DB Cooper

[olemisscub 549]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Not necessarily, it depends where he landed.

YOU assume all landings were equivalent.

Hahneman had a hard landing because he had a tear in his canopy.

He had a helmet correct? And a jump suit IIRC.

I don’t assume all are the same. I assume that landing at night ANYWHERE in an unknown spot is perilous and likely to cause injury. The copycats bear that out. 

[FLYJACK 772]

10 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Cooper was not smart enough to figure out a simple lever? So your argument is that he wouldn’t understand that he needed to push the button at the top before operating the lever? He was a grown man in his 40’s who could build a convincing looking (or real) dynamite bomb and he was capable enough to pull off a heist, yet he didn’t understand a push button lever even after someone had described it to him? 

You have no idea what Cooper did with the lever. YOU are just making it up.. and ignoring the evidence. Nothing new for you.

The button needs to be pushed and the lever held forward.

The stair light went on twice, the light comes on when the lever is moved from the up/lock detent, it does not indicate the stairs are opened.

So, Cooper must have moved the lever from the detent initially, then later moved it back to locked position then forward again causing the light to come on a second time. That plus the speed error indicates he DID NOT operate the stairs correctly initially.

 

Edited Saturday at 06:37 PM by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 772]

5 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

He had a helmet correct? And a jump suit IIRC.

I don’t assume all are the same. I assume that landing at night ANYWHERE in an unknown spot is perilous and likely to cause injury. The copycats bear that out. 

Of course you are,, you always use generalizations to make assumptions..

Hahneman was slightly injured because he had a hard landing due to a tear in his canopy..

You just misapplied the cause to justify your idea that Cooper was slightly injured..

You made a false assumption I corrected it then you made another false assumption.

and I don't disagree that Cooper may have sustained slight injuries,, I don't know because there is no evidence.

[Kamkisky 13]

36 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Right, I brought it up before bit never got a final answer.. can one determine from the card or visually that the chute is a bailout rig vs main.

Cooper initially asked for 2 rigs "fronts and backs" he was referring to one set (front and back) being one rig X2. He later clarified and said 4 total chutes, he didn't actually change his demand, he clarified. The 2 front and two back =  4 total chutes. Just by coincidence, Hahneman also asked for "fronts and backs" using the exact same terminology, but he asked for 6, he got 6 sets of fronts and backs = 12 total, not bailout rigs. So, initially 1 chute meant 1 set of a front and back together.

Cooper asking for fronts and backs is earlier terminology for a main and reserve.. He was asking for mains and received bailout rigs. You'd think that if he knew they were bailout rigs that he would have demanded mains on the ground on Seattle.. he complained about the missing D rings,,  so it is very likely he did not realize they were bailout rigs. 

Kaminsky's theory is not new, the idea that Cooper saw the lights or saw ground markers goes way back.. Kaminsky takes that to an unreasonable conclusion that Cooper targeted his jump zone. No way he knew where the plane would be and he was delayed having trouble with the stairs.. add to that Cooper was jumping with a bailout rig, his drift was potentially up to 5 miles. V23 itself was 10 miles wide.

There is absolutely no chance Cooper targeting a predetermined jump spot.

A 5 mile radius from the 8:11 time. Ignore Cunningham's absurd path time adjustment abomination.

It took Cooper about two minutes after descending the stairs and pick a jump spot. 

He may have seen the city light glow, per pilots.

We don't know if he could see ground markers due to broken clouds.

We don't know if he could even recognize markers if he could see them.

He jumped over mostly farms and fields with some patches of heavy brush and trees so easily survivable if he pulled.

Conclusion, Cooper did not know he was using a non steerable bailout rig, he did not jump to a predetermined spot, after being delayed with the stairs he descended at 8:09 and looked for what he felt was a good spot and jumped 2 minutes later,, nothing to do with ground markers or lights. He did not have a target, he did not target PDX,, it was ad hoc.

You use predetermined. The argument isn’t he jumped to an exact location. The argument is he jumped into a region. To achieve that all he needed was the plane to fly south at 10k feet, the stairs to open and to know the region. That’s it. It’s not a magic trick. It’s not hard to conceptualize. It’s repeatable. 
 

I could do this (but I’m not jumping out of a damn plane unless it’s on fire). I could take off from any of SF/Oakland/San Jose and fly to anywhere as long as it’s east (Salt Lake/Denver/St. Louis/NY/etc/etc…we could pick different cities at the last minute, whatever), because I know Northern California I could land in the Central Valley on flat farmland. I could do it every time from any Bay Area airport. I would only need the plane to fly at 10k feet, to go east and the stairs to be open. 
 

He jumped the lights of a region he knew.  

[FLYJACK 772]

3 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

You use predetermined. The argument isn’t he jumped to an exact location. The argument is he jumped into a region. To achieve that all he needed was the plane to fly south at 10k feet, the stairs to open and to know the region. That’s it. It’s not a magic trick. It’s not hard to conceptualize. It’s repeatable. 
 

I could do this (but I’m not jumping out of a damn plane unless it’s on fire). I could take off from any of SF/Oakland/San Jose and fly to anywhere as long as it’s east (Salt Lake/Denver/St. Louis/NY/etc/etc…we could pick different cities at the last minute, whatever), because I know Northern California I could land in the Central Valley on flat farmland. I could do it every time from any Bay Area airport. I would only need the plane to fly at 10k feet, to go east and the stairs to be open. 
 

He jumped the lights of a region he knew.  

Define region he knew and how do you know that he targeted it?

You have just made it up, there is no evidence to support it. NONE

Obviously he knew the plane was travelling South..

[Kamkisky 13]

12 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Define region he knew and how do you know that he targeted it?

You have just made it up, there is no evidence to support it. NONE

Obviously he knew the plane was travelling South..

He takes off and SeaTac and sounding area disappears behind them…

Darkness = bad. That’s the forest land. That means wait.

City lights after darkness = good. That’s the farm lands north of Portland. That means jump.   

The farm lands of Southern Washington are the region.  

I’ll flip to my analogy…

City lights of Central Valley = good. Jump.

Darkness of Sierra Nevada’s = bad. Death. 

The Central Valley is the region.

 

No special powers required. 

 

 

And the circle you just provided aligns perfectly with jumping when he see the first city lights of BG. 

Edited Saturday at 07:09 PM by Kamkisky

[FLYJACK 772]

7 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

He takes off and SeaTac and sounding area disappears behind them…

Darkness = bad. That’s the forest land. That means wait.

City lights after darkness = good. That’s the farm lands north of Portland. That means jump.   

The farm lands of Southern Washington are the region.  

I’ll flip to my analogy…

City lights of Central Valley = good. Jump.

Darkness of Sierra Nevada’s = bad. Death. 

The Central Valley is the region.

 

No special powers required. 

 

 

And the circle you just provided aligns perfectly with jumping when he see the first city lights of BG. 

You make several unproven assumptions..

 

You don't know if he knows the area well.

You don't know if he could see the ground.

You fail to understand that he was delayed having trouble with the stairs.

You assume he saw the lights and knew it was BG.

You assume he knew the path beforehand.

 

So, you have a theory, it doesn't fit well within the evidence and relies on many unfounded assumptions..  

 

 

[Kamkisky 13]

15 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

You make several unproven assumptions..

 

You don't know if he knows the area well.

You don't know if he could see the ground.

You fail to understand that he was delayed having trouble with the stairs.

You assume he saw the lights and knew it was BG.

You assume he knew the path beforehand.

 

So, you have a theory, it doesn't fit well within the evidence and relies on many unfounded assumptions..  

 

 

You don't know if he knows the area well.

- three data points: Tacoma/McChord/he just flew over the area. 

You don't know if he could see the ground.

- two data points: the pilots could see the ground/it wasn’t a raging storm, it was a typical PNW November night. 
 

You fail to understand that he was delayed having trouble with the stairs.

- not applicable. He has only one way out so of course he wants it open and makes efforts to do so. He got it open in time to jump the first city lights.  
 

You assume he saw the lights and knew it was BG.

-three data points: we have a pilot from the area who was flying in 1971 who says BG are the first city lights coming south/the pilots could see the lights/by going south it’s repeatable to know the first city lights after darkness are BG. 
 

You assume he knew the path beforehand.

-one data point: he only ever ask for or negotiated or accepted any direction except south

 

You have a theory too. It’s Cooper as idiot jumping at random and who just got lucky. The nice part about that theory is it doesn’t require evidence…it’s just an assumption. 

[olemisscub 549]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

 

So, Cooper must have moved the lever from the detent initially, then later moved it back to locked position then forward again causing the light to come on a second time. That plus the speed error indicates he DID NOT operate the stairs correctly initially.

 

I know for a fact that didn’t happen. 

[FLYJACK 772]

1 minute ago, Kamkisky said:

You don't know if he knows the area well.

- three data points: Tacoma/McChord/he just flew over the area. 

You don't know if he could see the ground.

- two data points: the pilots could see the ground/it wasn’t a raging storm, it was a typical PNW November night. 
 

You fail to understand that he was delayed having trouble with the stairs.

- not applicable. He has only one way out so of course he wants it open and makes efforts to do so. He got it open in time to jump the first city lights.  
 

You assume he saw the lights and knew it was BG.

-three data points: we have a pilot from the area who was flying in 1971 who says BG are the first city lights coming south/the pilots could see the lights/by going south it’s repeatable to know the first city lights after darkness are BG. 
 

You assume he knew the path beforehand.

-one data point: he only ever ask for or negotiated or accepted any direction except south

 

You have a theory too. It’s Cooper as idiot jumping at random and who just got lucky. The nice part about that theory is it doesn’t require evidence…it’s just an assumption. 

So what you are doing is flipping logic on its head.

You are using the negative condition to make positive assumption. aka you don't know so must be true.. this is irrational. If you use that standard then anything goes and many in the case do that..

You exaggerate and take things out of context.

I am Canadian and I know where Tacoma and McChord is.. I have flown out of Seattle once and driven down South many times.

Pilots said ground markers visible (somewhere),, that doesn't mean they were when Cooper jumped, the cloud cover was patchy.. and it doesn't mean he could ID them if he could see them.

Cooper was delayed getting the stairs down, he could not see the ground/lights until he descended the stairs at 8:09.. To claim he intentionally timed that is not supported by anything. 

A pilot describing BG lights does not mean Cooper saw them or recognized them as BG or used them as an indication to jump.. He would not be able to see them, (if he did) until he descended at 8:09.

Again, South is not a path, it encompassed 50% of the direction. That is your error.

 

So, you claim I think he is an idiot who got lucky,, this is a great example RYAN's typical logic and straw-man tactics,, to use hyperbole or ridicule as an argument... newsflash, it isn't an argument. I have never said that, you are making it up just like you are making up these many assumptions.

I said it was ad hoc, that isn't an idiot getting lucky.

Do you understand that you are just making up stuff.

There are good theories and bad theories, not all are equal... 

My theory fits into the evidence and rationalized some significant conflicts.

Your theory is not supported by evidence, is contradicted and relies on many unfounded assumptions.

The more evidence that supports a theory and fewer assumptions the better the theory. 

and your theory is not new, it goes way back, most Cooper beginners jump in excited with this type of thinking and make the same errors. 

 

[FLYJACK 772]

1 minute ago, olemisscub said:

I know for a fact that didn’t happen. 

What didn't happen..

[olemisscub 549]

1 minute ago, FLYJACK said:

What didn't happen..

Cooper having trouble with the lever. Didn’t happen.  

[FLYJACK 772]

4 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Cooper having trouble with the lever. Didn’t happen.  

You wouldn't have any way to know that, not even Tina would know that for sure.

So, it isn't a fact it might be Tina's opinion.

Edited Saturday at 08:40 PM by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 549]

1 minute ago, FLYJACK said:

You wouldn't have any way to know that, not even Tina would know that for sure.

So, it isn't a fact it might be Tina's opinion.

Well, you’re wrong. I’m right. 

[georger 268]

6 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Cooper having trouble with the lever. Didn’t happen.  

To assess Cooper's survivability we must know where he landed - is anyone going to finally guess where he landed?

[FLYJACK 772]

11 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Well, you’re wrong. I’m right. 

We'll see,,, 

Either Tina claimed she moved the lever or she saw Cooper move it..

Either way that doesn't prove it was operated correctly. The stairs have a gravity drop and hydraulic assist.

Cooper told the pilots he couldn't get the stairs open.

 

The light came on twice, he complained he couldn't get them open (assuming speed) and MAC made it out going 100 MPH faster.

Edited Saturday at 08:53 PM by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 772]

10 minutes ago, georger said:

To assess Cooper's survivability we must know where he landed - is anyone going to finally guess where he landed?

Where do you think he landed.. informed guess based on everything you know..

 

IMO, he jumped about 8:11 along the Sage path,, drifted 2-4 miles NNE... mostly open fields.

[olemisscub 549]

[Kamkisky 13]

29 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

So what you are doing is flipping logic on its head.

You are using the negative condition to make positive assumption. aka you don't know so must be true.. this is irrational. If you use that standard then anything goes and many in the case do that..

You exaggerate and take things out of context.

I am Canadian and I know where Tacoma and McChord is.. I have flown out of Seattle once and driven down South many times.

Pilots said ground markers visible (somewhere),, that doesn't mean they were when Cooper jumped, the cloud cover was patchy.. and it doesn't mean he could ID them if he could see them.

Cooper was delayed getting the stairs down, he could not see the ground/lights until he descended the stairs at 8:09.. To claim he intentionally timed that is not supported by anything. 

A pilot describing BG lights does not mean Cooper saw them or recognized them as BG or used them as an indication to jump.. He would not be able to see them, (if he did) until he descended at 8:09.

Again, South is not a path, it encompassed 50% of the direction. That is your error.

 

So, you claim I think he is an idiot who got lucky,, this is a great example RYAN's typical logic and straw-man tactics,, to use hyperbole or ridicule as an argument... newsflash, it isn't an argument. I have never said that, you are making it up just like you are making up these many assumptions.

I said it was ad hoc, that isn't an idiot getting lucky.

Do you understand that you are just making up stuff.

There are good theories and bad theories, not all are equal... 

My theory fits into the evidence and rationalized some significant conflicts.

Your theory is not supported by evidence, is contradicted and relies on many unfounded assumptions.

The more evidence that supports a theory and fewer assumptions the better the theory. 

and your theory is not new, it goes way back, most Cooper beginners jump in excited with this type of thinking and make the same errors. 

 

What I’m suggesting is a plausible plan. You are saying he jumped “ad-hoc,” that is without a plan. That’s the definition of luck. Idiot might be strong and not totally accurate, a better word is scared/panicked. Your story relies on Cooper accepting a change in destination he didn’t have to accept, and that he could not work a lever he was showed how to use (and Ryan just posted has instructions next to it). We both have theories, no one has the ability to prove it. 

Edited Saturday at 09:03 PM by Kamkisky

[olemisscub 549]

10 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

We both have theories, no one has the ability to prove it. 

Yeah, you both have theories, but his are always right. 

[FLYJACK 772]

2 hours ago, Kamkisky said:

What I’m suggesting is a plausible plan. You are saying he jumped “ad-hoc,” that is without a plan. That’s the definition of luck. Idiot might be strong and not totally accurate, a better word is scared/panicked. Your story relies on Cooper accepting a change in destination he didn’t have to accept and that he could work a lever he was showed how to use (and Ryan just posted has instructions next to it). We both have theories, no one has the ability to prove it. 

Plausible has a very very wide parameter. I am sure I could make up dozens of plausible scenarios...

Ad hoc is not luck, he adapted. Fact is, he did change his demand to stairs lowered on takeoff after Reno was in play. Why did he do that?

I have pieces of evidence that support my theory, you don't really..

The only criticism you had was a generalization that a skydiver wouldn't want to go over the ocean as if that means anything. It may be true but that doesn't make the theory false at all.

I know how the lever operates.. The lever has nothing to do with my jump theory. We know Cooper was delayed in getting the stairs down. 

Ryan can't know that Tina or Cooper operated the stairs correctly initally. He is probably using something Tina said and claiming it as fact.

Edited Saturday at 11:14 PM by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 772]

Just now, olemisscub said:

Yeah, you both have theories, but his are always right. 

Classic Ryan,,  I never said that.. you just make up stuff all the time...

Not all theories are created equal some ARE just better than others..

[Robert99 60]

46 minutes ago, georger said:

To assess Cooper's survivability we must know where he landed - is anyone going to finally guess where he landed?

Oh, Georger!  Haven't I mentioned this to you, other posters on this thread, and everyone else on the planet, for about the last 15 years that Cooper had to land as a no-pull in a very restricted area near Tena Bar for the money to get to where it was found.

The details of the above were last posted here within the last few weeks.

Edited Saturday at 09:31 PM by Robert99

[FLYJACK 772]

According to the files..

Tina showed Cooper how to operate the stairs right before takeoff..

Tina went to the cockpit about 4 minutes after takeoff and the stair light came on the first time.

Minutes later Cooper calls saying he was having trouble getting the stairs open. Stair light was on.

After that call Tina notices the stair light come on.

8:05 Cooper says everything ok.

 

If the files are correct and Tina is correct..

Cooper operated the stair lever with Tina in the cockpit.

Cooper was shown stair operation by Tina right before takeoff,, that doesn't mean he did it correctly later. She did not move the lever as the light did not go on until later.

Tina saw the light come on the second time.. the light ONLY indicates the lever was moved from the up/lock detent it does not indicate the stairs were opened. For the light to go on twice the lever must have been returned to the up/lock detent in between. It is possible Tina is mixed up but she did say she saw the light come on in the cockpit so did not see Cooper operate the lever..

 

There is no way Tina or anybody would know if Cooper initially operated the stairs correctly. 

 

[olemisscub 549]

48 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

There is no way Tina or anybody would know if Cooper initially operated the stairs correctly. 

 

I can’t explain, sorry. But I’m right and have won this debate.