Talk:D. B. Cooper

Richard McCoy, Jr. section

Anyone else find this section to be out of order and confusing? The first paragraph talks about the start of a hijacking and then talks about an eventual arrest: "his fingerprints on a magazine he read on the plane, which the FBI later used to make his positive identification" and then it jumps into an investigation being started on him. Needs to be reworded IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.27.134 (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I added a bit about how he actually did escape, as mentioned in his main article. Not perfect, but better. Glad I am not the only one who was confused.The Pearl (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)pearl

Account of his appearance

The description of his ironed shirt and mother-of-pearl pin are extremely specific--clearly a first hand account, why aren't they sourced? Actually none of what seem to be first-hand accounts of the flight attendant or other passengers have a link to any source.

I realize this happens again and again--I guess no one gives a flying fig about credibility? Or are we counting on people to be generally gullible?

rumors

why no rumors allowed? (Unsigned comment by 62.3.74.85 21 December 2006)

There's a whole section called suspects, which contains well-documented discussion of several men who might have been D.B. Cooper. Throwing in one sentence that mentions somebody by first name only doesn't add anything to this article at all. It looks like vandalism. If you do have something meaningful to add to this article, please expand it beyond simply giving us the name "Geoff from the SELOC." Anson2995 15:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

picture :-)

um......doesn't that picture look like Ross Perot? Kingturtle 00:27 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

It would certainly explain why we never see them in the same room together.

In an interview documentary made some 20 years later 2 of the stewardesses stated in interview that the picture never looked like the hijacker. Don't know much about it but they would have been trained to observe and are maybe right.Dakota 02:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

Someone hardcore editted this page to offer misinformation.

I noticed, and reverted the changes. Slicing 02:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

found bills

So was the money found in the Washington river definitely from the hijacking? If so, how do they know? TastyCakes 19:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I suspect that they recorded the serial numbers of the bills they gave Cooper, or they gave him marked bills. I would be interested to hear whether this is the case, because if it is then the obvious follow-up question is if any other bills have been found in circulation. That would be a good clue as to whether or not Cooper survived the ordeal and spent the money. -Lommer | ^talk 23:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

As was noted below, the money was photocopied for a record of all the serial numbers. Though I haven't seen it in a few years, I clearly remember them talking about that when they recapped Cooper's story on Unsolved Mysteries. The found money was matched by serial number, but none of the remaining money has ever turned up in circulation (as of the early c. 1990).

Rubber bands are mentioned holding the found bills. Has anyone checked if these rubber bands are the original ones that were used when the bills were collected and given to Cooper? If they were - dispite the concern over deterioration - then it is inconclusive if Cooper is alive. If however they are for instance newer, then one can conclude that Cooper was still alive and had rebundled them for some reason. Alandeus (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

$5,000 found was definitely the money

You see the FBI had photocopied EACH and every bill very clearly to get the serial numbers. They had enough time to do that.

But knowing this guy, he was smart and with a suspected military background, he would have known not to start spending the cash until after several years and in places like grocery stores far away.

Also, I think it was this Florida guy.....too many coincidences.

Speculation aside, if that is the case then they should be able to figure out if any of those bills are in circulation now (checks for serial numbers at banks and whatnot). Even if he spent them overseas, they're bound to turn up sometime. Why is there no discussion of this? -Lommer | ^talk 21:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Bills are usually taken back out of circulation and destroyed fairly quickly. According to the U.S. Treasury, 95% of all new bills printed in a year are replacements for old ones. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing currently produces around 37 million bills per day, so presumably a comparable number are taken out of circulation each day (I believe they are gathered from banks and burned or otherwise destroyed). I'm sure the FBI would have been looking at bills returned to banks in the area for a while, but if Cooper used some other source of cash for long enough to get out of the area and let the trail cool, it would probably be very, very hard to spot one of the bills, particularly with 1970's technology.

For example, Cooper might take a road trip every month or so from his home base to a different area of the country. Every so often, stop in a town, buy a small item from this shop or that shop and get change at each place. Nothing unusual at all, but you could change a few grand that way over the course of a few days. I'm sure there are plenty of other, better ways to launder the money. Bottom line, if they didn't turn up any of the bills soon after the incident, and probably close to it, they probably missed their chance. -Dmh 16:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point DMH:

I researched this on the web. Bills normally last about 1 1/2 to 2 years in circulation. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. The old, worn out bills are replaced by new bills, by the Treasury on a daily basis. Back in the 70's, the twenties were not examined by hand, looking for the Cooper ransom, before being destroyed. Such an endeavor would be cost prohibitive given the volume of dollars in our money supply. Given this, it is possible, the twenties were simply exchanged in the economy, either in the United States, Mexico, or anywhere in the world. The FBI readily admits that finding any of the bills in circulation would be a needle in a haystack.

Of course, there is no proof any of the $194,000 ever made it into circulation. In order for a bill to have been discovered, somebody, a teller, a bank official, or a suspicious citizen, would have to examine each and every twenty they receive, and compare it to the ransom list. Of course, the FBI wants us to believe the money was never spent. However, even they have admitted they have no proof the twenties never made it into circulation, just as there is no proof Cooper died during the jump. IF Cooper did make it, I think he waited six months, and simply exchanged the twenties for "clean" twenties in another city, where the Cooper case was only a blip on the news.

Canyouimagine? 03:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Really appreciate your input. I have never seen a quote or statement by the FBI talking about how hard it would have been to find one of the notes back then. If we ever get one - or at least some information about tracking capabilities of U.S. currency in the early 1970s - I think it would add to the page in telling the accuracy of the situation. Most of the time, it seems like all there is regarding these 9,700 or so $20 bills is that none of them ever turned up (again, besides what Ingram found), as if that's some kind of overwhelming evidence that Cooper perished. It clearly is not. I went and did some of my own research and calculations based on what you guys discussed here. Basically, the U.S. Treasury says it printed 33 million bills a day in 2006. Of those, a little more than a fifth - or, a little more than 7 million - were $20 bills. Obviously, the U.S. economy and population were smaller in 1971; in fact, the U.S. population in 1971 was almost exactly 2/3 (just over 200 million) of what it is now (just over 300 million). Just to go with a low-end estimate, let's suppose that the U.S. printed 500,000 $20 bills per day in 1971 (1/14 of the number it printed per day in 2006). That means 182.5 million $20 bills would have printed in 1971 alone - or about 18,814 $20 bills for each one of the $20 bills that Cooper could have had. And, the speculative 182.5 million twenties would be in addition to the $20 bills already in circulation that would not have been printed in 1971. And with virtually no real sophisticated computer systems to speak of at that time, with 1970s technology, no scanners, and with tellers or clerks having to check by hand and match it up on the list of serial numbers given by the FBI - I think we truly are talking about a needle in a haystack here. I have to agree with what was said above, that the best chance would have been to maybe find one in a Washington area bank shortly after the heist - which had to be what the FBI was hoping for. -- Harry Yelreh 2:31 February 28, 2008

• By the way, I went ahead and made some changes in the "Vanished" section, basically adding a bunch of stuff on the efforts to trace the bills from the FBI's website. I hope nobody minds, but I also went ahead and made another change. In the "Vanished" section, there was a whole paragraph dealing with the Cooper Vane, which really doesn't have much to do with D.B. Cooper vanishing or efforts to find him. So I took that paragraph out of the "Vanished" section and basically modified it and installed it under the section the page already has on the Cooper Vane. I thought that would make more sense. Furthermore, I think the "Vanished" section is missing a few details about the other major clue, that being the placard off the back of the plane that was found in 1978. If anybody could add anything on that, I think it would help the page a lot. Harry Yelreh (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Need clarification on where Ingram found the money

Can anyone confirm an EXACT location of where the $5,880 was found on the shore of the Columbia River? I've looked all over, and there seems to be confusion on this. The wikipedia article says "5 miles northwest of Vancouver, Washington," but the reference it lists makes no mention of that. 9.5 miles northwest of Vancouver is said on this site (which is not a creditable source): http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM34G6 . Many sources make mention of the money having been found at a place called "Tena Bar," which this map from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer shows as being generally east (that is to say, upstream) from Vancouver, not northwest: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20011122/CooperHijacking.gif . I find this map to be likely correct, because it comes from a more reliable source, and several experts talk all the time about theories involving the money's floating down from the Washougal River and into the Columbia, and the map does well to show why. I've yet to hear a theory stating that the money floated in the Columbia River past the city of Vancouver. There are also sources out there that clearly misuse the terms "upstream" and "downstream" on this subject. Let's be clear that the Columbia River flows INTO the Pacific Ocean and therefore basically flows from east to west. Therefore, anything on the river east of Vancouver is UPSTREAM from the city and anything on the river west of Vancouver is DOWNSTREAM from the city. I just think we need to be clear about this. Especially with the new talk of the parachute that was recently found and how its location in relation to the found money could blow theories out of the water (no pun intended) about the money having gotten to the beach by purely natural means, it is necessary for people to know precisely and clearly where Ingram found the cash. Harry Yelreh (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, nevermind. I think it's safe in the article the way it reads. Most sources (even though most aren't particularly credible) do seem to say 5 miles downstream from Vancouver, and maps of the area seem to confirm that that's where the beach is. If anyone has any more specifics or clear confirmation, though, it wouldn't hurt. Harry Yelreh (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

most of the images on this page have any source information.

Most of the images on this page have any source information. There's the obvious FBI one, but at the moment the rest of them can be speedied within a week. Agnte 13:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

then is he still alive?

You'd think after thirty years he would come out of the closet but with a lot of ppl telling the FBI that they are d.b cooper who is going to know.

Why would he come out? To be sent to jail? Hijacking a plane is pretty serious, they're not going to just forget about that. TastyCakes 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think Duane Weber was Dan Cooper. The way he supposedly came out about it is the only way that would make sense. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 05:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, at the time the statute of limitations on aircraft hijacking was only 5 years. —Slicing (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

However, the FBI secured a "John Doe" indicament - just so 'Cooper' could not wait out the statute of limitations. Check-Six 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is no statute of limitations on tax evasion. The IRS taxes illegal and legal income the same. His back taxes would now far exceed any amount he got away with (if he got away with anything). Panastasia 17:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

he is probably dead jumping over mountainis washington

He lives on in his name and his myth. We will never find him, he cannot be found, not because he is dead, because he is--

Chicopac (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

UTC or Pacific time as to where that's where D.B. Cooper jumped over?

Under the "The hijacking" portion of the account, "At 16:35 on Thanksgiving Eve, November 24, 1971", what time zone is the time accounting for? UTC or Pacific time as to where that's where D.B. Cooper jumped over?

From some accounts I can see it could be an inside job.

Good question: I fixed the time, to make it correct. Cooper hijacked the plane at 2:58pm Pacific Time, or 14:58pm if you prefer military time. All other times are in pacific, where the crime occurred.

Canyouimagine? 03:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Extraneous Information

What's the significance of stating that the Kansas City bar opens at 6am on Saturday? At first I thought that the hijacking occurred at 6am on a Saturday, but it was at 4:35pm on a Wednesday.Peel 04:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

D.B.Cooper - His real name isn't known

The article states his "real" name but, as far as I know, that's not correct. Answers.com seems to back me up with:

The hijacker actually called himself Dan Cooper; a law officer mistakenly described him to the press as "D.B." and the name stuck...

Can anyone else back that up or find a better cite? Fracture^Talk   07:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I clarified the entry to point out that this is a psuedonym. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Insider theory

I seem to remember a fiction movie about the hijacking. According to the movie (or was it a TV film?) there were no hijacker at all. The stewardesses acted like there was a man in the toilet and "forwarded" his demands: ransom, parachute, etc. All communication went through them, so nobody on ground knew the real situation. When they got everyhing, they simply threw out the parachute and kept the money. I think this theory is worth to mention, as it's as good as all the others. ;-) 195.228.39.215 15:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, now I see it is mentioned on the main page also (TV, Film and Radio section, Tales of Unexpected). 195.228.39.215 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For some reason the referenced section has been removed from the main page. Could anybody explain why?
Anyway, here it is: The British TV drama anthology series Tales of the Unexpected featured an episode called Hijack which was first broadcast on ITV on 26 December 1981 (Season 4, Episode 17). Elements of the Cooper case feature in it, though the action takes place over Europe. In the end it turns out to be a swindle perpetrated by the crew, including the pilots and air stewards.195.228.39.215 13:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

D.B Cooper & Sly Cooper

could sly be a parody of DB

Duane Weber

"One of the most convincing pieces of evidence Mrs. Weber related was the fact she had checked out a book on the Cooper case from the local library and saw notations in it that matched her husband's handwriting."

Errr, most convincing? Unless I'm missing something here, this is COMPLETELY unconvincing. He may have said "I'm Dan Cooper" before his death, but if he WASN'T Dan Cooper it's a pretty safe bet that he was interested in Dan Cooper and had done research on him at some point in time. What the hell does it prove that he checked out a book on Dan Cooper if our possibilities are 1. He was Dan Cooper or 2. He was pretending to be (and presumably obsessed with, or at least greatly interested in) Dan Cooper. Either way, it's unsurprising that his handwritting would turn up in a library book on Cooper, so why would a handwriting match in a library book suggest the former but not the latter? --Lode Runner

Couldn't agree more Lode Runner: Did anyone do a handwriting or fingerprint match from the book to see if they matched Duane's? Why would a person who committed a crime, need to make notes? If they were there, wouldn't they have remembered the event? Isn't the book, the Gunther book, based on fiction? Call me skeptic, but, once a suspect appears, and is conveniently dead, it does make me wonder. He can't defend himself, nor can he give a detailed account of his actions. ARe we risking ruining his reputation? What about his family? I guess as long as we say he is "only" a suspect, we are okay.

Regarding the section. It needs to be referenced, big time. It is based solely on a the accounts of his ex-wife. There are no independent sources, no third party confirmation of stories, etc. Who is this woman who worked with Duane? Is she a handwriting expert?

This sentimental journey from 1979. Is this an online encyclopedia, or is it stories? How about a plane ticket, a hotel ticket, an independent witness, an addres of where this happened, the exact month. I just get suspicious, when everything is "hearsay". There are other's, like List, who resemble the Cooper sketch. We need more. Let's place Duane living in Oregon or Washington. I'm assuming he lived in the area. Doesn't anyone know for certain?

As for the prison reference. Why does it matter if Duane was housed at a Portland prison near the Portland airport? What does this have to do with him being Cooper? Is every prisoner now a suspect? Which prison? I looked up on the net, and there is no prison that I could find near the airport? I do know, that other sources, mention Duane served time at McNeill Island, which is in Seattle, and not too far from Seattle airport. ARe the cities confused here? What years did Duane serve time in Portland, or at McNeill? Where are the references? That is why references are so important to the integrity of this articles.

Plus, I noticed original photo's. I'm willing to let it slide, but, I do believe it is against Wiki policy to have original photo's as part of an exhibit. Newspaper, with permission, or public domain are ok as well.

This section could list 1,000 suspect, 100, 20, or 3, or some other amount. I think the bar has been lowered as if pertains to being a "good" suspect. With over a 1,000, many more suspects must have been good at one point. If a suspect was a good suspect back in 1998, he is either eliminated, or there simply isn't enough evidence to continue the investigation. I am open to keeping Duane on the suspect list, but, we have lowered the bar, and this may make it hard to turn away the next dead suspect from this list.

Canyouimagine? 23:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• I just wanted to add: be wary of any claims about handwriting that matches D.B. Cooper's. There seem to be numerous claims out there that Weber's handwriting or McCoy's handwriting matched Cooper's, and yet such claims are - as far as we know - impossible. Attorney Galen Cook and others who are investigating the case have asserted that we don't know what D.B. Cooper's handwriting looks like. Yes - as Cook has stated - Cooper gave slips of paper to communicate with the flight attendants and pilots, but he also took every one of them back. --- 2-27-08

Won a Settlement?

"The widow of Richard McCoy, Karen Burns McCoy, sued and won a legal settlement from both the book's coauthors and its publisher."

Did she "win" anything, like a court judgment, or did she simply receive some money in return for a cash settlement? The former would indicate that a neutral court found that the publisher couldn't back up the claim that McCoy was Cooper. But the latter ... a settlement rather than a judgment ... is less interesting from the point of anyone more interested in the truth than in Mrs. McCoy's comfort level. --Christofurio 20:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Great question. Especially considering she allegedly was an accomplice with McCoy on his hijacking which occurred in April of 1972. According to the book, Karen drove McCoy to the airport, called him at the airport, typed the directions used in the ransom, and lied to the FBI regarding McCoy's whereabouts on the day of the hijacking in April 1972.

I dont' believe this is why she sued. Nor, do I believe it is because of the accusation of McCoy being Cooper.

My belief, based on research, is that McCoy's widow sued the authors because it was insinuated in the book, the REAl McCoy, that Karen stole money from Richard McCoy while he was on the run after escaping from prison in 1974. In the book, it implies that Karen met up with Richard, while he was an escapee, and robbing banks, and that Karen allegedly stole some of the money from a bank job from the car Richard was using during his time on the run.

It is my belief, that accusing her of this act, is why she sued the authors. I have no knowledge if she received any funds from the author or publisher. I do know, that I've never heard any stories of Karen trying to sell any stories about her husband being DB Cooper. Considering she lived with him during the DB Cooper hijacking, it does make me wonder if McCoy is a legitimate suspect. Of course, his name should remain on the board. But, I do wonder why she hasn't cashed in, if her husband was in fact Cooper

Canyouimagine? 01:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

NOT the only unsolved hijacking

This incident is not at all the only unsolved hijacking. Malaysia Airlines Flight 653 was hijacked and crashed in what are, if anything, more mysterious circumstances than this. Blood red sandman 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• You're right, people need to be more specific. I think it's generally understood, though, that this is the only unsolved American hijacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.24.173 (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Prison Break

Someone who didn't bother to read the rest of the article has caused the Charles Westmorland/DB Cooper story arc in Fox's Prison Break to be mentioned twice in the TV/Radio/Film section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.119.77 (talk) 17:06, April 29, 2007

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Katr67 18:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

TV Special

I recently saw a TV show that featured a man near Portland, Oregon being accused of being D. B. Cooper. The man had a matching background, but is proven by the FBI as being not Cooper. Should this be noted in the suspected people area?

Fair use rationale for Image:DBCooper article.jpg

Image:DBCooper article.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Airstairs and animation

I thought I read somewhere that the airstairs were gravity operated, and after he jumped they stayed down until the plane landed. (It sounds logical, since they were not designed to deploy sky divers there was no need for a hydraulic system to retract the stairs in flight.)

However logic alone doesn't dictate accuracy, I also made a version where the door closes after the jump in case this was wrong. Anynobody 04:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent job with the illustration. Thanks for the great addition to the site.

My understanding is as follows:

The airstairs are gravity operated. A lever, situated at the top of the aft stairs, is pulled to unlock the stairs once the plane safely comes to a landing. Then, the weight of the stewardess or passengers will lower the aft stairs to within about 9 inches of the ground. The aft stairs never touch the ground in the extended position. I believe this is on purpose, to prevent the jet from dragging on the tarmac if the stairs will not re-deploy, and leave the jet stranded.

Regardless, I believe once deployed, Cooper leapt from the second or third stair from the bottom. Once he jumped, the aft stairs violently came up toward the fuelsage, because of the weight being released from the stairs (much like a diving board). Upon settling, it is my belief the aft stairs remained in the open position the duration of the flight to Reno. I believe the stairs most likely varied between the 50% and 75% closed position, during the flight. Without Cooper's weight, I believe the stairs would most likely be drawn up toward the fuelsage due to the aerodynamic forces as the wind passed underneath the fuelsage as the jet travled at 170 knots. I've seen the FBI re-enactment, which backs this up.

Therefore, your illustration is excellent. Technically, Cooper could have jumped at any time from the time he was last heard from on the interphone at 8:05pm, until the jet landed at 11pm in Reno. I thinkt the most likely time, is 8:13pm, given the violent forces recorded by flight data and the flight crew. Great job on the illustration.

Canyouimagine? 01:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

According to an interview with the pilot which appear on an A&E Networks production called "History Channel - Perfect Crimes? Leopold & Loeb - D. B. Cooper" amazon dvd page the stairwell bounced back up and stayed at an almost closed position after he jumped. I guess it was manulally closed after that. Still the animation is cute.Expat Justin (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ted Mayfield

I deleted this section because for many reasons: 1.) It reads like a newspaper article and seems to contain original research. 2.) There are no sources 3.) This guy sounds like a small time crook and was probably never considered a likely suspect back then, if ever considered. 4.) Book plug? I've removed this section before. There needs to be a credible source that has good evidence of him being a possible suspect. A Google search for "Ted Mayfield" finds very few, if any hits about the name being related to this case. On the other hand, a search for "Duane Weber", an actual suspect, returns many hits. Caster23 17:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NOR | WP:V | WP:NOT#OR | WP:MOS Caster23 03:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of comments about the current version of this article [1] :

• Daniel Dvorak and Matthew Myers say that the most likely suspect was eliminated erroneously by the FBI.

Who are those two? Are they credible people?

• Ted Mayfield, who in 1971 was a 36 year old Portland native, and former world champion skydiver, with an armed robbery conviction earlier in 1971, was phoned in as a Cooper suspect by at least a half a dozen people on the night of the hijacking, according to Ralph Himmelsbach's book, Norjack,

Having never read the book, I wouldn't know if the above is correct. However, I would still need a good source. Also, my main problem is that Ted was never really thought as an original suspect, and, as far as I know, still isn't by most people.

• Court records in Oregon show various convictions, including the previously mentioned armed robbery just prior to the D. B. Cooper heist, transportation of a stolen plane across state lines, and Criminal Negligent Homicide

I still need a GOOD source. I've never heard of Ted, and I'm going to want good information about him if i was reading this article from the perspective of someone doing research on this case.

• In 1988 Unsolved Mysteries aired a piece about the search for D.B. Cooper. The episode included an interview with Florence Schaffner; one of the flight attendants aboard flight 305, and an eye witness to D.B. Cooper. Florence stated that the widely circulated composite sketch "never really looked like Cooper". Many feel this is one of the reasons the case was never solved. At the request of Unsolved Mysteries Florence worked with Mahlon Coleman a forensic artist from the L.A. County Sheriff's office, and a new sketch was created. Upon completion Florence examined the final draft and exclaimed "yeah...that's it".

It's pretty easy to make something up on wikipedia and edit it in a way to get what you want. There needs to be a source for this.

• There seems to be a lot of original research in this article, as several IP's keep adding information the speculates whether Ted was most qualified for the hijacking. I believe that there could have been more people in the U.S. at that time who were better then Ted at skydiving. However, D.B. Cooper could easily have been someone less experienced as well.
• Finally, the current version of this article does not state whether Ted was ever thought by the FBI, or is thought this day, of being a very good suspect in the case. Is there a source that would have this information? I'm not here to completely get rid of suspects, but I will if they are not notable enough to be mentioned; there were probably many other people who were suspected of this crime when it happened; and they are not mentioned. Caster23 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Much of Dvorak and Myers' work is documented in these two web forum threads: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44859 , http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49742 and Dvorak ["leftcoast"] lays out a plausible case. But, no hard evidence (unless the FBI has some they aren't discloing). I don't know of any non-original sources other than the TV shows (Inside Edition, and KOIN TV (Oregon TV station)). Mayfield was an early suspect (since he was an expert skydiver in Portland), but was eliminated a major suspect for various reasons (erroneously and for flimsy reasons -- based on the physical descriptions given by the witnesses -- in Dvorak's opinion). In the TV shows, the lead FBI agent says something along the lines of "his name popped up several times". We can't know what the FBI currently thinks about Mayfield, they can't disclose any info like that. ReedHedges (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the Inside Edition segment's original airdate was 5/21/2007. I don't know if celebrity entertainment programs meet Wikipedia's quality standards for sources though :) I don't know when the KOIN segments first aired. -- ReedHedges (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ted Mayfield has been considered a suspect by many people ever since the day of the hijacking. Many people, including amateur detectives, have done their own investigations and have thought that he presented a striking match for the hijacker's profile. However, for various reasons, the FBI has never considered him a suspect, at least not seriously. If people wanted to include a section with him in the article, I would not have a problem with it. At this point the article's "Recent Development" section has plenty on Galen Cook's suspect; while I'm pretty sure Cook's suspect has legitimate interest from the FBI, there have been few sources about it. However, there could be more starting this week. Harry Yelreh (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comments

Since I cannot directly ask all the various IP address already involved in this dispute, due to the fact that their are many different ones that all seem to be doing the same thing, I took it to RfC. The disputed mater at hand is whether or not the "Ted Mayfield" section of this article has met wikipedia standards, and, more specifically, is it notable to mention.(Please see my comments above and the articles history page). Thanks 08:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You can see a copy of Inside Edition episode on youtube.com, by searching for DB cooper. It aired on national TV. There were also 3 separate episodes about Ted Mayfield that appeared on KOIN TV, a Portland affiliate, which will appear on YouTube shortly and will be referenced. Dvorak one of the two freelance investigators whose work with Myers culminates 7 years of investigation also has an interview on Steven Rinehart's program. WRT Duane Weber, he was never considered a suspect by the FBI. Even after they were approached they dropped the case on Duane because there is absolutely no evidence except stories from the Widow. Anyone whose name was called in to the FBI (And Teddy's was called in 12 times) has a suspect card. Duane Weber can be placed in or around Atlanta at the time of the crime. His only claim in the Cooper case is that he looks a little like one of two sketches that have been deemed worthless by the Flight Attendants. 70.104.181.242 14:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

---

• Thanks you for your reply. A few comments: which will appear on YouTube shortly and will be referenced. Sorry but Youtube cannot be referenced per Wikipedia policy.
  

Duane Weber can be placed in or around Atlanta at the time of the crime. Source?
Anyone whose name was called in to the FBI (And Teddy's was called in 12 times) has a suspect card. Yeah and do you see anyone else listed as a suspect? Weber and the others listed after Ted in this article seem to have evidence and have long been considered the likely ones to carry out the crime.
Even after they were approached they dropped the case on Duane because there is absolutely no evidence except stories from the Widow. There is also no evidence on Ted except mere speculation.
Finally Inside Edition is this a credible source or not? and if it is, is there a link to somewhere on their site that doesnt have a video; a typed print story, maybe? Thanks 15:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

---

"A Google search for "Ted Mayfield" finds very few, if any hits about the name being related to this case. On the other hand, a search for "Duane Weber", an actual suspect, returns many hits"

• Myers and Dvorak only went public on national TV with the story a few months ago,whereas Jo Weber, Duane's Widow, broke her story almost 8 years ago. That would explain why his name gets more hits.

"Also, my main problem is that Ted was never really thought as an original suspect, and, as far as I know, still isn't by most people."

• What does being an "original" suspect have to do with a case that has been unsolved for 35 years? Why do you think it has been unsolved? Do you think that Duane Weber was an "original" suspect? His name would not have popped up on any search engine before 2000 when his widow come up with that story. Can anyone show me ANY evidence that Duane Weber had anything to do with the Cooper heist? Can anyone place him in Portland in 71?

" In 1988 Unsolved Mysteries aired a piece about the search for D.B. Cooper. The episode included an interview with Florence Schaffner; one of the flight attendants aboard flight 305, and an eye witness to D.B. Cooper. Florence stated that the widely circulated composite sketch "never really looked like Cooper". Many feel this is one of the reasons the case was never solved. At the request of Unsolved Mysteries Florence worked with Mahlon Coleman a forensic artist from the L.A. County Sheriff's office, and a new sketch was created. Upon completion Florence examined the final draft and exclaimed "yeah...that's it".

It's pretty easy to make something up on wikipedia and edit it in a way to get what you want. There needs to be a source for this."

• As stated, the source is the 1988 Unsolved Mysteries episode. The quotes come right from the episode which has been re-run on television for many years, and seen by many people. The sketch comes from the same episode.

"There seems to be a lot of original research in this article, as several IP's keep adding information the speculates whether Ted was most qualified for the hijacking. I believe that there could have been more people in the U.S. at that time who were better then Ted at skydiving."

• Ted was the national skydiving champion in 1974. He is from Portland, and knows the area, and is ALSO a pilot and is familiar with the FAA and has site recognition of drop zones and the terrain from the air, which are all necessary to have pulled off this heist.

"Finally, the current version of this article does not state whether Ted was ever thought by the FBI, or is thought this day, of being a very good suspect in the case."

• The FBI does not publicly comment on current or "open" investigations. If Ted were a suspect we wouldn't know until he is in bracelets.

Zephyr99 21:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

---

• • All I ever wanted was sources. Yet, all I get is the same answers. I will not work on this article anymore, as I have other things planned for the future. Just a few comments before I go: If Ted Mayfield is such a great new lead in this unsolved case, why has no major media outlet reported on this? The google hits search says that it isnt credible enough(google crawls and updates its search results weekly). As far as the FBI not commenting: if they are not going to say anything about Ted, why include it? Again, I asked for sources, yet got pointed to an Unsolved Mysteries episode that has nothing to do with Ted. Can anyone show me ANY evidence that Duane Weber had anything to do with the Cooper heist? Can anyone place him in Portland in 71? ' No, but can anyone place Ted there at the time? Is there ANY (good, credible) source that has evidence and says he had anything to do with the heist? Is there a good source that said he was? And if he was there, he might not have been the one to do it. Perhaps there shouldn't even be a suspects section. As Ive said before, i wont question this non-sourced section anymore. Good day. Caster23 22:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • In any case, the section still remains almost totally uncited. Please do not remove specific cite tags. Note that a handful of news specials are not adequate to source the kind of language currently used in the section; if that's all there is to this, and no citable sources outside those specials can be found, I would recommend that the entire section be pared down to a single paragraph or two, and Ted Mayfield's name possibly omitted on WP:BLP concerns (it would be adequate to say, for instance, that "many news specials have speculated on the identity of the hijacker, including" yadda yadda, without naming Mayfield specifically. Naming someone as a potential suspect in a crime is extremely serious, and we shouldn't do it without strong and reputable sources. On its own, I do not think that Inside Edition qualifies, nor do local stations who were merely following their lead... it should be simple to find better sources, if genuine reasons to list Mayfield here exist. --Aquillion 07:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What are reputable "sources"? Print articles from magazines looking to pick up the latest story? Are you discounting the 7 year collaborative Zero-based investigative effort of two very well educated men? Why on earth do you not consider the lead FBI investigator for the Cooper Case, One Ralph Himmelsbach stating on television that he(Ted Mayfield) would have "been a logical suspect" except for the fact that he held steadfast to a profile that was inaccurate and he eliminated him? Are you disputing that he (Ted Mayfield) was even mentioned, as stated in the Wiki section, in Himmelsbach's book "Norjack: The investigation of DB Cooper"? Himmelsbach also stated that the only reason he eliminated him is that Teddy called the FBI the night of the heist, and he feels that he (Ralph Himmelsbach) is Ted's alibi. Are you disputing the investigative effort put forth by the team of Inside Edition in with Deborah Norville? Do you know anything about this case?

Zephyr99 02:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, this issue is still unresolved. Provide verifiable sources for the statements. You can't just say "per an interview on KOIN" because there is no way to verify that without more information. Like an episode number, a transcript etc, same goes with "an episode of Inside Edition". Even then, isn't Inside Edition a tabloid? Is it a verifiable source? I don't have a problem with the section if there are some REAL sources for it. --Chuck Sirloin 11:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that giving us the dates, or the episode numbers would allow users to reference the articles. Are there any written stories about this guy? Not that written stories are always more valid than those on the air. I remember the Newsweek article from 1972, in which they had an exclusive with Cooper. It ended up being a fraud, and cost an editor his job. On the other hand, 60 minutes, 20/20, etc. can all have some great investigative work. Was this story on a regular network news program, like an affiliate? I agree Inside Edition can be a tabloid, but, the guy did mention on the show that he knew he would be a likely suspect, given his criminal history. So, isn't he in a way, admitting he is a suspect?

So, I agree with both. If we can get some type of episode number, air date, etc, I don't see why this guy shouldn't be included. A written article would be nice, but not crucial. IMO, List is the most marginable on the suspect list, since he lived in New Jersey, and was an accountant at the time of the hijacking, and had no record, no military experience, and simply resembled one of the sketches of Cooper. I don't even remember his name associated with this case, but I am open to his name staying on the board. It's simply a "favorites" list. In addition, none of the suspects will be perfect, or the case would not be unsolved. We just need to make sure the suspects are valid, and referenced.

Canyouimagine? 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

---

The Inside Edition segment's original airdate was 5/21/2007. I don't know if celebrity entertainment programs meet Wikipedia's quality standards for sources though :) I don't know when the KOIN segments first aired. -- ReedHedges (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal aspect

I don't know if the regular editors want to see this added, but if Cooper is ever found, he can still face federal charges even though the statute of limitations would have normally run, since the government sought and was granted an indictment (without a real name) prior to the statute running.Oregon State Bar article Aboutmovies 06:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely: Great find Aboutmovies. I think it would be a great addition to this page, and this story, to include an excerpt explaining the indictment, and the possibility that Cooper could technically still be prosecuted. Of course, he would have to be alive, and the US Government would have to prove their case. I believe he was indicted under "absentia", aka, a "John Doe" indictment. Excellent find.

Canyouimagine? 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

weasel words - Richard McCoy Jr. section

This section has the following section: Supposedly, McCoy shot at the FBI agents and agent Nicholas O'Hara reportedly fired back with a shotgun, killing him. Other witnesses dispute this claim.

What does the "supposedly" and "reportedly" refer to? I mean, McCoy actually and truly died in this incident, right? How can his death be supposed? This isn't someone lost after jumping out of a plane, this is a shooting! So how is it "reportedly" that O'Hara fired back? How about this wording:

McCoy supposedly shot at the FBI agents, and agent Nicholas O'Hara fired back with a shotgun, killing him.

The "supposedly" part covers the alleged nature of McCoy's actions to me, we don't need the "Other witnesses dispute this claim" weaseling without any references. Jpp42 09:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with your idea. Hope you don't mind, but, I put the new terminology into the text. I think it is much more concise, and less confusing.

Canyouimagine? 06:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

John List

It has been noted that John List has denied he is DB Cooper. List was an accountant, with no priors, no record of skydiving, nor committing violent crimes, and was living in New Jersey in 1971. While List's wherabouts after his mass murder of his family in early November 1971, is unknown, we have no record or evidence he was ever in Oregon or Washington. It should be noted that List settled in Denver, CO and assumed a new name. List became a fry cook, lived in a trailer park, and showed no signs of a man who came into money. The description makes it sound like List used the 200k to pay off his debts. That never happened. There is no source that List even owed 200k, which in 1971, was close to 10-20 times the average salary in the United States, or in 2007 dollars, almost $800,000 - $1,000,000.

The FBI profile of Cooper, was a man most likely with skydiving background, criminal history, knowledge of Northwest, possibly a pilot or extensive knowledge of aviation terms, and possible military background. List had none of the above.

It also delves into the spectrum of listing suspects who are alive. While List is in prison, he is still technically alive. Given, this is simply a "favorites", and doesn't imply the guilt of a party, we need to be careful in listing suspects. Then again, anybody who was called into the FBI as a suspect since 1971, or any person that the FBI investigated is technically a suspect. I think we have lowered the bar, and risk ruining reputations, of both the dead and alive. Unless, of course, we have the FBI making statements on the record regarding someone would have made a good suspect.

Canyouimagine? 03:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

dead or alive?

So is he alive ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.205.72 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Im pretty sure hes alive mate. He might be living next door to you. Who knows? :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaked (talk • contribs) 09:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course he's alive. How else would he have posted on the discussion section of his own Wikipedia article at 02:36 27 September 2007? Quit kidding with us, you know you're him. Chicopac (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New suspect, Kenneth Christiansen

New York magazine has a new article that makes a compelling case for Kenneth Christiansen being the real D.B. Cooper. We will probably want to incorporate this into the WP write-up. http://nymag.com/news/features/39593/ BHC 06:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Tacoma News Tribune Article 10/24/07

It’s possible, according to an article in the Oct. 29 edition of New York Magazine that postulates that the man who jumped from a hijacked airplane 36 years ago over southwest Washington with $200,000 survived and lived out his life in this East Pierce County community of Bonney Lake.

here is the whole article http://www.thenewstribune.com/front/topstories/story/186323.html

Evidence details released

I added information to the article regarding evidence newly released by the FBI. This story and video can be used as a source for other information already in the article, like the clothes he was wearing, etc. http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_110107INK_cooper_chute_KS.1cbb87e02.html --Dan East 12:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Newly formed FAA???

In the section titled Vanished... it has a sentence

"Metal detectors were added to the airports by the airline companies and the newly formed FAA set a number of related flight safety rules in place."

FAA was created in 1958 according to Wiki article, So how was the FAA in 1971 a newly formed agency? Newly is a relatively subjective word, and I've come to expect better on Wiki.

75.30.181.188 (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Lefty

You know you could have fixed that, right? -- TJRC (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard McCoy, Jr., Supreme Court

I'm deleting the line "An appeal went all the way to the Supreme Court." There is no case from the US Supreme Court on this. The only source for this I could find is http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/mccoy/mccoy.htm, which says "McCoy appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied his petition on October 9, 1973."

Not to get hypertechnical, but this statement is an oxymoron. One gets to the Supreme Court either by appeal or by petition (petition for certiorari); it does not make sense to say that he appealed, and then his petition was denied. My guess is that McCoy petitioned (which is a way of asking a court to hear your case, even though the court is not required to do so), and SCOTUS turned down the petition, i.e., it never heard the case.

If this was what happened here, this is a pretty loose definition of "all the way to the Supreme Court." "All the way to the Supreme Court" usually is cited to show a case was important, because the Supreme Court doesn't usually get involved, and grants very few petitions. But if all we're talking about here is a denied petition, that's just some guy asking for something, and no indication of importance at all.

I'm striking the line. Unless someone can actually track down a Supreme Court case on this, let's leave it out. The URL cited above is probably in error, and there's no good reason for wikipedia to replicate that. TJRC (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC); updated 16:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

adjust for inflation?

I think it should be mentioned what $200,000 would be equivalent to today, when adjusted for inflation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, $200,000 in 1971 would have the same buying power as $1,037,911.11 in 2007. Maybe something like "the equivalent of over one million dollars today" should be added in the paragraph about his demands? It would put the amount into perspective. --PseudoChron (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I put it in as a footnote.. -- TJRC (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How much in euros? ^_^ Bradipus (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Using the 0.6853 currency exchange rate, the $200,000 is valued at €711,263.90. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Source to improve the article

It has new information and photos: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec07/dbcooper123107.html.

Hope this helps. Ra2007 (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DBCooper article.jpg

Image:DBCooper article.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

--TJRC (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The real Dan Cooper

fr:Dan Cooper is the name of a comics character, a canadian jet pilot, published in Tintin (magazine) between 1954 and 1977. He was the competitor of Buck Danny, who was published by Spirou (magazine). See this site. Bradipus (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep as "D.B. Cooper," not "Dan Cooper"

Someone has recently gone through and made a number of changes (some of which were mindless, not taking care if they affected links, and damaged the article) of "D.B." to "Dan" throughout this article, and then moved the page to match, with no prior discussion or attempt to gain consensus. I've reverted them.

I strongly oppose this mass-renaming. The hijacker is known as "D.B. Cooper," not "Dan Cooper." Yes, the name "D.B. Cooper" arises from a reporter error. So what? The name "Dan Cooper" is no more accurate; it is not the hijacker's actual name. Regardless or the origin of the label, the world knows this guy as "D.B. Cooper," and not "Dan Cooper."

The FBI's own web site, at http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/dbcooper.htm, uses the title: "D. B. Cooper". http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec07/dbcooper123107.html, too.

Headlines that refer to him by name consistently use "D.B. Cooper." I can find dozens. I don't think you can find one that calls him "Dan Cooper" (although that will always be mentioned in the article). Look at the footnotes and external links on this article:

• References:
  • FBI-D.B. Cooper Press Release, December 31, 2007
  • Norjak: The Investigation of D. B. Cooper.
  • D.B. Cooper's loot to be auctioned off
  • Investigators: FBI unveils new evidence in D.B. Cooper case
  • New York Magazine article on Ken Christiansen as D B Cooper suspect (actually entitled Unmasking D.B. Cooper)
  • FBI: Bonney Lake WA man not a viable D.B. Cooper suspect
• External Links:
  • "D.B. Cooper", The Columbian, 1989.
  • Crime Library: D. B. Cooper
  • FBI Files ("D.B. Cooper" if you follow the link)
  • Radio interviews about D.B. Cooper's identity with major authors (links to "D.B. COOPER - BYU Student?")
  • D.B. Cooper at Findagrave.com
  • Nov. 27, 1971, account of the hijacking in the Minneapolis Tribune (links to story entitled "Saturday, Nov. 27, 1971: The D.B. Cooper hijacking")
  • "Unmasking D.B. Cooper", New York magazine, October 29, 2007

No one calls him "Dan Cooper," regardless of whether he traveled under that name.

This change was just plain wrongity-wrong-wrong-wrong.

--TJRC (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with TJRC. He is more commonly known as D. B. Cooper, not Dan Cooper. As such, the article should be titled "D. B. Cooper". Nishkid64 (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If D.B. Cooper is to be renamed "Dan Cooper" on the basis of the airline booking, then some other wikipedia articles will also require similar remediation. The article Jesus needs to be renamed Yeshua ha Notsri; the article Leon Trotsky needs to be renamed Lev Davidovich Bronstein; and the article Bill Clinton needs to be renamed William Jefferson Blythe III. And "Dan Cooper" is every bit as much a pseudonym as "D.B. Cooper". Get with it, folks: the point of an encyclopedia is to make the subject accessible, not obscure. That's accomplished by using the name by which the subject is best known. Mothra (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, someone has taken the reverting too far: the article was changed to say "a man traveling under the name D.B. Cooper". Not true. He was traveling as "Dan Cooper". — Walloon (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia was to report the facts, not common misconceptions.  Randall Bart   Talk  06:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you asserting that his name was actually Dan Cooper? Or that there is an incorrect statement of fact in the article? TJRC (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It does report facts. It says that he is called D. B. Cooper by the public/media and that he called himself Dan Cooper on the airplane. This would be a great thing for anyone from the general public to read after they come to the D. B. Cooper page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.192.132.130 (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia have to conform to the common name? It doesn't make it any more convenient. A simple redirect, an explanation as is already provided and the use of the so-called (how I detest the term) "pipe trick" can maintain clarity and provide useful information. The "common" name of D. B. Cooper is not even a great change from Dan Cooper. Wikipedia was founded on the premise that the people ought to have a means of rectifying inaccuracies. Moreover, the use of D. B. Cooper is an insult to the innocent former suspect. --208.102.210.163 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is still an interesting side story that does require clairification. If anything you should refer to him simply as "Cooper" once establising this fact.Expat Justin (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Another new Suspect

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2377.html?theme=light

Apparantly a P.I. with a personal intrest in the case has been researching it. around thanksgiving he appeared on "Coast to Coast AM" and was talking about the case. he recieved some emails, including one from the 3 children and widow of a man who claimed to be B.D Cooper. the likeness to the composite sketch is closer than any other suspect. id add this myself, but im a wiki n00b. -68.146.198.244 (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)-

I move to have this added as well. The similarities are uncanny and there is no more reason to have Weber or Christiansen or anyone else than this, except possibly the name of the person. Is this photo technically public domain? Having it on the Cooper page might help to identify the man pictured, if anything. Either way it is noteworthy as having been discussed on a nationally syndicated talk show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panndder (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is a really interesting development. I don't know if anyone got to hear the coasttocoast radio show from Feb. 23, 2008, but attorney Galen Cook, who is investigating this suspect, had some great stuff. What was really interesting is that a caller got on and argued with Cook, saying that the man in the latest photo (on coasttocoastam.com) did not look like the drawings of Cooper, especially because the man in the photo has a nose that is too large (especially in respect to the one FBI sketch, which apparently resembles McCoy Jr.). But as the wikipedia article currently and correctly states, flight attendant Florence Schaffner has always felt that that sketch of Cooper (along with others) was inaccurate. If anyone has seen the 1988 Unsolved Mysteries episode on Cooper (it's available on youtube for now), they had Schaffner work with a sketch artist again to create another drawing. I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the drawing that she came up with for Unsolved Mysteries shows a man with a bigger nose than in some of the previous drawings and the result is an image of a man who looks VERY much (in my opinion) like the one in the photo featured in the above link to coasttocoastam.com. I suspect there will be updates on this latest suspect soon. Cook makes it sound as though he thinks this guy is THE guy and we could find out sometime in 2008. - Harry Yelreh 2:45 February 28, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 08:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that someone has changed the main article to say that this suspect was mentioned on "The MJ Morning Show" in February of 2007, rather than Coast2Coast in February of 2008. Is this information correct or has someone tampered with the article? Seanmhome (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture

On the Featured Article Candidate page, an editor commented "sections that use {{main}} should summarise the article it links to (like a lede summarise the article it starts)." I've done that to this section to address that objection. Having done this, I have no pride of authorship here. As I was finishing up, it occurred to me that maybe the best approach would be to just delete this section, and add D. B. Cooper in popular culture to the "See Also" section. I have no objection to having my little edit yanked in favor of this approach instead. TJRC (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of doing that. I will now remove the section and add it to the "See also" section. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 03:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that the preferred Wiki-way for these articles because I have seen "in popular culture" sections to articles before? I've just put a merge query on the talk page of the D. B. Cooper in popular culture article. --Gramscis cousin (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cooper's parachute possibly found?

Just came across this headline, not sure if it warrants an addition to the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23801264 Trvr3307 (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Already covered in the article. See D. B. Cooper#Recent developments. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 04:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this is potentially an astounding find, one that could eventually lead to a total breakthrough in the case - and thus warrant an eventual revamping of much of the wikipedia article. I would advise contributors to beware of some of the information that is coming across in the latest news articles. For example, one article I just read that discusses the new parachute discovery stated that the money found in 1980 was discovered in the mountains and also stated this: "The rest of the money was never found, but the FBI determined the bills were a match to the Cooper crime. However, the found chute throws the authenticity of those bills into question." The latter statement in that quote is as absurd as it is untrue. By the way, I'm not sure the current introduction to the article reads correctly when it talks about "three significant clues" having been found and then includes the found parachute in that discussion. As the intro goes on to say, the parachute at this point is only a "possible clue." At this point, it could be nothing; investigators are trying to find out if it's something. If and when it gets verified as something related to the case, then it can truly be included as a "significant clue."Harry Yelreh (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fresh off tonight's newscast: Parachute found in SW Wash not likely D.B. Cooper's The mystery continues... --Billdorr (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think we can expect an official statement from the FBI very soon to declare that the parachute is not Cooper's. When that happens, I'd suggest taking any mention of it out of the lead - as it will have been proven to be no clue with any significance related to the case - and then relegate it to a brief statement or two in the "recent developments" section.Harry Yelreh (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • [2] Seems like one of the experts doesn't think it belonged to Cooper. However, the FBI is still investigating, so I'll wait for an official press release. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't anyone noticed? The parachute is "pooh-poohed" at the top of the article, but further on, it is hinted that it is the real thing? 68.183.223.198 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I think some of us noticed. It was just a matter of figuring out the best way to clarify the situation. I tried to clean up the "recent developments" section in light of the announcement that the chute was not Cooper's. Nishkid, what do you think of the lead as it is? I think it's fine for now, as there are still news items coming out on the found chute. As stated above, eventually, if things continue to die down and no new major developments are announced, I think at some point it will be advisable to take any mention of the found parachute out of the lead, as it will have been relegated to just another dead end (out of many, many) in the case's history. Harry Yelreh (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good plan. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 04:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• I went ahead and changed the lead a bit, as no new info has arisen on the found chute, hardly any new media articles have come out on it in the last month and a half. Furthermore, the lead was basically repeating detailed information given later in the "Recent Developments" section. Harry Yelreh (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusing point in this article

Ingram was the 8-year-old boy who found some of the ransom money in 1980. The article states: "In 2007, Ingram announced that he planned to auction off the few bills that he still maintains in a bank vault." Are you telling me that the FBI does not seize the evidence of a crime --- and an unsolved crime, at that --- but that they just let Ingram keep the money? That makes no sense. Am I missing something here? Can someone please explain? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

• I believe the article used to explain that, after the FBI looked over the bills long enough and determined that they had all the info they needed (or could get, anyway), Ingram was allowed to keep a minority portion of the bills. I thought it was a good point to know. Who took it out of the article or why, I don't know.Harry Yelreh (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I do recall that bit of info being in the article. I'll see what happened to it. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I couldn't find it in any of the previous versions of the article, so I figure I read that in one of the references I used. I'll make a note of the circumstances to clarify this matter. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 17:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Nishkid64, according to the discussion that you had in nominating this as a feature article back on March 15, there's a part in the discussion that goes like this:

"Brian Ingram was eventually allowed to keep $2,860 of this money." - But is this sentence necessary for the lead at all?

• Removed. I didn't even notice that sentence. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The way it reads now, it sounds like the FBI allowed him to keep only 17 bills, doesn't it (even though, yes, as I understand it, that "17" is the number he was going to auction off)? According to various sources, they originally allowed him to keep $2,860 (143 bills).Harry Yelreh (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Hmm...so I did. I was looking for revisions in "Vanished without a trace" section, not in the lead. I will now add this back into the article in the "Vanished..." section. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Ah. Understood - thanks. It reads solidly now.Harry Yelreh (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  

---

Why would they let him keep $2,860 - what is so special about that number? Also, did he spend any of it - I would imagine the bills would be worth more than there face value (hence his auctioning off of his remaining bills)? - 121.208.90.191 (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

From the article here, it sounds like a sample of the bills were kept by the FBI as evidence; some were destroyed in the process of physically separating them; and of what was left, half went to the insurance company who underwrote NWA (who provided the ransom), and half went to the finder. I'm guessing that under applicable law there must be some 50/50 arrangement for finders of such a thing; $2860 is just a little under half of the $5880 found. TJRC (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recon Marine ?

This may sound crazy, but I distinctly recall some news talk (but admittedly dimly remembered details) in the early 1980s, of Cooper possibly being a former Force Recon Marine. The reason this sticks in my mind is my dad (he was ex-US Army SF) talking about it after the news blurb and remarking that "if Cooper was a Recon Marine, he definitely had a plan, or he wouldn't have jumped there and then..." (paraphrased)...
Conspiracy stories aside (smile), has anyone else heard Cooper was some sort of Marine commando - and is there any way to confirm?? Engr105th (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. The FBI, at one point, suspected that Cooper had some sort of military background. However, I have a feeling that they dismissed this theory for some reason (perhaps it was due to the fact that Cooper failed to check his parachutes before jumping). If he had a military background, he surely would have checked Also, one of the main suspects in the case, Richard McCoy, Jr., was a Green Beret helicopter pilot during Vietnam. There are many who think McCoy was the real D. B. Cooper; in fact, Bernie Rhodes and FBI agent Russell Calame coauthored a book called D.B. Cooper, the Real McCoy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent; thanks for that info...I was worried I'd mis-remembered it completely. I suspect the FBI suspicion is what Dad was talking about (it was a long time ago). Of course, it all came fom the mainstream news media, not inside info:)....Anyway, I haven't seen such a reference since, so I guess we can conclude the military connection is ultimately a non-factor...Engr105th (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Depends on whom you talk with. The FBI has generally concluded that Cooper most likely was not an experienced skydiver, but many investigators still think he was. Some still think that he had a military background of some sort, and he at the very least most certainly did have some knowledge about airplanes (based on his instructions to the pilots). Lead investigator Carr, among others, has stated his suspicions that Cooper possibly had been an aircraft crew member in the military but one who had little if any skydiving experience beyond seeing people skydive off military airplanes. Harry Yelreh (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  

Great info...Appreciate you posting that...of course, Cooper (or whoever he was) presumably grew up during the draft age, so some sort of military connection is not unreasonable. But it would take a specialist, as you allude to, to be able to use those skills for this kind of heist...Very interesting, either way...Again, I hate flaky (conspiracy) theories, but it seems implausible to me he would try that stunt without "a plan" as my Dad said long ago. Somehow it smacks of military training. I learned to Scuba dive several yrs ago (at age 40) and sky dived as well (only twice !) and both instructors made mention of how these "sports" had their antecedents in military training and had only beocme popular as 'recreation' in the 80s...food for thought...Engr105th (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I was just reading through this discussion again and wanted to clarify something. There is no proven "fact that Cooper failed to check his parachutes before jumping." The only fact that we have in this regard is that two of the four parachutes were left on board, and of those two, one of them was not the dummy chute. Many investigators have taken this to mean that Cooper took the dummy chute with him and therefore was not experienced or did not check the chutes. However, there is no fact that he did or did not check them. We can only guess, really. Frank Heyle, a survivalist expert often featured on DB Cooper TV specials, was quoted in Himmelsbach's book as saying that he himself would have taken the dummy chute with him because of all the survivalist uses for a parachute once you land. If you were familiar with parachutes, then you could tell that it was a sealed/dummy chute without too much examination and therefore be able to tell that the FBI hadn't put anything in it/tampered with it. Furthermore, the question has arisen as to why Cooper took the simple, hard-to-steer military-style chute rather than the more deluxe/sport model he left on board. Cossey himself has postulated that this is a sign that Cooper was an amateur. However, a navy parachuter recently called in to a radio talk show and said that it makes perfect sense that, if Cooper had military training, he would have wanted the military-style chute. A couple reasons for this: 1) he obviously would have been most familiar with such a chute, and 2) the military-style parachute that Cooper supposedly took was a much simpler parachute, with simpler rigging and general arrangement, than the sport model that got left on board. Because of this, it would have been much easier for him to check the military-style chute - to see that it was rigged properly, had not been tampered with, or didn't have some kind of FBI bug stuck in it - and then close it back up and actually use it. Just some things to think about. Harry Yelreh (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

FBI confirms parachute is not Cooper's - all mentions of it should be deleted

[3] 68.183.223.198 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be condensed, not removed entirely. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New Book

I've seen on the internet, including Amazon.com, a new book on the case, released in February 2008, entitled "D.B. Cooper: Portrait of an American Hijacker". There is no mention of this book on the page, although all other full length book regarding Cooper are mentioned (there aren't many of them). Does anyone know anything about this book? - 121.208.90.191 (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

News to me. I wasn't even aware that a new book on Cooper had been publisehd. I will add it to the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent developments section needs some checking

This edit seems to have gone unnoticed, and introduced at least some bad formatting if nothing else. --NE2 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This area does need some work, but the information seems to me mostly reliable. I personally knew the contact and things really seem to add up. The suspects name is William Pratt Gossett, although he officially changed his name to Wolfgang later in life. This name has just been released on the Depoe Bay Beacon's website. This section needs to be cleaned up and I propose that it should be moved to the list of suspects. --71.34.230.155 (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Woodland reference removed

I just removed , possibly over Woodland, Washington. from the first paragraph.

The cited source has a passing reference saying that many people believe he parachuted out near Woodland, but the apparently lazy reporter didn't cite a source in turn (in addition to the weaselly worded term). The information later in that article doesn't mention Woodland and there's a great deal of doubt, so these "many people" shouldn't be cited right at the top, certainly. Tempshill (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm ok with you doing that, but be careful. There are some theories that deal with Woodland. Galen Cook - the attorney behind the effort to unlock information on suspect Bill Gossett - has stated that there is controversy as to what side of I-5 the flight was on. If it was on the west side of I-5, it wasn't far from Woodland. I believe the Crime Library article on the internet also briefly discusses a theory mentioning Woodland. Harry Yelreh (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New suspect named

This newspaper article contains information about the identity of another suspect;
http://www.depoebaybeacon.com/news.asp?dtype=4&catid=6&recid=30
This is possibly the same topic raised above in the '38. Another new suspect' section.
Dean Armond 01:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

The lead of this article explains that the hijacker only called himself "Dan Cooper." Further on we read that he received the appellation "D.B. Cooper" as the result of a miscommunication to the press.

Still further, in reporting speculation about a possible suspect, the article tells us this:

Cook, in accordance with the family's wishes, has stated that the suspect had night jumping experience as a military paratrooper, and coincidently, had a brother named Dan, and his home town's initials (Depoe Bay) are D.B.

But surely the Depoe Bay 'evidence' is irrelevant, given the information in the lead. Can we clarify this somehow, or just remove it?

130.132.143.49 (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I made this a little clearer. At least it points out that he lived in Depoe Bay after the hijacking took place. --Billdorr (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That D.B. thing is indicative of the quality of the source and the whole section actually should be removed. Tempshill (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Libellous

Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous.

Might it not be a good idea to put some libellous material into the article, then when he turns up at court to sue, the FBI can arrest him? --86.164.126.9 (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What libel material is there about him? rootology (T) 02:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All known suspects in the case are deceased, and in the case of the most recent suspect (also deceased), his family contributed the bulk of the evidence so they would also be unlikely to bring a suit against the information. --Billdorr (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the guy above is suggesting we put libel in the article to force D.B. Cooper to emerge and sue Wikipedia, so the FBI can arrest him. In other words, he's making a joke. --136.165.78.65 (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Article should have been printed by now

In the "Recent developments" section, it says: "...all details about the suspect, including his name, would be released in the Oregon newspaper, The Depoe Bay Beacon, on May 28, 2008." This date has clearly passed, so does anyone know if the newspaper article has been published? I couldn't find anything online.--Dem393 (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.152.161 (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. http://www.depoebaybeacon.com/issues/Beacon%205-28-08WEB.pdf pages 16-17. 64.209.16.204 (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Better wording for sentence?

In the first paragraph of the Vanished without a trace section, it says, "An exact landing point was difficult to determine, as the plane was being battered by 200 mile per hour (322 km/h) winds at the time of Cooper's jump." I kind of did a double-take at this sentence, as those kind of winds are very highly unlikely at that altitude. While the sentence isn't inaccurate, what the source says is, "No experienced parachutist would have jumped in the pitch-black night, in the rain, with a 200-mile-an-hour wind in his face, wearing loafers and a trench coat," which I assume implies that the 200 mph wind was basically the speed the plane was going (which jives well with his requested speed).

I've been trying to think of a better wording for this sentence that is more accurate and less misleading, but I've been drawing a blank. Anyone have any ideas? Eric (EWS23) 04:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we just say "...as the plane was flying at a speed of 200 mile per hour (322 km/h) at the time of Cooper's jump"? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• We could say "about 200 miles per hour." Estimates of the exact speed of the plane at the time of the jump range from 160 mph to 200 mph. Known speeds and directions of the winds in the area at the time of the jump remain ambiguous - not to mention quite varying at different altitudes - and a subject of debate. Harry Yelreh (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured article

just thought i'd give credit to all the editors who've worked on this article - one of the best FAs i've read in ages. congratulations! :O) Onesecondglance (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is awesome. Extremely interesting! Toytown Mafia (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, even the "In popular culture" doesn't suck... usually those things are just a painfully trivial hodgepodge of jokes in cartoons and sitcoms that happened to mention the subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.165.78.65 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• If I may say so on behalf of everyone who has worked on it: thank you. This is a very difficult article to keep up with because so many details about the subject are imprecise, controversial, or flat-out unknown. Those of us who have studied the case for some time have tried to stay up to date and keep the information fresh and accurate while also accounting for the full scope of arguments, theories, debates, etc. Harry Yelreh (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Obcenities

Someone has gone through the article and sprinkled profanities in the text of several paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.150.24 (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of name

I had to read half-way through the main story just to get an answer to the question why he became known as D. B. I propose a stand-alone section that summarizes this (i.e. 1) his ticket 2) the press miscommunication). CapnZapp (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to cover this in the lead. Hopefully, this should make it easier for those looking for a quick answer. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tiny issue

I noticed the link to Northwest Orient Airlines goes to the Northwest Airlines article via a re-direct page. Isn't a direct link better? SlowJog (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed --Badgernet (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really; see WP:R2D. --NE2 19:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and?

"The widow of Richard McCoy, Karen Burns McCoy, reached a legal settlement with the book's co-authors and its publisher.[37]"

Ok, and what was it? And why? These seem like pretty important points that need to be stated. Maury (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Explanation added. Hope that answers your questions. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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 [4] is in fact the Wikipedia article. Nice to be able to pay for something you helped write for free, eh? See some discussion here [5]. Biographiq is Filiquarian Publishing [6] 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)