What is obvious to some  is not 'obvious' to others. This is one reason why it is important to stick to the 'evidence' at hand and not stray too far. Thinking out of the box is not 'making things up'!

The passages describing Cooper packing the money occur in a number of places. When put together they describe a consistent whole. Cooper himself explained 'why' he was doing what he was doing, 'what' he did, and the records provide when he did it. That is what is "obvious". These passages together provide a consistent comprehensive story of what happened and why it happened as it did. There is no need to assume or guess or substitute anything. 'What I would do' or 'what is obvious', or 'what is a better story', is irrelevant when you already have the evidence speaking for itself. No need to invent anything.   

         

 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Sketches can be off, but not always. I watched a program on the Golden State Killer the other day and some of those early sketches were spot on. So I wouldn't put a lot of weight on the sketch, but I wouldn't just assume it isn't accurate either. As Shutter said, the three stews descriptions were pretty close and I'd put a lot of weight on those. Some suspects, and Kenny is a fine example of this, can be eliminated based on several different things.

I'm in agreement with Parrotheadvol and Shutter on the three stews and their descriptions generally matching.  A positive ID from Flo, Tina, Alice, or maybe Bill Mitchell would be crucial.  I'm not optimistic on even getting them to look at photos, and even if they did, if they would remember.  There was a reference to the Golden State Killer and the profile a little earlier, as well as someone only seeing the Unabomber for a few seconds. It made me think of the Unabomber profile and an article I read in a San Francisco paper recently. 

"What surprised investigators most was Kaczynski's background as a mathematician. According to the FBI profile, the Unabomber had attended college or trade school but had not graduated."

If the witness descriptions or the profile are off, then it is easy to be looking in the wrong places or at the wrong people in a case, Cooper included.

That was early profile speculations. Have you seen the Netflix docu on the Unabomber? It reveals the emergence of the Unabomber profile quite well - and the status of the Behavioral Science Division that developed it - and the internal FBI politics that went along with it.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Sketches can be off, but not always. I watched a program on the Golden State Killer the other day and some of those early sketches were spot on. So I wouldn't put a lot of weight on the sketch, but I wouldn't just assume it isn't accurate either. As Shutter said, the three stews descriptions were pretty close and I'd put a lot of weight on those. Some suspects, and Kenny is a fine example of this, can be eliminated based on several different things.

I'm in agreement with Parrotheadvol and Shutter on the three stews and their descriptions generally matching.  A positive ID from Flo, Tina, Alice, or maybe Bill Mitchell would be crucial.  I'm not optimistic on even getting them to look at photos, and even if they did, if they would remember.  There was a reference to the Golden State Killer and the profile a little earlier, as well as someone only seeing the Unabomber for a few seconds. It made me think of the Unabomber profile and an article I read in a San Francisco paper recently. 

"What surprised investigators most was Kaczynski's background as a mathematician. According to the FBI profile, the Unabomber had attended college or trade school but had not graduated."

If the witness descriptions or the profile are off, then it is easy to be looking in the wrong places or at the wrong people in a case, Cooper included.

That was early profile speculations. Have you seen the Netflix docu on the Unabomber? It reveals the emergence of the Unabomber profile quite well - and the status of the Behavioral Science Division that developed it - and the internal FBI politics that went along with it.

I dont know that there even was a "Behavioral Science Division" as such when the Unabomber case started? It was the work and techniques developed by Agent James Fitzgerald and the people he brought in to work with him, some of those were academicians, that lead to the formation of a concept called the 'ideolect' managed by a Behavioral Science Division, or whatever term was applied to that. I went to college with one of these people. Sometimes its a small world and things come full circle. They certainly did in this case! Today, some of the methods and techniques developed clear back in the 1940s-1960's are used today as standard measurement protocols. 

One of the historical foundations for these techniques began with psychologist Carl Emil Seashore, founder of an Ed Psych Measurement program in the Midwest who devised measurement tests for the military during WWII. I was born in that family of psychologists, mathematicians, and educators and grew up watching tests being devised and discussed at home on our dinning room table ... until the late hours of the morning ..... debates over statistical significance ... debates over scoring machines ... debates over random probability and the Bell curve ... and can I have a dog and chicken and go swimming at the lake tomorrow? .... I hated school, and tests, and everything regimented ...  but eventually I succumbed! 

...  I don't see Cooper being as much of a recluse as Kaczynksi, so I do wonder what group that he was part of that could keep a secret.  Could he have kept the whole thing to himself?  Possibly, but unlikely.  How do you pull something off like that to make a statement and not tell a soul?

Ah, Kimo Sabe, who among us can keep a secret? Not me at all! But there are lots of people who can. Certainly Kenny Christiansen did - about a lot of his life. We still don't know what he did to make all of his extra moolah, since stealing airplanes doesn't really look like his cup o' tea.

But the more meaningful question is what kinds of groups can hold a communal secret? Covert ops guys can. There is another Netflix docu ("Team 396," I think) on the Special Forces Teams that went into Afghanistan to join with the Northern Alliance to topple the Taliban regime. I found it very telling how they all lived together in military housing, socialized with each other, the wives and kids all knew each other and knew the risks of spilling the beans in terms of putting the guys at risk - so everyone was locked into the code of silence.

The CIA is another example of how large numbers of people can keep LOTS of secrets. I had an uncle that I now believe was a spook in Russia during the Khrushchev era. Further, I had a girlfriend in college that I now believe was the daughter of a CIA field operative in the Congo and Africa during the 1960s. Little stories that they told me back in the day don't add up, now, but then they did.

Maybe DB Cooper went back to his family, and if anyone asked, "Hey we missed you on Thanksgiving! Where were you?" he could shut them down by simply saying, "I was on a job." There are plenty of people who would know to not ask any more questions, and don't.

As far as groups of people keeping secrets, I believe fear of retribution from other members of the group could be a major motivation for keeping a secret(s).

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Sketches can be off, but not always. I watched a program on the Golden State Killer the other day and some of those early sketches were spot on. So I wouldn't put a lot of weight on the sketch, but I wouldn't just assume it isn't accurate either. As Shutter said, the three stews descriptions were pretty close and I'd put a lot of weight on those. Some suspects, and Kenny is a fine example of this, can be eliminated based on several different things.

I'm in agreement with Parrotheadvol and Shutter on the three stews and their descriptions generally matching.  A positive ID from Flo, Tina, Alice, or maybe Bill Mitchell would be crucial.  I'm not optimistic on even getting them to look at photos, and even if they did, if they would remember.  There was a reference to the Golden State Killer and the profile a little earlier, as well as someone only seeing the Unabomber for a few seconds. It made me think of the Unabomber profile and an article I read in a San Francisco paper recently. 

"What surprised investigators most was Kaczynski's background as a mathematician. According to the FBI profile, the Unabomber had attended college or trade school but had not graduated."

If the witness descriptions or the profile are off, then it is easy to be looking in the wrong places or at the wrong people in a case, Cooper included.

That was early profile speculations. Have you seen the Netflix docu on the Unabomber? It reveals the emergence of the Unabomber profile quite well - and the status of the Behavioral Science Division that developed it - and the internal FBI politics that went along with it.

I think I did see the Netflix show on Unabomber.  There have been a few through the years.  My impression is that if it were not for the manifesto and an alert brother, then Ted Kaczynski may not have been found. I was not aware of what Georger mentioned about him being looked at for other crimes.  Bruce, you have mentioned in the past about Cooper possibly being in a group that is known for its ability to hold secrets, the Mafia, gypsies, special ops.  Ted Kaczynski was a loner, so he may very well have stayed a free man if it weren't for the manifesto and his brother.  I don't see Cooper being as much of a recluse as Kaczynksi, so I do wonder what group that he was part of that could keep a secret.  Could he have kept the whole thing to himself?  Possibly, but unlikely.  How do you pull something off like that to make a statement and not tell a soul?

The FACTS tell another story!

Kaczynksi was an active guy with an active agenda. Beside his bombs being made, mailed, or delivered after long bus rides, Ted was active in his own back yard from the humble abode of his cabin! Sabotage against the rail and airline industry and those who worked in that industry.  Sabotage against the forestry people and anyone in official authority in his own area. People's dogs being poisoned, fires set mysteriously, people's machinery being damaged, boulders pushed down onto railroad tracks or other acts of rail sabotage to cause a derailment. Ted didnt much care as long as he wasnt caught... with tracks in the snow leading back to his cabin.

One look inside his cabin for any reason and the jig would have been up! Ted just could not help from stirring up trouble everywhere he was - it was his nature. Ted was a ticking time bomb of his own self-destruction. If the FBI did not find him first, he was going to find them - one way or another. 

Ted was just begging for attention, his whole life long!

Has the profile of Cooper changed over time?    How does law enforcement's early profile of Cooper compare with a present day profile?   

The short answer is, "Yes." The profile of DB Cooper has changed over time. That said, there are fractions within the FBI that see DB Cooper in different ways, so their "profiles" are not in agreement. In fact, I don't know of any definitive "profile" that has been developed. But we have the following:

1. Early on, Himmelsbach acknowledged that Cooper had guts and had the upper-hand for using a bomb. He saw Coop as a smart guy, but still called him a sleazy, rotten crook, although he has never described WHY he saw Cooper in those ways.

2. Some commentators, such as Walter Cronkite, described DB Cooper as a "master criminal."

3. Many FBI agents thought DBC was a professional skydiver and felt he would be found in the annals of the US Parachutist Association. Earl Cossey dispelled them of that notion, and that might have been the starting point of the drift towards viewing DB Cooper as a bumbling fool who was just smart enough to get himself killed.

4. That was the prevailing view of Larry Carr in the 2008-2010 era. The jump was too tough, he posed, and DBC died. Cossey added all the necessary plausible technical aspects to support that narrative.

5. However, when Cossey's reputation started going down the toilet in 2011 when GG's SKYJACK came out and our follow-up investigation of Norman Hayden and the parachutes, the FBI backed away from the tumbling, bumbling frostbitten fool who cratered. Curtis Eng certainly never gave his perspective on who DB Cooper might be, and held his tongue until 2016 when he wrapped up the case with Frank Montoya, Jr., who is now a talking head for MSNBC, btw...

6. That said, LD Cooper was described as the "most promising suspect" in 2011 when Marla walked through the door with an FBI imprimatur stamped on her Uncle LD dossier. However, the term "most promising suspect" was uttered by Ayn Dietrich-Williams. That suggests that LD looked pretty good for DBC in internal discussion up on 3rd Ave in Seattle, but that moniker never got pushed publicly once Ayn spilled the beans to journalist Alex Hannaford in June, 2011. Simply, no one has ever said WHY LD Cooper was so promising. Hence, many of us figured something else was in the works beyond LD's capacities to steal an airplane.

Not exactly Bruce, although I appreciate the effort. I apologize for the confusion. I will try to briefly explain. My name is actually Dana and I have lived in northwest Ohio my entire life. I became friends with a man named Hager. His name sounded like Haggar and I would fondly call him Haggar the Horrible after the comic strip. I met him sometime in the very early 2000's and quickly became very good friends. We had much in common such as a liking for sports, interest in native American history, construction type work, hunting, and nature conservation as well as other things.                           At the time of meeting Haggar I had absolutely no knowledge of D.B.Cooper or the hijacking case.(I would have been 9 years old at the time it happened) It soon became apparent that Haggar knew an abundance of information pertaining to the case. Early on in our friendship I helped Haggar do some work on his house(in Ohio). I guess he felt he owed me something in return(although I knew he was short on cash and told him ahead of time that I didn't expect payment for the work involved). After completing the work Hag apologized for not having cash to pay me. He stated that although he couldn't pay me with money he could tell me who D.B.Cooper was. I had to go home and do some research on it just to know what he was talking about. It didn't take long to get pulled into the vortex.                            After asking Hag how he knew so much about the case I found out that he had lived in that area of the country from around 1960 until around 1990. At least for part of that time he lived in the southern part of the state of Washington. Between his work and hunting and such he was extremely knowledgeable of the lay of the land.                         Haggar told me he had originally met the man (he identified as D.B.Cooper) through his work.(Hag thought it might have been around 1968 or so)  Eventually they somewhat became friendly and hung out at the bars and such along with other friends.      Haggar said this man's name (aka D.B.Cooper) was Chuck Dooley. At least that is how it's pronounced. Hag wasn't sure how the name was spelled.   Obviously there is tons more to the hijacking story as far as who all was involved and the extent of their involvement, as well as Hag's role in all this.  I really wish Hager was still around to help me tell his story unfortunately Hag passed away in March of 2007. Before he passed I asked why he had told me the story(he had previously told me that I was the only person he had ever shared it with). He stated that Chuck had gotten away with it for long enough and that he(Hag) didn't want the story to die with him. To be honest there was a 7 year stretch of time when I really thought I wouldn't ever tell anyone the story. Hag passed very suddenly and it took me a long time to get over it but after hearing about the tie and Tom Kay getting ready to do testing on it I realized I needed to get Chuck Dooley's name out there before somebody stole Hag's thunder.            I am pretty sure there are people out there that are upset with me due to my past indiscretions on this forum (I was an idiot, I'll fully admit it). That being said you have to give me some credence as I did say that D.B. was an engineer type even before Tom Kaye released the findings from the second round of tests on the tie.                             Anyway I hope this explains a little bit of who I am and who Hag was and also how I got involved in all of this. If you have questions about any of this or if I haven't fully answered previous questions or if you would like to hear more of the story of the hijacking according to what Hag shared with me please feel free to ask. As far as that goes if you prefer that I just shut up and not post anything I would understand that as well.  I apologize for being so long winded.