dudeman17

You call me a liar but the post you cite supports my case not yours. "Holds water" means it is feasible, not that I believe it to be true. Yes I did. For the theory to work he does not need a specific path to a specific spot. He just needs the direction that gets him to a general area. South is all the path he needs. You clearly have no idea how aviation works. Airliners take designated routes so that they do not crash and die. They were taking a low altitude flight in limited visibility over varying terrain at a time when they might expect there to be other air traffic. They would not and did not abandon this survival protocol for a hijacker. That letter twice uses a phrase that indicates more advanced military training. That does not prove a compass but makes it a high likelihood. I had and flew a couple round reserves from that era including a 26' conical. They were steerable. I knew several people who had 26' conicals including one guy who flew it as a main. They were steerable. I'll up the bet to twenty. I think I do. The old Fly would have posted the document to clarify it one way or the other. The current Fly is just being a dick. To everybody. In one short sentence you confirm your hypocrisy. ----------------- I'll ask again - What happened to you? You have always been a thorough and detailed researcher. But you used to be objective and open minded. Now you're just rude, short-sighted, dismissive, and a complete jerk to everybody. No, you are not a genius while everyone else is a moron. I dunno, maybe having a rock star call your house does something to your head.

What are you even trying to argue with this? Are you refuting, "I never said I believed his theory to be true." [I said it sounded feasible.] "My bottom line is and has always been that ultimately we don't know what is true and likely never will."? That is what I have always said about every theory. Yes you have given your simpleton definition of 'path'. But you didn't address the question. Airliners fly designated routes to avoid collisions with terrain and other air traffic. This concern does not disappear because there is a hijacker aboard, especially on a low altitude flight on a limited visibility night. The question is how many designated routes are there and would 23 be the most likely one? You can say whatever you want about what you think (assumption, opinion) they mighta coulda shoulda woulda oughta done, but the fact is they took designated route V23. Might this have been predictable? Again, I don't trust your answer on this because these days you seem more concerned with refuting everything that isn't your idea than pondering possible realities. I'd be interested in Robert99's thoughts because he is a pilot and knows aviation. I'd upgrade that to probable, and if you're right about that letter then it's all but guaranteed. Oh, so now he's credible. I'll betcha ten bucks that 26' conical in the museum is steerable. So if I have this correct, the picture we have of the museum rig's packing card came from when Bruce interviewed Hayden. The FBI didn't release that. Right? So we don't have a picture of the other rig's packing card (that was left on the plane). That "24' Steinthal" came from a description in one of the documents. Right? Maybe you'll repost that document, because the way I remember reading that was that the '24' Steinthal' was not the primary canopy in the rig, but what they described as the "other" canopy, the "integral" part of the system. Which by any logical understanding of parachutes could only be the pilot chute, and 24 inches, not feet. And how could they even come up with such a description without having the rig? If that description came from Cossey then we don't even know if he's describing the right rig. Bailout rigs used the same canopies as reserves. Many of them were steerable. I do. All the time. You should try it, you might have some fun and improve your attitude.

Haha. If you have the time and interest, you might want to check out the 1969 movie, 'The Gypsy Moths' with Burt Lancaster and Gene Hackman.

Within a few seconds of pulling the ripcord. Those things open pretty quickly. That is hard to say. That depends on how well he can see, between weather visibility and ambient light. How high does he open, above or below clouds... ???

No I never said I believed his theory to be true. I said it sounded feasible. My bottom line is and has always been that ultimately we don't know what is true and likely never will. You guys have discussed the daylights out of this while I was elsewhere, but a few other points to consider... You didn't give a definitive answer to 'path'. Airliners generally don't just cruise around wherever they feel like, they are assigned to specific designated air routes that account for terrain and traffic. Are there really 'dozens and dozens' of such designated routes from Seattle to Reno that might have taken them over widely varying terrain? That doesn't sound very efficient. If Cooper had done some research, would 23 have emerged as the likely route? I don't think you know the answer to this, I'd be interested in Robert99's take if he's reading. Repeating what they 'might have' done introduces many of the 'assumptions' you so dislike from others. Evidence lies in what they did do. I think it's more likely than not that Cooper had a compass. If he's not sure where he's going to land, it would pretty much be a necessity. You posted a letter that you think Cooper might have written. I'm not saying I believe that to be true, but if it is... That letter makes a couple references to using 'what uncle taught me'. That is not some random phrase that he made up. That is a somewhat known term that references military training. And it doesn't generally come from entry level grunts. It's usually used by people further down the rabbit hole of training and experience. If that is Cooper, then he's tactical. All but guaranteed that he has a compass. He does seem familiar with the area. If he's done some time/speed/distance calculations and he watches his direction in flight, he might have a reasonable idea where he is whether he can see lights or not. Nobody is saying that he can target a specific field, but knowing general area enough to target better terrain is feasible. 'Ten miles wide' does not negate that. Georger's comment about the preciseness of parachuting in those days, and my answer to it were general in nature and not specific to Cooper. Exactly where is it established that Hayden's bailout rigs were non steerable? Is that another assumption? If I remember this right, the packing card for the museum rig says that canopy is a 26' conical. I had (and used on my first malfunction) one of those, and it was steerable. They were a fairly common reserve when I was starting out as a jumper, and all of them that I was aware of were steerable. Since they all stem from the same design, I'd be surprised if there were any that weren't. Does Poynter's book list any? I don't remember what the canopy was in Hayden's rig that Cooper did use. Might it have been steerable? Does The Parachute Manual list that? Even if steerable, they wouldn't have much forward speed to work with, so it wouldn't really affect his overall drift by a lot, but it would help him avoid obstacles on landing.

Actually it could be. They had landing accuracy contests that people would pinpoint. But that required controlling the precise exit point, which Cooper clearly did not do. Cooper certainly could not have been targeting a specific field where he might find a waiting accomplice or car. But targeting better terrain than worse was feasible and would go a long way to hope for an uninjured landing.

Are all of these paths established, numbered air routes that any normal, non-hijacked flight to Reno might have been assigned to? Or was 23 the standard, expected route? If the former, then I can better see your point. If the latter, then Cooper might have known this with a modicum of research?

Ahh, how did I know you'd say something like that. Do I find it insulting? Nah, at this point it's just funny. Pathetic, but funny. What does that have to do with anything? That curtain just separates the sections within the cabin. Irrelevant and immaterial. (Actually, curtains are material, so...) Surely you've been on a commercial flight? Those window blinds can be opened or closed at will by whoever is in that seat. They were all closed on the tarmac at Seatac so no potential sharpshooter could see where he was? But once they were airborne he could have opened any of them that he wanted to look out of. They discussed it amongst themselves, not with Cooper. But they didn't head for the coast, so the question will forever remain unanswered if Cooper would have objected. I think this is everyone else's question to you. Nobody knows or ever will know what Cooper's plan was. But Kam's theory is as good as anyone's. You say it doesn't fit the evidence. But the evidence is, what he describes is precisely what happened. If... IF Cooper wanted to jump where he did, south is all he needs. South IS a path. Mexico is south. LA and SF are not. Reno is. They did not head for the coast. They went south, and Cooper jumped where he did. Again, no one will ever know whether that was his intent. But if it was, it worked.

Nah. The pilots did report seeing the lights. Since cities are considerably wider than aircraft, Cooper would likely have been able to see them too by simply looking forward out the side windows. Kamkisky's theory holds water. South is a path. When I suggested something similar a while back, you thought it was ridiculous that even if they had started out over the coast that they would have had to come back inland to get to Reno. How wide is California? You keep saying that they 'could have' gone out over the ocean. The question then is, if they had would Cooper have spoken up? Well they didn't, so we'll never know. Recently you were pissed off because you thought I had 'insulted' you. Is there anyone here that you don't insult?

There was a news show tonight discussing yesterday's shooting. They had a panel on talking about the tools and tactics the FBI has to try to find the shooter. One of them said, "This is not the 70's and this guy is not DB Cooper!"

Do you know the details of that? As I understand it, those stairs down and locked are meant to be able to support the plane, since all three engines are on the tail making it tail-heavy, it risked being able to tilt back as passengers are loading. If that is true, then those stairs down and locked could prevent the plane from rotating on takeoff, and that could potentially cause damage to the tail section in the attempt?

Nope. Nope. My comments were not meant to insult you. You insistently maintain a false view of emergency rigs. After unsuccessfully trying several times to correct you, my comments were to state that people who have a more accurate view of them might make decisions about using them that don't make sense to you. Nope. I do not have an opinion one way or the other how the money got rounded. I was referring to the way you handled the conversation. Nope again. I am objectively callin' it like I see it. From someone who until recently had nothing but the highest respect and regard for you, I beseech you to review and reconsider your recent attitude toward everybody. Other than being an ugly old fart, I'm comfortable with what I see there.

Actually, they are intended to be used in the event of an emergency. And they are designed to suit their purpose when they are used. Here you are hypocritically conflating and misrepresenting my statements. Back when it was being discussed, I said that the people procuring the rigs probably didn't know what they were looking for and just got what they could get their hands on. My more recent statements were a hypothetical that a lot of laymen would understand that there are differences, and if you put the two in front of them, they could probably guess which is which. This part you have correct. Here you are intentionally misrepresenting with intent to discredit. I did not say 'any idiot', I said 'many people'. Hypocrite. I think just recently you have Mike Davis and me... That would actually lean towards indicating the opposite. And you have gotten some feedback. You just reject it because it apparently doesn't conform to your 'confirmation bias'. Perhaps someone who apparently spends most of their life in front of a computer screen just can't grasp the mentality of people who go outside and do risky adventurous things. Sowwy I huwt youw feewings; yes you are ignorant on parachutes and the type of people who do such things; no I wasn't because that's not what I said; no I'm not; ya kinda got me there, minor detail corrected; no, I commented on that; and yes I did, several times. Because that's what they gave him. Black Death, Maynard - that's why. ----------------- Sir, you are not orders of magnitude more intelligent than everyone else. You do not have the market cornered on logic and reason. But your arrogance is astounding. You should really consider you recent behavior, going back at least to your fairly recent arguments about how the money got rounded, and everything since. It is really disappointing. I don't want to say that you're losing your credibility, but you seem to be intentionally wadding it up and throwing it away.

Yeah. 50 pounds would have some effect, but not prohibitive. What did Cooper weigh, somewhere like 170-175 or so? So how many 220 pound pilots or crewmen might wear such a rig?

And what is your parachuting experience sir? Thumbing through a book - a book I referred you to - , finding outlier circumstances and using them to try to discredit the predominant circumstances? Umm, no. I explained the fallacies in your generalizing "bailout rig" - and I am not wrong. Some of the canopies that might have been in those rigs are steerable. Indeed, I believe the packing card we have a photo of from one of Hayden's rigs lists the canopy as a 26' conical manufactured in 1957. I have landed a 26' conical manufactured in 1956 and it was steerable. I am not wrong in that the mains of that era did not have a whole lot better performance than the reserves. I have jumped most if not all of them - 35' T-10's, 28' flat circulars, Para Commanders, Piglets, 26' conical reserve, 24' whatever-it-was reserve with 4-line release, and whatever else that I can't remember. What have you jumped? Yes, the military did have freefall rigs, but the majority of military parachuting in that day was static-line paratroopers. Ironically, if Cooper was aware of or a participant in the military freefall operations you cite, then he was far more knowledgeable a parachutist than any of you want to give him credit for. I made my first 40 or so jumps on the exact type of gear that Cooper was requesting. I am thoroughly familiar with the type of bailout rigs he received. I have known countless pilots who wore them. I have put them on countless people, including my own mom, taking observer rides and briefed them on their use. And you? You seem to want to paint observer rigs as some sort of medieval torture device that if the opening doesn't kill you, the landing surely will, and something that only an uninformed moron would jump. Not so. God only knows how many jumpers, pilots, crewmen... have landed those things and come out of it unscathed. I used to know a guy who jumped one of those reserves as a main because it was cheap and he liked to pull really low. I stand behind all the statements I have made about gear as not wrong. The only thing I got wrong was I overlooked the military's preponderance to triple document everything, thus their mains having packing cards. And I accurately described the difference in why those cards are there vs reserve packing cards. Indeed, many sport jumpers of that day used military surplus gear. The packing card pockets on their rigs would be empty. I did, repeatedly, answer your question. And the answer is the variable I described. I don't know who Mike Davis is, apparently an experienced jumper. Ryan says that he said he would jump it, and you dismissed it out of hand, as though you know better than the man himself what he would do. I also said that if I was in Cooper's position on the way to Reno, I would jump it too. I would be easy to take umbrage at that and tell you to take a flying flip at a rolling doughnut yourself, But I'm really just kind of befuddled. What the hell happened to you? I've been reading your posts for a long time, and I've had nothing but respect for you. I think everyone here regards you as a thorough, detailed researcher. But you used to be objective, and interested in truth. But now, you'e caustic, stubborn, and quite frankly, an asshole. You have strong confirmation bias, you are at times dishonest, you personally attack and try to discredit people you disagree with, and you change your position mid-argument just to disagree. All things that you have accused others of. That makes you a hypocrite. Seriously, what happened to you? Maybe you just need to step away from the keyboard for a moment, go outside, get some fresh air, exercise, and circulation.

Yes, of course. But that was not the majority. And they still are. Any part of a parachute component that will be used in an emergency use chute has to be tested to FAA TSO standards. This has been addressed. If you don't want to accept the answer, then don't. But one thing you keep doing is looking at the rig as a whole, and not separating the container from the various canopies that might be in it. My guess is the first. But ultimately we don't know. Bullshit. I answered that question each time you asked it. If you want to reject my answer, that's your prerogative. But to say that I refused to answer and twisted it, that is you flat out lying. Hypocrite. It seems to me that you have lost your mind. You've changed recently. Has someone hacked your account? You are smarter than this.

Go on Facebook to the 'old school skydivers' page. You might be able to find an old rigger there who could detail containers of that era for you. Or call Skydive Kapowsin and ask for Geoff Farrington. He owns the place and is such a rigger.

Absolutely not. I am responding to it accurately and appropriately.

Balderdash. Not one word of what I wrote fits that description. I have had nothing but respect for you. You are clearly a dedicated and detailed researcher. But lately you seem to be stubborn and suffering from oppositional disorder. Anything anyone says that you don't agree with is either nonsense or a lie. I call bullshit. That's your call. But I've asked a couple questions that you haven't answered. And I'd still like to know whose that other guitar was.

I don't think anything he had, even the money, would weigh enough to be an issue. Of more concern would be how it is tied to him and how that might affect his exit and freefall aerodynamics. It would want to be centered, securely and tightly tied so as not to move around, and reasonably symmetrical. It would certainly help if he had freefall experience, but regardless of his stability, if he pulls he most likely gets open.

A Para Commander is a type of main canopy, that would go into any main container that it would fit in.

What assumptions do I have that are false? So do you. Everybody on this case has been saying the same things over and over for over a half a century. "Bailout rig" per se refers to the container. Bailout rigs use the same reserve type canopies that were in reserve containers, both sport and military. Some of those canopies were steerable, some not. A bailout rig might well contain a steerable reserve. The ones Cooper got happened to have non steerable ones, okay, but I don't think Cooper could have known which he had until he got under it. I would have no reason to. Indeed I have taken my sport rig or a base rig with me when flying with people. But I have used a few round reserves, the same type that may well have been in a bailout rig. Reserve canopies, which bailout rigs use, are designed to open quickly because you might be low. That won't hurt you. Because they are smaller canopies, so that they will pack smaller. They are not designed to hurt you. I think many whuffos would understand them better than you do. Clearly, and it's starting to seem by insistence. Why do you think that? Again, I don't think he wanted to waste more time. Did he know it was going to take an hour and a half to get going? Wasn't he already complaining about time? Didn't he want to 'get the show on the road'? But I did. I think you would get different answers from different jumpers. More conservative ones wouldn't. Ballsier ones would. Was Cooper ballsy? Considering that he was hijacking a jetliner and robbing a bank, I'm guessing he was. I think Cooper knew [bailout] rigs better than you do. I think he felt competent enough to deal with it. By the way it seemingly turned out, apparently he was right. Hayden was a pilot. Pilots are weird people. Everybody in a boat is required to have a life preserver. Most pilots want nothing to do with parachutes. Maybe it's just me, but I'm guessing most people can swim better on their own than they could land. I've got this comical vision in my head of a pilot in freefall strapped to a seat, with a broken stick in their hand swearing he can land it, before he would jump. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound snide, I just don't know how more simply I could put it.

This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but you seem to think that Cooper likely had no clue whatsoever about bailout rigs. What I meant by that statement is that I disagree. Most whuffos running around do understand that there are parachutes, and different ones for different purposes. I would bet that if you put an intentional freefall rig and a bailout rig in front of them, many people with no more than a layman's understanding would be able to guess which one is which. Cooper had at least some experience, and wherever he got that he would most likely have encountered bailout rigs as well. His pilots and/or other crewmen would likely have had them. I think it would have been readily apparent to him what they were. You also seem to think that his experience was most likely military. Maybe so, but most military jumping of that era was static line paratroopers. If that was Cooper, I would expect him to address that in his request. I would expect him to want a freefall rig, but who knows, maybe he thought he'd attach the static line to the stairs or something. Did he know when they gave him the rigs that it would be an hour and a half before they took off? Or was that due to the fueling issues? Further adding to his time urgency issues? Again, mains in those days did not have a whole lot more flight performance than reserves. But ultimately, you would likely get different answers from different jumpers. Most jumpers I've known, I don't think they'd commit a hijacking (or rob a bank) in the first place. A bailout rig is a reserve, all but assuredly you get an open canopy. Ok, so what? Only because it's a smaller canopy. At Cooper's weight, not that big of a deal. In those days, whatever training he did have, they trained PLF's to a great degree, so he would be prepared for that. Again, many reserves were steerable. My first reserve ride, the canopy was manufactured in 1956 and it was steerable. And I don't think he would have known whether it was or not before he got under it. Maybe. Not necessarily. Does Andrade's research include rate of injury? So? As long as the terrain was decent, which might have been somewhat under his control. ----------------- I don't know what else to say about all this. You can believe me or not.

The existence of parachutes is not a big mystery. I think most people in civilized society are aware that they exist, for sport, military, and emergency uses. Whatever experience he has increases that knowledge. But that's kind of the point - he didn't have a choice, that's what he was given. I think the choice he was making was 'get the show on the road' over increase his chances of getting arrested or killed by waiting for more.

Not necessarily. In those days the round mains did not have all that much speed/maneuverability. Some reserves were steerable, and I'm not sure he would be able to tell if it was until he got under it. A primary difference would be that the reserve is likely a bit smaller canopy, but at Cooper's weight that may not make a huge difference. Again, those rigs are not designed to maim or kill you, they're designed to save you.