FLYJACK

While these theories are all speculation and I have a few, this one in particular is unique because it has the ability to track back to individual persons involved...

Wrong.

Still flogging the dredge theory,,, it isn't 2011... FBI file 88 is up..... some will find it others maybe not

Likewise, my theory isn't well explained here in this format.. But, it fits these constraints.. The "FBI" flightpath is accurate. Cooper jumps roughly Battleground or N. Cooper doesn't have to have survived but most likely did. The money, all or some is stored out of the elements in or out of the money bag or some container. In Spring 1972, on a specific date the money enters the River near the Airport, not intentionally. The condition of the TBAR money supports this event. The TBAR money find spot is below the water level at that time. The money goes in the River as a "fresh" single rubber banded bundle of packets, sinks and is pushed along the bottom to the TBAR find spot. There is some unsubstantiated supporting information in the FBI files. This theory has the potential to identify individuals who may be related to the event/location. As other TBAR theories,, no way to prove it.

Sure, unused rubber bands in a drawer can last.. try using one, they break much easier. PNW in winter is very wet... wet also means bacteria, the paper bands would be gone quickly, weeks or a month. But, rubber bands lose their integrity when stretched over time, maybe they don't break within 5 months but they would be weakened.. I just think that a fresh bundle would have a far better chance of making that water journey to TBAR... I can't imagine a rubber banded money bundle maintaining enough of its integrity for 5+ months in a swamp to make a tumbling journey along the River bottom to TBAR virtually intact. Maybe, it is possible under the right circumstances, but it seems unlikely.

I don't think the money/bands would retain enough integrity out in the PNW elements for 5+ months to make a water journey to TBAR basically as an intact bundle of packets. Even in a bank bag. It is a big ask.. https://citizensleuths.com/rubber-band-analysis.html

A second theory from behind the grassy knoll... When did the money arrive at Marine Park? The problem with the money sitting out in the elements before going onto the River is that it/bands would deteriorate and not be able to make the water journey to TBAR. My theory has the money out of the elements until it entered the River in Spring. Hey, where is FBI file part 88??

Key word is...... Taxi

I think I know yours... Mine is far more comprehensive and would take a-lot of time to lay out all the evidence. That said, it can't be proven.

This is my take as well... A no pull, less than 1%, if he pulls 95% survival.. For Cooper to pull and land at Marine Park he would have had to jump over/close to Portland Airport.. not reasonable. I believe the evidence suggests an LZ roughly Battleground and North. but, I have a theory that puts the money into the water, in Spring in the Columbia River right across from Marine Park. No Cooper didn't land there. No, TBAR will never be solved.

That is exactly what a FED would say..

Survived or no pull..

It gets a very tricky as there were also hopper dredges involved... I have read that material was moved and dumped up and down the Columbia on the shore and even in the River but few details.. The map and grid I posted shows the year and volume of the material dumped on the Oregon side across from TBAR but we don't know where it originated. I found one report of material dredged from the Willamette and dumped in the middle of the Columbia just upstream of TBAR.. It is a rat's nest trying to sort it out.

Nice, I have a report about the 1976 and 1977 dredge operation, it was deposited on the other side along Sauvie Island for erosion mitigation.

Found out the Pioneer P1 and P2 had the same container but the P2 had a more civilian oriented canopy and harness. The WSHM chute is modified with a newer harness and to fit a 26' conical. The P2 was primarily a civilian chute though the container was the same as the P1 which was for military and civilian use. Cossey variously referred to the Pioneer left behind as a sport chute, freefall chute and B-4....

Problem,, How do the particles get on the shorter narrower piece of the tie that was behind the wider front piece? with a tie tack/clip holding them together.. Only if they were deposited when it wasn't being worn.

I found "P2" printed on the WSHM container.

Not exactly... there is no problem with the chutes but you still have it wrong. The WSHM chute serial #226 card says a 26' Ripstop Conical... a 28' is not Conical. The WSHM tan container is a WW2 era Pioneer P2, those were 24' originally with a silk chute and used by the public as well as military. This is probably why it was referred to as a "civilian luxury chute".. It was sold to the public. That means the WSHM container is a 24' stuffed with a 26' conical canopy.. You keep saying the card is wrong but have NO evidence. The card was originally written by Cossey when he first packed it in 1971 and repacked twice after Hayden got it back. There is no reason to believe the card is wrong. Additionally, the only chute in question with multiple descriptions is the one Cooper used.. Why,,, IMO, Cossey claimed he was called after the plane landed in Reno and given the description of the chutes left behind, he was also at some point shown the chutes..... So, Cossey had personal post hijack knowledge of the WSHM chute. That is why the descriptions are accurate and consistent for that chute and not the missing one.

Reca was not Cooper reaction. https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2293842/hitler-finds-out-walter-reca-was-not-db-cooper.

Robert, You keep saying that with no evidence.. the container looks stuffed to you.. It looks stuffed because it is a 24' container with a 26' canopy. It is not a 26' container.

of course they do....

Tosaw's quote... not exactly attributed,,, it could be his clothes (semicolon... this or this or this...) Looks like it is Tosaw speculating about Mitchell's odd socks claim. Mitchell has never said he saw what he beleived to be long underwear. Mitchell ‘did wonder why the blond stewardess was paying so much attention to this “older man” when he also desired some attention and was obviously more her age. He concluded that whatever the man’s attraction, it couldn’t be his clothes; the man’s socks or long underwear or whatever it was that was showing didn’t match his shoes or trousers.

Found some info.. The 28' a round flat circular is a C-9 The 26' is a Navy conical The 24' is a reserve conical The museum chute was described as a conical... a 26' The card found missing a chute presumed to be from the one Cooper used reflected it to be a "Conacol", if accurate that means it wasn't a 28' chute. Cooper's chute could not have been a 28' canopy and corroborates the chute being a 24'. Background – A Short History of the Development of Parachute Equipment Military Surplus Parachutes Prior to about 1968, most pilots in civilian aircraft in the United States (and much of the rest of the world) used surplus military parachutes in their aircraft. The common harness/container models in use were the USAF B-4/B-12 and the USN NB-6/ NB-8 backpacks as well as several variants of military seatpack parachutes. The most common canopies were the 28’ person- nel canopy (the C-9) used in all Air Force and most Navy para- chutes, the 26’ Navy conical used in the NB-6, and the 24’ (T10A) canopy used as reserve for the Army troop para- chutes. The common factors in all of these various models are that they are heavy, bulky and uncomfortable. Although there are still a great number of surplus military parachute systems in use, only a small number of these items are still available as new surplus and they have largely been supplanted by newer technology products (which will be discussed below) in sales of new equipment. The 28’ Military Canopy Aside from being the only readily available canopy in the 1960’s, the C-9 really didn’t have all that much going for it when compared to the operational requirements in civil use. It is rugged and cheap but suffers from a variety of problems, mostly related to the fact that the basic design dates from the late 1920s. These problems include its relatively high weight and bulk; lack of steering capability; severe oscillations in the unmodified condition; a relatively high rate of descent that in- creases the injury rate; and tendencies for post-inflation col- lapse due to its flat circular design. It also has slow openings at low speeds such as a zero/zero ejection condition and hard openings at high speeds such as a low altitude, high-speed ejec- tion. Over the more than 60 years since its introduction, the only sig- nificant improvements to the C-9 have been: 1) the change to nylon cloth and lines in the late 1940’s which effectively dou- bled the strength of the canopy; ; 2) the development of reefing systems for some versions which allowed the canopy to operate at somewhat higher speeds without the loads exceeding human tolerance and; 3) the addition of the 4-line release modification in the 1970’s that significantly reduces the oscillations and rate- of-descent (but only if activated by the user). Skydiving Equipment Not surprisingly, given the paucity of available equipment, sky- divers in the 60’s were also using the same basic equipment albeit with an amazing variety of steering modifications to the main canopies (usually the 28’). But, during the 60’s, Pioneer Parachute Company introduced the Para-Commander, which took the sport by storm and virtually owned the main canopy market until the early 70’s when the first practical ram-air can- opy appeared and sealed its fate. Skydivers in the 60’s and 70’s also used military surplus canopies for their chest reserve para- chutes with the Navy 26’ Conical being the most desirable. They also used modified military harness/container systems with chest reserve parachutes. During the late 60’s and early 70’s a number of companies (primarily Pioneer Parachute Company, Security Parachute Company and Strong Enter- prises) began the introduction of a series of new products (main and reserve canopies and harness/container systems) that gradually replaced the military surplus equipment in use by skydivers. In the mid-70’s Para-Flite ram-air canopies and the Relative Workshop Wonderhog harness/container system were introduced and largely completed the transition to purpose built skydiving equipment for the great majority of jumpers. During the 80’s and 90’s many more companies entered the skydiving equipment market (and some others dropped out) with the re- sulting competition fueling the development of an amazing va- riety and range of products.

"I've never heard of a 28 foot conical."

It was started by Tosaw... or, or, or... he is speculating. "the man’s socks OR long underwear OR whatever it was that was showing didn’t match his shoes or trousers" If his shoes were dark brown and suit dark brown, then what wouldn't match,, blue? Mitchell never mentioned long underwear in the WSHM interview.. He believed the socks looked odd somehow. Remember, this was many years later,, no mention of long underwear right after the hijacking by any witness. unconfirmed, we just don't know.