Talk:D. B. Cooper/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Galen Cook section notable?

I think the entire Galen Cook section (3 paragraphs) is probably not notable. So an "amateur sleuth" calls Coast to Coast and talks all about his personal theories and investigations - so what? This strikes me as a digression and not core to what an encyclopedia article should cover. There are probably two dozen other "amateur sleuths" we could cite but there's no reason to do so in what is supposed to be a summary of the event. Tempshill (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The term "amateur" does not really seem to apply to Galen Cook. He is currently an attorney, but he was formally a private investigator. Look up the terms, but a private investigator indicates that the person was privately 'hired' to do sleuthing work. Investigating the D.B. Cooper case has been a hobby of his since 1982 and in 2004 he sued the FBI in federal court in order to have the D.B. Cooper case files opened to the public. I found this information on the Coast to Coast AM website.

I have not personally met Galen Cook, but I did know the suspect and my mother has been interviewed and kept up to date on the case. Cook has a number of reliable sources. Cook has investigated other suspects in the past and said he was looking for a 'smoking gun' before he released the name of the suspect. --71.34.230.155 (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to remove the section - it doesn't have any sources other than Cook (or those that use Cook as a source). Doesn't pass threshhold for notability. Tempshill (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability guidelines govern if a topic should be included on Wikipedia as a separate topic, but do not regulate the content of these topics. That means that Galen Cook need only be an expert in his area, 20+ years on the topic should suffice. The FBI is checking the fingerprint of the suspect which makes him a viable suspect in this case. Therefore your view on Galen Cook's credibility is a matter of personal option. Cook also references numerous people in the research he has conducted. Many people have worked to prepare that section and you should probably allow some discussion before removing it. "Wolfgang" is a current suspect in this case and therefore it is relevant that he be listed here until further evidence shows otherwise. I'm restoring the section and request that you allow additional discussion before r

emoving it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.230.155 (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right on the notability issue. The threshold for inclusion in a notable article is covered at WP:RS. Frankly, I found the community paper a fascinating read but I personally do not think that we yet have sufficient sourcing to include this material, especially to the degree that you would have us cover it. Please understand that Wikipedia should not be out in front of stories but should be trailing well behind in that material should be covered in multiple reliable sources before we include it. I would either remove the section or shorten it to one line for now. Best and keep up the good work. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, notability does apply within a given article as well; see WP:UNDUE, WP:V, and WP:RS. Especially considering that this is a featured article, I'm gravely concerned that the section is lodging BLP-relevant accusations without apparent regard to reliable sourcing. Has this material been echoed in any mainstream media? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not bring in BLP as the subject died in 2003. I do agree with you that this has not reached a threshold for inclusion. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I can't find the text on the page, anymore, but there was a point where BLP also put emphasis on "recently deceased" persons (could probably be debated whether 2003 is "recent," but I figured it distinguished between historical and current figures). Since the contested text does name "suspects" who may or may not be deceased, it might still be relevant... but point taken. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If others feel that it should be removed then so be it. I just noticed that the question of notability was raised and then that section was pulled before there was any real discussion. I only know of two media outlets that are carrying the story, but to my understanding there will be a more public release here soon. Information on this suspect has been on the page for months, but the question was only raised after the suspects name was publicly released. Wikipedia is not a news source though and we will wait for further confirmation. I think we will know more soon because the FBI has investigated this suspects prints, but has so far refused to release their results.--71.34.230.155 (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Frankly, I don't have a problem with it remaining or being removed. This is a suspect on whom there is a ton of circumstantial evidence ... maybe more than any suspect in the entire history of the case. The FBI IS interested in him. However, it is all circumstantial at this point. Lead investigator Carr himself has said in public forums that up until now there is little to differentiate this suspect from others before him who had a lot of circumstantial evidence. There has been no announcement on fingerprint data, DNA data. Nor has there been any word yet on what the flight attendants think of photographs of the suspect. All of this may well come in time, maybe even in the next couple months. There indeed has been nothing more than a small-town newspaper article on the man. If anyone would prefer to holding off until more reputable, major publications ... I would certainly be fine with it. Harry Yelreh (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Galen Cook section removed again per the above longer discussion. Thanks all for chiming in. If this becomes notable somehow (like, the FBI makes an accusation or gets a search warrant or something) then it's time to revisit the question. Tempshill (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tempshill, good call. Now that you've actually done it, I think the article reads better and is more cohesive. It was becoming unnecessarily lengthy and disjointed anyway. This tightens things up a bit, and, like you say, if something more comes up on the matter. I personally think Cook may be on to something - but time will bear that out. Harry Yelreh (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, thanks for resolving this matter Tempshill. At first, I didn't think that Cook's statements weren't notable, but your argument has convinced me otherwise. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Parts

Parts of the article seem to be untrue. We are told that all 10,000 bank-notes were photographed. At one per minute, this would take 6.944 days. At one per second, it would take 2.77 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.253.153 (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I remember seeing photographs of sheets of ten or twelve notes at a time. If I recall correctly, the newspaper printing of all the serial numbers showed there were practically no consecutive numbers; mostly a hodgepodge, so they probably photographed them to save time over writing them down manually. —EncMstr (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk from 1979 and 2007 about a ""dummy"" parachute, "inadvertently" given to Cooper

seems to be designed to frighten other hijackers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.253.153 (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly how it happened. The authorities inadvertently gave Cooper a dummy parachute. We have a reliable source to back up this claim. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

See the Talk page of 86.139.211.191 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't mean to be rude, but does anyone seriously doubt the FBI's ability to photograph all of the bills and thus record all of the serial numbers in a relatively short amount of time? It wasn't that hard, and they certainly didn't have one agent with one camera taking an individual photograph of each bill at the rate of once a minute. FYI, the FBI used a device called a "Recordak" - according to then-lead FBI invevstigator Ralph Himmelsbach himself - which quickly took a microfilm photograph of each and every one of the 10,000 $20 bills. If there is a consensus that this information absolutely must be in the article, I can add it with a footnote referring to Himmelsbach's book. Harry Yelreh (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Para 6 above (found bills) says the bills were photocopied not photographed (to record the serial numbers) and subsequently some notes were identified Hugo999 (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hugo, I believe in this particular situation there is some synonymousness between the terms of "photocopy" and "photograph." A dictionary definition of the term "photocopy" can mean "to reproduce photographically" (see dictionary.com). Himmelsbach in his book says, and I quote: "All the cash was run through a Recordak, where a microfilm photograph was made of each bill" (pg. 25). So, no, they were not photographed in the sense that no one stood there with a camera as we commonly know it and took pictures of the bills. Harry Yelreh (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• It would be good for the article if you could include the above information (paraphrased, since the quote is boring) and provide the source. I like it when articles put to rest the immediate objections that people have to facts that might strain credulity. (Not that this fact does with me, but it did with anon above.) Tempshill (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done, while also leaving in some information from our Crime Library source that Himmelsbach doesn't include in his book. Harry Yelreh (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It has been suggested that D. B. Cooper in popular culture be merged into this article or section.

• Oppose The main article was greatly improved by splitting off the popular culture items. If anything, a paragraph could be added to trace some of the folk hero effects. —EncMstr (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support How was it improved? Would it not be better to have all info relating to D. B. Cooper on one page? Is there a Wiki policy or guideline on this because I have seen Popular Culture sections on many similar biographical pages? --Gramscis cousin (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose simply on article size grounds. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is long enough as it is. And the popular culture article is mostly unsourced, so merging it into this one would make a mess. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose 1) size, as already discussed above. 2) popular culture sections tend toward drive-by edits every time a Simpsons character makes a joke or something. Let's not import that into a featured article. 3) In an article as well-written and as well-researched as this one, mentions in popular culture is just a sidebar. It should be and remain in its own article. TJRC (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Eastern jump location

• I was hoping someone might have some information on this. Near the end of the "Back in the Skies" section, the article states: "Later information, including details given by Captain Scott to the FBI in 1980 that led to a more accurate assessment of the flight route,[26] put the jump location about 20 miles (32 km) farther east." The article's source for this is a 1996 Seattle Times article. I believe there might be other articles there that say something similar; I was hoping someone on here might clarify. As is, I will say that Himmelsbach's own work makes no mention of Captain Scott in this re-assessment. Instead, Himmelsbach mentions discussions he had with Tom Bohan, a Continental pilot flying several minutes behind (and 4,000 feet above) Flight 305 that night. Himmelsbach states that these discussions with Bohan - rather than Scott - were what led to a more easterly projection of the landing zone. Interestingly enough, the oft-cited article by David Krajicek (Crime Library) used here and elsewhere says that the 1980 meeting with Scott led to a more WESTERLY assessment of the landing zone (Himmelsbach also makes no mention of this and in his book makes it clearly that he believes in a more easterly assessment). Obviously, there is some serious mix-up here. Here are my thoughts based on what I have found: The FBI's own basic, traditional version of the flight path is based (at least partly) on radar and does not seem to confirm either of these reassessments. Some of the sources I have read say that it was First Officer Rataczack, not Captain Scott, who first gave notice of the possibility of a more westerly assessment. Scott and Rataczak were obviously in the plane at the same time, so I would think they would tend to agree with each other on where the plane was. Finally, again, Himmelsbach makes no bones about the source of his belief in a more easterly landing zone for Cooper: he talks about Bohan and their conversations at length and makes no mention of Scott or Rataczack on the subject. If anyone has any thought or clarification on the subject, I'd be more than glad to read it and make any necessary changes to the article. For what it's worth, the current lead investigator, Larry Carr, has recently stated (rather informally; I don't have a published source to back this up) that he basically dismisses the eastern re-assessment of the jump zone. Harry Yelreh (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Well, I went ahead and fixed this on my own as best as I knew how to state things as accurately as possible. I don't consider the story about Scott coming by Himmelsbach's office to give a different picture of the landing zone very reliable, particularly being that Himmelsbach himself makes no mention of this meeting in his own book. However, I'm not totally ready to dismiss it, either. Therefore, I gave the specifics of what I know (about Bohan, etc.), according to Ralph, and gave allowance for other reasons that led to eastern landing zone theories. Again, if anyone else has anything to add on this point, I'd be glad to read it. Harry Yelreh (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

New book is actually the Wikipedia article

This book [1] is in fact the Wikipedia article. Nice to be able to pay for something you helped write for free, eh? See some discussion here [2]. Biographiq is Filiquarian Publishing [3] and I spent an embarrasing hour this morning removing text from the Middle Ages article that I thought had been copied from the Filiquarian book The Middle Ages for Know-It-Alls By For Know-It-Alls until someone pointed out the book was published in 2008. They've published under a GNU licence but don't acknowledge WikipediaDougWeller (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unabomber

Why is the Unabomber listed as a "see also" on this article? I want to remove it really badly.Bradenkeith (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Be bold! Go ahead and fix it if you feel it's needed. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks to your encouragement, I have removed unabomber. I feel much better now.Bradenkeith (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Case solved?

According to the Wikipedia article on Skipp Porteous, it is claimed that he may have helped solve the case – does anyone know about this? Quote: "Perhaps Porteous is best known as the investigator who may have broken the notorious "D. B. Cooper Case," a case that baffled the FBI since 1971". Agendum (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Err...he didn't solve the case. I've removed this from the article. He just led investigators to another suspect. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah – I suspected as much. He's editing the article himself.... Agendum (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We're FARKed

This article just got linked as a headline on FARK. Prepare for incoming vandalism… — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So... did the 8 year old get to keep the money?

Surely I'm not the only one wondering this. haha. I know it's not related to the article, but I'm just wondering if the kid actually got to keep that large sum of money he found. Wardrich (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Read the article - specifically the Vanished Without a Trace section - and find out. Harry Yelreh (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

D. B. Cooper in popular culture up for deletion

Please note that an article related to this one, D. B. Cooper in popular culture, is now being considered for deletion. TJRC (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That discussion was closed as keep; however, as noted in the discussion, and now on Talk:D. B. Cooper in popular culture, the article could use some work. I'd invite those editors of this article who are interested in the IPC aspects of D.B. Cooper to join in the edit party and help clean it up. Please read the talk page first. TJRC (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

french connection

Larry Carr, the FBI agent currently overseeing the case, now believes the hijacker may have taken his name from a French comic book. The Dan Cooper comic book was popular in France in the 1960s and early 1970s and one issue published around the time of the hijacking shows the character parachuting. Carr said this is an important clue in the case because the comic books were never translated into English, which supports his theory that the hijacker had been in the Air Force and probably spent time in Europe, where he likely came across the Dan Cooper comic books. This new information brings another twist to the story, which continues to fascinate people decades later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.5.211 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Cooper

I don't know if this has a place in the article or one of the related ones, but I thought it was interesting. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=894&dat=19961128&id=ixgOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hX0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4081,4028656 (Thank you Google Cache!) A teacher of mine in high school, Michael Cooper, was one of the flight members and was for a time mistaken to be in connection with the hijacking, setting off a little frenzy. He always commemorated the event by having a "DB Cooper day" once a year in his archaeology class to talk about the mix up and show old interviews and newspaper clippings. Thesetrixaintforkids (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference to the episode of Numb3rs

I don't think this is appropriate for this wiki page, as there are multiple other movies or series where they mention Cooper, like Prison Break where DBC. actually has been found. A special notation of Numb3rs seems not in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.64.74.92 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wind speed

Complicated calculations of wind speeds are mentioned in the text as proof that Cooper had no accomplice. Cooper had initially ordered the plane South to Mexico. Any accomplice would be in the southerly direction. Thus, it is true that Cooper had no accomplice, but for different reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.249.165 (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sort of, not really. Firstly, the section in the article that mentions the wind speeds as evidence there was no accomplice uses the FBI's as a direct source for that statement. So if you dispute that, your dispute is really with the FBI, not the article. Secondly, it is thought by some that Cooper simply said Mexico to throw off authorities. Given his obvious knowledge of how such a plane works (instructions regarding flaps, landing gear, etc.), it is very possible that he knew what he was doing and that he knew that, because of the mountains in the area, demanding that the flight go at 10,000 feet in any basic southerly direction would have required it to take the exact route it ended up taking. Essentially, it all depends on how smart you're willing to believe the guy was - or at least could have been. Harry Yelreh (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Suspects section

I wonder why FBI hasn't definitively and completely ruled out the cited suspects to this day. The way the suspects section is worded doesn't reach a definitive conclusion regarding McCoy (at least). There's no mention of key witnesses taking a good look at McCoy (before escaping and being killed), or at least pictures of him from that period. Instead there was a vague mention of his features not matching sketches/descriptions. Are we to assume that nobody got such an idea back then? Sure, I understand you cannot disturb witnesses for each of the 1000 suspects, but at least for the main ones. Both Schaffner and Mucklow were in their early 20's, so probably they are alive and well even today. Then there's the mention of the negative DNA profile matching, but only in Webber's case, not McCoy's. Again, nobody checked this or simply there's no information available to post on wiki? I'd like to help but don't know how.81.101.19.90 (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'd have to check, but I believe the FBI some time back did officially rule out McCoy. It's just that there are so many similarities between McCoy's actions/profile and the DB Cooper case that many investigators - amateur or otherwise - can't let it go and still point to McCoy.Harry Yelreh (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• • I reacted to this too and that's why I added information on why FBI (at least Special Agent Carr) doesn't believe McCoy was the perpetrator. Before, it seemed like he was more than a viable candidate. But knowing he was home in Utah just a few hours after having supposedly hopped out of a plane in the vicinity of Washington was probably a good reason to rule him out entirely. From the pictures I've seen, I do think he's closer to the description than Carr suggests. Shoplifter (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what?

Why do we have the BLP header on the talk page? Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you never know.

More seriously, WP:BLP covers adding information about living persons into any article, regardless of whether the article itself is a BLP. This article discusses individuals suspected of being the skyjacker, some of whom are still living, and speculation about such persons' guilt runs afoul of BLP. So it's worth retaining.

There was a kerfuffle about a similar tag in Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and on the BLP noticeboard, see here, where some editors felt the inclusion of the tag on an article about two murders was tasteless; but it was the same idea: there was a lot of BLP violations being made about the suspects in the case.

Holy cow, the Firefox spellchecker actually has "kerfuffle." TJRC (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure about which parachute was left behind?

I remember that dummy parachute well. It had 'DO NOT JUMP' written on it top and bottom. It was kinda hard not to notice the writing when hooking it up. It was also not stuffed like a normal reserve, because it had only a partial canopy that was sewed together, and shortened lines. I recall seeing it or a twin at Seattle Sky Sports in Issaquah AFTER the event. What is the source that states that 'Cooper' jumped with it?

Also, regarding the parachute unearthed by the kids in 2008...

Text states that Earl Cossey was the one who gave the parachutes to the FBI. Cossey lived in Seattle, around Green Lake as I recall. The FBI would have had to 1) find out who Cossey was, 2) get him to Issaquah in a hurry in pre-Thanksgiving traffic. Cossey was an expert parachutist, having won US Nationals at least once, and was a rigger. There is no way he would have given the FBI the training parachute. My recollection of the event is that the FBI came out to Sky Sports and got Lynn Emerick, the on site manager, to open up the building, and they just started grabbing rigs, and ran out the door.

And yes, I was a skydiver jumping at Issaquah at the time.

As an aside... BTW... My dad and a couple of siblings were supposed to fly to Minneapolis that day. When I got home to Eastern Washington from university for the holiday, I was getting calls from relatives back there that Dad has not shown up. Knowing about the hijacking, I called the airline, but they weren't talking to the public. I keyed on that last word, and called the local police and explained the situation. The police managed to get some info from Northwest Orient. Seems the flight from Portland to Seattle was to continue to Spokane (where my dad was) and then continue on to Minneapolis. Since the flight never made it to Spokane, it took some time on the busy travel day to get a replacement plane.

I would have logged in, but I forgot my name and password. Sorry. Call me tjk. 140.90.47.70 (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Cossey

Oops... Sorry, it was a reference that stated that Cossey gave the parachute to the FBI. My bad. tjk 140.90.47.70 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Parachutes

OK, so the article says that he requested 4 parachutes, 2 back and two chest reserve. Then the article says, toward the end of the "Back in the Skies" section that, first, the FBI recovered 2 of the 4 parachutes, and then, just a few sentences beyond that, that the remaining parachutes "were not to be found". So... which is it? Here is a classic case of Wikipedia failure to be consistent, i.e accurate. It's one or the other folks. Get it right, and don't leave incredibly obvious inaccuracies in Wikipedia. It's one or the other... which is it? If I knew, I would fix it. I don't, so I can't. But as it stands, this is a very, very obvious inaccuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.50.112 (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. Four arrived and they recovered two which presumably means that Cooper took two with him. What's the inconsistency?

Review status?

This article is no longer in my opinion at FA standard. Any interest in revamping it, or in reviewing its status? --John (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I am in the process of revamping it now -- slowly, in sections -- condensing sections that are way too long, and adding sorely-needed citations as I find them -- and getting countered every step of the way by "fans" of specific Cooper suspects, who are continually adding (and restoring) the anecdotal, circumstantial evidence that has destroyed this article's objectivity. It's a 2-step-forward-one-step-back thing. It's going to take me awhile -- there are only so many hours in a day -- but give me a chance. When I'm done, if you still believe the article has not been restored to FA status, we can talk about what it will take to get it there.

Meanwhile, I'm begging the people doing their best to undo my work: If you have objective information, backed with reliable references, be my guest; but PLEASE stop adding and re-adding unreferenced, unproven rumors and other bad content. Otherwise, this article's FA status is doomed. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe I can help you. --John (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, any help would be greatly appreciated.

Right now, my problem is the editor who continues to dilute the Gossett section with circumstantial evidence; I'm trying to convince that individual that he or she is hurting the article, rather than helping it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And I just now realized that the editor changing the Gossett section, Jscraig, is invoking articles written by someone named...J.S. Craig. Which probably means he's quoting his own articles, which violates WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:POV, and probably other rules as well. Am I correct? DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have warned the editor concerned that they have a conflict of interest. --John (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE, please consider adding {{Under construction}} to the top of the article until your work is complete. The apparent COI work by Jscraig now appears to be adequately notified. If there are any more violations of policies or guidelines, I'll look after it. Thanks. —EncMstr (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks so much, both of you, for your assistance. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I support the attempts at editing going on, and I'd just like to say this: Having contributed my share to this article over the last few years, and having consulted a fair number of sources (both people and published works) about the case and having been in touch with/read/heard the words of at least two people working on the case, I can say with certainty that Gossett is not considered a serious suspect by the FBI - no matter how badly some people might want him to be. It probably goes without saying, but I also don't think it would be safe to say that Gossett is a serious suspect until the FBI acknowledges him to be through a statement or some kind of legitimate source. Just something to keep in mind for the sake of the article's clarity and brevity. Harry Yelreh (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Gossett section clearly states that there is no direct evidence implicating him, and that the FBI does not consider him a serious suspect (unless somebody changed it again, in the last few minutes). We await with eager anticipation (not) Cook's book, which I'm sure will be just as convincing about Gossett as the dozen or so previous books have been about other suspects. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Cook has been talking for years, and until proven otherwise, it's just that: talk.

I do have to ask: Are the Carr quotes necessary for the article's introduction? Maybe I haven't read enough wikipedia or encyclopedia articles, but the inclusion of such quotes seems odd, at least for a top-shelf article. Just my opinion, but I think the lead would read better if it omitted the quotes entirely and just ended with its two regular sentences: Published reports indicate that FBI agents currently handling the case consider it highly unlikely that Cooper survived his risky and ill-advised jump.[6] Nevertheless, the case remains open, and the agency continues to solicit testimony and creative investigation ideas from the public. Harry Yelreh (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Himmelsbach and the the discovered bills

• The article in its current state says, "However, FBI investigator Ralph Himmelsbach reasoned that the money had been discovered by someone, re-bundled, and re-hidden close to where Ingram found it." To my knowledge, this is NOT what Himmelsbach reasoned at all. Someone please correct if I'm wrong (I've read his book on the case and several articles in which he was quoted). But this appears to be a (pretty bad) mistake as a result of all the recent re-edits. What Himmelsbach was reasoning was that it must not have taken long for the bills to float down the river to their destination where they were found on the beach. He was NOT deducing that someone discovered them, re-bundled them, and re-hid them. To my knowledge, such a theory has NEVER been a serious theory of anyone involved with the case, let alone the lead investigator of the case. I have no idea where that came from. Furthermore, Palmer didn't really "discover" anything; he just drew his own conclusions based on the evidence of the money and the soil deposits on the beach. Harry Yelreh (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• I went ahead and made changes consistent with the facts that I'm aware of. If someone wants to make stylistic changes - or add a legit link/source that says that Himmelsbach honestly thought that someone mysteriously discovered, rebundled, and rehid the bills close to where Ingram found them - then go right ahead. Harry Yelreh (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence phrasing

The current opening sentence in the lead has room for improvement:

D. B. Cooper is the name popularly used to refer to an unidentified man who hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft in the airspace between Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington, USA on November 24, 1971.

It is needlessly indirect about defining the subject (is the name ... used to refer). That's like saying A hammer is the word referring to any type of tool meant to deliver an impact to an object. We don't write like that. We write A hammer is a tool meant to deliver an impact to an object. To that end, I revised it to:

D. B. Cooper is an unidentified male hijacker of a...

While I appreciate that there was disagreement over the phrasing of this sentence, it appears to have only been edit summary messaging. It looks to have been last changed in late January 2011 with these edits. The result isn't as good as it should be. —EncMstr (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

FBI suspect

The only alleged proof that Cooper was given or using a dummy parachute is the word of the FBI. I was wondering if there is any independent proof of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I read this just this morning and I was wondering... Why would an aircraft have a dummy parachute intended for training purposes on it? How ridiculous would that be, unless it was part of someone's luggage because he was an instructor or something? Dummy parachutes are intended to stay on the ground, for exactly this reason, so an inexperienced jumper in an emergency situation doesn't accidentally grab one thinking it's real. The entire notion that there was a dummy parachute seems ridiculous, and I too would like to hear any evidence they have on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.66.149 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the article. The hijacker demanded money and parachutes while on the ground in Seattle. They were brought onto the plane after being hurriedly obtained from a nearby jumping school. —EncMstr (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Odd ransom demands

The ransom demands listed for some of the copycats are rather odd, e.g. $306,800. Is there any information as to why the hijackers chose such odd amounts? If there is, it might would make an addition to the article that would answer a question that I can't imagine I'm the only one to think of.Bill (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Trapnell asked for $306,800 because he said that's what a recent litigation had cost him -- if you take a look at his article, you'll see that he was a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic -- the FBI never released any details about Hahneman, so we don't know (or at least I don't) why he asked for $303,000. When I did the rewrite I chose to simply report the facts and not get into explanations because the article is about Cooper, not the copycats. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A new suspect?

Apparently the FBI is working a new suspect, and not "anyone previously named."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Report-FBI-testing-strong-lead-in-D-B-Cooper-1666409.php

Will be interesting to see what comes of this.72.171.0.146 (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If past experience is any predictor, nothing.

But I would love to be wrong. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing Persons Reports Explored?

Although I (unfortunately!) remember this case when it happened, I have never been intensely interested in it, just causally so. So my knowledge isn’t up to that of many others here. I have a quick question which might lead to a bit being added to the article. If “D. B. Cooper” died in the jump attempt (as many feel likely), then wouldn’t it have been relatively easy to have found out his real identity via missing persons reports? How many men around his age had gone missing about that time who could have possibly matched the profile of the hijacker?

Even if Cooper had been a loner type with no close relatives or friends, I find it unlikely that someone could just vanish without others taking note: a landlord; a bank holding a mortgage; other creditors; neighbors; postal authorities; utility companies; social security records, etc.. Did not LE explore this avenue of approach? If they had and still came up blank, then perhaps Cooper could have survived (and resumed his life after the event) seemingly against the odds? Maybe the recovered portion of the extortion money was lost by Cooper during the jump or upon the landing?

Also, no one who spoke to him had any take regarding his regional accent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the FBI said he had a Mid-Western accent. This was from Americans and was probably accurate. The question of his accent is mentioned in dropzone.com. "No accent" seems to mean a General American accent.

—There is no such thing as a “general American accent.” Everyone learned to speak the language somewhere. It is just that some accents are more pronounced than others. As a result of my Navy service in which I met people from all over the country, I got fairly adept at recognizing regional accents. Had I spoken with this man, I am fairly certain I could have at least identified the region where he had been raised and possibly narrowed it down to at least a state. But perhaps Midwestern is the best I could have discerned as well.

It might have helped (assuming Cooper had either not survived or else established a new identity) to have put out a bulletin saying; “We are likely looking for a man originally from the Midwest, possibly Ohio, who has been living in the Pacific Northwest region recently and [stating all the other surmised profile information released about him] has either recently vanished without explanation or else indicated he was moving. In the latter case, he likely would have no close connections with whom he would have kept tabs with after the move.”HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this (and every) discussion page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." However, to answer your question - missing persons reports were not consolidated and computerized in the 1970s as they are today; and then as now, somebody has to file a report before the police even know someone is missing, and that doesn't always happen. That said, the FBI chased down hundreds of missing persons reports after the hijacking -- that's how John List, among others, became suspects -- but in the end, none of them panned out. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

—Thank you for your rapid reply, which is most appreciated.

I am aware of what Wiki talk pages are—and are not—for. As I alluded to within my question, I think your answer might well be incorporated into the article under “Investigation,” which concentrates on efforts to locate a body or other clues within the area where Cooper had jumped. Trying to find his identify via missing persons reports (under the assumption he had died as a result of the jump or else “went on the lam” (assuming or fearing he would eventually be identified)) would seem to be very much a part of the investigation, which is why I wondered about it. Your answer would seem to form the basis of a relatively brief insertion under the “Investigation” section. If this occurred to me, I’m sure it has to others. However, as I said since I am not that knowledgeable about the case I shall not presume to intrude into the work others have done, which is appreciated by all, I’m sure. It’s just a suggestion which is what talk pages are for.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, please, please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes. After any posts here, type ~ ~ ~ ~ , only without the spaces. Moncrief (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Speed of wind

FBI agent Carr speaks of a 200 m.p.h. wind, but 120 m.p.h. one is mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.127.51 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

He added the speed of the aircraft (~120 MPH) to the speed of the headwind (~80 MPH) -- and both numbers are mentioned in the article. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe agent Carr was being metaphorical with "200-mile-an-hour wind in his face." The aft stairway would have shielded Cooper from the wind until he jumped. Cooper's request was to be flying at the minimum stall speed or 120 mph. Apparently the aircraft did this as best as possible. The instant Cooper jumped he would be hit by a 120 mph gust as that's the aircraft's speed through the air. If the headwind was 80 mph then the aircraft's net ground speed is 40 mph. I used "gust" as Cooper would have almost immediately been pushed along by the wind (and falling rapidly). The net affect is that 40 mph forward ground speed will soon change to 80 mph with the prevailing wind. Cooper likely pulled the chute cord almost immediately meaning for sure he's being carried along by the wind though hopefully it was not 80 mph all the way to the ground. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No helmet? How proved?

"He also failed to bring or request a helmet"

This statement is cited from a valid source, but how did they prove he didn't already have a helmet on board if they never even found a body? In fact, how did they prove that he didn't bring his own parachute if they never located it? They did find, years after they located the stray currency, an abandoned parachute in the search zone, but excluded it because it wasn't one they gave him. Seems to me a fairly obvious point -- that he brought his chute, jump suit, carry-on bag, and helmet; and took them all with him -- is not clearly made for the reader. 71.191.247.254 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The opposite seems obvious to me, but if you don't believe it, read the sources. Why would he demand 4 parachutes if he had his own? And only 2 of the 4 chutes were found on the plane -- are you saying he jumped wearing 3 chutes? And where did he conceal his own chute? He boarded the plane with only the attache case containing the bomb -- no room for a helmet or a parachute. All witnesses say he was wearing a light raincoat over a coat, tie, and slacks -- not a jumpsuit. What part of that is not clear to the reader? DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm imagining that he was tossing unused stuff out of the jet to make it appear that he used things given to him and did not have any other equipment. That he boarded with only a briefcase is either a mistaken belief, or he had an accomplice whose carry-on contained his parachute, helmet, jump suit, and anything else, or he stowed it in the jet somehow (read the section on Christiansen). When you force the conclusion that he had no other equipment, then you cannot even consider the possibility that the abandoned parachute found in the 1980s could have been his. They did exactly that! 71.191.247.254 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And what a vivid imagination it is! Unfortunately, here at WP we are forced to deal in facts, not speculation, so unless you can present some published verifiable evidence to support your very imaginative hypothesis, we can't use it in the article. BTW the parachute found south of Ariel in the 1980s was from a plane that crash-landed in the 1940s. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Why must you be such an ass? Although I appreciate your information about the parachute that was found, you have harmed your WP community. I began by saying the citation was valid, and I never put any conjecture or speculation into the article. So you are knocking me around even though I follow the rules!

The article fails to make it abundantly clear that Cooper a) had no carry-on luggage; b) had no accomplices carrying his equipment; or c) could not have planted the equipment on board prior to the flight. Were these legitimate avenues of investigation for law enforcement to have taken? I believe they were. They said he must have died because he could not survive the jump without proper equipment, but the conclusion that he had no equipment isn't well founded in the article. Additionally, there's a book about to be published that says a witness on the ground in Oregon could see the low-flying jet, but everyone (myself included) has believed that Cooper could not see the ground to time his jump. Wikipedia is experiencing a dropoff in contributors, and your conduct is adding to the problem. No barn star for you. 71.191.247.254 (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What I am suggesting really isn't rocket science. It's just plain old logic. Cooper was never found, so he either a) died or b) survived the jump. Investigators say he could not possibly have survived the jump without equipment (a better parachute, a helmet, a jump suit, etc.), and witnesses said he carried no luggage on board. Therefore, if he survived the jump, only three realistic possibilities exist-- 1) the witnesses who saw no luggage were mistaken; 2) Cooper had an accomplice whose only task was to carry the equipment on board in his carry-on bag; or 3) Cooper somehow stowed the equipment in the jet before the hijacking. The article fails to address any of these possibilities in an organized fashion, and it is therefore --- typically Wikipedia, the latest rough draft of history. 71.191.247.254 (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not the one doing the name-calling -- I'm criticizing your hypothesis, not you. You, on the other hand, cannot say that. So why don't you lay off the anonymous personal attacks (is that why your Talk page got torn down?) and stick with discussing the article.

Your first statement, that he either survived the jump or didn't, is quite true. You may be familiar with the concept of Occam's razor -- that all things being equal, the correct solution is usually the one that requires the fewest assumptions. In Cooper's case, his failure to survive requires the fewest assumptions, which is why the FBI and most objective observers believe he did not survive. In order to postulate that he survived, you have to start making assumptions such as the three you list, or any number of others that have been proposed over the years. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that I'm aware of that the gate agent *and* all of the airline personnel *and* every single eyewitness were all mistaken about Cooper's carry-on luggage, for example. If there were, we would address it in the article. An encyclopedia has no obligation to list every possibility for which there is no evidence; that would require a book -- and there are plenty of those already.

Last year, somebody wanted to add the theory that Cooper never jumped at all -- that he shoved the money and parachutes out the door and hid somewhere on the plane. As I recall he also thought it possible that he had an accomplice hidden on board, and traded places with him when the flight attendant left the cabin. (Why? I'm not sure.) Both were hiding when the plane landed in Reno and they both somehow eluded the army of cops and FBI agents waiting for them there. Another editor told him to find some evidence in a reliable source and we'd be happy to include it. Same applies here. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Richard McCoy section is slanted and inept

The principal element of Rhodes and Calame's theory is not mentioned at all, the unexplained drive that McCoy -- a non gambler -- apparently made from Provo to Las Vegas during the wee hours preceding the Cooper skyjacking. Credit card receipts back it up. There are also credit card receipts at the closest gas station to Las Vegas' McCarron Airport late on the following night, and a collect phone call from the same time frame made from the nearest hotel to the airport -- the Tropicana -- to McCoy's home in Provo. Rhodes and Calame believe McCoy made the drive to disguise his place of origin, then flew out of Las Vegas to Portland to begin the Cooper event, returning to Las Vegas the following night. They think he lost the vast majority of the money during the jump -- other than several thousand stuffed into his pockets when he tried to "tip" the stewardesses -- sparking him to try again months later, the April 1972 skyjacking that he was convicted of.

With other principal Cooper suspects we have no idea where they were or what they were doing on the day in question. McCoy did something completely out of character on the specific day yet this Wikipedia page seems determined to squelch it, in favor of the fanciful versions. The information should be offered, for the Occam's razor crowd if no one else. Otherwise it's laughably unrepresentative. The "I shot DB Cooper" comment is highlighted yet it's a comparatively irrelevant aspect of the McCoy connection.

McCoy denied any trip to Las Vegas. Rhodes and Calame uncovered evidence he made an apparent test run three weeks earlier, staying at the Westward Ho on the Strip according to credit card records. Yet evidently there is no credit card usage in Las Vegas after McCoy arrived on the morning of the Cooper event until late the following night, as if he vaporized. These details should be offered, for purposes of balance.

Also, the details of the Karen McCoy lawsuit are incomplete, and suggest she profited primarily due to claim of McCoy as Cooper. Actually, the vast majority of the out of court settlement was $100,000 from Thomas Taylor as part of an attorney-client privilege claim. McCoy's widow said Taylor was her attorney and he violated attorney-client privilege by turning over the information to Calame, a friend. Karen McCoy had admitted to Taylor her involvement in the second hijacking. She later made similar admissions under oath during a hearing on the suit. Taylor settled the suit but maintained that he was not Karen McCoy's attorney or literary agent. The widow gave several interviews to Taylor about the hijacking and talked about collaborating with him on their own book.

Admittedly, I'm unimpressed with the FBI stance toward McCoy, or current insistence that McCoy was tamely at home in Provo during the Cooper event. I wouldn't want the FBI to be my source for applied probability. Initial lead investigator Ralph Himmelsbach asserted for more than 20 years that McCoy was in Los Angeles during the Cooper event, taking part in Utah National Guard drills. It took me two phone calls and several email exchanges with the Utah Air National Guard several years ago to blow up Himmelsbach's version as nonsense. The National Guard representatives were literally howling, after looking into it. Now the FBI has conveniently dropped the Los Angeles claim and scrambles to a combo of Las Vegas and Provo.

I think they have ludicrously dismissed McCoy based on over reliance on the two stewardesses and eyewitness accounts, including eye color. Larry Carr is so unimpressive in case facts he told Steve Rinehart in a radio interview several years ago that he excludes McCoy in part due to the inconsistency in tactics, since McCoy brought his own parachutes aboard the plane for the second skyjacking. Anyone with a fleck of knowledge of the second event understands how ludicrous that it, that four chutes were demanded in each case. Yet it's typical of Carr's level of understanding and flailing guesswork. That interview is available online. Carr also claims McCoy had zero physical similarity to McCoy other than being male. Many of us believe the initial sketch looks like someone was viewing a picture of McCoy while drawing it. He was a wiry hard looking 29 with a receding hairline, easily mistaken for much older than his chronological age. I had someone contact me on a message board two years ago, Dale Martin from Birmingham, who said he served with McCoy in 1966 and 1967 and that McCoy specifically discussed which commercial planes could be used to jump out of, and speculated whether the airlines would go along with parachute and ransom demands. Dale had plenty of specifics, including the unit number and dates/places, leaving no doubt regarding the veracity of his connection with McCoy. Dale told me he immediately recognized McCoy after seeing the sketch on TV after the Cooper skyjacking, and contacted the FBI in New Haven, CT. He said, "the morons totally ignored my information."

Sorry for the ramble, and lack of links. I'm a rookie at this, registering today. But the McCoy section is easily the most incomplete and misleading summary I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Awsi Dooger (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can source it, then be bold. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If the current Cooper story pans out, that not only renders the McCoy story moot, it raises the question of how the article should handle the various false leads over the years? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether he is eventually determined to be Cooper or not is secondary, because D. B. Cooper is a cultural phenomenon. The mystery and its various possibilities reveals much about American culture and history. Who knew Boeing made a jet with a back stairway? 71.191.247.254 (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. As regards the rear exit, apparently that was standard issue on the 727 series:File:Rwr727tail.jpg As the picture suggests, it could be used if the plane was on a runway that didn't have jetways or mobile stairways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To first answer the last question, everybody knew 727s had an aft airstair -- that was one of their distinctive features.

Now, to McCoy -- with all respect, the current section is very objective -- it appears that you wish to *make* it "slanted and inept." We go through this every few months with one or the other of the suspects; somebody thinks we're dismissing him (or her), when in fact we're just stating the facts, and avoiding all the un-evidenced speculation. The other fact is that this is an article about Cooper, not McCoy -- McCoy has his own article, so if you want to elaborate all that speculation about the Vegas drive and flesh out the details of the lawsuit (if you have verifiable published sources), do it there. This is a featured article, and I (for one) will not allow it to be destroyed (as it almost was) by unreferenced POV ramblings about this suspect or that suspect. Just the verifiable facts, please. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

About the 727's, I should think that anyone who flew on one would have known about the tail exit, since they were doing the same safety speeches in the 1970s that they do now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I was not even a teenager when the Cooper hijacking took place, so I was not aware that Boeing 727s had back stairways. I'm sure people who weren't even born then are likely not aware of it too. The statement "everybody knew 727s had an aft airstair" is just plain ridiculous. One very interesting fact is that 727s were used in Vietnam by the CIA, I'm guessing the AirAmerica thing. Once you include the fact that "Cooper" could have learned about the jet from his CIA experience in Vietnam, then the entire mess that is now the D. B. Cooper story begins to make a different kind of sense. Another point -- anyone who knows the story knows that a key feature is the stormy night that would have prevented Cooper from timing his jump, but now we're learning that a person on the ground could clearly see the low-flying jet, which means the hijacker actually could have timed his jump. There's so much misinformation out there that the official record is as dubious as the most wild conspiracy theories. That's why trying to solve the crime in the Wikipedia article is the worst possible way to present the cultural phenomenon that the D. B. Cooper story is. 71.191.247.254 (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

First, my deepest apologies if you thought that just because you didn't know about the 727 airstair, nobody else did either -- but the opposite assumption is not made in the article; it is described quite lucidly for any reader that might not know about it, even though most people do. Second, where are "we learning" that "a person on the ground could clearly see the low-flying jet?" Do you have some sort of verifiable reference for that statement? Every source I've read (and I've read them all) says the plane was flying at about 10,000 feet -- 5,000 feet above a solid cloud cover -- and at 8:13, through a heavy rainstorm as well. So how could a ground observer have "clearly seen" this aircraft, in the pitch dark, through a general overcast during a rainstorm? And let's assume the ground observer was Superman, and could actually do that -- what good would that have been to Cooper, in terms of trying to time his jump to land on top of this fictional accomplice? Third, who said anyone was trying to solve the crime in WP? We just state the facts, and document a few conjectures from official sources. Anything beyond that gets deleted pretty quickly, and for good reason. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I also didn't know that Raleigh was a brand of cigarette smoked by upscale males. I guess now you'll say everyone knows that too. My point of course is that you're doing a terrible disservice to your Wikipedia community by acting with sarcasm and heavy-handedness. Jimmy Wales was just in the media expressing concern because Wikipedia is seeing a dropoff in contributors. Your anti-social conduct is part of the reason why.

As for other facts, I haven't included them in the article and so there really is no requirement that I say where they come from. How did you imagine that I did? You claim to traffick in "facts" as if they were some form of truth, but Wikipedia guideines tend to focus on sources for facts. It isn't enough to be right. The facts must be sourced and cited correctly. So while you present yourself as some type of expert, you aren't knowledgable of the rules, even the most basic rules.

I can share this. Since the CIA's Air America program used 727s in Vietnam during the time McCoy was there, his familiarity with them might not be a part of his official service records. That means there may be something that's blocking all the facts from surfacing on the D. B. Cooper mystery.

Rather sadly I must add that you have violated one of the first rules of Wikipedia community-- "Please do not bite the newcomers." In fact, in the paragraphs that begin this section you'll find these words, "Sorry for the ramble, and lack of links. I'm a rookie at this, registering today." That's not me. I've been around long enough to have my Talk page ripped down. That quote is from a new guy who you attacked with this: "This is a featured article, and I (for one) will not allow it to be destroyed (as it almost was) by unreferenced POV ramblings about this suspect or that suspect."

I cannot agree that it is of feature article quality, and not just because you bite the heads off of newcomers (as if that weren't enough). 71.191.247.254 (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So -- the newcomer leads with "Richard McCoy section is slanted and inept" -- when in fact it is quite the opposite (objective and concise) and scrupulously avoids all of the unsourced nonsense that one reads elsewhere. I point that out, and explain why, and that constitutes biting a newcomer? I don't think so, frankly -- but if the newcomer is offended, I'll be happy to talk to that person about it, and if necessary, apologize (to him or her, not to you).

Seems to me that the only one doing any biting here is you. As another editor has already told you, you are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article instead of throwing flames. Meanwhile, those of us with an interest in this article will continue protecting it from those who wish to turn it into a conspiracy theory forum, or a billboard for their favorite suspect. Have a great week. DoctorJoeE (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What makes a newcomer give it try, DoctorJoeE? They see something that looks wrong, so wrong they will make the effort to learn the system and risk embarassment to raise a point. They of course are not the newcomers who are forced to use Wikipedia by a government-employed teacher. The newcomer who you bit did exactly what newcomers should do-- raise a topic on the discussion page before making changes directly to the article. After all this discussion, you have still failed to tell the newcomer that facts can be added when they're properly sourced, which means they just need to have a footnote that cites the pubication and page number where they come from. There are plenty of editors who can help to get the footnote in the correct form. Wikipedia isn't rocket science.

One rough measure of how to allocate space to various suspects is to look at the amount of material that has been generated on each. McCoy had a book that is about 250 pages devoted to explaining why he is D. B. Cooper. It's logical that the Wikipedia article should have more material on such a person than others who have had far less written about them. Incidentally, the most important point is that the bulk of the legal settlement pertained to an issue that had nothing to do with the accuracy of the book. On the McCoy Wikipedia page, the settlement and another fact are wrongly synthesized to discredit the book authors. Specifically it says, "The litigation was eventually settled for $120,000, but Rhodes and Calame stood by their account." Both facts are true, but the litigation was mostly about something that had no bearing on the content of the book, as the newcomer, Awsi Dooger, points out.

DoctorJoeE, your crusade against conspiracy theorists has no place here. Save it for the 9/11 articles.71.191.247.254 (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree -- an encyclopedia is exactly the wrong place to popularize conspiracy theories unsupported by credible evidence. McCoy has his own article, where there is plenty of room for any properly-cited content you wish to add to it -- and it is clearly linked in the McCoy section of this article. In the context of this article, his only role is as a suspect who was officially eliminated by the FBI, as stated on their web site, FBI.gov: "He was thought by some to be the elusive hijacker D.B. Cooper, but subsequent investigation has shown that he was not." (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Icxz3gYPshcJ:www.fbi.gov/norfolk/history+richard+mccoy+fbi&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari&source=www.google.com) The fact that a book was written about him does not qualify him for more space in this article, just as it does not for Christiansen (who has a book, a magazine article, a TV program, and another book in the works), or Dayton (who also has a book) or Gossett (pending book) or Weber (rumored pending book). Only credible evidence in reliable published sources can do that, for any of them. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you DoctorJoeE. Wikipedia is no place for conspiracy theories. McCoy and others have their supporters, but the fact is they are theories - until there is firm evidence - then leave the article as it is. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 8 August 2011

Who said anything about conspiracy theories in connection with the D. B. Cooper investigation? I certainly didn't. You can't just call everything that you disagree with a conspiracy theory and expect anyone to take you seriously. Wikipedia is not designed to give so much more weight to what the government says that the citizens cannot identify important facts also. Why then would we have a Wikipedia if we could just get the straight poop from the FBI web site? And in fact, the Wikipedia guidelines favor secondary sources over primary sources, and a government web site is a primary source. If facts can be properly sourced and are relevant, then they should be included, for and against. Unsolved mysteries can be some of the most interesting, enjoyable, and educational topics for everyone. Properly sourced facts should be included. 71.191.247.254 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Dummy Parachute

In reading the article I am confused by the mention that the FBI believes that Cooper jumped using a fake parachute. If they do have a lot of evidence for this, this would seem to be a very strong indicator that Cooper is dead, and I would expect a normal article which included that to reference that in the sections about people claiming to be Cooper. The fact that it is only mentioned in a few places in the article makes it seem like it is unsubstanciated or only from one source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.135.241.45 (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The dummy was the reserve parachute. The primary parachute used by the hijacker was real. -Drdisque (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct -- that is quite clearly spelled out in the article, and clearly referenced. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

See Archive 2 of this Talk page. 140.90.47.70 implies that it was virtually imposible for the FBI to "inadvertently" produce a dummy or for Cooper to use it at all, as first or reserve or any parachute. 140.90.47.70 seems to speak from extensive personal experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No question, there are some fundamental issues with the "dummy parachute" story, not least of which is the question of why an experienced 'chute rigger like Earl Cossey would supply a dummy 'chute, and why a supposedly experienced jumper like Cooper would use it. Cossey's explanation is that a clerk at his skydiving school pulled four 'chutes off of a shelf at his direction, and in their haste to get everything to the airport, nobody noticed that one was a dummy. As to why Cooper would use it, only he knows (or knew) -- but as the article states, the FBI cites the fact that he did use it as evidence that he was *not* an experienced skydiver.

A bigger question, at least in my mind, is the dispute over how many 'chutes Cooper actually used. The FBI's official version is that they found 2 of the 4 'chutes on the plane, a primary and a reserve, which suggests that Cooper jumped with the other two; but at least two accounts quote Earl Cossey as saying that he supplied 4 parachutes, and received 3 of them back -- one primary and both reserves. (I mentioned this as a footnote in the article.) Neither Cossey nor the FBI has ever felt it necessary to change their story, so I guess that will remain a mystery -- one of many. DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The word 'reserve' could be closer to the word 'selected'; it takes careful reading to get the true sense of this section AJSG (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted, and clarified in the article. Thanks for the suggestion. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

More on McCoy

Due to the recent discussion of Richard McCoy, with at least two people insisting that the article short-changes him, and that the FBI was wrong to eliminate him as a Cooper suspect, I re-read "D.B. Cooper, the Real McCoy" last night -- and with all of the differences between Cooper and McCoy that the authors themselves document, I do not understand how they reached the conclusion that they were the same person. Here are just a few examples:

• Rhodes says that McCoy's ears were so large, and protruded so much, that classmates at BYU called him "Dumbo." (He wore a wig and a headband during the Denver hijacking in an attempt to conceal his ears.) None of the Cooper eyewitnesses described anything at all unusual about Cooper's ears, nor do they appear at all abnormal in the composite drawings.
• Cooper was described by all witnesses as mid-forties; McCoy was 29.
• Cooper was described by the best witnesses, including all 3 flight attendants, as having "dark brown, piercing" eyes. Rhodes describes McCoy's eyes as light blue and close-set.
• Cooper ordered two bourbon-and-water highballs and chain-smoked Raleigh cigarettes. McCoy was an observant Mormon; he did not smoke or drink alcohol.
• Cooper jumped in a business suit, light raincoat, and loafers into a raging storm in the dead of night over mountainous wilderness, something a skilled recreational skydiver like McCoy would never consider doing; McCoy jumped in clear, warm April weather over flat, level land wearing a jumpsuit, jump boots, and a helmet.
• Cooper was described by witnesses as having a raspy voice with no particular accent; Rhodes says McCoy had a noticeable southern accent, and a marked lisp due to surgical correction of a cleft palate in childhood.

There are many more, but you get the idea. Given such marked differences, it's fairly easy to understand why the FBI would conclude that McCoy was not Cooper.

McCoy already has the second-longest portion of the suspects section; if more of the circumstantial evidence suggesting he was Cooper were to be added, then in order to maintain neutrality, all of the above objective evidence that he was not (at the very least) would have to be included as well. And then you have a very long McCoy section that reaches the same conclusion -- so what's the point?

I still maintain that the proper venue for spelling out all the pros and cons is the McCoy article, which is prominently linked to the Cooper article. That way anyone who is interested in learning more about McCoy can go to his article, and we can keep the Cooper article at a reasonable length, per WP guidelines. My two cents. If any disagree, let's talk about it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, DoctorJoeE. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 10 August 2011

I completely agree too. —EncMstr (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

All the details might be okay for McCoy's biographical article, but a summary of the most important points would assure that the case for each suspect is correctly represented. The refutation of McCoy listed in the article is actually very weak. Follow the links and you'll see that one simply says McCoy "had a Las Vegas alibi," and another says the new FBI agent on the case says McCoy couldn't have been Cooper unless he had an accomplice. That's not really strong stuff, especially when the guy above is citing all kinds of receipts and the fact that the lawsuit wasn't about the content of the book, but a client's attorney-client privilege. Other stuff appears to be original research because he called an ANG directly and exchanged messages with a guy who knew McCoy in Vietnam. Those facts can't be included. After 40 years without a solution, it would seem fair to drop the assumption that Cooper did not plan the scheme thoroughly, but, again that isn't sourced and can't be included. It just seems it would serve the FBI better to consider Cooper a criminal master-mind since he has eluded them for four decades.71.191.247.254 (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

All the bullets listed above consist of witness descriptions (ears, age, eyes, voice); assumptions-- only a smoker or drinker would smoke or drink while hijacking a jet; and a big assumption that he had no jump equipment and jumped in an overcoat and loafers. When you look at it objectively, one must agree that the article steers the reader to agree with the FBI's conclusions instead of presenting the strengths and weaknesses for asserting that McCoy was Cooper.71.191.247.254 (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the above bullets are facts, but discounting them requires assumptions. For example, Cooper was observed to smoke and drink, whereas McCoy was a lifelong nonsmoker and nondrinker; that's a statement of fact. In order to discount that fact as evidence, you have to make some assumptions -- that a lifelong non-smoker and non-drinker would suddenly start smoking and drinking, *and* that a teetotaler who downed two highballs wouldn't become totally inebriated, *and* that a nonsmoker wouldn't get dizzy and nauseated from one cigarette, let alone one after another after another. Similarly, in order to negate the differences in described appearance, you have to assume that every single eyewitness was wrong about every one of those physical characteristics. Occam's Razor: the answer with the fewest assumptions is usually correct.

I can certainly strengthen the sources if that will help -- there is plenty of documentation for where McCoy was; Bernie Rhodes himself conclusively places him in Las Vegas the morning of the Cooper jump. He found a gas receipt on McCoy's credit card early that morning from a station in Cedar City (on the I-15 route from Provo to Las Vegas) -- the FBI matched the signature to McCoy -- and there is another gas receipt from a Las Vegas service station with the license plate number jotted down by the attendant which matched McCoy's plate number. Those are facts. Rhodes, then, had to *assume* that McCoy flew from Vegas to Portland that day, hijacked Flight 305 and jumped into the mountains that night, then somehow got back to Vegas by the next morning in order to pick up his car and drive back to Provo by that night to have Thanksgiving dinner with his family. In addition to the incredibly long odds against pulling that off, there is no hard evidence to support any part of it. So the one doing all the assuming is Bernie Rhodes, and I can't see how we could justify putting it in an encyclopedia article. DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And can you narrow down the strongest points in favor of McCoy? Present the information for McCoy in such a way that a person who believes McCoy was Cooper will see the article and say, "well, yeah, that's why a lot of people think Cooper was McCoy." And Occam's Razor, which means the simplist explanation is usually the best, would favor a conclusion that investigators erred in clearing one of the chief suspects. 71.191.247.254 (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course not; that would violate NPOV, not to mention OR and about a dozen other rules. We, as editors, don't make assertions of anything; only sources do. And while I'd love to see the evidence that "a lot of people think Cooper was McCoy", that would be totally irrelevant. Facts are facts, beliefs are not facts; and making McCoy into Cooper is not even close to the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that Cooper did not survive the jump, and therefore could not be McCoy (or any of the other popular suspects). DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not violate NPOV or OR to include and source relevant facts about McCoy or any other suspect. Above, you said that the article should not include every detail on McCoy because there is an existing page on him. I agree. To distinguish between what should be included and what should not be included will require that you identify the most important facts not only against McCoy, which you have summerized in the bullets above, but also the most important facts in his favor. If you did that and improved the article to reflect your work, then the article would more fairly represented the topic.

Personally, I don't much care who Cooper was or whether he survived or not, but I do care when someone steps in and suggests improvements but is then personally attacked by an editor who has been on Wikipedia long enough to know better. I note that you have apologized to the contributor, which I commend, but he or she has not responded possibly because they have not been back. I can't improve the McCoy section by myself because I don't know the details, and the newcomer who you attacked is no longer here. It's just another classic example of Wikipedia-- existing contributors blocking improvement by attacking others, and then claiming the article is good quality. It ain't.71.191.247.254 (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The most important facts in his favor are already in the article. Please re-read WP:TIGER -- and relax. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Vector 23

The mention of Vector 23 is surely some sort of reporting error, even if well-sourced. Every inspecting pilot knows it really should say Victor 23, the ICAO phonetic alphabetic pronunciation of V-23. Since the hijacking occurred well before What's our vector, Victor?, perhaps uncritical listening skills turned "victor" into "vector"−not a long journey really. The airway V-23 still exists and can be seen on the latest aeronautical sectional chart (just above the crosshairs): it is the airway between Olympia and Vancouver, Washington (actually the airway goes between VOR stations near those cities). I, myself, cringe every time I read that and am tempted to correct it as well.

I'm at a loss suggesting what is best to do about this:

• A footnote explaining that they all really said "vector" but modern usage is "victor".
• Triple check the sources and putting five plus citations after "vector".
• Internal comments explaining the issue
• Change it to "Victor" with an explanatory footnote.

—EncMstr (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully appreciate everyone's desire to get this right -- but we are bound by WP rules, which require us to quote only reliable sources -- and every reliable source relevant to Cooper refers to it as "Vector 23." This includes Ralph Himmelsbach, who is a pilot, and presumably would know the correct terminology, yet uses "Vector 23" in his book, and in every quote referring to it that I've ever found. (For the record, "five-plus citations" also violates WP policy re: over-citing.) I suspect this might be akin to the evolution of the misnomer "D.B. Cooper" itself -- somebody got the "Dan Cooper" pseudonym wrong initially, and everyone else copied it. But the fact remains that all reliable sources refer to "Vector 23."

I will certainly add a footnote addressing this issue if that is the consensus -- but in the great scheme of things, I would submit that this is a minor issue in relation to the full D. B. Cooper story. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How about a link to Airway_(aviation)#United_States and people can puzzle over it themselves. I just looked on the net, and I couldn't find any RSs that discuss both vector and victor. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately one WP article cannot be cited as a reference in another WP article. DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean cite it, just link to it. People can then go read about how the airway's are designated with a V, which stands for victor. Then they'll know as much as us. Which is that something funky is going on. We don't have a source to say exactly what caused the funkiness, so they'll just have to wonder like we do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So maybe something like, "...flight path known in standard aviation terminology as Victor 23, but invariably referred to in Cooper literature as Vector 23?" Something like that? DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a fine solution. A great solution would be more concise, though I can't think of anything at the momemnt. —EncMstr (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So I'll make that change, and try to be a bit more concise. DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of complete accuracy -- and because it always helps one's credibility, when one is wrong, to say you were wrong -- I want amend one statement I made above: I said that every credible source, including Himmelsbach, refers to the flight path as "Vector 23." In reviewing Himmelsbach's Norjack book today, I discovered that Himmelsbach did, in fact, use the correct term, "Victor 23." No change is necessary in the article, since the description as stated is absolutely accurate -- but my entry above should have said, "every credible source except Himmelsbach refers to it as Vector 23." But the article, as it stands, lists the correct term and faithfully reflects the source material, so we're good. DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

However I've reworked the sourcing sequence of that paragraph to avoid any inference that Himmelsbach used the incorrect terminology. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Source cited does not verify text re Clyde Jabin

The SeattlePI reference cited states that Jabin "spent more than three decades with UPI" and was a "longtime journalist". Certainly not "an inexperienced wire service reporter" as the article states, nor is the statement "rushing to meet an imminent deadline" supported by that source (although I guess it could reasonably be inferred). I did not check the Gunther source, but in the case that specific text was actually referring to Joe Frazier of AP the refnote in parentheses indicates that story was "considered a hoax by the FBI" anyway, so it seems misleading to state as if it was fact. -- œ^™ 06:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was out of the country when the above was written and didn't see it until now. Yes, Clyde Jabin spent 3 decades with UPI, starting about the time of the hijacking -- so at the time he was indeed inexperienced.

The part of Gunther's book that is "considered a hoax by the FBI" is his story about the woman known as “Clara”, who claimed to have discovered an injured Cooper two days after the hijacking and lived with him until he died a decade later. The background information about the hijacking in the book is not disputed by the FBI or anyone else, to the best of my knowledge. DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see. Well then that should probably be made clearer in the text that at the time of the hijacking he was just starting out at UPI. Because it may confuse other readers who go to read the source and see the disparity, which isn't made explicitly clear there either. -- œ^™ 10:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input, I'll give it a shot. The problem, of course, is that we don't know for certain that it was Jabin -- at least one source says it was an AP reporter named Joe Frazier -- so I would be committing WP:OR by choosing one RS over another. It's difficult to achieve explicit clarity when there's so much conflicting source information in the Cooper literature; also very frustrating when you're trying to keep everything consistent and synthesize a definitive version of the story, which I naively thought I could do when I undertook the rewrite. DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh no problem. I think you did a excellent job otherwise. It was a great read. -- œ^™ 01:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Other editors contributed, of course. DoctorJoeE (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

French-Canadian?

This interesting article might have some content worthy of being noted here. I note that the Dan Cooper comic is mentioned in the (our) article, but the suggestion that Cooper may have been a French-Canadian is not (+ other developments). As I'm not familiar with the subject, I just thought I'd drop by here and let more involved editors judge if worthy of inclusion. Cheers! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. I've already added the new titanium evidence. I personally think the French Canadian thing is a bit of a leap -- only one source (Himmelsbach) says he demanded "negotiable American currency", and it doesn't specifically say he used those exact words -- the pilot relaying the demands may have used those words -- but if Kaye's team does make that assertion at the 40th anniversary conference today, it will be worth at least a sentence in the article. I'll wait until they say it, though. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

They said it, and I added it. The Dan Cooper comics tie-in further supports the conjecture -- which is all it is, of course, but so is virtually everything else related to the Cooper case. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 19:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The parachutes

Much mention has been made of that the fact that D.B. Cooper received 4 parachutes from a sky diving club. One of the reserve parachutes appears to the a dummy. According to the article and Cooper used two or three of the supplied parachutes.

One question I have is what stopped the FBI from supplying Cooper with parachutes that were rigged in some way not to open? Once he left the airplane and discovered the parachutes would not open, it is unlikely he could have blown up the plane.

70.119.85.250 (talk)[email protected]70.119.85.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

This is discussed at some length in the "conjecture" section. It is speculated (we'll never know for sure, of course) that Cooper asked for 2 sets of 'chutes (2 primary and 2 reserve) in order to force the assumption that he planned to jump with a hostage. Even if they had known for sure that he would jump alone it was probably illegal to booby-trap the 'chutes, since cops are not permitted to kill anyone, even criminals, except in self-defense (innocent until proven guilty and all that) -- but even if they could somehow get a plan like that authorized, the possibility that he might force an innocent to jump with him eliminated that option entirely.

As for blowing up the plane, it's unlikely that Cooper ever had that option since, as mentioned in a footnote, the "bomb" was probably a fake. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)