Robert99

Jerry, I agree with you that in all probability Cooper died in the jump. I also agree with you that the money wasn't "planted" at Tina Bar but got there by some natural process. I disagree with you on the Washougal watershed theory since there are no facts supporting this and the starting point for this theory seems to be that the money had to come a long way down the river. Cooper's clothes, his parachute selection, and (with one exception) everything else is then irrevelant. The only thing that matters is the ground track of the aircraft and the point that Cooper seperated from the aircraft. Cooper hit the ground (not water) not more than a quarter of a mile laterally or about a half mile further down track from that jump point. You should give some thought to how that narrows down the possible landing point for Cooper.

I think the chances of a thief tossing serious money out is nearly zero. There has to be another explanation as to how the money got to Tena Bar. It's just an opinion, but I've represented a lot of criminals and not one of them would have let go of $5800 in hard cash to send a message. They'd find another way. 377 Why couldn't the money have just "dropped from the sky" near the Fazio's property and then "migrated" over to Tina Bar in the normal course of water flowing, wind blowing, etc.?

Hominid, To save a couple of pages of storage, I will start with a fresh piece of paper. As discussed elsewhere previously, the airliner had trouble climbing to 10,000 feet in the configuration that Cooper specified. And after reaching 10,000 feet, the airliner had difficulty in turning as well as, surprise, in descending. And of course, the airspeed during the initial climb was less than 170 KIAS. The optimum speed for best range was given as 170 KIAS by the MSP performance group. This speed was obviously important if the aircraft couldn't get to Reno at 160 KIAS. In fact, the crew was in the Portland area before being informed that they could get to Reno at 170 KIAS. So it seems logical to me that the crew would be sticking as close as possible to 170 KIAS even if no one anywhere mentioned a "target speed". Does that seem logical to you? Cutting and pasting is not one of my computer skills. Maybe I should learn how to do it.

Hominid, Read the entry from the FBI notes that is just below the one you quoted in your first attachment. Also read the ATC radio log for the same time frame. The crew did slow the aircraft down about 10 minutes after take-off and leveled off at 7000 feet for a couple of minutes in order to help Cooper get the stairs down. In the quotation just below the one you quoted in your first attachment, the MSP Flight Operations group noted that they were only at 160 knots (this is Indicated Air Speed) at that point and would not be able to make it to Reno at that speed. At 7:53 PM PST the airliner crew reported to ATC that they were leveling off at 10,000 feet and that their "airspeed (again Indicated Air Speed) in the vicinity of one seventy one eighty". The Indicated Air Speed is the number read on the airspeed indicator. It is called True Indicated Air Speed after being corrected for instrument and pressure system errors. No such corrections are available for the aircraft but based on NASA studies of airliners, they would be quite small at this altitude and speed. So for all practical purposes, the True Indicated Airspeed is the same as the Indicated Airspeed in this instance. After leveling off at 10,000 feet, all information in the ATC radio logs indicated that 170 KIAS was their target speed or "bug" speed. The True Airspeed (the actual speed of the aircraft with respect to the airmass it is flying in) can be determined from the True Indicated Airspeed, the altitude of the aircraft, the temperature outside the aircraft, and the local sea level pressure (which is what the altimeter is set to). The altimeter setting was constantly being passed to the airliner by ATC. The flight crew could determine the outside air temperature from the reading on their Mach meter. And they could determine the True Indicated Airspeed by simply reading the Air Speed Indicator. Doing the above gives the following numbers: True Indicated Airspeed - 170 Knots (which was their goal after reaching 10,000 feet). True Airspeed - 194 Knots. The wind at 10,000 feet was about 26 Knots from the southwest (225 degrees true). This is everything needed to calculate the ground speed (which is the speed made good over the ground). And the achieved ground speed changes each time the airliner changes headings. And any 17 year old Private Pilot with an ASEL rating is supposed to be capable of doing these calculations. R99

How about "microfilmed"?

a jock strap. Day or night, it is keeping your feet one over the other and knees together during landings in trees. Regardless of gender, no one wants to straddle a tree limb.

It was the co-pilot's idea to lash Tina to something in the cabin.

So Georger is correct. Only Tina, the only possible source for clearing up the confusion, should be interviewed again. R99

377, On page 32 of Tosaw's book, Tina is quoted as follows: "Cooper put the military parachute on his back and cinched up the canvas straps to make them fit his chest and thighs. Tina noticed how quickly and easily he completed this complicated operation - just looking as though it were an everday occurrence." 377, as a good defense lawyer, I am sure that you could come up with 50+ different interpretations of that paragraph depending on your goals. And maybe in the cross-examination you could find out how the "canvas straps" held up during the jump. R99

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/23/8982109-40-years-later-new-evidence-emerges-in-db-cooper-case still fucked up - probably shut down for the holiday with a ton of advertising cookies to load on people's computers ... wait 5 mins for the thing to load if its going to - what is "pure" titanium? Like "pure" jello or pure gold ? What is Tom Kaye trying to say? This link works okay for me. If all else fails, go the the original story on and scroll down to the story which is on the left side of the "Travel" section.

May I carry this to Portland and read it for you? Bruce, It is already on Gray's web page.

I do! How old were you in 1972? About age 11 give or take? So, you've been following the FBI and McCoy since 1972? Since age 11 ? Tell the truth. Somewhat older. How much exactly is impolite to ask, but if you had read Blast, you would know I was a soph at Sumner High at the time of the hijacking. And it's not how long you've been following the case that is most important. It's what you've learned along the way. So as a Sophomore in HS you began studying the FBI and DB Cooper case, like Mileva Maric studied calculus and helped her husband re-write his notes? Blevins, you should have become a Swiss Patent officer/clerk! Georger, Now that Al's brain is on public display, perhaps someone could download his memory cells and determine if Mileva deserves any credit. But she did get the money.

Here is what a speed skydive looks like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yemCdQSKkt8 Rigging Innovations built a custom rig for the world champion speed skydiver, Marco Wiedekehr. Freefall speeds are in excess of 300 mph, and therefore you can't just use any ole' rig (which is why Marco came to us). And another http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZizL93ODY6w Video of STRIP's SpeedSkydiving jump # 189. Performed in the Casale Monferrato's skies the 27th of July 2008. Maximum speed reached by the speeder ~420 Km/h. The speeder is STRIP. The videoman is Luca Poretti Amazon, How do you measure the speed on these jumps? Do you carry carry barometric recording instruments from which you calculate the speed? Or do you just plug into the ISS's telemetry and let NASA do the calculating? We wear two of these... http://www.l-and-b.dk/products/audible/protrack and the speed is averaged between the two. They ahve to be within 30KPH/18 MPH of each other or the jump is considered Out of Bounds( getting the devices into a burble or dead air can affect them greatly when someone gets unstable on a dive.. IN competition, we wear special RED Protracks that are provided by L and B with a closer set of tolerances... During the competition, the paired Pro-Tracks are switched between the different competitors to ensure that there are no two devices that might give any one competitor an advantage. Amazon, Thanks again.

Here is what a speed skydive looks like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yemCdQSKkt8 Rigging Innovations built a custom rig for the world champion speed skydiver, Marco Wiedekehr. Freefall speeds are in excess of 300 mph, and therefore you can't just use any ole' rig (which is why Marco came to us). And another http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZizL93ODY6w Video of STRIP's SpeedSkydiving jump # 189. Performed in the Casale Monferrato's skies the 27th of July 2008. Maximum speed reached by the speeder ~420 Km/h. The speeder is STRIP. The videoman is Luca Poretti Amazon, How do you measure the speed on these jumps? Do you carry carry barometric recording instruments from which you calculate the speed? Or do you just plug into the ISS's telemetry and let NASA do the calculating?

Think head down and all tucked in. I got to 185 according to my black box. Others have reportedly hit 300. 377 377, The speed is a function of the drag area presented by the jumper and his equipment and the total weight of jumper plus equipment. There is a finite minimum to the drag area that a jumper can present. However, if he is to accelerate, his weight must exceed the total drag (or else he has reached his terminal velocity or is slowing down). So in the lower atmosphere, the desired body type for such a jumper would be one that is tall, skinny, has maybe a 100 pounds of lead strapped to his head, and a helmet that has a cone top for streamling purposes. In the upper atmosphere, say 30 or 40 thousand feet, I think that maybe 300 MPH would be possible. Of course, at 100,000+ feet, supersonic free fall is possible as demonstrated by Joe Kittinger. Your 185 MPH agrees with everything that I have seen in the parachuting literature for head first free falls.

377, While I have never heard of this before, it might just be possible for an experienced jumper to do it. As a minimum, he would probably need to have a good visual reference to the horizon (to help maintain the proper body position) and a LOT of speed. And a "winged" jump suit would be very helpful. Presumably, the jumper you described jumped from the stairway of a DC-9 type aircraft. If anyone tried this with a 727, they would have to go through the exhaust of the center engine and just a relatively short distance behind the engine. In other words, they probably wouldn't be around to try it a second time.

Farflung, On the retractable landing gear for most low speed general aviation aircraft, think "Ego". That is, the one who dies with the most toys wins. The landing gear in sailplanes generally consist of a single main wheel with a small (maybe two inches in diameter) tail wheel. If the main wheel is retractable, it is usually by a mechanical system using a simple hand lever. The wheel well does have doors and they are spring closed. In the case of high performance sailplanes (maybe a 50 to 1 lift-to-drag ratio), even lowering the drag by a pound or two, as retracting the landing gear would do, increases the performance by maybe 10 percent or more.

Georger, neither 377 or anyone else jumping from the rear stairs of a 727 in stable level flight is going to hit the engine exhaust. The high pressure and velocities from the engine exhaust are equalized fairly rapidly over a period of several seconds. But the downwash and the wing tip vortices may require several minutes to completely dissipate. The downwash and vortices are the price for producing lift. And a jumper in a free fall is going to be below those things very fast. But even a 170 knot blast of wind is going to shake up people jumping into it but it is different from the things mentioned above. Can I point out.. that the jumper is also travelling at 170 Knots.... The human body though is just not as aerodynamic as the fuselage of the aircraft is. ( I have been over 300 MPH in freefall a few times... I know just a bit about this) Amazon, You may indeed point out that a jumper in an airlplane that is doing 170 knots is also doing 170 knots (assuming he is not moving around inside the airplane). The 170 knots means that the airplane and jumper are doing 170 knots relative to the free air stream. When the jumper separates from the aircraft, he will be in the free air stream in a few seconds and no longer going quite 170 knots with respect to the free air stream and will continue to decelerate until he has reached the "terminal velocity" for his body position, altitude, etc.. Or he may actually accelerate a bit if his terminal velocity happens to be above 170 knots for the specific conditions that he finds himself in. On your claim to having been over 300 MPH in a free fall, would you describe the conditions of those jumps (how high were you and how was your speed determined)? Were you above 300 MPH when you jumped? Please provide this information. In all honesty, I don't think that a human body can accelerate to 300 MPH in a free fall in the lower atmosphere, say below 10 or 15 thousand feet.

Farflung, I was discussing "turbulence" produced by the landing gear and not "aerodynamic drag". Retractable landing gears are very nice to have even on sailplanes. On general aviation aircraft, fixed or retractable landing gears are mainly a function of economics only.

Georger, neither 377 or anyone else jumping from the rear stairs of a 727 in stable level flight is going to hit the engine exhaust. The high pressure and velocities from the engine exhaust are equalized fairly rapidly over a period of several seconds. But the downwash and the wing tip vortices may require several minutes to completely dissipate. The downwash and vortices are the price for producing lift. And a jumper in a free fall is going to be below those things very fast. But even a 170 knot blast of wind is going to shake up people jumping into it but it is different from the things mentioned above.

OK. Im sorry. Lets just let Blevins, Airtwardo, and Class Clown and JT and you set the agenda here. And not post anything else? So Robert99, what will Blevins and his mother be eating on Thanksgiving Day? Give us the inside story! Did you know Blevins wont be attending the Ariel Party or the Symposium - did you get that? Blevins. Post it again. Some may have missed it. Jet engines on airplanes dont matter nohow - yepper! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAW! Dead air zone - dead air zone! 8 days and counting. Okay smarty pants, I'll tell you what the term "dead air" means in this instance. But first, where did you get that beautiful picture of a two-engine "727" in your attachment? Do you think a three-engine "727" would have a more pronounced downwash and trailing wing tip vortices, other things being equal? In 377's previous posts about jumping from a DC-9 stairway, he stated that for a few feet after leaving the fuselage exit the air was relatively calm. Then things got extremely turbulent as he hit the free stream air flow. A few seconds after that, 377 would be clear of the downwash and turbulence behind the aircraft and the rest of the freefall would be "normal" (at least after he slowed down to his personal terminal velocity). The term "dead air" refers to that first few feet of air flow that 377 described. Hominoid and I have also pointed out that the same phenomena of "dead air" can be observed on any car or truck on the free way during rainy weather. That is the behavior of the air that you can see around the rear bumper area. On the matter of jet engines on airplanes, they do matter if you are interested in getting from Point A to Point B in a reasonable time. If you are not interested in doing that, they don't matter (you just have a sailplane). I'll leave the other questions to anyone who knows what the answers might be.

Can't help about the flow field of engines running or their impact on overall flow field. I suspect that the impact is modest because: the center engine intake is distant and its exhaust is distant and downstream; the side engine exhausts are about 9' to the side and 9' up from the end of the stairs. Some side-to-side impact from side engines could be cancelled by symmetry. Hominid, Think of the engine inlets as being sinks for the adjacent airflow and the engine exits as being sources for some of the downstream airflow. Between those inlets and exits, the entering air is highly energized by a magic process known as a turbine engine. Thus the exiting air has much greater energy (velocity, heat, etc.) than the ambient air and this induces the air outside the engine flow field to flow inwards toward the aircraft centerline. Therefore, the engine exhaust flow field has a major impact on the flow field, including downwash, behind the aircraft. The landing gear's turbulence would be a minor factor compared to the engines. We have discussed the "dead air" zone behind the fuselage previously.

QuoteAnd the clothing....how many times have you seen people jumping with damn near nothing on...Quote A number of years ago, there was a small picture in Newsweek (I think) of a young lady in Sweden (again I think) who was in a stable free fall wearing nothing (so it appeared) except the parachute.

I DO believe the money may have been a plant, a red herring done sometime after the crime to try and throw off the FBI. Blevins, The money was found more than 8 years after the crime. What do you mean by "to try and throw off the FBI"? They didn't have a clue at that point.

There is more evidence leading to the idea that he lived, rather than died. The two biggest examples are the money found at Tena Bar (far off the flight path and if you believe Tom Kaye's team, unlikely to have just washed up there on its own) and the other is the lack of a body, parachutes, remainder of money, briefcase, etc. They DID find the placard, though. A reletively small item. Blevins, You have obviously given up on KC and joined Jo Weber's team to support the idea that Duane planted the money at Tina Bar. You should keep in mind that interpretations of various pieces of evidence are subject to change as new information is developed. Nothing is engraved in stone yet.