SafecrackingPLF

Awesome stuff. I think it's a bit dishonest to say there's no "evidence" that points to the money washing up via the Columbia. It was found on the shore of the Columbia River. That definitely would "point" towards how it got there. I never said that Cooper was the only person to handle the money. What I did say is this idea can answer some of the question, but not all of it. If Cooper has an accomplice OR if someone found the money, why did the money wind up in the river? It's a stretch to say that they thought the money was "hot". If you suscribe to my proposed solution, at least you can say is that the money was in bad shape when they found it, and that the person(s) decided to chuck it instead of report it or try to use it.

I realize that my posts have been on the long side, and I never intended to stifle the discussion. My approach to this case has always been to work with the facts at hand and use the process of elimination. Many on this board have been willing to turn a blind eye to the facts as they were presented. That's okay, just be honest with yourself about it. There's a paradox in this case. Since 377 asked what my "theory" was (even though I once told him privately), I should at least answer this better than I did, just to be fair. The paradox is as follows: The money washed up. We don't know how much of it washed up, but it was at least 3 stacks (280-300 bills). It could have been more, but it may not have been. But we can reasonably assume that the money itself did get to its final resting place via the Columbia River. However, there's only two tribuarities to the Columbia that will work with the location of the money because the rest of the tributaries all adjoin the Columbia further downstream from the find. Your choices are Washougal & LaCamas lake. The later may not even be viable. Neither one fits the facts as they have been presented (the jump occured in NW Clark County, 9 miles from the nearest LaCamas tributary). We are left with the paradox: the money did arrive to its location via the Columbia, but the money could not have traveled either tributary on its own. The money washed up at some point in 1979. Yes, the paradox does leave us with questions, and for some of us, it leaves us with a desire to throw out facts. I've previously shown, however, that even when throwing out facts arbitarily, the odds that the money traveled via a tributary are extremely slight (and it may even be impossible). If you look at almost every single "theory" that each of us has, pretty much all of them will violate one of the facts (or rules). For example, if you think McCoy did it, you have the age problem, the alibi problem, and you fall victim to the paradox. If you think Christiansen did it, you have the description problem and you also fall victim to the paradox (but to a much lesser degree than McCoy). If you think Mayfield did it, you have alibi issues and the paradox really bites (worse than Christiansen). If you think Cooper had a getaway car stashed in a remote location that he used to get away, you violate the paradox. If you think Cooper had an accomplice, you violate reasonable deductions of facts and the paradox. If you think Cooper lost the money, you violate the paradox. If you think Cooper died on impact, you violate the paradox. In eliminating all these possibilities, what are some solutions? Well, saying that someone found the money and/or body will still leave significant questions (why does the money then wind up in the Columbia?)... again, a paradox problem. There has been only one theory put forth on these boards that does not violate any of the rules. My theory isn't really based on "who" did it, but rather how it happened. The story that makes the most sense is that Cooper was not from the area. He landed, maybe hurt, and needed to avoid people (he's carrying a large bag of money and wearing a suit and he's a wanted man). Therefore, he evades people as he attempts his escape by foot. If he wanted to leave the area, ultimately, he will have to enter civilization (to drive, bus, or train out of town)... but in traveling by foot, he would have to consider being made literally because of being caught holding the "bag". This is the only reason I can think of (other than death) as to why Cooper would purposely leave behind the ransom. I highly doubt if Cooper wanted to leave ransom behind that he'd leave it all. He would most certainly grab what he could fit and stash the rest of it. If he's from the area, he can return quickly, but if he's from outside the area, he would not return right away. For whatever reason (jail, lack of need, injury, etc) he did not return (or could not locate the stash). My personal opinion is that he did take about 3x the average household salary (30k) and was doing okay; after this, he was waiting for the statute of limitations to pass before risking retrieval. At some point in 1979, something happens that causes the money to enter the Columbia. I can tell you through simple float times that it most certainly was placed in the river itself. We don't have enough information (yet) to know where or how. I cannot think of a logical reason as to why Cooper (or anyone else) would purposely throw money into the river in 1979. The only reason would be that the money was damaged. After 7+ years, regardless of the "bag" or container the money was in, it would have been moldy. The only way it would not be moldy is if it were kept indoors or in an airtight container. Neither of these are likely. The rubberbands suggest a container that shielded the money from sunlight and constant wet/dry cycles (that would cause the bills to become brittle and break). "hot" money is an inadequate explanation; the money was not hot because 8 years had passed and no one was still sifting through 20 dollar bills trying to find a needle in a haystack. I do think this is the *most likely* scenario. It's certainly not the only scenario that will not violate any rules, but unquestionably, a similar story would have to hold true if the facts are truly facts. As of now, I'm guessing that the money was held in some type of plastic container, if not multiple containers, perhaps a 5 gallon sized one (that's the volume of the money). If the money was damaged, and he retrieved it in 1979 after he thought the statute of limitations was long gone, he would have had to throw the whole container into the water (or else he'd have to throw it within 10 minute's river distance of the sand bar). Yes, it's a paradox. But it doesn't mean there aren't answers to it. I'd love to hear everyone's else's theories; if you break a "rule" just acknowledge which ones you think are inaccurate as you submit your theory. Maybe we'll get Ckret to chime in eventually to tell us we're all full of it (or we hit it on the head).

It says I think you just found a potential hole in the investigator's thinking. Either the writer for the AP stated this poorly, or the authorities assumed it was parachute line when it was simple rope. I don't doubt the second sentence though, most of these type of serial killers have "murder kits" which would include similar objects as those described.

Great post. I also saw the I-5 strangler thread. It's most definitely related just because skyjack71 spoke of thread in the knife. Personally, I think it's very low (like less than a percent) probability that Duane would have a knife with parachute line in it, even if he was Cooper, but it's certainly worth looking into. Guru312, My apologies if I took your hypothesis out of context. Let's have the discussion, shall we? There's a big difference between accepting facts from the FBI file, and challenging every one of them. Ckret specifically said "handles with no zipper". If anyone comes along and says otherwise, there should be significant reason other than what they think SeaFirst did. If you have 14 feet of line, and all you do is wrap it around the bag, you have enough for three wraps and a foot of line to knot it. This is based on using the narrow dimensions, although we can debate if he'd secure it on all six sides (more likely). 17+9+17+9=52 inches is the narrow side. 17+12+17+12=58 inches is the wide side. It's likely he'd tie line around both sides. He would then have slightly less than 5 feet to do something else (tie it around his waist, or wrap it one more time). He cut two lengths of line, not one, so assuming he used one to secure the bag only is certainly a valid thought. I will come back to your "waterproof" idea in a moment. The bag will float. The bag will still float even if the top isn't cinched. The question is, how long will it float? A bag with no zipper (this does not preclude drawstrings however) will not keep water out no matter how you cinch the top. You didn't mention this in the post, but you're assuming that the top of the bag would not be in the water and the material not able to saturate with water. The fold staying out of the water isn't possible because the large surface of the bag (17 inches) would be the side the bag floats on. If the bag had 17 inches vertically, it would be unstable and wobbly (top heavy) and it would tip to the lower center of gravity. With one of the 17 inch sides being the one the bag is floating on, the seal at the top would be pivotal to determining the rate of air escape. No matter how you shake it, however, the seal itself would not be airtight, and thus, very sinkable. Having excess to fold up implies that the location of the handles aren't attached to the very top edge, otherwise the handles would have been folded under to get the seal you describe. That's certainly a possibility, but we need to know more about the handles or types of handles this bag may have had. I'm fairly sure though that the bag would float with the fold horizontally. This is because the width is only 9 inches, which having the fold vertically when floating would require a 12 inch height. The Bag would tip to one of the 12x17 sides which would force the fold horizontal. While you can say this fold could stay above the waterline, there would be a point where enough water would soak through and weigh the bag down to force the fold underwater. At that point, the bag would be in serious trouble. If we assume your hypothesis, the "some time later" is actually about 7 years later. "One" packet is not consistent with the facts. There were three packs that were found. One single pack can only float for 10 minutes and 25 seconds. The bag would need to be within this distance and the pack would need to be completely dry, even after seven years in the elements, including the canvas bag itself floating in water. Therefore, your hypothesis actually requires that the entire bag itself make it's way to the sand bar and get snagged on something. Not to fret though, this was Ckret's hypothesis as well. Yes, a few bills made their way onto eBay, but none of them have actually been sold there to my knowledge (the price was too low). Bernie, you know I was enthusiastic about you contacting the bag supplier. I'm now 100% confident that you and him never discussed makes and models of the likely bag; you knew that I was researching vintage bags for this test. The most important element of this debate is to figure out what bag was used, or the type of bag that was used. I don't disagree with the general crux of your hypothesis, but your hypothesis violates three key pieces of information that have been established: 1. The bag had no zipper 2. The time of the jump was between 8:10-8:12 3. The location of the plane at this time was near Merwin Dam / La Center. Even if everything you say is true, we would still be left with the money floating in LaCamas lake indefinitely. As I stated yesterday, I'm not even sure it's a viable waterway. We need to determine how water escapes from the lake to complete the hypothesis. Otherwise it's beyond speculative. One last thing, if I understand what you're saying, are you telling me that dirty air will have more force of power than straight wind? Are you suggesting that calculating 3 dimensions of force will make the forces themselves greater?

First, it's great to be able to chat about this stuff again, although I will need to scale back some just for real life purposes. Several regulars have left the discussion, and by regulars, I mean DZ regulars. Orange1 said: I think you raise a valid concern. What has happened in the past though is that there are different people talking different languages. Every single person on this thread has contributed in some way or another. Your experience or those of others who have exited a jet at a high speed (Perris) have some keen insight. The important thing is to make sure all insights and arguments are classified in a proper way. In other words, a personal experience of exit turbulence is a great thing to discuss, but what is the end argument? It's fallacious to think Cooper's loot couldn't stay attached to him because two skydivers could not hold hands while exiting. The reason it's fallacious is that the two don't exactly equal, and that's why I calculated the wind force of the two different surface areas at the same 170 knots just to show the point. That doesn't mean the experience isn't valid, it just means the two may not be fully the same. This is what I meant by intellectual honesty. Albert18 said Technically Albert is correct. He has not laid out a specific theory on these pages, but the first Albert post was chalk full of what he thought. Those thoughts are somewhat transparent to someone who has studied this case as much as most of us have. There's definitely an underlying theory; it's just unspoken. That first post you made told me what theory you suscribe to. Your comments, ideas, and insight are all valuable to moving closer to objective truth from the realm of endless speculation. You said a few other things: The theory that Cooper wanted to originally jump in the Seattle area is pure speculation based on some points of interest, most notably the fact that Cooper wanted the stairs down on take-off. I'm not really sure that Cooper waited until Tina was in the cockpit before he started putting on the equipment. In fact, he had harnessed up and was finishing off his securing the money bag to his person when she left. You raise a legitimate concern that he may have purposely delayed everything while they were taking off. The rest of it, I'd like to defer to Ckret. 377 wrote: First of all, I do think the lengthy water route is improbable, but I can't really speak to it being impossible; it just appears that way as of now. I think suggesting that the plane was way off course is a valid thought. I would only add that the map created in Jan 72 was based on USAF data as per Ckret's post. It shows within 1 mile where the plane was at a given time. For the plane idea to hold up, both the timeline and the location would have to be incorrect. There's very little, and actually nothing, that suggests either of these were inacurate. The idea is fine, there's just nothing as of now that supports it. I will do what I can to get Ckret back. I haven't had contact with him very much since our thread was shut down. I did inform him of my renewed access to the thread, but I don't know if his timeout was the same duration as mine. Still, he's a busy guy with many things to work on, and the Cooper stuff is more of an ancillary hobby stemming from his work. Let's give him some time, and my guess is that he'll be back. It shouldn't be understated, we can't really make progress here without Ckret. Regarding the money float: as it is now, we have some reason to believe the approximate path of the flight and we know where the tributaries are. When I put all that stuff together in the previous thread, I operated under a major assumption: that every waterway is viable. I cannot say if LaCamas lake is even viable. I will have to visit this area by foot before making such a judgement and I have requested some help from Sluggo privately (since he has maps like crazy). In other words, it may not even be possible for a 12x17x9 bag to leave the lake. If that turns out to be the case, then float times will be of little value because we'd be relegated to the Washougal river. The Washougal river has about 0% chance of fitting a waterway theory simply because it's so far from the flight path (11+ miles). See post 1443 on this in the previous thread. Therefore, there's two key points left to investigate. The float time of money (which may be rendered meaningless) and the viability of LaCamas Lake. Should either of those two fail, we'd be left with your idea (plane was way off course and the timeline was way off) or some other. Right now, I can't really say what my "theory" is, because it would be incomplete. I do not know, and I need to figure out the speed of the river to back into a theory. Using float time and river speed, I might be able to back into a theory as to how it got where it was found. Currently, we have too many unanswered questions.

While I understand what you're trying to convey, I feel it necessary to clear this up somewhat. I can't speak to the float time of the money bag, and that's precisely why I have a huge cache sitting here waiting to be tested. I need to know more about the bag and I need to wait for summer before I test the float time of the money bag. I can say that a single stack of cash sinks in less than 11 minutes. However, you're right that I do think it's highly improbable that a canvas bag of money could float for any length of time in LaCamas lake, let alone making the journey from the lake to the Columbia and then 20 miles down river to where it was found. Second, there's been only minimal discussion of the actual difficulty of the jump itself. Actually, the DZ community has been somewhat split. Certain posters think the conditions made it highly unlikely that he survived, and others voiced their opinion that it wasn't all that difficult. Personally, I can't speak to the difficulty at all. How could I? I do know that Earl Cossey said if Cooper pulled the ripcord, he thought Cooper survived. I also know that I do not base my opinion on the conditions of the jump. There's a big reason why I don't. It's because of all the evidence that suggests otherwise. Like I said, I can't speak to the difficulty of the jump, but I can tell you unequivocally that the plane was no where near a tributary if we're to believe the three eye witnesses and the understanding of the timeline from 1971. There's significant reason to believe the jump occured precisely where they originally thought, and there's basically no evidence suggesting otherwise. The location of the plane when the jump took place is paramount to proving the viability of any theory. I can tell you that going off of the tests conducted in Jan 72 and going off of radar information from the USAF and off of eyewitnesses (pilots), Northwest Airlines concluded that the jump occured between 8:10-8:12. I've heard 8:13 before, but never, ever has it been stated as later than this. Absence of any evidence to overthrow the original investigation, how can anyone disagree with this? Further, I illustrated on the previous thread that even if you extend the timeline out arbitrarily, there's still significant doubt that the plane was even within 2 miles of the tributary zone, let alone right on top of it. Those two pieces of information right there are where my points of contention are. If you would like to discuss the difficulty of the jump, you're obviously welcome to do so, but we'd be better served to deal with the information at hand. The only "evidence" that remotely suggests a no pull or a lost ransom was the money found in 1980. If you argue this route, you're still going to have significant issues. Guru312 did a wonderful thing in speaking with a bag supplier. However, I'd put some money on him forgetting to ask THE imperitive question: Given the dimensions of 10,000 bills and the year (1971), what is the likely brand and style of bag that would fit the description? It was described as having "handles" with no zipper. If I'm wrong Guru, then I'd be happier than could be... I'd love nothing more than to see a list of likely bags that could have been used. Like I said, I have the cash sitting here ready to be tested this summer, and when I do the test, I'd like it to be as accurate as we can make it. I would most certainly video tape the experiment (the other test I did I only took photos). But make no mistakes about what I'm saying. For me to test floating money is like testing to see the odds of winning the lottery. While it's possible the money had the opportunity to reach a tributary, we're really talking about a minute possibility that's hardly worth discussion. In addition, if a money bag cannot float for more than a few days, then the argument will be completely nullified. In other words, I can't speak to the difficulties that Cooper faced. I think we can all agree, saying that he jumped in less than ideal conditions would be dishonest... he jumped in horrible conditions. Whether or not he made it out is certainly a debate we will likely have for a long, long time, but if you do not think that someone moved the money, then you simply were not paying attention. My argument has nothing to do with conditions of the jump or probabilities of survival... it has to do with the infinitesimal likelihood that the money naturally traveled to where it was found. One final thing. If we're to spend time perusing this thread and this topic, then we owe it to ourselves and to each other to remain intellectually honest. I once made the mistake of saying there aren't any creeks that flow east in Clark County. That was a stupid thing for me to say, especially without taking the time to look at a map. Similar things have been said on this thread and those comments go unchallenged and even applauded at times. This does everyone a disservice. Along those lines, there was some question as to the veracity of the geologist's conclusion. First, you must understand that geology is a science. If an object is found above a known layer, and the layer is undisturbed (no earthquakes or such), then the object was placed on the ground AFTER the layer was formed. Please see the two photos. In the first one, you will see Mr. Palmer in a pit that was dug on the beach and he is showing you the distance between the surface and the 1974 layer of river silt dredged from the Columbia. The money was found at the surface of the sand when young Brian raked across the sand to smooth it out. I have drawn in a red line where the 74 layer is, and then in the second picture, you can look for yourselves to see the same layer. It's approximately 18 inches below the surface, and keep in mind, the layer is 1974 not 1971. The 71 era sand would be even further down. This is truly where the discussion ought to be directed. However, it would be frivolous to discuss this without Ckret here. Therefore, let's hope he returns.

I'm not really dealing with theory, I'm dealing with physics. The max "jolt" you're going to get is 174 pounds of force. The theory part is: "he lost the money mid air" "he died upon impact" "money flowed down a tributary" "he would have decelerated quickly" "he would have done a no pull" "I think the timeline is off" "I think the plane is further east" "I think Cooper knew where he was" "Cooper had this all planned out" "Cooper buried the money" "Cooper had an accomplice" Those are theories. There's nothing wrong with a theory, but it would be nice if people with theories would actually support the theory with more than "I once held a guy's hand while jumping from a Perris DC-9 and we lost our grip and flew apart" I realize what I'm about to do isn't totally accurate, but it's just to illustrate a point. Suppose you have a skydiver who's 6 feet tall & 15 inches wide. I realize the width isn't perfect and the total square footage is less. Rounding down, that's 7 square feet at 170 knots that would produce a max force of about 870 pounds. I again do not think it's really possible to get the "max" even with two jumpers... but supposing it's true, comparing 870 pounds of force secured only through holding hands is not the same as 174 pounds of force secured through suspension line. It's two totally different things. Then, to support the theory of a no pull or Cooper losing the cash mid-air, you must conquer several hurdles including the timeline, flight path, float time of money, condition of money, and the catch 22. There's nothing wrong with the theory, it's just the theory has little to no support and has huge obstacles, none of which have been adequately addressed. That's all I'm trying to say here.

Bad news. I'm back. First, my sincere apologies to everyone. I take full responsibilty for getting the old thread locked down. If Jim Hooper happens to read this (which I doubt), my sincere apologies to him, and to everyone. I mean that 100%, I was out of line. Having said that, the speculation that has permeated this forum since Ckret was kicked off was enough to make me squeamish. I think the reason is because people don't really read and take the time to work through the posts. As such, we're left with one group arguing conjecture verses others who are working with the actual FBI file or in using actual data. You must have some common ground to avoid endless speculation. Let's assume for a moment that the money bag was a parachute. Effectively, that's what the "he lost the money mid air" crowd wants to say. The first question would be: How long would a bag of money act like a parachute? Second question would be: How much drag would this parachute produce at the exit speed? I can answer one of the questions. But first, I must dispel the misunderstanding regarding the size of the bag. ltdiver referenced a post in the prior thread where Ckret said the bag was the approximate size of a small toddler. ltdiver failed to show the post where Ckret gave an actual dimension of the bag... 12x12x9. However, these dimensions were based on descriptions, and I'm not sure there wasn't a typo. Perhaps Ckret will come back and shed some light on this. I have asked him to clarify these dimensions privately. We may not know how big the bag was, but we know how big 10,000 bills would be. Depending on the condition of the bills and the tightness of the rubberbands, the average volume of the money would be about 26,600 cubic centimeters. If the money was in great shape and the bands were tight, it would be slightly less than this and vice versa. The dimensions would be about 19.5 cm by 31 cm by 44 cm if the bills were stacked 12x9 according to the description. The height would be about 17 or 18 inches tall. That means if you were to take your stacks of cash and arrange them 3 stacks by 2 stacks and then make a pile. Based on the description, this is my best guess as to how the money was arranged. Your biggest surface is roughly 12 inches by 17 inches. It's about 1.4 square feet. The exit speed was about 170 knots. If we pretend the bag of money were a parachute that was deployed prior to the jump, the surface area combined with the wind speed would produce a force equal to 174.38 pounds. This would be the maximum force we could expect from the bag of money upon exit. This force would only be attainable if Cooper were grounded and the bag of money behaved like a parachute. This isn't reality, and therefore, the force of wind produced by the bag of money would be dramatically less than 174 pounds. The next question is how long would the force of wind act against Cooper? I can't answer this, but I can tell you that if the bag of money produced that much force on Cooper, it would "pull" him because he has no grounding, he's in mid air. The 170 knots was produced by the plane, and since both the bag and Cooper are no longer on the plane, deceleration through air friction would occur rapidly. We've discussed this at length on the old thread.. .Cooper would decelerate horizontally as he accelerates vertically. The vertical force of the bag against Cooper would be neglible from a poundage standpoint. The obvious question to ask yourself is if 174 pounds maximum and very momentary force would be enough to snap the suspension line or the knots that Cooper tied on the bag or his waist. Because this force would at the most be a fraction of a second, I stand by my contention that the bag would not come loose from Cooper's waist. Organe1 properly stated that we do not know how secure the bag was. Either on exit or on chute deployment, the line surrounding the bag of money may have come loose. The problem with this thinking is that if the bag of money comes loose with nothing to secure it, the money would have went everywhere and would not explain the find in 1980. We can debate this at length if you wish. We're then left with the line around Cooper's waist failing in some way. This is the catch 22 that skyjack71 mentioned. You have to assume that Cooper could secure the bag very well, but that he could not adequately secure the bag to his waist to withstand a fraction of a second worth of force equaling 174 pounds. Even if Cooper used a simple double knot, this force would not be enough to break the knot or the line. At the very least, it would pull down towards his ankles, and I'm guessing since Cooper made his make-shift belt with the bag drooping at a full 22 pounds, that he made sure the belt was secure enough to stay up and not slide off his waist. Keep in mind, we're talking about a fraction of a second. Because Cooper is not grounded, this "force" would pull Cooper, and once it pulls Cooper, the force would diminish. This would be almost instananeous. We're literally talking about a fraction of a second. Organe1 said that we do not know how well the bag was tied. That's true, but we do know one very important fact... The bag was not airtight. Upon entering the water, the bag would allow water to soak through the fabric and through the top (because it's not airtight). As the money absorbs the water, the bag would become heavier, which would push the bag further into the water, which would then force air out of the bag. This process would be slow at first and would accelerate exponentially through time. The reason we need to know what type of bag this was is because I'm going to test the float time of of 10,000 bills in a similar bag. Before I do such a test, I need to know the approximate size and style of the bag. Shortly after being timed-out from the board, I performed a float test on one stack of bills. I took 100 bills and threw them into water. The water was fresh, and the properties of the water were deemed to be close enough to those of creeks or LaCamas lake. I used 2 rubber bands on the money. The more compressed the money is, the longer it can float (due to air being trapped). The test lasted 10 minutes, 25 seconds. I can tell you that a stack of money floats less than 11 minutes. The next question will be how long the money bag could float. My hypothesis is that it would float longer, but would not float more than a few hours. If you're to believe that Cooper lost the money mid-air, then you're also to believe that the money landed near a tributary that fed LaCamas lake. Once in LaCamas lake, it would have to float indefinitely until it drifted far enough to reach the southern most point of LaCamas where it might flow over some rocks and enter the Washougal river where it would then go into the Columbia and drift 20 miles to where it was found. If you believe Cooper lost the money mid-air, you also believe the calculated timeline that the FBI and NWA came up with was completely off. You also believe the flight path itself was significantly east to put the plane directly above the tributary zone. You then have to believe that Cooper could secure the bag really well, but could not secure the line around his waist very well at all. You must then believe the force of exit wind was enough to rip the bag from Cooper's waist. You then have to believe the bag was capable of floating in these waterways, not for hours, not even for days, but for years! The money washed up to where it was found less than a year before it was found. If I calculate the time from the crime to one year before it was found, it spans more than 7 years. That means we need to measure the float time of the bag in years and not in minutes. That's quite a big leap. That is, unless you believe the FBI really messed up in their "less than a year" calculation.

This is my final reply to you. Quade had warned the forum not to stoop to your level. The majority? Okay, people who are active on this thread, is this assertion correct? Who cannot recognize a parachute harness if it bit you in the ass???? Why I shouldn't really laugh at someone so intellectually challenged as yourself, part of me finds it amusing... a troll who comes in with half a brain and an oversized mouth who wants to get their rocks off by breaking up the forum. So be it. You're laughing, but what you don't realize is that we aren't laughing with you... Yes Virginia, we're laughing at you. Do what you will, but I recommend you get some chromosomes while you're at it. I'm awaiting the scan from the agent on the case. I will not make a post until agent Carr provides the scan or until Quade boots any trolls from the thread.

This one made me smile... an online PLF. That's my name for crying out loud, so of course. The mods had threatened to shut this thread down even while we were making serious progress, and a few DZ people come in here treating this like it was a bigfoot or lochness monster thread only shows the hypocrisy of the site. That's okay... we are going to have to go around this. This isn't a court case. It never will be a court case, I highly, HIGHLY doubt it will be a court case... Cooper at best would be 81. 70-80% of people who are even aware of this mystery think that he died in 71. The liklihood is that he has died or is close to death as we debate. I think the people who come in here and troll haven't really been following what's going on. They accuse us of not having a life... so then, what does that make them? Because this is not a court case, but rather an opportunity for us to pool our thinking, I'd request that we obtain information from Ckret before we start poking holes in everything. If all of our information is unreliable, that's certainly something to know... but there was a reason why the FBI had strong beliefs in 72 surrounding the jump, those reasons may or may not be reflected in the case file. I don't know... but before we start pulling theories out of our butts, can we agree to get information from the agent on the case before we start shooting everything down? A poster who says pages have been torn from a notebook, I cannot speak to that. That's one person in here out of at least 10 regular posters. As a group, we have done something special, and that is not to be laughed or scoffed at. Let's summarize... We have discussed the money that was found and have came up with reasonable conclusions. Those conclusions: 1. It was deposited within a year of being found 2. It appears to have been deposited by water and not by hand (though we can probably hammer this out even more) 3. The condition suggests that it had some level of protection for a very long time. 4. The money could not have rested at the bottom of the river and then later on washed up on the beach; this suggests the money was still floating somehow after it had made its journey that far. The accepted and popular theory has been, and continues to be: Cooper died upon impact and the ransom made its way through natural means to where it was found in 1980. Call me whatever you want, but as a group we have not only discussed the findings of the money, but have challenged this accepted theory. If it's true, then great. Before the money was ever found, the theory had already been established that Cooper died. Once the money was found the FBI enjoyed another 2 weeks before Himmelsbach retired. When that happened, I know the investigation did not "stop" but I will say it effectively did. We have come further in two months on this forum than the FBI has in the last 27 years! The accepted theory that Cooper died was based upon what he was wearing, the conditions he jumped, the location he jumped, and the fact that no money was ever found in circulation. CKret (the actual agent on this case) already debunked the money found in circulation argument as having very little validity. If he died, we have concluded the "where he jumped" as a non sequitur. I'm not here to argue if Cooper can successfully jump. 70-80% of the people believe he died. That's okay... some DZ regulars think this too. Me? I don't know, that's one reason I'm here, to find out. I will say the man who packed the very chute used in the crime said himself that "if" Cooper pulled the ripcord, he survived. Therefore, does it sound like UFO/Big Foot/Yetti logic if the skydiver who packed the chute says something like this? Did he, or did he not survive? To answer this, I researched where the money was found. The media over the years has misreported the location so many times that it's not trustworthy. I went into old property records and found the two parcels on the Columbia owned by the Fazio bros. The location of this beach can be found on map 46 in my original post on this topic on page 44 of this thread. I then looked at every waterway in Clark County to see how many and the location of Columbia tributaries. There are two primary locations, one at the NW corner of Clark Co, and the other in the SE quadrant of Clark Co. The money was found in between these two points! This effectively means we can rule out the NW corner tributaries. When we rule these out, we are left with the SE quadrant. The SE quadrant argument has some fatal flaws: 1. The timeline must be adjusted from the accepted 8:11pm to the non-accepted 8:15 or possibly 8:16. Ckret did say there was some writing that made it appear this timeline may have been off, but in reality we have not heard enough to justifyably alter the FBI conclusions of 1972. 2. The flight path must be significantly different than what was assumed. So far it appears there might be some leeway, but it's doubtful the flight path will be moved more than a mile. Maybe I'll eat these words. 3. Once you have shown both 1 and 2 as 100% viable, you have effectively changed the landing area and terrain. It's no longer the woods, but pasture and flat lands. In fact, the likely area of discussion happens to have several farms, and these areas have been farms for a very long time as they are today. You must make some assumptions, that he landed in this area dead and that his money washed into a lake and continued to float for years upon years before it finally made its way to the Columbia. No one can ever see his body, even though it is now not in the woods, but rather out in the open in grasslands... and grasslands that enjoy frequent tending by farmers. Kook or not, those are the 3 issues we were trying to resolve. Without resolving those three issues, it can 99.99% be concluded that Cooper not only survived, but that he had to survive. Put it this way, he either survived or someone found the dough. The next question, how does the money get to where it was found, and why... this is much more challenging to answer from someone "finding" the dough than Cooper surviving, but that is certainly something we can discuss. When the money was found, in the minds of the FBI and without ever evaluating it against facts avaiable, it fit into their theory that Cooper died. "I think we can only presume at this time that because the money was found clumped together tightly in what we believe was the manner in which it was originally packed lends credence to theory that at least the money did not make it out, and from there I would really leave it to conjecture." In that same interview on Feb 12, 1980, Himmelsbach proclaimed less than a 50-50 chance of Cooper's survival the night of the jump. If you accept this theory, then great... you can leave now. If you are unsure and would like to test this theory or if you actually believe he lived, then maybe you can stick around and help determine if it's likely or not. If you want me to go back a third time and re-evaluate this possibility I need two things: I need some level of evidence that suggests the timeline of the jump was about 8:15 & possibly 8:16 verses the accepted 8:11. I also need a better scan of the map that we've posted on here a few times in the last few days... I mostly need the points that would be relevant to the 8:15 time. Otherwise speculation, conjecture, and toothless arguments about Cooper's demise really mean nothing. When I said go grab a map and look at all the waterways and evaluate them against the flight path and timeline, I said it because that's what we've done here... all of us. I didn't do it myself, I had help... help from other DZ members with a lot of jump history, help from pilots, and help from navigation experts. Those people are on this thread! When I said to go do that, you can just as easily go and read the thread, because it's all there. Calling people names only shows your ignorance and your low IQ. I don't mind if you're mentally challenged, but before you go off, you may want to do some homework first. When you do your homework, you will realize that you have to hold beliefs equivalent to those you poke fun of... big foot, etc... that's about the level of intelectual evaluation you have to come up with to still believe that Cooper died (at this point, given what information we have). If we can push out the timeline and adjust the flight path, maybe we can conclude differently. Regardless, you will still have to account for Cooper dying on farmlands and money floating in water for up to 7 years without ever sinking. Sound feasible? Let's find out.

Thank you. I think I'll do that. But before I go, just remember that I attempted to use facts, not conjecture. It was the skydivers who went to conjecture. Therefore, I'd suggest you look at a map, find all the waterways in Clark County, retrace the flight path, re-establish the timeline, and figure out how in the hell money shows up in the condition it did 8 years later. When you do this, you can call me a "kook". I'm out.

I think it was skyjack71 who mentioned this. I completely 100% disagree. There's nothing to suggest that Cooper took money out of the bag to stuff his pockets before the jump. I do think it might be a possibility after the jump if he had to make his way into civilization and didn't want to draw attention to himself "hey, who's that guy wearing a trashed up business suit and carring a large money bag with SeaFirst Bank written on the side?" Before we go any further, it's obvious to me that we need a better scan of the flight path map and we need to shore up the timeline. Right now, it's a free for all. We can't rule out anything... the flight was too far east... the crew never reported the aft stairs down... they missed a lot of details... everything we've been told is suspect... we can't believe anything that they've said... In other words, the investigation was botched from day one because no one knew a damn thing. All this talk about pressure bumps, oscillations, and timelines have no relevence. Captain Scott must have been drunk in those interviews where he said "pressure bump occurred at 8:11" Well, 8:11, 8:20... what's the difference? Meanwhile everyone on this board as well as countless investigators worked off of faulty information, no information, or shotty information at best. It's clear what happened and this story is over. Conclusion: Money landed in a LaCamas lake tributary or directly on the Columbia itself. It was either seperated in air or at impact. It either floated in LaCamas lake before floating down the columbia, or it sat on the beach of the Columbia for 7 years until a wind storm came along and blew it into the water, where it floated downstream and was found in Feb 1980. Vultures and other animals ate Cooper's body (but it probably wasn't the cows on that farm) which explains why no body was found. Case closed. Good work, we can now all go home.

It *might* be slightly east of V23... but it's really tough to say. I'm also looking at the I-5 to gauge some real locations. We need a better scan to see the streets and such. You're still, AT BEST, looking at the farm as the landing point... and you have to get the timeline out to 8:15-8:16

So my hypothetical skit of the captain nodding off would not have been required if they were that far off course? Seattle sectional? The map posted shows Clark/Cowlitz county... but maybe it's all one in the same? Ckret did mention that he might post a high res of that map. 290kb scan of it would be better than a 45kb picture of it.

Thank you for the post Sluggo. I understand what you're saying. There are still some issues that have to be resolved if Cooper does not pull or pulls a defective chute or if he loses the money mid-air. Inconsistencies in reporting can take us far, but can they take us that far? Look at the map I posted on pg 65, just before your post... the creators of this map do show the plane going back n forth like you describe, but generally it's heading where it ought to be. Does it look like something "assumed" or does it appear to be based on ATC?

Thank you John. One reason why I said "if he makes his way to a road" and "average" for the 10 hours would be 1 mph. I certainly don't think he's going 20 miles in 10 hours, it's 10 miles or fewer unless he finds some type of transportation.

The map that Ckret posted on page 47 was based upon radar information provided by the USAF. The map is good through 8:12. From what Ckret has said, he does not have anything in his "old" FBI file that shows the flight path (based upon) USAF information after 8:12. All he has is a map with a dark line drawn in and some times jotted down on it. I don't think he knows how the flight path on this particular map was derived. It could have been assumed, or it could have been more than assumed... either way, it's not as accurate as the Jan 72 landing zone map based on USAF radar & analysis by expert skydivers. Also, this map that Ckret has mentioned (and has been photographed by the Seattle PI) does not show a wild diversion off course.

I can agree with you on one point... There is no "proof" of his death or survival. And by proof I actually mean: Suppose a bill actually would have shown up. People would say he lived, when actually you only have proof that *someone* spent at least one bill. That's about the same level of proof that the found money provides. If you think the flight path was off by up to several miles, the timeline way miscalculated, and the money managed to find its way into LaCamas given all there is to the contrary, then certainly you're entitled to your opinion and who am I to tell you that you're wrong? Everyone else can make up their own mind: 1. The flight path is known up to 8:12 based on USAF radar. 2. The heading between 8:12 & 8:16 would have to be way off 3. The known timeline would have to get pushed back several minutes 4. The plane would have to fly into PDX airspace unless a "huge" compensating turn was made to avoid it, and by huge I mean "oh sh*t Bill! You're way off course, divert starbord now, divert starbord now!"... "flight control, this is Captain Scott NWA 305, everything is okay and we are now on an appropriate path. My apologies, I had nodded off there for a moment" 5. The bag has to rip from Cooper's body either before or after landing 6. The bag must remain intact during most or all of its 7 year journey 7. No one can ever find Cooper's body or the money, even though we've now moved the landing area from the forest to the pasture. Personally, I think Oswald did it... but I'm obviously in the minority here. That's okay, all opinions welcomed.

airtwardo... I like that! Okay, here's something we haven't discussed too much. We know he has the money bag strapped around his waist. We don't know if he did something to keep it from dragging, but that's not really the focus of my next set of questions... He obviously gets rid of the dummy reserve. How? We can only speculate. He obviously gets rid of the briefcase. My question is, what does he do with the dummy? We talked about him trying to guage the winds by throwing it... is it possible he's dumb enough to strap this thing to his chest? He would need to jerry rig it. Next question: The reason I asked the prior question is, why would he strap the chest chute... it would not be harnessed on and it does not work. Even if he thinks it works, why wear it if it's not harnessed on? Next question: He pulled apart the reserve that was left behind. Presumably to store the money, and then when he figured this would not work, he used the cords to create a make-shift belt to attach the money. In other words, his plan was to wear the front pack, but not to use it as a chute. Next question: what does he do with the contents in the briefcase? The reason I ask is because he may want some of the contents... if he puts them in reserve canister, he would have taken the chute he already pulled apart. We already know that he's willing to jump without a reserve (he was going to wear the other one to put money into)... Next question: We have heard that the exit winds would create unbelievable force that could rip the money bag... this argument is based upon how people cannot hold hands and jump at this speed without flying apart at exit. There's a problem with this line of thought... first, a 22 pound bag of money attached with the cords from a chute is not the same as a 160-200 pound person attached by hand grip. The two are totally different. I bring this up to ask my final question: Does Cooper attempt to jump with his briefcase? That's a very big question... and perhaps we want to start somewhere else, such as, would he have done anything to attach it to himself? Even if he didn't attach it, a 3 pound briefcase with a handle on it would allow Cooper to maintain a solid grip... not two hands gripping where there's not enough force or friction to hold two heavy bodies together, but an actual handle. If any of you go into a gym and grab a dumbell, I'm sure even the weakest 45 year old among us could hold a 100 pound dumbell... Would a briefcase containing a battery and some dynamite (or roadflares) produce more than 100 pounds of force upon exit? I'm asking if the winds + the weight of the case are enough to yank the case out of his grip... Maybe the best way to answer this question would be to determine an approximate weight of the case and it's correspondending force upon exit and then determine if it's humanly feasible for Cooper to keep a grip on it. I'd love for us to have a discussion on this. For your efforts, I will leave you with this: Let's assume for a moment that Cooper's bomb was truly dynamite and that it could ignite by attaching two wires the way that Cooper explained... do you honestly think Cooper would either A. Throw this off the aft stairs as he makes his way down, or B. Attempt to hold it as he jumps In the case of A, sudden motion could bring two wires together or cause some type of destablization... it could explode at the rear of the craft endangering himself and the plane, and the same would go for case B. Conclusion: The Cooper bomb was not a viable explosive. It likely contained no explosives whatsoever and was likely the way one suspect had mumbled, "road flares". I'd love to see more of Tina's statement of what she saw to help determine the fate of these objects.

One addtional thing, and this has been pointed out by others well before me. 1. No "missing" persons has ever been known to resemble or fit the Cooper crime. 2. No real, actual evidence has ever surfaced pointing to his demise. (as we've already discussed, the money actually points to his survival). In the absence of evidence and in the face of strong evidence pointing in the opposite direction, would you still believe he died upon impact? If this were a case you had to prosecute (he lived or died) which side would you seriously want to argue? If your career depended on winning, which way would you want to argue?

"Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left!" - Jim Garrison played by Kevin Costner in JFK I certainly see what you're saying, and I'm not trying to be obstinate... I'm just trying to tell you that there are serious hurdles the least of which are the timeline. For your theory to hold true, the timeline will probably have to get bumped to 8:16 AND Captain Scott has to deviate far off course in the next 9.5 miles. We're not talking about hundreds of square miles out in the ocean, we're talking about a flight vector and a few minutes for him to take a heading that's way off course. We have to violate a lot of rules just to support the "likely" scenario that the money floats down streams, floats into LaCamas lake, floats down the Columbia river and does this in a way consistent with the money found in 1980 (having been deposited within the last year). As tough as the jump may be, the only "evidence" we have of a no pull or even worse, lost money in mid-air is purely conjecture based on opinion and what if's regarding all reliable sources of information. You then have to say no one found his body or saw the money even after all these things. I'm no scientist or statistician, but I'd venture to say one hypothesis carries a boatload more weight than the other.

If you assume this, even if based upon reasonable thinking, you still have to resolve some serious issues. FBI & NWA originally felt strongly that the jump occured prior to 8:12. You have to account for this and justify it getting pushed to at least 8:15, and likely more like 8:16 as the plane flies past BTG-VOR. If you tackle that hurdle, now you have to assume a heading much more eastern than it would have been. In other words, the heading would be a several degrees smaller than what's is assumed. Let me show you what I mean... the eastern most point the plane was in at 8:12 is point O on Ckret's map (p47). The coordinates of that point are: N 45 51 32.37 W 122 36 24.13 Instead of a heading to BTG-VOR, let's put the heading directly to LC6, the closest NW corner of the tributary zone. That point is: N 45 43 43.47 W 122 32 58.74 The heading between each of these points is 162.944 deg verses 171.075 deg if he aimed for half a mile east of BTG-VOR and 174.538 deg if he headed directly for BTG-VOR. You can see, Captain Scott really has to shave down his turn. If you tackle that hurdle, you have to account for forward throw by moving the flight path east 2 miles, or add another minute onto the timeline to place the plane squarely upon the target zone (it's an additional 2.8 miles). If you tackle this, now there's really no "brush" for his body to hide in as he's lying on a farm. 1... 2... 3 strikes you're out they used to say. On what reasonable basis, other than how tough the jump might have been, can we logically conclude a no pull? All evidence that is known points in the other direction.

377, Very astute deduction. I've always wondered why he wore the outfit that he did. I had always thought maybe it was because he enjoyed dressing nice or he thought people would view him in a more sophisticated manner and take him more seriuosly if he was dressed up. In other words, a guy wearing a flannel jacket, jeans, and boots may not be taken as seriously as a guy wearing a business suit, tie, and over coat. But you're right... he had to give some thought as to the landing. If he thinks he's going to land in a metropolis, he'd want to look the part. (but if he's going to land in a metropolis, he also assumes no one finds it curious that he just parachuted out of the sky). Do you think he pondered his selection of shoes? If he did, then do you also think he may have modified them in some way as to give them more chance of staying on upon exit? There is one minor point of contention... According to the U.S. Naval Observatory Astronomical Applications Department, The sunset for Seattle on Nov 24, 1971 was 4:25 and the end of civil twilight was 4:59. In other words, by 5:00, it's dark. Even with the delays, Cooper assumed a night jump. This might explain his dark clothing... Because he left from Portland, it's somewhat reasonable that he had been in Portland the night before and knew it would be dark at around 5:00. Conclusion: If Cooper didn't plan to jump in the dark, then he would reasonably know his jump would be a night jump. If he didn't plan around it, then he certainly assumed it.

If he has a no pull, then we have a problem. If forward throw for a body or bag of money is less than a mile (which it sounds like it's less than 3,000 feet), then I can tell you categorically that there's no way there was a no pull or a lost bag in mid-air. Not unless we manage to absolutely push out the timeline and move the flight path out 2 additional miles east.

I agree whole heartedly. This smacks in the face of those that would say Cooper executed his plan down perfectly. It just doesn't seem that way, and therefore, discussions about an accomplice and discussions about him planning out his alibi are on precarious ground. The arguments in favor of such suspects already have their flaws, and the lines of reasoning pointed out by Ckret only diminish what little possibilty remains. In other words, those that would say this crime has been solved by two slueths, one of which has passed away, cannot be serious in their reasoning. If they are serious, then they either missed something or they failed to explain how they can make up this deficiency. I can't say we can rule out anyone... but based upon what we know it sure appears 99% unlikely that it was Mayfield. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the facts... but then again, maybe we've all gone through a lot of mental gymnastics only to conclude who Cooper likely was and was not, and he just doesn't fit.