FLYJACK

I don't think they were already on there but maybe a parachute expert can chime in.. It looks like those white cords were attached to the outside handles... If so, then Cooper may have opened up the dummy chute to get those white cords... Here is a Vietnam era chute... shows the straps/handles that the white cords were tied to on the Cooper chute.

I think this came up before.. From Kaye, a total of 79.6 feet of pink cord is missing... but we don't know if it was removed by Cooper or later,,, FBI report only 2 lines were cut.. Cooper likely used 28.2 ft to tie the bag to his waist.. Tina said he initially tried to put the money in the container but abandoned that.. those short white cords may have been his attempt to attach it to himself due to no D rings. However, those cords are white not pink,, so did they come from the dummy chute??

You need to admit you were wrong to yourself.. I don't really care, I know you got it wrong as it was obvious and I just pointed it out... not trying to colour anything. This is a simple and obvious error. Your comment indicates you are still unwilling to account for your error.. this is your pattern and problem. You used the volume of the bag as the density of a solid.. You were WRONG, not just using different data points, you used the wrong numbers because you didn't fully understand the calculation. Clearly, you want to appear to be right more than get to the facts... not a good characteristic for a "researcher".. Take the "L", people respect that.

OK, I watched episode 1 and it is very underwhelming... not good. Very basic, covers the hijacking in general and throws in Rackstraw stuff.. We have seen it all before. you can see it here, but I am sure it will get taken down shortly. Watch it ASAP.

"Additionally, if the bag was tightly secured as suspected, the money would not have been able to fan out and sink until it became free of the bag." Huh,, where does that come from.. it doesn't make sense, the bag and money only needs to absorb water to alter density, You know what it means. You are obfuscating. The money can't fan out and sink if it is inside of a tightly secured bag. That's a different statement than "it only needs to absorb water to alter density". Your error was using the size of the bag and not the money itself. There was no error because we don't know the size of the actual bag used. If you had read my post, you would have seen that I used the dimensions from Eric Ulis. There are many descriptions of the size of the bag. I chose one of them. Regardless, if you had read my post, you would have seen that I did the same calculations with just the money, and it was still less dense than freshwater. The bag is not solid, not water or air tight. Who is claiming it is? Not me. A canvas bag tied at the top would absorb and be infiltrated by water fairly quickly... How do you know how the bag was tied? How do you know how DBC secured it? What does "fairly quickly" mean? A minute? 20 minutes? An hour? The money and bag would initially float Then why are you trying to pick a fight with me about it? but sink when it absorbed the water Of course, I'm not saying it would float forever. just like the single packet in Tom Kaye's experiment. How can a packet of money tightly packed inside of a bag behave the same way as a packet dropped freely in water? They would not have the same surface area. You or your expert should have caught the error when the number was just 0.0552, a ridiculous number. Again, there was no error. If you had read my post, you'd see that. There is a difference between an error in calculation and plugging different numbers into a formula. Beyond that you need to account for the diatoms and Rataczak's claim that he called Soderlind before the suburbs of Portland. Yes, there were two comms from Rataczak. One immediately and one delayed. My post is related to the buoyancy of the money bag. ------------- You were wrong and can't admit it so you dance around it making semantic excuses.. You claimed the money needs to fan out free of the bag to sink. WRONG You used the size of the canvas bag as if it were a solid item. WRONG Your argument is that the bag would float supports your TBAR theory, you never acknowledged that it would be brief like Kaye's packet experiment. So, WRONG You and your so called expert did commit an error, 0.0544 is a ridiculous density number for that object, it should have been caught there as a bad input and rechecked. WRONG You didn't just plug in different numbers you used the WRONG numbers based on the WRONG assumption. Garbage in garbage out. You just can't handle being wrong and you keep trying to put a round peg in a square hole,,, What do we really have, the money/bag was slightly below the density of water and would float until it became saturated which was probably a very short time.. this tells us nothing about TBAR and in no way supports your theory. Your argument was flawed, your conclusion was flawed and somehow it is my fault for pointing it out. Everybody makes errors,, some just make them more often than others.

D.B. Cooper: Where Are You?! Season 1, Episode 1 Take the Money and Jump Transcript https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=1418&t=54970 Nothing new, just the basics...

"Additionally, if the bag was tightly secured as suspected, the money would not have been able to fan out and sink until it became free of the bag." Huh,, where does that come from.. it doesn't make sense, the bag and money only needs to absorb water to alter density, I believe the three TBAR packets arrived as part of a single banded bundle, not individually, that is how they went into the bag, rubber banded bundles of packets. We already know the money would float briefly before sinking.. Your error was using the size of the bag and not the money itself. The bag is not solid, not water or air tight. A canvas bag tied at the top would absorb and be infiltrated by water fairly quickly... The money and bag would initially float but sink when it absorbed the water just like the single packet in Tom Kaye's experiment. A single packet would act the same way. You or your expert should have caught the error when the number was just 0.0552, a ridiculous number. Beyond that you need to account for the diatoms and Rataczak's claim that he called Soderlind before the suburbs of Portland. Yes, there were two comms from Rataczak. One immediately and one delayed.

Chaucer's calculations are completely wrong... He is using the dimensions of the bag, not the dimensions of the money. The bag is not solid or water or air tight. I get 801 cu inches for the money, that is 13,126 cu cm. (there are several estimates given for the money size) 1 packet of 100 bills.. 0.5 thick x 2.61 wide x 6.14 long = 8.0127 cu inches x100 packets = 801 cu inches or 13,126 cu cm (801 inches is about 10 x 10 x 8) I get a slightly less weight number than 10.35 kg but we'll use it for comparison. plug in numbers... density = 0.7885 just below the density of water. (0.0552 is ridiculous and should have been caught as such) Now, with a 0.7885 density just below water the money bag would float initially until the money absorbed enough water to put it over the density of water at 1. With a slightly less weight as I calculated the density would drop a slight amount but the effect remains. Exactly what Tom Kaye found with the single packet, floated initially then sank as it became water saturated. also, the money went into the bag in banded bundles of packets, not individual packets.

Yes, the legal standard is higher than a clinical one..

Sketch A is garbage and should be ignored, if your suspect looks like sketch A he can be eliminated, sketch B is better. The descriptions by witnesses are more important than the sketches themselves. The image I have from a witness does show a wider nose.. Problem is the sketches are front only giving one flat perspective. One stew said she never saw Cooper's front angle.. most witnesses saw the side profile-3/4 view.. The FBI discussed doing a profile sketch but one has never been released.

Most hijackers had a mental illness..

Don't really have high hopes for this thing... Slight chance we learn something new.. https://www.oregonlive.com/entertainment/2022/07/the-unsolved-case-of-skyjacker-db-cooper-is-explored-again-in-new-netflix-documentary-series.html

Was the Heisson store specifically mentioned because it wasn't in the 302.. only the general area was mentioned. It wasn't named in the 302 we have..

Fragile,, glass like. They were found on an inside bill deeper in.. from the edge. The theory is they were introduced when the money was first exposed to the water as the money got wet fanned out and sank. The packets became solidified in the sand with the diatoms effectively sealed within. Diatoms are too fragile to go through the sand to the money. So, the spring/summer diatoms and lack of winter diatoms indicates that the money was first introduced to the Columbia River in a spring/summer from '72 to '79.... an obvious delay from the date of the hijacking. Now, there are many scenarios that one can come up with from there..

Mucklow - Schafner sketch was done in Minneapolis by Roy Rose at NWA headquarters... he did not do the first sketch.

McCoy was not Cooper.... for many reasons.

It doesn't matter, they DID redact Northwest Airlines comms not related to 305... Those would not fall under a FOIA...

Teletype log redactions were exclusions of non Flight 305 Northwest Airlines traffic.. The redactions were not hiding anything. In 1976, Flo believed she could not ID Cooper from photos.

I agree, in denominations of $20's the money would just fit tight in an average sized knapsack,, By asking for it in a knapsack Cooper had it figured out that the authorities were to make it fit. No smaller than $20's.. if all 20's didn't fit they could have used some larger bills,, but since they ignored Cooper's demand (probably intentionally) we'll never know.

MONEY IN THE BAG WEIGHED NINETEEN POUNDS AND THE CONTENTS MEASURED ELEVEN INCHES BY TWELVE INCHES BY SIX AND ONE HALF INCHES.” p 2026 That sounds like it would fit in a knapsack (20's), aka small backpack,,, but not smaller bills.

The Bellingham Herald article Nov 1987 (mentioned on Shutters site) Tina says Cooper had tobacco stained teeth.. this has never been mentioned before.. however, if you read the entire article there are many gross errors.. So, is it legit... maybe, maybe not.. Based on the other obvious gross errors in the article, I don't give it much credit without some other confirmation.

Don't know the size,, but I found that a knapsack is a small backpack with two straps... though it doesn't have to be worn on the back..

Internet seems to say no.. https://radaris.com/~Harold-Williams/1569626474

Lidar was done.. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/49920

Yes, according to Tina's Rolling Stone interview her father was an electrician. No inferences but it might be interesting to find out where he worked.