Talk:D. B. Cooper

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 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)