novalis

my last note was a bit rambling because i hit the wrong button and posted before i wanted to. sorry. my main points are: there seem to be two coopers in the general literature: the well organized hijacker and the naive sky jumper. i think one should go on the assumption that the jumper had informed himself (and practiced) before taking the leap. whether he overestimated his chances or not is another question, but i think he knew what he was getting into when he jumped. the man pitted his wit and will against the social world in the hijacking, his wit and will against nature in the jump. is he vain? over confident? did the fbi read him this way? is that why they insisted that he was dead? in the hope that his vanity would lead him to give a "sign" that they could follow up on?

tim, please let me come in with a few general remarks. would appreciate your thoughts -- and thoughts of others . there sometimes seems to me to be almost two different discussions of cooper. one concerns the hijacker, the other the jumper. the first was obviously very bold and had thought through what he was doing. (ordering the specific type of parachute. had informed himself about how long it took to refuel. etc. in short, evidence that he had prepared for the day. -- it was in my view a coincidence that someone tried the same thing 14 days eariler. cooper did not prepare this thing in 13 days.) but when we get to the jump a lot of people start talking about how naive he was. i do not believe it. ( i do not say he survived-- i don't know of course). i see no reason why the bold but prudent hijacker suddenly transforms into the headless sky diver. it occurs to me that he is alone in the cabin after the second take off. does one really know what he was wearing when he jumped? could he have had other clothing with him etc?. good that is speculation. but i still do not see how he can be so organized for the hijacking and depend on so much "luck" for the jump. certainly he took a gr eat risk and may have died; but i think he knew he was taking the risk. one other point. you are interested in the man after the event. what interests me is the man who plans and carries it out. he is proud, he wants to pit his wit and will against a large organized group of people. there is a "social showdown" and then he pits his wit and skill against nature. no the man may have overextended himself. but he didn't leave anything to chance.

dear mr. t. (did you like w.c. bryant in highschool too?) i am interested in the cooper case but an ignoramous concerning any of the technical details. i would appreciate any answers which you with your experience(300 jumps) and your reading might be able to give me. in an article i read by d. krajicek on the "crime library" site i note that mr. cooper jumped at 10,000 ft. (is this an unusual height or "par" for the course? any particular danger involved here) it was below freezing temp. when he jumped. is this a problem for a jumper? there seems little evidence that mr. cooper could have had a helmet with him. is this a very big problem? the plane was travelling at 195 mph confronting ( i read in another article) 2oo mph head winds. are these conditions murderous? are they conditions that experienced jumpers in the past have survived? i do not understand all the talk about the man "splatting". if one lands on a tree after a jump, what are the chances -- can one generalize here? -- that one gets one self killed or badly hurt? is there a consensus among skydivers of what kind of chances the jumper had, or are there too many imponderables? (or just too many "opinions") thank you. if you have ans. to any of my questions i would be grateful. novalis