Orange1

I've clearly missed something. You are saying there is only one particular spot/area he would have had to hit to be able to die on the jump? And that otherwise we must assume he survived? Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

Safe, you got out the tunnel and jumped out an actual plane yet? Do you know about object fixation? Do you know there are instances where a huge field has one tree (or other object) and the skydiver lands in it? Math (or rather stats, as I presume you are referring to probability) doesn't mean much then. Just sayin'. I for one do not at all discount the possibility of Cooper's bones lying at the bottom of a river. Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

Look, here's a real hijacker that we know did it (and did it before Cooper). And I guess there was real evidence in this case ...also interesting given the talk about "would Cooper be prosecuted", because this happened 3 years before Cooper. Man sentenced in 1968 plane hijacking New York - A US citizen convicted of hijacking a plane from New York to Cuba four decades ago has been sentenced to 15 years in prison. Luis Armando Pena Soltren was sentenced on Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan. Authorities say he and co-defendants brought pistols and knives aboard a plane in a diaper bag in November 1968. The pilots were forced to divert Puerto Rico-bound Pan American Flight 281 from Kennedy Airport to Havana. The flight was carrying 103 passengers and crew. Pena Soltren returned to the United States from Cuba in 2009 to face charges of conspiracy to commit air piracy, interfering with a flight crew and kidnapping. He pleaded guilty in March. Pena Soltren's lawyer says his client had wanted to come back for decades because he was remorseful. http://www.news24.com/World/News/Man-sentenced-in-1968-plane-hijacking-20110104 Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

And 377, cos he never loses his cool (talking of which it was around 41 deg earlier...celsius. That's around 106 for you fahrenheit people.) Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

I am going to go out on a limb here and propose something very different all together. Take this scenario: What if the child had grown up hearing - your father was D.B.Cooper. Perhaps just for the fun of it because their names were really Cooper. Now put a strange twist on this story - since the mother and father were NOT married for a long period of time and divorced after the child was born. There are many questions to be answered. Did young Cooper's father - have other children? His mother we know had 2 other children by someone else. Jamie has never stated if his father had other natural children he fathered. If Jamie was the only seed - then this become territorial. What we have been told of Jamie's life doesn't feel natural...such as when the father took Jamie and held onto him during a time of unsettlement and only relinquished him when the baby started to fret. This sound like a father fighting to keep the only thing he had that was his very own. Then we have a mother who after the fact uses the child as leverage - claiming to have secrets. This does not have the feel of a loving mother who wants to shield her child. I have even stated that if Jamie's father had been Cooper - the reward money would have offset any lost his mother might have suffered in child support. There is more to this story than what Jamie knows or was told. There is something beneath the surface only the mother and father knew. Perhaps Jamie needs to explore with an open mind the circumstances of his birth.....perhaps he need to check into his birth records with his eyes open and with an open heart, because this secret is eating away at his life. If there was someone who was supposed to expose a secret to Jamie at a later date - that person may have decided that the timing was not right and that he might be better off know knowing...a person making this decision would destroy the evidence - NOT hide it away. This being the basis of what he heard all of his life - that would create false memories. The biggest puzzle is why did these 2 parents chose to perpetuate the story about D.B. Cooper. Why was the wife so resentful and why did she use the child as leverage, which according to Jamie's story seems to be the case? This is the reason I have "badgered" him for lack of a better word about his knowledge regarding the facts that surrounded his birth. In 1970 -in some states if an underage girl gave birth to a child she could give the child to the other parent if the other parent was married and could provide a stable home. It did not even require adoption papers in most states in 1970. Where is the house attorney and where is our child psychologist? JO, WHY CAN YOU NOT SEE HOW UTTERLY SICK YOU ARE BEING HERE? Who the HELL do you think you are? You lambaste Carr for releasing PUBLICLY AVAILABLE stuff about your CRIMINAL husband, but you think it is OK to keep on with this nasty, smutty line of questioning despite Jamie's answers? Just because YOUR CRIMINAL HUSBAND may have been involved in utterly distasteful stuff like you mention does not mean any child born in 1970 becomes your target. Then again it's a nice diversion from actually having to provide ANYTHING at all to substantiate your claims, isn't it? Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

Oh, I hope they do Jo. Can we then hold you to the above? Maybe then you'll finally see 377's points about litigation. Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

We are just curious commoners who dare to question members of the Cooper royal family. Why act superior when someone politely asks you for some objective evidence to back up your extraordinary story? 377 We have seen various responses in return to requests for objective evidence here: - superiority - verbally attacking the questioner - ignoring the question - changing the subject to one that evokes pity for the writer and diverts attention from the question Occasionally we have a Blevins, who at least tries to offer a (fairly) logically constructed argument. But the one thing none of these posters have given us is ... objective evidence. The most likely reason is, none of their favoured subjects are Cooper. Like someone else said, Jamie, get us a Cooper $20 out of that briefcase

Did you see him put money into the bag? If not, how do you know it was money and not leftovers from a visit to McDonald's? Seems like a reasonable question. Actually the more pertinent question is if she even saw him watch a bag in the first place. There seem to be an awful lot of things Jo "just knows". Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

I think that these are sometimes false recall where you have seen pictures/heard discussions and your mind fills in the gaps I was about 5 at the time I asked them about it. There was one photo of it in our house - with me as a baby on the carpet and with only the carpet and part of a coffee table and part of a chair in the background - but it was in black and white and I described both colours and things that were not visible in the picture, accurately. I can't imagine that something as banal as the decor of a furnished rental aprtment sitting room would have been a subject for much conversation some years later. Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

I once told my parents about a memory I had of my aunt's lounge (sitting room). I described it pretty well, to be told they had moved out of that apartment when I was 6 months old. Other than that however I cannot recall much before I was probably about 3 years old. Do those books mention any such incidents, I guess it might be called a single memory? Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

OK, so I am not going to read back... Here are 2 snippets I took from an exhibition on the brain at the Museum of Natural History in NY. Both of them to do with memory and recall, and I don't think it is really anything new compared to what has been said before but I think it puts it nicely - especially the Disneyland example (mem2). In other words, as has been said before, eyewitness testimony has probably been unreliable for a very long time, from when the eyewitnesses began seeing news reports etc... Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

Georger, welcome back. I'm back home after 2 weeks away (one extra night thanks to the blizzard) and I just cannot face reading the 20 or so pages since I went away, can someone please

Your advice to Jo is sage, but good luck in thinking she'll follow it. Am I really the only poster who thinks she is being WAY off base with those remarks? How would any of you feel if someone asked if you were sure your mother was really your birth mother, in the context of a story of kinky business leading to a 15-year old "GIVING" away her son? Jamie - re your initial post. I thought it would be hard for you to ignore Jo's inevitable digs (and I didn't think they would be anywhere near as malicious as they were), but it may be best for you if you do just ignore. Nothing but proof Duane was Cooper will ever satisfy Jo. Anyway - I am away for 2 weeks - given what has been happening here recently not sure I will miss this thread . Happy Christmas to those of you who celebrate it, and to those who don't hope you have a good festive season too. To those of you lucky enough to get some jumping (or tunnel time) in - have fun, stay safe! I live in hope, but don't really expect any breakthrough in the case by the time I get back Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

I'm calling absolute bullshit on this one Jo. You clearly insinuate something and then you ask him if he is sure his mother is his birth mother? How else is anyone meant to interpret this. YOU are way off base - I would be deeply insulted on behalf of ANYONE who was subjected to this (yes, if someone did this to you I would feel exactly the same way) You seem to think you can get away with what - really - I can only call despicable behviour because it is not out in the open. I also find it interesting by the way that you seem to be heading down this track. Almost as though as you are scared there is truth in Jamie's story and you are now desperately looking for some way to link it back to Duane. All in the worst possible taste and way. And you wonder why I've blocked your PMs?? Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

Oh, don't worry about that. Every so often when someone says stuff she doesn't like she says similar sorts of things about how terrible things have got here and the thread will surely be shut down, and/or she threatens to leave the thread. But so far Quade has been patient and the thread has not been shut down, and Jo never manages to stay away for very long. If you go into "my account" on the left, then into "my skydiving profile" and scroll down to "forum settings", you'll see your PM options. You can either say "no" to "allow private messages" to block all of them, or in the next block you can type in, one name per line, the individuals you want to block. Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

my download of the FOIA docs was on my old PC and did not survive transition, and i am too busy on other stuff to download again now (much less read through them again) - i'm pretty sure i recall mention of the grudge in the actual transcripts being relayed - can anyone else who has read those remember?? Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

This was in unspeakably bad taste. Even if the story was true, and even in the one in ten zillion chance it would be Jamie, would this really be right way to tell someone? Stuff like this certainly is a good reason to block PMs from certain people, if you ask me. Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

If it's in a PM, then you can safely assume there's a reason for it, and ignoring this for your own benefit is opening yourself up for litigation. Litigation?! You gotta be kidding me. If someone sends a PM, while it is not considered the right thing to post it in public thereafter, there is NO obligation on the recipient to keep it private. No-one has signed a legal undertaking to keep anything confidential by accepting PMs! You've been quiet for so long safe and we know you have good stuff to add usually - so where on earth does this sentence come from?? Jamie, you can block PMs from selected people or from everyone. You might find this beneficial so that you don't get inundated with rambling PMs from certain posters. They can be also useful for discussion with certain people though. But it is considered bad form to post publicly what has been sent privately. Snowmman used to post here, but he got banned. He did some really good investigative work but also went overboard sometimes on his personal comments. 377 tries to get Quade to change his mind about the banning every so often. Blevins, circumstantial evidence is not hard proof. By hard proof I meant something that can directly connect a suspect to the crime. DNA. Possession of a $20 bill with matching serial number. The confession Jamie says his dad gave him certainly sounds like more than the "confession" Jo says she got. Then again Gossett's sons also say he confessed. So confessions ain't gonna do it without other proof. Jamie, almost all of us agree with Quade that the burden of proof is on the person making the claims. The exception is Jo, who keeps on telling we need to prove Duane wasn't Cooper. This is ridiculous of course. So yeah the more evidence you can amass, the better it makes your case. I agree that a DNA sample would be a start. Posting a picture here is not going to do it though. You need to somehow convince the FBI to do a proper comparison. It's easy enough I think for people to dismiss the DNA evidence because their favored suspect does not match, but I would be very interested indeed to see what would happen if we did get a match from someone. Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

Purely on eyewitness descriptions. We've had debates before about how for example if he had spent a lot of time outdoors he might look older than he actually was. (I personally think people are notoriously bad at judging age on looks.) Edit: when Georger gets back he will probably comment on the sketch vs photos. He'll start with the ears no doubt. Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

The fact so far is that there is no hard proof provided by anyone yet. Conjecture, speculation, adding things up, claiming things were seen etc etc ... the only thing close to "hard proof" is the DNA on the tie, which everyone now rejects anyway because it's contaminated (though it would be very interesting to see what the response to any potential DNA match is). Let's face it, no-one with a vested interest in who Cooper is is going to take anyone elses's claims seriously. I hope for Jamie's sake he manages to keep to his intention to ignore flaming. Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

Another snippet from my side conversation with Jamie: Grudge, anyone? (This came up in a different context btw - not sure Jamie is even aware that there was talk of a grudge.) Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

Jamie is reading here. (I told him about the site but also in all honesty had to tell him I thought if he started posting it would be like throwing himself to the wolves) Response re the financial records: Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

Yeah, the tax thing registered too. Like I said, there are holes. They do seem a bit smaller than some of the ones in other stories though (so far). He reckons the money was laundered through purchase of construction equipment (the pics he posted on the facebook page). Not sure how easy it would be in any era to purchase construction equipment for cash, then again some of the stories I hear about who has been involved in the US construction industry over the years... Re the Ariel event - my reading was it was chance they ended up there. Jamie says there may be a chance the briefcase is still around hidden in an attic.... I told him that naturally if it is getting hold of it is the obvious thing to do!! I must admit the ATC angle piqued my interest. I did ask if he knew of any smokejumper connection but he said no. Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

Incidentally this bit caught my eye Not heard this before. However, it would help explain a question we have asked a number of times before, i.e. why would the ticket seller have remembered him to ID him in the first place? Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

OK, I have Jamie's permission to reproduce his story. The reason he believes Cooper was his father was because his father confessed to the crime, and because there was an unexplained appearance of a couple of hundred thousand dollars around the time of the crime. Some of the stuff here makes sense/fits in with stuff we have spoken about. There are 'holes' from a Cooper perspective of course. But like I said before, at the very least it is no more outlandish than some of the stuff we have heard before and at least it does not require wild conspiracy theories to hold together, so I think it is at least worth an airing. Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.