FLYJACK

Eric is making it up from this report...

Stop accepting this garbage.. these aren't all facts. A mix of conjecture and guessing. This isn't a valid argument. it is a bumper sticker. Ulis writes.. Facts:1) We know where the money was found.2) We know where the placard was found.3) We know where the fiberglass skirt was found.4) We know the altitude of the jet.5) We know the direction of the wind at various altitudes.6) We know the speed of the wind at various altitudes.7) We know that nothing has ever been found in the FBI search area after nearly 50 years. 1 yes 2 We don't know if the Placard was from Norjak. It was never confirmed. The FBI walked it back. 3 We don't know what part was found or where it came from,, 4 yes 5 We don't know the wind direction at the Placard location. Toledo closest, wind was from the S. FBI estimated the wind based on Portland and Salem.. far away. 6 We don't know the wind speed at the Placard location. 7 We don't know that nothing was found.. nothing has been reported confirmed.

Western Flight Path is dead... stick a fork in it. Portland radar operator, East of the center of V23. Ammerman was watching the less accurate Salem.. The chase aircraft following 5 miles behind veered East then made a right turn.. small airfield marked with parachute, marked on map just N of Orchards would be close to where the unsub left the plane. This matches the FBI map.. and rules out the Western flight path. Ammerman confirmed sending the chase planes E just N of Portland. It was after Cooper was thought to have left the plane. (before 8:15) lights of Portland... in FBI file It just occurred to me that if Cooper could see the lights or glow of Portland/Vancouver he probably would not jump into an urban area.. a knock against a Columbia R jump.

Some things.. The original Cooper thread (2008) here that was locked is no longer locked. https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/55701-d-b-cooper-unsolved-skyjacking/page/68/ FBI.. DB Cooper file #49 is posted https://vault.fbi.gov/D-B-Cooper%20/d.b.-cooper-part-49-of-49/view

This is the original DB Cooper thread that was locked..

While the forum gets distracted.. I have been organizing all my Cooper files, big job. I found this and it should be interesting for everyone.. A 2008 news article quoted... Dennis Levanen, who lives in the Heisson area, said he vividly remembers the airplane flying directly over his house on Thanksgiving Eve in 1971. He quibbles with the FBI’s flight path of the airplane, noting that it appears several miles west of where it actually flew. “It was just huge and roaring,” he said. “It was under a lot of power to keep it airborne, going as slow as the guy demanded.” https://web.archive.org/web/20080402013303/http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/03/03282008_Chute-opens-speculation.cfm He is saying the FBI path was a few miles West of his house. I found his house is right in line with the Heisson store along the same path direction but a few miles East of the FBI path.. THIS RULES OUT THE WESTERN FLIGHT PATH. The Heisson Store is around the 8:12-8:13 time along flightpath. Blue line chute found, never physically checked. Red line is rail line runs next to Heisson store that was broken into.

Cooper gave the name "Dan Cooper", "D B" was an error by the media.

McNally audio interview 2 parts.. https://www.burnerphonepodcast.com/burnerphonenavigation/2018/7/18/edward-j-mcnally-former-hijacker https://www.burnerphonepodcast.com/burnerphonenavigation/2018/7/25/martin-j-mcnally-former-hijacker-part-2 He lost the money in the jump and vowed to do it again.. got arrested. It was his first jump. He gave generous $$$ to stew..

There are a bunch of pages starting at FBI p 5111 in FBI file part 17 https://vault.fbi.gov/D-B-Cooper Elsinore pops in an OCR search in .. FBI Part 48, 40, 34, 33, 30, 20, 19 and 17

Right, it is my fault for you not reading it. I quoted it for context responding to a question from CooperNWO305. My comments had nothing to do with Bruce's piece, he just summarized all the sketches and that was what CooperNWO305 was referring to. It wasn't posted for YOU to distort and crap all over.. If he has something wrong in that piece point it out, otherwise you are discrediting yourself whether you have a legit beef or not.

The Vortex podcast.. Drew Beeson on Ted Braden https://thecoopervortex.podbean.com One thing he has wrong and many others have got wrong is the "negotiable American currency" line.. The word "negotiable" isn't the point.. It is "American" and yes the crew said it. The argument is the crew just added it. Possible, but strange as they are American. Tina said Cooper told her later "circulated US currency"... So, we have "US" and "American" added to describe the money in two different instances. That is strong. What does it mean. If Cooper qualified the money as US/American and it looks like he did, then that would be very rare for somebody in the US who has no experience with another currency to say. It suggests Cooper had exposure to a foreign currency, it doesn't mean he was Canadian or a foreign national. He could have been military or a traveller.. but Cooper had some exposure outside the US probably recently. He had an international influence of some sort. And that would actually include Braden.

You don't have to do anything but you discredit yourself when you say "get real". Bruce accurately summarized the sketches. My comment on the sketches has nothing to do with Bruce's article. It is all mine. You have used your beef with Bruce to discredit my post, you didn't realize that Bruce's article has nothing to do with my post because you didn't even read his piece before discrediting it.

Can you show anything in Bruce's article that is incorrect? (the stuff I posted is my own, not from Bruce's article)

No, The FBI admitted the evidence was so weak that they did not have a case without Cooper cooperating. The FBI's role is to bring a case to the prosecutor, not throw out a public solution. The prosecutor decides whether to go forward or not, if they decide not to it is never made public. Even if the FBI investigated a suspect that was actually Cooper they may not have had a case (without cooperation) or the prosecutor may have rejected it. We would never know.

Bruce Smith has pulled together a summary of the sketches.. https://themountainnewswa.net/2020/06/29/db-cooper-a-retrospective-on-the-development-of-the-sketches/ Sketch "B" is the best likeness of Cooper based on the process and FBI statements. Sketch "A" was done very quickly, within days with either 2 or 3 stews together,, this is rare and can be problematic. The witnesses can influence each other. Dated Nov 30.. Having the stews interviewed together is more complicated and can create a biased sketch. Flo did not like the first sketch. https://www.theiai.org/docs/ForensicArtGuidelinesSGFAFI1stEd.pdf p 15 3. The group sketch approach: a) In rare instances, successful sketches have been completed as a result of a group interview. This collaborative approach is accomplished simply by having multiple witnesses present for a single interview, all providing input for a single image. Because of the inherent complications that this technique can add to the process, it should be undertaken by an experienced composite artist rather than a beginner. Care should be taken to minimize the influence that a dominant personality witness may have over a less assertive one, a condition which could suppress valuable information. Logic would dictate that the most practical use of a multiple-witness interview would be for one event that all of the witnesses observed, as opposed to a series of incidents involving the same perpetrator. The FBI determined in 1976 that witnesses had begun to rely on the sketch rather than memory.. Sketch B was created to add age, the olive/latin complexion and tweak some characteristics. Most believed sketch "A" was too young looking. Sketch B was done in a more comprehensive way over a longer period of time.. The FBI states that sketch "B" was the best likeness of Cooper. Anybody claiming sketch "A" is better will have a tough time going against this FBI document. Takeaway,, Sketch "B" is the best likeness and with time witness memories became less reliable. With that, any sketch is a general likeness.

FBI.. witness memories became corrupted by the sketch. 1976 “A review was made of investigation conducted to date and the possibility of redoing any of same. Reinterview of witnesses at this time was considered to be unproductive as this has been continuous upon various displays and it was felt that at this time they were now relying on artist's conceptions rather than individual memory."

Cooper asked for "small bills" according to this FBI 302,,,

I have tried to find the source of the McCoy ransom money,, was it a similar bank stash?? Strapped..

I give up, Georger is still in outer space on this.. For everyone else.. The money went to Cooper in 100 bills each, packets or as Himmelsbach called them "straps" which refer to bank straps of 100 bills each. The bills were all random SN order and recorded in physical sequence. Each individual packet/strap was then rubber banded into random count bundles "to make look hastily prepared".. The TBAR money was found as it was given to Cooper, 3 packets of 100 bills each in the same order. (One was missing a few.) Since the money went to Cooper in bundles of packets/straps to land on TBAR separated they must have been separated between Cooper receiving them and the find. Tosaw theorized that the 3 packets were the ones Cooper handed to Tina. However, since we don't have the location of the rubber band frags on the TBAR money it is more likely the 3 packet/straps landed on TBAR in one single rubber banded bundle. The problem is the terminology isn't consistent and accurate, people have confused and conflated formal and informal terms, packets, straps, packages and bundles. Once you get beyond the labels and sort out the money process it becomes clear.

NO Georger, you are injecting your nonsense AGAIN.. I was never forced to admit there were rubber band fragments on the bills, I always claimed there were. You assumed I rejected rubber bands altogether because you fail to understand your own logical error... I had claimed there was no evidence the rubber bands were around each individual packet not that there were no rubber bands frags found. What I was exploring was whether the rubber bands were around each individual packet of 100 bills or potentially all packets holding them together as a single bundle. There is no evidence that indicated where the rubber band fragments were.. clearly they were not "intact" and I have read an unconfirmed report that 1 packet didn't have any rubber bands. The takeaway is, the money went to Cooper in packets/straps of 100 bills per and those were grouped and rubber banded into bundles. TBAR money was found in three packet/straps of 100 bills in the same order AND they were likely deposited as a single rubber banded bundle. The dominant assumption that the TBAR could have only arrived as three separate packets/straps is false. To arrive separately they must have separated at some time prior, it is more likely they separated on TBAR rather than get separated before and end up all together. If the TBAR money landed as one bundle then the means by which it arrived changes... The money was strapped into 100's then they were grouped and rubber banded into random count bundles. The money most likely arrived on TBAR as one single bundle from the river.. as the rubber bands deteriorated the 3 packets fell apart slightly. Tina, Himmelsbach and the Bank rep all suggest bank bands were used for the packets.. clearly, rubber bands were used for the bundles.

What a nauseating buffoon you are Georger.. I know people used different terms.. that is the whole POINT.. that is why the error was made in the first place. I never claimed Tina used "packet" or any official bank term, you are making up crap strawman args to obfuscate the issue. The 302's are written by agents,, one wrote.. referring to the Bank representative. "He stated the bills were made up of packets of $2000 each...." Take the L, Georger. YOU LOST. You can call the 3 TBAR packets cumquats if you like, you are still wrong. The 3 TBAR cumquats were NOT random counts. The money went to Cooper in packets of 100's, each packet grouped and rubber banded into bundles. TBAR was found in 3 packets of 100's in the same order,,, deny it all you want. I was going to write out a more detailed explanation but why bother... waste of time. Georger has too much screwed up to correct and who cares..

Georger, still doubling down on stupid... If the Cooper bundles were "randomized" by the bank employee.. Then it was either the packets (some think bundle) or the group of packets (bundle) that were randomized.. you can call them whatever you want for analysis.. The Bank that supplied the money called them "packets". But lets call them X to make this really simple.. Either the group of 100 bills = one X was random or the grouping of a number of X was random. Since the TBAR groups of 100 bills X was not random but in 100's then the group of several X's must have been random.. The packets were not randomized (count), they were micro'd in 100's, given to Cooper in 100's and found on TBAR in 100's. The grouping of packets were rubber banded into random sized bundles. Georger/Carr were wrong and Georger's ego still can't admit it. Georger claimed the Bank never used the term "packet".. I posted 3 FBI references of it and he still denies it... Winning an argument is more important than the facts. Not only do you have the facts wrong but your argument is completely irrational. Take the L, Goerger, you lost. You always lose. You are an ignorant and arrogant lazy thinker who resorts to lies to win an argument. No wonder you have developed no suspect after over a decade (other than Ted Kaczynski based on a grudge) and spend most of your time trashing, smearing and lying about virtually everyone (EVERYONE) associated with this case in a desperate attempt to be relevant... discredit and drag everyone else down to make your own lack of accomplishment look better. Everybody knows it, most don't say anything to avoid being attacked. Georger is the biggest problem with Shutter's forum, a toxic fraud incapable of any semblance of honest debate.

It nails the fact that the FBI considered evidence too weak to bring a case without Cooper cooperating... In other words, without Cooper cooperating there is no prosecution or legal resolution. Most people do not understand this.

This nails it.. 1. Witness identification weak. (1976) 2. Case extremely difficult without Cooper cooperating. (1976) 3. Witnesses now relying on sketch rather than individual memory. (1976) P 19818 "Eyewitness identification was considered weak at that time. Nearly 10 years have passed since that conference. The conference came to the conclusion that "if COOPER was to surrender to authorities now or in the near future, it would be extremely difficult to make the case if he was uncooperative." P 19824 “A discussion ensued as to the present strength of the eyewitness identification to which Case Agent _______ responded that it was weak." P 19825 “A review was made of investigation conducted to date and the possibility of redoing any of same. Reinterview of witnesses at this time was considered to be unproductive as this has been continuous upon various displays and it was felt that at this time they were now relying on artist's conceptions rather than individual memory."

FBI file #48 is up. https://vault.fbi.gov/D-B-Cooper%20/d.b.-cooper-part-48-of-48/view