DB Cooper

[Kamkisky 28]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Cooper did not jump in the Portland area or even in the Portland Metropolitan Area.. 20-25 miles North.

However, my point was that it is not a certainly that Cooper could see the ground even from the bottom of the stairs as many seem to assume...  maybe, if there was a break in the clouds at the right spot.

We know that in 71 the first city lights after the dense forest was BG. It lines up.  

[FLYJACK 784]

8 hours ago, Kamkisky said:

We know that in 71 the first city lights after the dense forest was BG. It lines up.  

Cooper couldn't see any city glow "lights" if he even did until he was down the stairs..

"Lining up" doesn't make it a fact. It actually doesn't really line up..

He went down the stairs well before Battleground...  Unlikely the lights had anything to do with it..  

Cooper using the lights of Battleground is a weak theory at best.

You are stacking several assumptions to claim Cooper intentionally jumped at a spot knowingly using the lights of Battleground....

He was delayed getting stairs down..

He could not see the glow of Battle Ground until he was at the bottom of the stairs and looked forward.

He might have seen the glow of Battle Ground from the bottom of the stairs..

If he did see it,, there is no evidence or indication he knew it was Battleground.

There is no evidence or indication he targeting his jump in any way..

 

Most likely,, he wanted to jump ASAP, was delayed having trouble getting the stairs down,, he went down the stairs about 8:09 picked a spot and jumped about 8:11... if he did notice the Battle Ground glow that was incidental.. 

He gave no path and the plane could have been nowhere near Battle Ground..

Edited 10 hours ago by FLYJACK

[Kamkisky 28]

51 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Cooper couldn't see any city glow "lights" if he even did until he was down the stairs..

"Lining up" doesn't make it a fact. It actually doesn't really line up..

He went down the stairs well before Battleground...  Unlikely the lights had anything to do with it..  

Cooper using the lights of Battleground is a weak theory at best.

This comes down to what standard of evidence we are using. I feel confident I could get a civil jury to agree. That’s 50.1%. Simply more likely than not…I think given the evidence thats achievable. Of course it fails if we talk about beyond a reasonable doubt…but if that’s the standard everything in this case for the last 50 years fails. 

[FLYJACK 784]

41 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

This comes down to what standard of evidence we are using. I feel confident I could get a civil jury to agree. That’s 50.1%. Simply more likely than not…I think given the evidence thats achievable. Of course it fails if we talk about beyond a reasonable doubt…but if that’s the standard everything in this case for the last 50 years fails. 

Self serving nonsense. Another terrible assumption...

This isn't an argument...

Cooper did not know where the plane would be, he had no pre-knowledge that the plane would be near Battle Ground..

If he did see the lights and that is IF, it was incidental

Edited 9 hours ago by FLYJACK

[Kamkisky 28]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Self serving nonsense. Another terrible assumption...

This isn't an argument...

Cooper did not know where the plane would be, he had no pre-knowledge that the plane would be near Battle Ground..

If he did see the lights and that is IF, it was incidental

If I’m on a plane in Seattle and am familiar with the terrain below, then it’s agreed the plane is going to fly to Reno and it takes off and goes straight south…do I have “no pre-knowledge the plane would be near Battle Ground?” It’s laughable. Not only do I have pre-knowledge of BG but also of the dense forest before it and that Portland would be under the plane in a matter of a few minutes after it. Maybe you would not have pre-knowledge but I suspect you would too.  

The entire case that Cooper didn’t know the region he jumped into is because he didn’t say fly V23. But south is a substitute for V23, so that argument doesn’t hold up. It’s like if I went into a bar and ordered a Pale Ale. Someone could claim I didn’t know exactly which beer I was getting because I didn’t specify the brand, but if there’s only one Pale Ale on tap guess what? It’s very easy to use substitutions in language and still get exactly what you want. 

[FLYJACK 784]

36 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

If I’m on a plane in Seattle and am familiar with the terrain below, then it’s agreed the plane is going to fly to Reno and it takes off and goes straight south…do I have “no pre-knowledge the plane would be near Battle Ground?” It’s laughable. Not only do I have pre-knowledge of BG but also of the dense forest before it and that Portland would be under the plane in a matter of a few minutes after it. Maybe you would not have pre-knowledge but I suspect you would too.  

The entire case that Cooper didn’t know the region he jumped into is because he didn’t say fly V23. But south is a substitute for V23, so that argument doesn’t hold up. It’s like if I went into a bar and ordered a Pale Ale. Someone could claim I didn’t know exactly which beer I was getting because I didn’t specify the brand, but if there’s only one Pale Ale on tap guess what? It’s very easy to use substitutions in language and still get exactly what you want. 

You are just wrong..... South is not a path.. it could have taken other paths and there would be no reason for Cooper to NOT demand or confirm a path if he had a predetermined target.. Your argument fails right there.

He had no predetermined target. Your theory is so weak made of layers of assumptions and contradicted by facts that it is really not worth consideration...

But stick to it all you want.. People make up stuff in this case all the time..

[Kamkisky 28]

15 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

You are just wrong..... South is not a path.. it could have taken other paths and there would be no reason for Cooper to NOT demand or confirm a path if he had a predetermined target.. Your argument fails right there.

He had no predetermined target. Your theory is so weak made of layers of assumptions and contradicted by facts that it is really not worth consideration...

But stick to it all you want.. People make up stuff in this case all the time..

You use the word path a lot. You have yet to define it. I’m curious how in this case you can define path without reference to directionality. I don’t think you can. 

You again also go to the mindset of the pilots/GC and not Cooper. The plane can’t veer east because of the mountains. A parajacker literally wearing his chute is not accepting the plane going west to the coast. The only “path” that is on the table is south. Cooper only discussed south. 

It’s back to my SF airport/Central Valley analogue. I say NY,  they say what about Denver. Ok. Or what about Salt Lake, fine. Kansas City, cool. Charlotte, no problem. Why? Because they are all east. I don’t care which one or what V is flown. I just need the plane to fly ****** east. That’s it. That’s my “path.” And I could land in farmland every time. Cooper just used the PNW version of this concept.

It’s so basic. I assume nothing. He negotiated only south. The plane went south. Pilots could see distinctive lights on the ground. He waited over the forest and jumped at the first city lights into farmland. Mac jumped lights too. Id rest my case. I’d win the civil trial. 
 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Kamkisky

[FLYJACK 784]

4 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

You use the word path a lot. You have yet to define it. I’m curious how in this case you can define path without reference to directionality. I don’t think you can. 

You again also go to the mindset of the pilots/GC and not Cooper. The plane can’t veer east because of the mountains. A parajacker literally wearing his chute is not accepting the plane going west to the coast. The only “path” that is on the table is south. Cooper only discussed south. 

It’s back to my SF airport/Central Valley analogue. I say NY,  they say what about Denver. Ok. Or what about Salt Lake, fine. Kansas City, cool. Charlotte, no problem. Why? Because they are all east. I don’t care which one or what V is flown. I just need the plane to fly ****** east. That’s it. That’s my “path.” And I could land in farmland every time. Cooper just used the PNW version of this concept.

It’s so basic. I assume nothing. He negotiated only south. The plane went south. Pilots could see distinctive lights on the ground. He waited over the forest and jumped at the first city lights into farmland. Mac jumped lights too. Id rest my case. I’d win the civil trial. 
 

 

I am not going bite,, you are wrong and making absurd arguments..

If you have evidence that I don't have then I would revisit but until then it is a dead end..  Maybe try to convince Georger..

[Kamkisky 28]

9 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I am not going bite,, you are wrong and making absurd arguments..

If you have evidence that I don't have then I would revisit but until then it is a dead end..  Maybe try to convince Georger..

I don’t think Georger can define path in this case without reference to directionality either. It’s a term you are using either incorrectly or without meaning. 

I think I’d land in the Central Valley every time.

I think he jumped the lights, because that’s exactly when he jumped.

And I don’t have secret evidence, I don’t need it. The distinctive lights quote you put is significant evidence of my theory. Thanks for that.  

Edited 7 hours ago by Kamkisky

[lxchilton 8]

14 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

You use the word path a lot. You have yet to define it. I’m curious how in this case you can define path without reference to directionality. I don’t think you can. 

You again also go to the mindset of the pilots/GC and not Cooper. The plane can’t veer east because of the mountains. A parajacker literally wearing his chute is not accepting the plane going west to the coast. The only “path” that is on the table is south. Cooper only discussed south. 

It’s back to my SF airport/Central Valley analogue. I say NY,  they say what about Denver. Ok. Or what about Salt Lake, fine. Kansas City, cool. Charlotte, no problem. Why? Because they are all east. I don’t care which one or what V is flown. I just need the plane to fly ****** east. That’s it. That’s my “path.” And I could land in farmland every time. Cooper just used the PNW version of this concept.

It’s so basic. I assume nothing. He negotiated only south. The plane went south. Pilots could see distinctive lights on the ground. He waited over the forest and jumped at the first city lights into farmland. Mac jumped lights too. Id rest my case. I’d win the civil trial. 
 

 

I think that arguing anything other than a version of events like this--go south and when you see some lights jump out of the plane--is what requires special evidence. This is literally the simplest explanation. Just because he jumps quickly after getting to the bottom of the stairs doesn't mean anything. If the plan is "jump at lights" and the lights show up quickly...that still means it was his plan.

[FLYJACK 784]

6 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

I don’t think Georger can define path in this case without reference to directionality either. It’s a term you are using either incorrectly or without meaning. 

I think I’d land in the Central Valley every time.

I think he jumped the lights, because that’s exactly when he jumped.

And I don’t have secret evidence, I don’t need it. The distinctive lights quote you put is significant evidence of my theory. Thanks for that.  

No, it isn's exactly when he jumped,, and you have zero evidence he saw the lights, planned to jump at the lights and he did not have the pre-knowledge that the plane would be there on that path...

You have manufactured a narrative which is fine for a theory but it does not fit the evidence.

[FLYJACK 784]

12 minutes ago, lxchilton said:

I think that arguing anything other than a version of events like this--go south and when you see some lights jump out of the plane--is what requires special evidence. This is literally the simplest explanation. Just because he jumps quickly after getting to the bottom of the stairs doesn't mean anything. If the plan is "jump at lights" and the lights show up quickly...that still means it was his plan.

The difference is when.. Did he have this "plan" before he got on the plane... Evidence says no... 

[dudeman17 366]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Cooper couldn't see any city glow "lights" if he even did until he was down the stairs..

 

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

He could not see the glow of Battle Ground until he was at the bottom of the stairs and looked forward.

 

Nah. The pilots did report seeing the lights. Since cities are considerably wider than aircraft, Cooper would likely have been able to see them too by simply looking forward out the side windows.

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?

You keep saying that they 'could have' gone out over the ocean. The question then is, if they had would Cooper have spoken up? Well they didn't, so we'll never know.

Recently you were pissed off because you thought I had 'insulted' you. Is there anyone here that you don't insult?

[FLYJACK 784]

27 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

 

 

Nah. The pilots did report seeing the lights. Since cities are considerably wider than aircraft, Cooper would likely have been able to see them too by simply looking forward out the side windows.

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?

You keep saying that they 'could have' gone out over the ocean. The question then is, if they had would Cooper have spoken up? Well they didn't, so we'll never know.

Recently you were pissed off because you thought I had 'insulted' you. Is there anyone here that you don't insult?

Lunacy...  curtain was closed.. blinds were pulled..

He could only see that far forward if looking around stairs from bottom, possible but no evidence he saw Battle Ground or planned it... but that isn't the point, South is not a path,,, he had ZERO knowledge for that plane to be there.

It is a weak theory that doesn't fit the evidence, just layers and layers of assumptions.

In fact, they seriously discussed taking the coast, going over populated areas with a potential bomb was not a good idea..

 

Edited 5 hours ago by FLYJACK

[lxchilton 8]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

The difference is when.. Did he have this "plan" before he got on the plane... Evidence says no... 

To me it sounds like this is the plan he had in its entirety the whole time; there's little to suggest any other plan other than this rough one, he seems to have followed it without much fuss when told he couldn't do it as he originally stated, and it worked. 

The biggest thing here is that it doesn't matter--I don't think it will help prove who he was if we focus on this part of the hijacking since there isn't enough information to suggest something about a solid plan or where he intended to land. If he had been concrete in those things we could maybe put something together.

For me we can tell that he was unafraid to jump into the night, fine with using a "good enough" approach to where he would land, and confident enough in the vagaries of the eventual flightpath that was settled on to not put up a fuss. Useful info, but...

I err on the side of him having a basic plan to get the plane going south, however, he could have literally had no idea where he would end up at all and just gotten lucky again. He's good at luck.

All that to say that when we find him this stuff will fit in and we can remove a lot of the fuzziness from our end, but it's not going to narrow down people enough to start with it.

[FLYJACK 784]

16 minutes ago, lxchilton said:

To me it sounds like this is the plan he had in its entirety the whole time; there's little to suggest any other plan other than this rough one, he seems to have followed it without much fuss when told he couldn't do it as he originally stated, and it worked. 

The biggest thing here is that it doesn't matter--I don't think it will help prove who he was if we focus on this part of the hijacking since there isn't enough information to suggest something about a solid plan or where he intended to land. If he had been concrete in those things we could maybe put something together.

For me we can tell that he was unafraid to jump into the night, fine with using a "good enough" approach to where he would land, and confident enough in the vagaries of the eventual flightpath that was settled on to not put up a fuss. Useful info, but...

I err on the side of him having a basic plan to get the plane going south, however, he could have literally had no idea where he would end up at all and just gotten lucky again. He's good at luck.

All that to say that when we find him this stuff will fit in and we can remove a lot of the fuzziness from our end, but it's not going to narrow down people enough to start with it.

So, you are stated a few generalities,,, "it worked" etc.. that don't actually support the argument. 

How can he have this plan the entire time if he gave no path, no demand or confirmation for the planes position.. It can be reasonably argued he would have no expectation for the plane to fly over a populated area...

Safe to assume he had a plan,,  targeting his jump where he did based on the lights of Battle Ground wasn't it. His jump as ad hoc... and I believe NOT his original plan based on the evidence..  

There is no way Cooper boards the plane targeting his eventual LZ... no way.. He adjusted and just jumped..

Edited 4 hours ago by FLYJACK

[lxchilton 8]

45 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

So, you are stated a few generalities,,, "it worked" etc.. that don't actually support the argument. 

How can he have this plan the entire time if he gave no path, no demand or confirmation for the planes position.. It can be reasonably argued he would have no expectation for the plane to fly over a populated area...

Safe to assume he had a plan,,  targeting his jump where he did based on the lights of Battle Ground wasn't it. His jump as ad hoc... and I believe NOT his original plan based on the evidence..  

There is no way Cooper boards the plane targeting his eventual LZ... no way.. He adjusted and just jumped..

Right but his plan may have been to do exactly that. It might seem somewhat barebones and even dumb from our point of view, but it indeed worked; we are forced to pick up the pieces and try and make sense of it. 

I don't know what 'evidence' you are pointing to; we know that he got on the plane and that he left the plane and, using the bits that we can piece together from transcripts, witnesses, etc., we can try and decide why he did the things he did. There's nothing that makes it clear what his exact plan was once he got on the plane. He didn't have instructions prewritten, he worked and instructed as things went on. His plan appears to have been malleable and it could have been as nebulous as "once I get them off the ground headed somewhere farther away I will jump out once I see the first lights of civilization."

He could have timed himself and gotten lucky.

He could have planned everything out before the jump as he did and told himself "I'll just wing the jump part."

I think there are options that are more likely than not, but I can't think he wasn't at least cognizant of the cardinal directions on the map. I don't think he's pinpointing where he's going to land but he might assume he's within walking distance of the interstate in the dark or something of that level. That's a plan.

Knowing that he planned something else that didn't work out and ended up going this requires orders of magnitude more evidence.

[FLYJACK 784]

16 minutes ago, lxchilton said:

Right but his plan may have been to do exactly that. It might seem somewhat barebones and even dumb from our point of view, but it indeed worked; we are forced to pick up the pieces and try and make sense of it. 

I don't know what 'evidence' you are pointing to; we know that he got on the plane and that he left the plane and, using the bits that we can piece together from transcripts, witnesses, etc., we can try and decide why he did the things he did. There's nothing that makes it clear what his exact plan was once he got on the plane. He didn't have instructions prewritten, he worked and instructed as things went on. His plan appears to have been malleable and it could have been as nebulous as "once I get them off the ground headed somewhere farther away I will jump out once I see the first lights of civilization."

He could have timed himself and gotten lucky.

He could have planned everything out before the jump as he did and told himself "I'll just wing the jump part."

I think there are options that are more likely than not, but I can't think he wasn't at least cognizant of the cardinal directions on the map. I don't think he's pinpointing where he's going to land but he might assume he's within walking distance of the interstate in the dark or something of that level. That's a plan.

Knowing that he planned something else that didn't work out and ended up going this requires orders of magnitude more evidence.

Why is this so hard to understand.. 

You are arguing he pre-planned a random jump... OK,, makes no sense but fine.

The evidence is that he had no indication where the plane would be,, it could have been on the coast...

His eventual LZ was not his original plan when he boarded the plane,,, his original plan would be speculation but facts suggest it was somewhere further South... and he would have given specific path instructions in the air.. 

The fact that he did not ensure a position for the plane proves he did not target a location.. this is simple stuff..

To believe his original plan was a random jump is silly,,, 

The simplest and best explanation within the evidence... He boarded with a jump plan, when Reno was in play he altered it and jumped as soon as he felt he could,,,  

[Kamkisky 28]

47 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Why is this so hard to understand.. 

You are arguing he pre-planned a random jump... OK,, makes no sense but fine.

The evidence is that he had no indication where the plane would be,, it could have been on the coast...

His eventual LZ was not his original plan when he boarded the plane,,, his original plan would be speculation but facts suggest it was somewhere further South... and he would have given specific path instructions in the air.. 

The fact that he did not ensure a position for the plane proves he did not target a location.. this is simple stuff..

To believe his original plan was a random jump is silly,,, 

The simplest and best explanation within the evidence... He boarded with a jump plan, when Reno was in play he altered it and jumped as soon as he felt he could,,,  

This is getting boring so I’ll bail out after this but it seems to need restating…he could have gone to Mexico if he wanted. He nailed the max distance of a fully loaded 727 flying normally. That was obviously not a guess. So when they come back and say refuels needed/Reno, you claim that’s a mixup yada yada…but it doesn’t matter.
 

Nothing they said would have changed his knowledge.
 

He knew the plane could go to Mexico (fact), and he knew it had a full tank (fact). If he wanted to go there he simply reminds them of who has the bomb (fact..he has the bomb). You have nothing to counter those three facts. You assume he/pilots/GC got confused in the game of telephone around the configuration. But again…that’s not relevant to what he knew to be facts. He didn’t get amnesia and forget. 

[FLYJACK 784]

1 minute ago, Kamkisky said:

This is getting boring so I’ll bail out after this but it seems to need restating…he could have gone to Mexico if he wanted. He nailed the max distance of a fully loaded 727 flying normally. That was obviously not a guess. So when they come back and say refuels needed/Reno, you claim that’s a mixup yada yada…but it doesn’t matter.
 

Nothing they said would have changed his knowledge.
 

He knew the plane could go to Mexico (fact), and he knew it had a full tank (fact). If he wanted to go there he simply reminds them of who has the bomb (fact..he has the bomb). You have nothing to counter those three facts. You assume he/pilots/GC got confused in the game of telephone around the configuration. But again…that’s not relevant to what he knew to be facts. He didn’t get amnesia and forget. 

It got boring when you claimed South was a path... one of dumbest things I have ever heard on this forum.. and Cooper knew the plane would be there,, complete nonsense, rejected not supported by evidence.

Now, you shifted to attack a theory...  with assumptions not evidence.

Your theory is busted by evidence...  see the difference.

My theory fits within the evidence and explains some things that don't make sense otherwise...  of course it doesn't make it true.. it is a theory to be tested with facts.

Your theory doesn't fit in the evidence and relies on compounding weak assumptions.

If there is actual evidence to reject my theory let me know..  your assumptions don't cut it.

 

[georger 271]

1 hour ago, Kamkisky said:

This is getting boring so I’ll bail out after this but it seems to need restating…he could have gone to Mexico if he wanted. He nailed the max distance of a fully loaded 727 flying normally. That was obviously not a guess. So when they come back and say refuels needed/Reno, you claim that’s a mixup yada yada…but it doesn’t matter.
 

Nothing they said would have changed his knowledge.
 

He knew the plane could go to Mexico (fact), and he knew it had a full tank (fact). If he wanted to go there he simply reminds them of who has the bomb (fact..he has the bomb). You have nothing to counter those three facts. You assume he/pilots/GC got confused in the game of telephone around the configuration. But again…that’s not relevant to what he knew to be facts. He didn’t get amnesia and forget. 

Nothing they said would have changed his knowledge.  (or his psychology)

FJ keeps yammering about 'the evidence'. FJ can only select what to call 'evidence'. There is more to this game of selecting what to call evidence. Firstly, nobody has interviewed Cooper to ask what he was thinking-doing at any point during the hijacking. Thus, anyone claiming to know 'the evidence' is engaging in guesswork to a large extent!

Assuming Cooper was a rational consistent player, his performance suggests his psychology, and what he was doing and not doing, and what he was concerned with. Namely  timely escape from the plane leading to an escape plan, regardless of what he could see or not see or even where he was. Or, Cooper jumping when he did could be precisely because he could see or even saw something that tipped him to jumping when he did vs before or later! Cooper still has choices and is making choices in spite of what 'evidence' FJ chooses to call 'evidence'.

Especially if he is FJ's suspect FJ touts as being very intelligent, informed, etc!

Whatever the facts, FJ is not claiming Cooper was irrational, stupid, trapped, forced against his will, etc. Or maybe that is precisely what FJ is claiming? There is nothing to suggest Cooper had lost his internal clock or had somehow lost the sense of time passing. There are some facts and variables in this hijacking that are outside FJ's power to manipulate and some of those facts are Cooper himself...

     

Edited 4 minutes ago by georger