FLYJACK

Not likely, the original money given to Cooper was rubber banded into bundles of packets and the FBI said it was in the same order and packaging..

CKRET • DB Cooper in Skydiving History & Trivia May 1, 2008 · Report reply And so I shall Maurico, Sorry, I have been crazy busy but I did make some progress. We could not find a photo (yet) of the bag used for the money but I was able to confirm it was like the one I posted, a simple money sack. As for the "shocking " information about the money, I spoke with the individual who carried the money from the bank to the airport the night of the hijacking. When I was talking with him he recounted that they were in the vault running the money through the counting machine and strapping the bundles. I didn't catch it at, first but later in our conversation I caught on to the strapping part and said, "wait a minute." "you were strapping the $20.00 bundles with $2,000 paper straps?" He said "yes" and I almost fell out of my chair. So I then started putting calls into Brian Ingram. He called me back and we spoke about the discovery of the money. What I found was that the money was not recovered near the water but about 20 to 40 feet from the edge. He said he found it in an area that had recently been covered in water. So I thought, "well not really much of a difference." I then asked for the details about the condition of the money when he found it and he confirmed, after speaking with his parents, that the money absolutely had rubber bands around the bundles. This makes sense because there is no way paper straps would have kept the money together over the years. So this all means, on face value, that if the money given to Cooper by the bank had paper straps and the found money had rubber bands....... well you could see how I was a bit perplexed. This would mean that either Cooper lived and repackaged the money or someone found the money and repackaged it. Which would be "par for the course" with regard to this case. I then went back and re-interviewed the bank security manager and found out that he wasn't directly involved in packaging the money, only carrying it to the airport. He was relaying what their normal procedure was for processing and packaging money for shipment. The funds that were given to Cooper were not pulled from their circulating cash but from a security fund that was prepackaged for these types of incidents. This money was not strapped because the bank did not want any subjects to know where it came from so it was packaged with rubber bands. My head was spinning for a few days until I could get it straight. As for the "oscillation" explanation that still stands. The crew was referring to the equipment not the pressure bump. In fact, a hand written log that was being kept as the evewnts unfolded has an entry at 8:11 that the crew reported the cabin pressure was "fluctuating." So the time reported when the crew mentioned the oscillations was when Cooper most likely started down the stairs. The further he got down the stairs the more air would be rushing through the cabin. The pressure bump, which would be when he jumped, occurred (according to Rataczak) 10 to 15 minutes after their last contact with Cooper at 8:05. CKRET aka Larry Carr conflated packets and bundles... he didn't get that packets were paper banded and bundles rubber banded. He also incorrectly stated that each packet (100 bills) was randomized, he misunderstood. Bundles were randomized not packets. Also, Grinnell didn't know if the bundles were randomized. IMO, the balance of evidence tips to randomized bundles of packets. The TBAR money most likely landed as a 3 packet rubber banded bundle.. as it went to Cooper.

You rely on Baker using Himmy and him being unreliable,, that is all speculation. But, you missed the biggest PRO of all... There were only 3 packets with rubber bands found on TBAR.. If they were in 5's when landing there and two somehow separated the rubber bands would not have been there. So, it is most likely they arrived as a rubber banded bundle of 3 packets. If all the bundles went to Cooper in 5's, then two packets are missing form the TBAR bundle.. Either.. The bundles went to Cooper randomized... or Cooper removed two packets at some point or somebody else removed them before they landed on TBAR.. why?? this is possible but less likely than the bundle going to Cooper as a 3 packet one. Did he actually pull two packets from a bundle and that one end up at TBAR,, would be really strange.. Either two packets were removed before TBAR or the bundles were randomized. Though we don't know for sure I give a slight edge to the randomized bundle scenario. One more thing to consider.. The FBI said the money was in the same order and packaging as given to Cooper.. They never questioned the two missing packets if the bundles were in packets of 5. If they knew the money went to Cooper in bundles of 5 packets then the fact that only three were found would have been a big issue,, why were two missing... it was never brought up. It would lend more credibility to Cooper surviving.. if the FBI knew the bundles went to Cooper in 5 packet bundles.

Right after the money find but before it was counted by the lab.. It still doesn't make sense that he would make up the "randomized bundle sizes"...

FBI agent Baker.. bundle sizes were randomized,, that means various number of packets per bundle.. IMO, I agree, why would he say this if it didn't happen? Bundles were typically stored in 5 packets per each bundle. Easy to quickly randomize the number of packets per bundle. TBAR money was in the same packaging and order as given to Cooper. Why would he say this if it didn't happen? Not a typical error to make.

NACA (later NASA) test pilot from 1945-1973 George Cooper was the 1954 inspiration for Albert Weinberg's Dan Cooper comic character, changed to Canadian test pilot for the European audience.. Perhaps hijacker "Cooper" also used George Cooper as the inspiration for the name Cooper..

That sucks,, nobody should have to go through something like that.

Not really,, Josh is not finding or doing anything himself... he is using unproven theories and conjecture from others. His show is essentially TV "clickbait".. nothing is proven or resolved. Mostly rehashed stuff. His show is made to be entertaining not informative. For the Dean car he covers known stuff about it then uses the claim from a guy that he helped seal it in a wall of a building,, this isn't new and was never proven.

Well done,, those vids take a lot of work. Not sure what it will take to finally end the McCoy grift.. Facts don't matter.. Though he did get the tie particles tested, Josh has really disappointed... and gone for the low info audience.

nailed it.. Josh is the new Geraldo....

Hayden never described the container as an NB6 or any other model .. The one Cooper rejected now at the museum is a Pioneer P2-B-24 early 1940's civilian container with newer harness and canopy. There were many very similar rigs of that era both civilian and military.. The one Cooper used was Olive Drab according to Hayden indicating a military version. The other card is not available, I have done a FOIA for it.. but there is a description of it in the FBI files, it does not use "NB6". Hayden described the missing chute as Olive Drab with tan cotton harness. Cossey described it as Sage Green nylon container and Sage Green nylon harness, that is consistent with an NB6, Hayden's description is not. NB6's can be made by different manufacturers but they are Sage Green from the mid 50's.. Hayden said they were the same.. I take that to mean similar but different colours.. Hayden wanted two cheap rigs to meet the regulations for his acrobatic plane, he never intended to use them. The NB6 is very different rigs. Hayden would have bought two similar and cheap rigs to meet regs.. The ONLY source for the "NB6" is Cossey's claim.. he initially believed Emrich grabbed his chutes from Issaquah. Cossey said he was called and the remaining chute was described so he assumed the other chute was his NB6. Cossey must have learned within a day or so that Hayden's chutes were used but he never corrected his error or supplied his packing records, he even said in later interviews that he still had the records and could ID the chutes. He told FBI agent Carr the two back chutes came from his house.. He claimed his chute left behind was returned to him, it wasn't, it went to Hayden.. Cossey made an error and lied for years to maintain his initial error. To accept "NB6" you have to believe Cossey and believe he knew the chutes came from Hayden the night of the hijacking and reject the contradictory evidence.

Depends who you talk to.. Very few things in this case are settled. The NB6 claim came ONLY from Cossey, it was not corroborated by any other person or evidence and there is evidence to contradict it. Cossey believed his back chutes were grabbed from Issaquah and used so it is very likely he was describing his own chutes not Hayden's. Cossey had nothing to do with acquiring Hayden's back chutes. Cossey made an initial error and never corrected it. He never supplied his packing records and he told many false stories about the chutes over the years. To believe Cooper's chute was an NB6 you have to trust Cossey and dismiss contradictory evidence. Conclusion, extremely unlikely Cooper used an NB6.

Funny, never know, but the hijacker never used the name "D B Cooper" and he would likely be over 100 years old,, ,,, "D B Cooper" was a media error. He used Dan Cooper.

Yes, but Ryan's debunking of Gryder's rig was that it was not an NB6 therefore not Cooper's... Ryan was correct the Gryder rig is not an NB6, but wrong to claim Cooper's was an NB6, that is extremely unlikely. Ryan's conclusion is correct, the Gryder rig was not Cooper's but his argument that it is not Cooper's because it is not an NB6 is wrong. A fiasco... even Larry Carr dismissed the Gryder rig because it was not an NB6.

HAHAHAHA..... Several levels of crazy... Reminds me of the Gryder chute debunking fiasco... Gryder's found chute was not an NB6 but extremely unlikely Cooper used an NB6.. We need to do a debunking video of the debunking. This video is really interesting, I posted it a while back but have a listen. The patrolman was dispatched to Issaquah pick up FOUR chutes, corroborated by Emrich who was asked for FOUR chutes, but was contacted and told they had obtained the backs and only needed the fronts.. Cossey had zero to do with obtaining chutes from Hayden.. Cossey believed all four of his chutes were being picked up from Issaquah, that is why he described his chutes he assumed were used... He never corrected it and never supplied his records because they would have conflicted with his description. Cossey's uncorroborated claim that Cooper used an NB6/8 is totally unreliable. Also, Emrich's daughter pointed out that there was an X on the dummy... Emrich corroborated this as well. It was likely a black X and it was the container that had red flaps.

Wednesday,,, https://www.discovery.com/shows/expedition-files/episodes/lost-and-found My guess is Gryder and McCoy... and another Ryan debunking.. Has Josh Gates ever solved anything?? He did do a Reca segment... so, the bar is low...

The pilot's said "American" currency. Tina said said she later learned from him that he wanted "US" currency... This does not make Cooper a Canadian... It just suggests that Cooper spent time in an environment that did not use US money exclusively. It could be Vietnam, it may be an American.. Cooper likely spent time recently outside the US.

This is odd.. physical evidence "straps of material from one of the parachutes"??? Does that mean the front reserve Cooper opened?

1979 map of the Fazio's.. the sand/gravel operation was at the southern end, money at the furthest North point of the property. It is almost 600 yards from the sand/gravel operation . The drawn circle representing the money spot is off just slightly South of the actual spot. So, the idea that somehow the money came from their sand operation is not reasonable.

One of the many reasons Cossey's description of the chute Cooper used is unreliable.. He claimed he had his packing records and serial numbers.. (a requirement for riggers) he never provided them and even claimed he gave everything to the FBI,, he didn't. There is no corroboration for Cossey's claim of a nylon sage green NB6/8 and sage green nylon harness. IMO, he didn't provide them because his initial description was wrong.

The brittle vs stuck rubber bands may have been the difference between top and bottom.. those areas would have been subject to different environments. Also the packets were about half the original size so the rubber bands were clearly not "intact" as reported.

I OCR convert them myself.. and they are big files.. Dr Edwards was converting them and posting them at one time,, I didn't use his files and don't know if he still posts them.. Here they are.. he seems to have stopped at file #80 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1O44iSvxmOgFrju0rLZu7oQu64Osf_aMe

To be fair.. the amount of case information and sources is overwhelming,, I find myself having to go back and double check notes more and more.. I have almost 10,000 files in my Cooper folder... even that is getting hard to search.

I agree.. he could have put the money in his coat pocket... the date the money arrived on TBAR is critical.. I have competing theories for close to the hijacking and closer to the find.. My latest idea that has not got any traction is that the dredge layer identified by Palmer as 1974 was actually the 1970 dredge layer,, if true that means the money was under the 1974 dredge layer which was eroded away by 1980... obviously in that scenario the money had to arrive before the 1974.. This idea fits the evidence.. One thing that always bothered me was that the TBAR banks were always being eroded while the river bottom was being filled. That is one reason the hydrologist dismissed natural means burial,, after the money arrived it would be taken back by the erosion. So, some mechanism must have kept it there. If the 1974 dredge layer was put on top that would explain it. Because Palmer identified it as the 1974 layer everyone assumes the money arrived after 1974. Then Tom questioned Palmer's identification of the layer as being from the dredge.. that is tricky after so many years of erosion.