enough to target better terrain is feasible. 'Ten miles wide' does not negate that. Georger's comment about the preciseness of parachuting in those days, and my answer to it were general in nature and not specific to Cooper.

Exactly where is it established that Hayden's bailout rigs were non steerable? Is that another assumption? If I remember this right, the packing card for the museum rig says that canopy is a 26' conical. I had (and used on my first malfunction) one of those, and it was steerable. They were a fairly common reserve when I was starting out as a jumper, and all of them that I was aware of were steerable. Since they all stem from the same design, I'd be surprised if there were any that weren't. Does Poynter's book list any? I don't remember what the canopy was in Hayden's rig that Cooper did use. Might it have been steerable? Does The Parachute Manual list that? Even if steerable, they wouldn't have much forward speed to work with, so it wouldn't really affect his overall drift by a lot, but it would help him avoid obstacles on landing.

[dudeman17 376]

On 9/21/2025 at 11:34 AM, georger said:

how long before Cooper is going to know if he has a working chute?

 

Within a few seconds of pulling the ripcord. Those things open pretty quickly.

 

On 9/21/2025 at 11:34 AM, georger said:

How long before Cooper is going to know where he is at ?

 

That is hard to say. That depends on how well he can see, between weather visibility and ambient light. How high does he open, above or below clouds...  ???

[dudeman17 376]

On 9/23/2025 at 4:13 PM, Nicholas Broughton said:

When Eric found that bedsheet on Tina bar. I showed him a picture of Lyle Cameron with a homemade wing suit made from a bedsheet in the 1960’s...   Some early “birdmen” like Clem Sohn and  Leo Valentin claimed to have glided for miles on the wing suits they invented. Cooper could have conceivably made a homemade wing suit that worked.

 

 

Haha. If you have the time and interest, you might want to check out the 1969 movie, 'The Gypsy Moths' with Burt Lancaster and Gene Hackman.

[FLYJACK 785]

29 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

 

No I never said I believed his theory to be true. I said it sounded feasible. My bottom line is and has always been that ultimately we don't know what is true and likely never will. You guys have discussed the daylights out of this while I was elsewhere, but a few other points to consider...

You didn't give a definitive answer to 'path'. Airliners generally don't just cruise around wherever they feel like, they are assigned to specific designated air routes that account for terrain and traffic. Are there really 'dozens and dozens' of such designated routes from Seattle to Reno that might have taken them over widely varying terrain? That doesn't sound very efficient. If Cooper had done some research, would 23 have emerged as the likely route? I don't think you know the answer to this, I'd be interested in Robert99's take if he's reading. Repeating what they 'might have' done introduces many of the 'assumptions' you so dislike from others. Evidence lies in what they did do.

I think it's more likely than not that Cooper had a compass. If he's not sure where he's going to land, it would pretty much be a necessity. You posted a letter that you think Cooper might have written. I'm not saying I believe that to be true, but if it is...  That letter makes a couple references to using 'what uncle taught me'. That is not some random phrase that he made up. That is a somewhat known term that references military training. And it doesn't generally come from entry level grunts. It's usually used by people further down the rabbit hole of training and experience. If that is Cooper, then he's tactical. All but guaranteed that he has a compass. He does seem familiar with the area. If he's done some time/speed/distance calculations and he watches his direction in flight, he might have a reasonable idea where he is whether he can see lights or not. Nobody is saying that he can target a specific field, but knowing general area enough to target better terrain is feasible. 'Ten miles wide' does not negate that. Georger's comment about the preciseness of parachuting in those days, and my answer to it were general in nature and not specific to Cooper.

Exactly where is it established that Hayden's bailout rigs were non steerable? Is that another assumption? If I remember this right, the packing card for the museum rig says that canopy is a 26' conical. I had (and used on my first malfunction) one of those, and it was steerable. They were a fairly common reserve when I was starting out as a jumper, and all of them that I was aware of were steerable. Since they all stem from the same design, I'd be surprised if there were any that weren't. Does Poynter's book list any? I don't remember what the canopy was in Hayden's rig that Cooper did use. Might it have been steerable? Does The Parachute Manual list that? Even if steerable, they wouldn't have much forward speed to work with, so it wouldn't really affect his overall drift by a lot, but it would help him avoid obstacles on landing.

You agreed with him..

I explained "path" and it isn't something that even needs to be explained.. if you don't know what a path is in this case,, just go do something else.

There are designated airways,, several options to go to Reno,, but the plane did not have to take an airway.. This was an emergency situation, not an airliner taking a typical route... So, dozens and dozens options... and the one they chose is arguably the worst going over populated areas.. The argument that cooper gave no route instructions or confirmed because he knew they could only take the one they did is completely absurd, because it isn't true.. The crew seriously discussed taking a coastal route to Reno.. 

Did Cooper have a compass,,  no evidence for that,, possible I guess.

In the dark, windy, overcast night with a non-steerable bailout rig Cooper did not have any precision.

Cossey said they were not steerable, they were old and cheap rigs for Hayden's stunt plane to meet regs, he said he would never have used them.. I searched for steerable bailout rigs from the 60's and found one which was clearly labelled "steerable"..

Cooper's bailout rig was not steerable. It was a 24' Steinthal according to the packing card.

 

Cooper could have had up to potentially a 6 mile LZ... that is 113 sq miles...

 

 

Edited September 25 by FLYJACK

[dudeman17 376]

13 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

You agreed with him..

 

What are you even trying to argue with this? Are you refuting, "I never said I believed his theory to be true." [I said it sounded feasible.] "My bottom line is and has always been that ultimately we don't know what is true and likely never will."? That is what I have always said about every theory.

 

13 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I explained "path"...    There are designated airways,, several options to go to Reno,, but the plane did not have to take an airway.. This was an emergency situation, not an airliner taking a typical route... So, dozens and dozens options...

 

Yes you have given your simpleton definition of 'path'. But you didn't address the question. Airliners fly designated routes to avoid collisions with terrain and other air traffic. This concern does not disappear because there is a hijacker aboard, especially on a low altitude flight on a limited visibility night. The question is how many designated routes are there and would 23 be the most likely one? You can say whatever you want about what you think (assumption, opinion) they mighta coulda shoulda woulda oughta done, but the fact is they took designated route V23. Might this have been predictable? Again, I don't trust your answer on this because these days you seem more concerned with refuting everything that isn't your idea than pondering possibilities. I'd be interested in Robert99's thoughts because he is a pilot and knows aviation.

 

13 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Did Cooper have a compass,,  no evidence for that,, possible I guess.

 

I'd upgrade that to probable, and if you're right about that letter then it's all but guaranteed.

 

13 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Cossey said they were not steerable

 

Oh, so now he's credible. I'll betcha ten bucks that 26' conical in the museum is steerable.

 

13 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Cooper's bailout rig was...  a 24' Steinthal according to the packing card.

 

So if I have this correct, the picture we have of the museum rig's packing card came from when Bruce interviewed Hayden. The FBI didn't release that. Right? So we don't have a picture of the other rig's packing card (that was left on the plane). That "24' Steinthal" came from a description in one of the documents. Right? Maybe you'll repost that document, because the way I remember reading that was that the '24' Steinthal' was not the primary canopy in the rig, but what they described as the "other" canopy, the "integral" part of the system. Which by any logical understanding of parachutes could only be the pilot chute, and 24 inches, not feet. And how could they even come up with such a description without having the rig? If that description came from Cossey then we don't even know if he's describing the right rig. Bailout rigs used the same canopies as reserves. Many of them were steerable.

 

13 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

just go do something else

 

I do. All the time. You should try it, you might have some fun and improve your attitude.

 

 

Edited September 26 by dudeman17

[FLYJACK 785]

On 9/18/2025 at 11:34 AM, dudeman17 said:

 

 

Kamkisky's theory holds water. South is a path. When I suggested something similar a while back, you thought it was ridiculous that even if they had started out over the coast that they would have had to come back inland to get to Reno. How wide is California?

Liar...

[FLYJACK 785]

6 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

 

What are you even trying to argue with this? Are you refuting, "I never said I believed his theory to be true." [I said it sounded feasible.] "My bottom line is and has always been that ultimately we don't know what is true and likely never will."? That is what I have always said about every theory.

YOU SAID SOUTH IS A PATH...

 

Yes you have given your simpleton definition of 'path'. But you didn't address the question. Airliners fly designated routes to avoid collisions with terrain and other air traffic. This concern does not disappear because there is a hijacker aboard, especially on a low altitude flight on a limited visibility night. The question is how many designated routes are there and would 23 be the most likely one? You can say whatever you want about what you think (assumption, opinion) they mighta coulda shoulda woulda oughta done, but the fact is they took designated route V23. Might this have been predictable? Again, I don't trust your answer on this because these days you seem more concerned with refuting everything that isn't your idea than pondering possibilities. I'd be interested in Robert99's thoughts because he is a pilot and knows aviation.

YOU ARE THE SIMPLETON.. THERE ARE MANY DESIGNATED ROUTES AND NORJAK DID NOT HAVE TO TAKE A DESIGNATED ROUTE,, THE CREW DISCUSSED TAKING THE COAST TO RENO.. THIS HAS BEEN ANSWERED ALREADY.

 

I'd upgrade that to probable, and if you're right about that letter then it's all but guaranteed.

I BELIEVE THAT LETTER IS FROM COOPER BUT DON'T SEE HOW IT PROVES HE HAD A COMPASS, THAT IS A STRETCH. HE MIGHT HAVE HAD A COMPASS THOUGH.

 

Oh, so now he's credible. I'll betcha ten bucks that 26' conical in the museum is steerable.

IT ISN'T...  THEY ARE NON-STEERABLE..  

 

So if I have this correct, the picture we have of the museum rig's packing card came from when Bruce interviewed Hayden. The FBI didn't release that. Right? So we don't have a picture of the other rig's packing card (that was left on the plane). That "24' Steinthal" came from a description in one of the documents. Right? Maybe you'll repost that document, because the way I remember reading that was that the '24' Steinthal' was not the primary canopy in the rig, but what they described as the "other" canopy, the "integral" part of the system. Which by any logical understanding of parachutes could only be the pilot chute, and 24 inches, not feet. And how could they even come up with such a description without having the rig? If that description came from Cossey then we don't even know if he's describing the right rig. Bailout rigs used the same canopies as reserves. Many of them were steerable.

NO, YOU DON'T HAVE IT CORRECT. DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK.

 

I do. All the time. You should try it, you might have some fun and improve your attitude.

YOUR CASE KNOWLEDGE IS A DISASTER. YOUR ANALYSIS INFANTILE.

 

 

[FLYJACK 785]

Anybody that believes..

South is a path

Cooper knew they could ONLY take V23

Hayden's bailout rigs were steerable..

 

Is not a serious person.. and a waste of time.

[lxchilton 10]

19 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Anybody that believes..

South is a path

Cooper knew they could ONLY take V23

Hayden's bailout rigs were steerable..

 

Is not a serious person.. and a waste of time.

I don't believe they were steerable at all, though even if they had been it wouldn't have been much help. By the time Cooper can discern (if he really can) what is on the ground around him he's committed to landing in whatever spot it was. I don't think there is any reason he couldn't have seen the bloom of light through the clouds at 10,000ft...but that's basically it for the descent. 

The question regarding v23 isn't that dramatic; I would posit it more like "was Cooper aware of v23 or Victor airways at all?" If not, the whole thing is moot and if so he might have had an inkling that his choice for altitude might get them going along it. What evidence exists for and against this is pretty even so...choose what feels right I guess. 

The south is path thing is getting super tired. If Cooper was not someone involved in the actual operation of keeping an aircraft flying in a previous life (pilot, flight engineer, radar operator, bombardier, etc.) but was someone who spent a lot of professional time on an aircraft, then it is plausible that his understanding of airways, IFR, etc. was rudimentary; I have no trouble envisioning a Cooper who made educated guesses that ended up panning out for him. This is a theory based on a reading of the evidence in the case just as yours is and to deny its validity is an exercise in gainsaying. And it's boring. 

I can't say that what I reference above is what really happened, but it's simple enough and doesn't stray from what we do know about the case. 

You could be right, but "the (Flyjack) doth protest too much, methinks."

[FLYJACK 785]

1 hour ago, lxchilton said:

I don't believe they were steerable at all, though even if they had been it wouldn't have been much help. By the time Cooper can discern (if he really can) what is on the ground around him he's committed to landing in whatever spot it was. I don't think there is any reason he couldn't have seen the bloom of light through the clouds at 10,000ft...but that's basically it for the descent. 

The question regarding v23 isn't that dramatic; I would posit it more like "was Cooper aware of v23 or Victor airways at all?" If not, the whole thing is moot and if so he might have had an inkling that his choice for altitude might get them going along it. What evidence exists for and against this is pretty even so...choose what feels right I guess. 

The south is path thing is getting super tired. If Cooper was not someone involved in the actual operation of keeping an aircraft flying in a previous life (pilot, flight engineer, radar operator, bombardier, etc.) but was someone who spent a lot of professional time on an aircraft, then it is plausible that his understanding of airways, IFR, etc. was rudimentary; I have no trouble envisioning a Cooper who made educated guesses that ended up panning out for him. This is a theory based on a reading of the evidence in the case just as yours is and to deny its validity is an exercise in gainsaying. And it's boring. 

I can't say that what I reference above is what really happened, but it's simple enough and doesn't stray from what we do know about the case. 

You could be right, but "the (Flyjack) doth protest too much, methinks."

If my post are boring then put me on ignore..   

I am tired of insults and stupid ideas from ignorant people...

Edited September 26 by FLYJACK

[Kamkisky 30]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Anybody that believes..

South is a path

Cooper knew they could ONLY take V23

Hayden's bailout rigs were steerable..

 

Is not a serious person.. and a waste of time.

South is a direction. It’s the direction he wanted to go based on every statement he made (that’s the totality of the evidence…as in all of it). The path, used as a substitute for airway, was not discussed with him and he didn’t bring it up. That’s stuff ATC and the pilots and NWA kicked around without Cooper’s knowledge. It’s totally irrelevant to anything he said or did, he never knew about it. We are trying to find out Cooper’s thoughts and actions, not the pilots.
 

The ‘Cooper knew they could only take V23’ bit is a strawman. That’s not the argument being made. This many pages in that should be clear by now.