FLYJACK

I disagree, that article and timing of it is a significant piece,, it is completely out of character,, Tina never divulged any case evidence and didn't discuss the case for decades.. It is such a rare piece of info that it stands out. They even twisted the facts to make her look better... Cooper didn't offer her money, she asked for it.. it came from her or the people around her and it was intentional. The info about her taking the money was not public, why was it revealed. Bucks County pop was 434,000 in 1972.. Clearly, if we knew exactly how it got in the paper and why that timing it would make a difference.

The idea is to have it out in the public domain to point at later if needed.

You are overthinking it.. what of it was all still in the closed bag. BUSTED. It would be more risky to manufacture a false story than to slightly fudge what was already told to the FBI. I think the slightly altered story in the paper was a pre-defense... Remember Tina asked for some money and took it,,, that doesn't look good. They knew of an imminent ground search and if they also knew a bundle was missing they would act proactively to get ahead of that being discovered.. it doesn't mean they would have made the right or the best move. But if a bundle was missing, Tina and the other stews would have been looked at by the FBI. No question. If a missing bundle was made public then the media and public would have questions and speculation about the stews/crew.

Anybody think this might be Cossey? Looks sort of like him..

Since Tina's sister is mentioned, it probably came from her or her husband Lee.. Plus the timing, content and context is odd.. right before the search published March 8 and it coveys no other info,, other than to present a distorted and favourable view of Tina's money interaction. Imagine if there was a random piece saying only,,, Tina smoked a cigarette with Cooper... There may be an innocent explanation but it just doesn't pass the smell test.

I was only conveying that the newspaper article appeared just prior to the search, giving context for the timing of the article.. Neither the article nor Tina's brother in law had any influence on the search whatsoever... I would think the FBI never knew about the article. I agree it is crazy to think the article impacted the search in any way or was intended to impact the search.. IMO, the article was only intended to front run the results of the search.. if money was found and some missing they would have publicly seeded a slightly false and more favourable narrative.. The article said she was offered and refused because it wouldn't be right.. Tina actually asked for some money and took it, then claimed she gave it back due to company tip policy,, that isn't exactly duress. If some money was discovered missing.. that would likely have been made public and Tina would be under public scrutiny.. and whether anything was made public or not the FBI would scrutinize Tina, that would be an obvious part of their investigation. As a victim, I also do not believe anything would have happened to her. The motivation for planting that article would be based on their perception of what may happen... to get ahead of all potential outcomes. The actual outcome is not relevant. Why would the article appear at all.. that article was completely out if character for Tina to publicly reveal case evidence.. the only other remote reason I could come up with would be that her fingerprints could be found on some of the money. But she still broke the rules by publicly disclosing case info.. and if no money was missing she had nothing to worry about.. in fact finding prints would substantiate her money story. The most likely explanation is that they planted the story because they knew if the ransom money was found, a bundle was missing. If a bundle was missing they would look at Tina,, and other stews. This was an extensive ground search, there was a good expectation that Cooper and the money would be found. This topic is polarizing and people get emotional defending Tina because she was a victim,, I get that. If she did end up with a bundle of money, nothing would have happened to her. I don't blame her, but if she did cause a bundle to end up at TBAR she should just say so, nothing would happen to her. But being objective, this is a good theory for TBAR. NOT PROOF. The only money we know of that was separated from the ransom was the money Tina asked for and took. The amount was not disclosed but potentially the same as TBAR. The ransom bundles were made random, meaning there could have been 3 packets in 1 rubber banded bundle. The money didn't land on TBAR the night of the hijacking, there was a delay before it went into the River during Spring at least a year before being found. That article setting a favourable narrative appeared right before the extensive ground search. Tina was moved by her sis and brother in law to about 8 miles upstream of TBAR in 78/79, she then moved to Eugene.. Flo said Tina was hiding something. The money was rounded off as if tumbling along the bottom of the river. So, did her brother in law toss the money in the Columbia river about 8 miles upstream in spring 78/79... blocks from Tina's residence.. We will never know. This is just one theory for TBAR.. It isn't proof.. There are many other theories.. I have another I think is really good but I don't think TBAR will ever be solved.

Maybe, if a bundle were missing there would be public speculation, but more importantly there was no expectation that the fact that she requested and handled some money would remain quiet. They wouldn't know what would be made public. The FBI would care what happened to the missing money. I agree that nothing would happen to her though.. If the FBI did find out she had some money then it would become public.. Publishing that newspaper piece gets them in front of all potential outcomes. It is a strategic move.. they even spun it. Classic front running. but none of this has anything to do with suspending the ground search. I never said that.

Very unlikely, I doubt Tina is telling anyone outside of her sister and FBI brother in law. Her brother in law would have managed this and tossed the money if she did keep it.

I said if the money was found and some missing, they would look at Tina because she admitted taking some.. naturally. I never said guns blazing,, I doubt anything would have happened to her. Her ex husband did say that they were surveilled by the FBI at one point,

We know that the sister and brother in law were very protective of Tina.. I agree that if she did keep it and turned it in nothing would happen to her, maybe he put it in her purse and she found it later and got scared.. This is a polarizing issue because people view Tina as a victim and she was but this news piece brings in a new element. The problem is when you put all the pieces together it actually makes sense for TBAR. No, it can't be proven.

If money was missing and it was made public then Tina would be looked at by the public.. If money was missing and not made public then the FBI would look at her..

No, I didn't even allude to it.. If you took it that way, it wasn't meant to be.. it is a crazy idea. That is why I didn't understand your comment... I never said that, meant that, believed it or alluded to it.

BINGO... Only the FBI had Tina's initial statement, if the search found money missing and it was made public Tina would get both public and legal scrutiny. Getting that statement into the public would "front run" public opinion to potentially prepare a public or legal defense, if needed. That is the only reason I can imagine that spun story was planted.. They were concerned that the money would be found and some would be missing.. Why?

but I never said that... to be clear. It sounds crazy. I just don't want it attributed to me...

Here, there was an informal acceptance of assistance from Fort Lewis contingent on higher authorization. and they had planned to start on the 14th... delayed to the 21st.

That piece had nothing to do with a delay.. I doubt the FBI ever knew about that piece in the local paper.

No, no, I meant the 8th.. not the 15th. It looks like they had some informal approval at one level on the 8th and formal approval on the 15th. I know the military has its processes. But, this is irrelevant to my post because it isn't about the Army search approval sequence and process. Front running just means they were aware that there was an upcoming initial extensive ground search and got a public statement out ahead of it.. You know Tina's brother in law was FBI,, I mention it for others.. but he would have access to case info and it is known that they were very protective of Tina. I can't think of any other reason that piece would get put in the paper, they must have planted it intentionally and the timing is suspicious. They revealed case evidence.. though not entirely accurate, a slight lie. Tina didn't talk publicly for decades.. It doesn't prove anything but it is extremely suspicious behaviour.

It was informal approval... not relevant. You are right it started on the 21st, it was delayed by snow on the 25th,, I misread that as delayed until... Both of these points are irrelevant for the post. The FBI was pursuing a ground search before the 8th.

I'll toss in a bonus,, this is polarizing, some will reject it others will be intrigued. But it happened. You have to admit that it is very odd. On March 2, 1972 FBI WEEKLY SUMMARY Plans being made for ground search of area in near future. On March 8th the FBI secured Army authorization for a ground search and on March 9th Hoover authorized it. It was planned for a week later but got delayed until Feb 25th and completed April 17.. But, on March 8, a brief note randomly appeared in the local PA paper with no other context.. it said that Tina was offered money from the hijacker and she didn't accept because it wouldn't be right. That statement wasn't exactly true, Tina asked for the money and took it then she claimed she handed it back because it was against company policy to take tips. So, what is going on... Why did they place this public statement in the local paper right when the search was authorized Tina never gave out case evidence and they were all instructed not to say anything not already mentioned in the papers.. This was completely out of character. Did Tina's FBI brother in law try to get ahead of the search. IMO, Tina, her sister and brother in law FBI agent were front running the search. If Cooper's body and/or the money was found missing a bundle, Tina would be looked at by the FBI because she already told them she handled some money. They planted the slightly false story in the public to front run the search, there is no other good reason. Tina moved to upstream of TBAR in 78/79.. There is no proof Tina actually kept the money and there never will be unless she confirms it. This is the note, nothing else, no other hijacking related article.. March 8,1972..

Ok, I feel bad for that mistake so I will post something new from my files... This is a redacted letter that I was able to get unredacted... WHY was it redacted?? and it has elements/themes that were in Gunther's book.. it may have been written by "Clara"... or Cooper himself.. gave her $5000 cash... close to TBAR amount?? The letter isn't written as fact.. but to claim Cooper was dead and he was a good guy.. just like the Gunther narrative which was published much later. This letter is fascinating because of the redactions and similarity to Gunther's book, I can't see some rando writing this. It was mailed Sept 72.

I got it wrong.. I used an online time converter and missed the date flipping backward. Here is what I screwed up,, The date/time on the raw weather report is the 25th, 0300, 0400 and 0500.. It is UTC which goes backward to the 24th for PST.. I checked only the time conversion. So, the report on the 25th UTC was the 24th local time. I thought it was the 25th. Sorry about that. The basic argument about the wind estimate is still valid.

Here is the weather balloon data.. For Salem Nov 24/71 at 5PM. windspeed at 58 knots The direction was more Southerly and the speed higher than believed for Cooper's jump. But, it was recorded 3 hours before and 70 miles from Cooper's jump,, how relevant is it??

I am in preliminary discussions for a major project.. not a book They asked me NOT to discuss the case publicly.. usually these things don't pan out.. The wind error is minor compared to what I have.... so I am not that concerned about it. I just thought it would be a great teaser for CooperCon rather than here,, but I am not presenting anything. That error is unbelievable...

Exactly what I expected,, condescending and ignoring the facts.. THERE IS NO WINDS ALOFT DATA FOR COOPERS"S LZ.. DO YOU UNDERSTAND.... the only data is Salem at 5PM. Not only do you ignore the facts you make claims that are inconsistent and untrue... The Salem winds aloft at 5PM shows 58 knots at 9800 ft.. 58 is greater than 35... The other pilot that night claimed 60 knots at 13000 ft which is consistent and lends credibility to his other claim that the winds were shifting between 160 and 200 degrees. So, you make contradictory claims about data that you claim is somehow valid for Cooper's LZ.. to be polite, your logic is inconsistent with reality. You have been asked to produce the winds aloft data for Cooper's LZ and have never done it because it doesn't exist. Now, STOP wasting my time. There is nothing more I can or wish to do to help you.

We have the data.. it does not actually say what you claim.. The closest weather balloon's went up at Quillayute, 100 miles West of Seattle and about 170 miles from Cooper's jump, so irrelevant. And, at Salem Or... at 5PM, about 70 miles from Cooper's jump, that data showed wind about 212 deg varying slightly with elevation. But, it isn't close in place and time to the jump zone... not very useful. The winds aloft data posted in the FBI files for Portland and Salem were a forecast estimated from the balloon data at Salem at 5PM.. they used an average as a proxy for the wind Cooper encountered.. but there was an error. The winds aloft data from the balloon's tells us a few general things,, The wind direction at surface was close to direction throughout elevation. The wind at Salem at 5PM was more Southerly than believed. The wind naturally increases speed at elevation over surface but the winds were much higher at elevation than the FBI used.. It also showed 50 knots at 10,000 feet for Salem at 5PM. It shows 66 knots at 13500 ft.. So, the other pilot claiming 60 knots headwind at 13000 ft on the night of the hijacking may have been correct. He also said the wind was shifting between approximately 160 and 200 degrees. That actually fits the data we have. The best info we have is that the wind was shifting that evening between S-SE and SSW... Seattle was S, Toledo ground was S-SE.. I can only say that the wind was NOT conclusive in the LZ and the FBI ruled out a S-SE wind direction. We do NOT have actual data for Cooper's jump time and place.. the FBI estimated a W-SW wind. I have made this same argument for years but recently found an error that makes it bullet proof. I feel I am wasting my time again with this post, you will just never accept the facts and make claims about the wind data that don't exist. BTW, when everyone finds out the error, you won't believe it.. the fact that nobody caught it undermines the credibility of the entire investigation.