DB Cooper

[olemisscub 552]

21 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

 

Ryan and Nicky have been talking about military jumpers and civilian jumpers, and did not take into account air crew who just wore the fronts.

 

Well, actually I did point that out someplace. I was saying that the only people who would’ve used a “combo” in the WWII era would have been paratroopers. I said the only other parachutes used by anyone were backpacks, seat packs, and the chest packs for air crew. My point was that, even if they were being lazy and describing their mains and reserves as “fronts and backs”, the only people who would’ve even had personal experience describing such a setup were paratroopers. 

H wasn’t a paratrooper. So why would we assume that he picked this up from the military as opposed to him or Cooper just describing what they wanted in the most basic sense?

In my personal opinion (obviously Fly feels differently and has the right to feel differently), “backs and fronts” is simply too generic of a phrase for me to derive any sort of conclusion from it aside from it being a pretty clear indicator that he wasn’t a recreational skydiver.

As I’ve said, most everyone here already believes C’s parachute experience came from the military. So digging too deep into generic phraseology is an unnecessary step. 

Edited Monday at 09:27 PM by olemisscub

[olemisscub 552]

22 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Alice is the only one who said small nose in interviews... it must have been her input on the sketch.

We don’t have ANYTHING in the files from their session with Rose. Literally NOTHING. To claim that Alice’s description from Nov 25th of Cooper having a small nose is the sole influence for the nose of the sketch is quite preposterous. 

Are you really suggesting that Roy Rose just picked some random small nose because of something that Alice said to an FBI agent two days earlier? Do you really think the girls just sat there mute and stone faced offering nothing while Rose drew it?

"Flo and Tina, I don't need your assistance on shaping his nose. I have this statement from Alice Hancock two days ago that described the hijacker as having a small nose, so I'm just going to roll with that."

"Well, Mr. Rose, I'm remembering the nose looking a little more like..."

"Silence, Tina! Eyewitnesses assisting sketch artists are to be seen and not heard. In fact, you all can just go back to your apartments or your boyfriends or whatever since I'm going to rely solely on a statement that one of you made two days ago to shape this hijacker's nose. Be gone!"

 

 

Edited Monday at 10:35 PM by olemisscub

[olemisscub 552]

19 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

I bought a lot of bits of it. Ryan you need a new partner. Nicky will only drag you down. 

1) I’m not coaching Nicky.

2) He isn’t my partner. My only partner is lovely and she’s much better looking than him!

Edited Monday at 08:31 PM by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 776]

4 hours ago, olemisscub said:

We don’t have ANYTHING in the files from their session with Rose. Literally NOTHING. To claim that Alice’s description from Nov 25th of Cooper having a small nose is the sole influence for the nose of the sketch is laughable. 

Do you really think that they just sat there mute and stone faced offering nothing while Rose drew it?

 

 

Let's just see how laughable it is...

Tina, said she didn't see Cooper's face.. 

Flo, picked out KK5-1 suggested changes but NOT his big nose..

Alice said "nose small"... the only witness to say that in their interviews.

 

So, who influenced sketch A's tiny nose.. Alice

 

Woops,,  Big nose picked by Flo....

 

Edited Tuesday at 01:20 AM by FLYJACK

[Kamkisky 13]

Cooper had some parachute experience but being in his 40s he had long since stopped being a military paratrooper, if he ever was one. And since Cooper shows no signs of being a regular recreational skydiver how does he prepare? He checked cards, popped reserves, picked the newer chute, put on his chute easy and jumps from jet. This guy prepared some, he wasn’t just going on 25 year old memories from his military days (if he ever had those). 

All of this reads to me like a guy who was either familiar with military jumping OR hung around people familiar with military jumping, and who went to a jump center to brush up before the skyjacking. The brush up would help him with putting on the chute and his jump but it wouldn’t change his baked-in vocabulary. Can I prove any of that…hell no. But it makes sense with the evidence at hand. 

[olemisscub 552]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Let's just see how laughable it is...

Tina, said she didn't see Cooper's face.. 

Flo, picked out KK5-1 suggested changes but NOT his big nose..

Alice said "nose small"... the only witness to say that in their interviews.

 

So, who influenced sketch A's tiny nose.. Alice

 

Woops,,  Big nose picked by Flo....

 

[FLYJACK 776]

9 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Great argument...  for a 12 year old..

Proof of your lack of integrity,, 

Take the L....

Your tiny nose nonsense is dead..

Edited Tuesday at 03:06 AM by FLYJACK

[dudeman17 355]

9 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I found that the military did use cards for bailout and reserves...

They also use a card for chute expiry date.. 

Mains??

 

No. Not mains.

For both military and civilian, reserves and bailout rigs, emergency use chutes, have cards. I have never seen nor heard of a main having a card. The card documents what the canopy is, and it's history - when it was used, any repairs or alterations, and when it was inspected and repacked so the user can determine if the current pack job is 'in date'. Like Divalent said, mains are just used too much to try to keep up with all that on paperwork. And it's not necessary. The owner will generally have an idea how many jumps are on the canopy, but that can pretty much be estimated by an inspection. Occasionally they need a repair, and one might replace the pilot chute or the lines when necessary, like getting new tires on your car, but the need for that can be determined simply by inspection.

[Robert99 62]

On 7/22/2025 at 3:09 PM, FLYJACK said:

Robert,,

I have a question for you,,, 

When the rear stairs came down and Cooper descended there was a slight pitch..

but assuming the stairs were open far enough for a man to stand upright,, the stairs would cause drag... all other things being equal, how much speed would be scrubbed. Those stairs would act like a increased flap down condition.. 

The airstair is 3 ft wide and about 10 ft long below the plane..

Basically, there is not sufficient information available to make a meaningful detailed calculation of this.

So what follows here is the analytical equivalent of "hammer and tong engineering".

During the FBI test flights, it is reported that one of the USAF parachutists did in fact walk to the bottom of the stairs.

As he walked down the stairs he would also be moving toward the rear of the aircraft.  This movement would cause a slight NOSE UP moment for the aircraft.  The amount of this increase in moment depends on his distance from the center of gravity of the aircraft.

As the aft stairs move downward, the aerodynamic force on the stairs can be resolved into two components.  The component parallel to the fuselage reference line is the increase in drag.  This force will be quite small compared to the overall drag of the aircraft which is probably already well in excess of 10,000 pounds.  This drag force component will probably be below the center of gravity of the aircraft and will cause a slight NOSE DOWN moment for the aircraft.

The vertical component of the aerodynamic force on the stairs will be up and will also cause a slight NOSE DOWN moment for the aircraft.

Even with someone standing on the bottom of the stairs, where the wind chill factor is about 30 to 40 degrees below zero, the effect on the overall performance of a 727 is going to be slight and may not even be noticeable if the aircraft is on autopilot or being hand flown in even mild turbulence.

We need to address a remark made by Rataczak that when Cooper jumped and the aft stairs slammed close it caused enough of a disturbance that his headset almost came off.

It should be noted that the flight crew had been told by the FAA Chief Psychologist that Cooper would probably blow up the aircraft when he jumped.  With this cheering news, when the stairs slammed into the fuselage and created a pressure disturbance in the cockpit as well as a lot of noise, I suggest that all four people in that cockpit did a lot of jumping thinking that the bomb had gone off. 

[georger 268]

2 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Basically, there is not sufficient information available to make a meaningful detailed calculation of this.

So what follows here is the analytical equivalent of "hammer and tong engineering".

During the FBI test flights, it is reported that one of the USAF parachutists did in fact walk to the bottom of the stairs.

As he walked down the stairs he would also be moving toward the rear of the aircraft.  This movement would cause a slight NOSE UP moment for the aircraft.  The amount of this increase in moment depends on his distance from the center of gravity of the aircraft.

As the aft stairs move downward, the aerodynamic force on the stairs can be resolved into two components.  The component parallel to the fuselage reference line is the increase in drag.  This force will be quite small compared to the overall drag of the aircraft which is probably already well in excess of 10,000 pounds.  This drag force component will probably be below the center of gravity of the aircraft and will cause a slight NOSE DOWN moment for the aircraft.

The vertical component of the aerodynamic force on the stairs will be up and will also cause a slight NOSE DOWN moment for the aircraft.

Even with someone standing on the bottom of the stairs, where the wind chill factor is about 30 to 40 degrees below zero, the effect on the overall performance of a 727 is going to be slight and may not even be noticeable if the aircraft is on autopilot or being hand flown in even mild turbulence.

We need to address a remark made by Rataczak that when Cooper jumped and the aft stairs slammed close it caused enough of a disturbance that his headset almost came off.

It should be noted that the flight crew had been told by the FAA Chief Psychologist that Cooper would probably blow up the aircraft when he jumped.  With this cheering news, when the stairs slammed into the fuselage and created a pressure disturbance in the cockpit as well as a lot of noise, I suggest that all four people in that cockpit did a lot of jumping thinking that the bomb had gone off. 

t should be noted that the flight crew had been told by the FAA Chief Psychologist that Cooper would probably blow up the aircraft when he jumped.  With this cheering news, when the stairs slammed into the fuselage and created a pressure disturbance in the cockpit as well as a lot of noise, I suggest that all four people in that cockpit did a lot of jumping thinking that the bomb had gone off. 

Precisely and not one word about any of this in the records, or in Rat's talk years later. It would not take long to realise or confirm a bomb had not gone off. Milliseconds. But it would cause confusion and a delay in reporting while they discussed the matter and got their wits back! ...............

will Ryan include this in his book?

 

Edited Tuesday at 08:57 AM by georger

[FLYJACK 776]

8 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Basically, there is not sufficient information available to make a meaningful detailed calculation of this.

So what follows here is the analytical equivalent of "hammer and tong engineering".

During the FBI test flights, it is reported that one of the USAF parachutists did in fact walk to the bottom of the stairs.

As he walked down the stairs he would also be moving toward the rear of the aircraft.  This movement would cause a slight NOSE UP moment for the aircraft.  The amount of this increase in moment depends on his distance from the center of gravity of the aircraft.

As the aft stairs move downward, the aerodynamic force on the stairs can be resolved into two components.  The component parallel to the fuselage reference line is the increase in drag.  This force will be quite small compared to the overall drag of the aircraft which is probably already well in excess of 10,000 pounds.  This drag force component will probably be below the center of gravity of the aircraft and will cause a slight NOSE DOWN moment for the aircraft.

The vertical component of the aerodynamic force on the stairs will be up and will also cause a slight NOSE DOWN moment for the aircraft.

Even with someone standing on the bottom of the stairs, where the wind chill factor is about 30 to 40 degrees below zero, the effect on the overall performance of a 727 is going to be slight and may not even be noticeable if the aircraft is on autopilot or being hand flown in even mild turbulence.

We need to address a remark made by Rataczak that when Cooper jumped and the aft stairs slammed close it caused enough of a disturbance that his headset almost came off.

It should be noted that the flight crew had been told by the FAA Chief Psychologist that Cooper would probably blow up the aircraft when he jumped.  With this cheering news, when the stairs slammed into the fuselage and created a pressure disturbance in the cockpit as well as a lot of noise, I suggest that all four people in that cockpit did a lot of jumping thinking that the bomb had gone off. 

In my psychologically defective mind.. wouldn't a 10 ft long x 3 ft wide stair going down far enough to allow a man to stand act like an increased flap down condition... slightly slowing the aircraft??

and I thought the stairs did not hit the top when they bounced back... they came close but didn't hit.. the hit the top claim was speculation..  I can't remember where that is,,

Where does it confirm a hit at the top?

 

Edited Tuesday at 02:59 PM by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 776]

It never did... Flo was correct.

Edited Tuesday at 04:10 PM by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 776]

11 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

 

No. Not mains.

For both military and civilian, reserves and bailout rigs, emergency use chutes, have cards. I have never seen nor heard of a main having a card. The card documents what the canopy is, and it's history - when it was used, any repairs or alterations, and when it was inspected and repacked so the user can determine if the current pack job is 'in date'. Like Divalent said, mains are just used too much to try to keep up with all that on paperwork. And it's not necessary. The owner will generally have an idea how many jumps are on the canopy, but that can pretty much be estimated by an inspection. Occasionally they need a repair, and one might replace the pilot chute or the lines when necessary, like getting new tires on your car, but the need for that can be determined simply by inspection.

A military packing card... front reserve

https://www.tremontauctions.com/auction-lot/wwii-u.s.a.a.f.-jump-parachute-with-packing-card._11A4506AFE

 

 

I found a military T-10 main with a packing card data pocket??

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:39 PM by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 776]

An inspection card.. 10 day??

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/vietnam-war-10-paratrooper-parachute-4567660426

Edited Tuesday at 04:48 PM by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 552]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

It never did... Flo was correct.

Yes, of course, by all means let's elevate something she said 17 years later over something she said within A WEEK of the hijacking. Nov 30th, 1971:

 

[olemisscub 552]

15 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Your tiny nose nonsense is dead..

I guess that means prescription sunglasses are dead too...

If Hahneman had a narrow little nose you wouldn't be saying shit to me about my opinion on his nose. Remarkable how the only opinions of mine about Cooper's appearance that you take issue with are those that don't work for your suspect. If Hahneman was 6'0 and had a narrow nose there is no way in hell you'd be arguing so vociferously with me about those opinions of mine. No way. It's painfully transparent. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:35 PM by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 776]

59 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I guess that means prescription sunglasses are dead too...

If Hahneman had a narrow little nose you wouldn't be saying shit to me about my opinion on his nose. Remarkable how the only opinions of mine about Cooper's appearance that you take issue with are those that don't work for your suspect. If Hahneman was 6'0 and had a narrow nose there is no way in hell you'd be arguing so vociferously with me about those opinions of mine. No way. It's painfully transparent. 

Why would prescription sunglasses be dead?? either they are or aren't.

Are you claiming that if Cooper had a small nose he also had prescription sunglasses,, your logic is a twisted.

The rest of your comment is made up nonsense. 

You always manufacture a  derogatory characterization of others to support your own delusional opinion.. Is that how they roll in Mississippi...  you just smear people who don't agree with your nonsense.

[olemisscub 552]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Why would prescription sunglasses be dead?? either they are or aren't.

 

Alice is the one who said his sunglasses looked like prescription sunglasses. You say Alice is the sole reason for Bing's nose. You clearly think Alice is a bad witness since you put no stock in her nose selection. So why would you trust her on the sunglasses but not on the nose? It wouldn't be because Hahneman wore prescription sunglasses would it?

[olemisscub 552]

[FLYJACK 776]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

Yes, of course, by all means let's elevate something she said 17 years later over something she said within A WEEK of the hijacking. Nov 30th, 1971:

 

Flo never said anything about KK5-1's large nose,,,  she made other suggestions..

Why leave out the nose...  because she didn't think he had a small nose when she picked out KK5-1..

Your small nose argument is bogus..

You claimed the only reason for sketch B was the attribution error. FALSE, it was incidental.

You claimed that a witness memory is better close to the event, TRUE generally,, but only if the conditions are all the same. You are using a generalization fallacy. 

 

[FLYJACK 776]

15 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Alice is the one who said his sunglasses looked like prescription sunglasses. You say Alice is the sole reason for Bing's nose. You clearly think Alice is a bad witness since you put no stock in her nose selection. So why would you trust her on the sunglasses but not on the nose? It wouldn't be because Hahneman wore prescription sunglasses would it?

Wow, so if a person has one thing off then they have everything off,,

Is that your assertion councillor..

That is the worst argument from you yet...

As a lawyer you know better.

 

You know people can get things right and wrong.. in fact it would rare be for a witness to everything right.

Reading the research, witnesses have a hard time with details,, 

Edited Tuesday at 07:58 PM by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 776]

20 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Sorry man, but mockery just isn't an actual argument. Desperate yes. effective no.

Facts are facts..

Alice,, only one who said "nose small".

Tina,, said she never saw Cooper's face.

Flo,, picked out KK5-1 with a large nose, never mentioned it. Later said none of the sketches really looked like him..

 

Time to take the L, Ryan,, your arguments are all juvenile fallacies..

 

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 08:04 PM by FLYJACK

[c99acer 10]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Sorry man, but mockery just isn't an actual argument. Desperate yes. effective no.

Facts are facts..

Alice,, only one who said "nose small".

Tina,, said she never saw Cooper's face.

Flo,, picked out KK5-1 with a large nose, never mentioned it. Later said none of the sketches really looked like him..

 

Time to take the L, Ryan,, your arguments are all juvenile fallacies..

 

 

 

 

Are you two sure that you're comparing the same sketches to each other and to what the stewardesses said?

I am sure I know which sketch was; "Initial", "Original", "First", "A", or any other terms we have seen. Now add in the game of telephone between the witness, the interviewer, and the one writing the information into the reports. Does everyone know which of the sketches was truly being discussed? Did all the witnesses know there was an "Initial" sketch? Did any of the witnesses only know "A" as the first sketch? Did "A" only gain a label after Sketch "B" came out? 

Did any of the interviews with the witnesses have a visual of the sketch attached to the reports? Or do we all just attach one of the ambiguous labels to it and think we are all speaking the same language?

[olemisscub 552]

 

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

 

You know people can get things right and wrong.. in fact it would rare be for a witness to everything right.

Reading the research, witnesses have a hard time with details,, 

Of course people get things right and wrong at the same time. Duh. I wasn't actually making that argument. I was being facetious to highlight your obvious cherry picking. You clearly prioritize witness descriptions that suit you and dismiss those that don't. How do you know Alice was wrong about Cooper's nose? You don't. For all we know she could be some savant like Rain Man and have a photographic memory. But you discount her automatically because it doesn't work for you for Cooper to have a small nose. But when it comes to her being the only one who said Cooper's sunglasses looked prescription...hold the phones! You'll believe her on that one because your suspect wore prescription sunglasses. 

It really is remarkable how the only witnesses descriptions in this case that you put stock in are the ones that confirm your bias for your suspect. It's uncanny how that always happens. You are a biased researcher. Again, if Hahneman had been six feet tall would you still be hammering out thousands and thousands of words on a keyboard arguing that Cooper MIGHT could have been 5'8? Of course you wouldn't. You don't argue with me over my belief that Cooper was unattractive, but if Hahneman looked like Brad Pitt you would be. You don't argue with me about my belief that Cooper needs to look ethnic, but if Hahneman was as white as most of the other suspects you would be. 

Seriously, look at the things that you spend so much effort gnashing your teeth at me over: my opinion that Cooper was close to 6 feet tall, that his nose wasn't large, and that Comp A is the better sketch. Hell of a coincidence that Hahneman was 5'8, had a larger nose, and cannot conceivably be a match for Comp A. 

Cry all you want and say I'm attacking you. That's fine. But it's quite obvious why you argue with me so strenuously about certain aspects of Cooper's description. You have a clear agenda and you interpret the evidence to fit that agenda. 

Edited Tuesday at 10:17 PM by olemisscub

[olemisscub 552]

49 minutes ago, c99acer said:

Are you two sure that you're comparing the same sketches to each other and to what the stewardesses said?

I am sure I know which sketch was; "Initial", "Original", "First", "A", or any other terms we have seen. Now add in the game of telephone between the witness, the interviewer, and the one writing the information into the reports. Does everyone know which of the sketches was truly being discussed? Did all the witnesses know there was an "Initial" sketch? Did any of the witnesses only know "A" as the first sketch? Did "A" only gain a label after Sketch "B" came out? 

Did any of the interviews with the witnesses have a visual of the sketch attached to the reports? Or do we all just attach one of the ambiguous labels to it and think we are all speaking the same language?

We know what sketch they are talking about in the files because of the dates of those particular interviews. We know the dates the sketches were created and thus know which sketch they are being interviewed about on whatever particular date.