Talk:D. B. Cooper/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

New Suspect Proposed - Robert Rackstraw

There's a new documentary that began airing last night (July 10, 2016 US Eastern Time, 9pm) on the History Channel called D.B. Cooper: Case Closed? and will conclude tonight at the same time, and it proposes a suspect that isn't mentioned on this article, named Robert Wesley Rackstraw. I can't find too many internet sources myself but the doc has proposed some interesting things so far that make him seem more likely than some suspects mentioned here, but I felt I should give a heads-up to whoever enjoys researching Cooper and editing this article. Cheers! 2001:5B0:2441:94B8:D5A2:BA36:225F:7E6F (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Really? You reverted the edit? For not being able to find "too many internet sources" ? Wikipedia verifiability rules don't require an FBI statement - just reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source

Sources referencing the history channel show, and perhaps most importantly, original 1979 articles citing FBI sources as having talked to Rackstraw and having considered him a suspect.

Note Rackstraw's attorney has gone on record, denying the allegation, acknowledging that Rackstraw was a suspect.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20160711/NEWS/160719959

http://www.people.com/article/db-cooper-robert-rackstraw-denies-accusations-history-channel-documentary

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/robert-rackstraw-db-cooper-case-closed-documentary-culprit-who-is/

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/New-investigation-DB-Cooper-identity-california-8354778.php

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/db-cooper-cold-case-225405

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-d-b-cooper-case-investigation_us_5784a134e4b0ed2111d76e0f


Article from Spokane Daily Chronicle, Feb 3, 1979 - mentions rackstraw

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&dat=19790203&id=7jBkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HPkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1760,906685&hl=en

Article from Eugene Register-Guard, Feb 7, 1979 - mentions rackstraw

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19790207&id=rPJVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_uEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5250,1757839&hl=en


Rackstraw claimed in a trial on unrelated charges he was "cooper"

http://www.people.com/article/db-cooper-robert-rackstraw-denies-accusations-history-channel-documentary


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowster (talk • contribs) 21:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the fact that a television special was made specifically focusing on Rackstraw as a suspect is a good reason to add him to the list of suspects. The television special seems to have generated a lot of interest (e.g., typing "Robert" on Google today gives "Robert Rackstraw" and "Robert Wesley Rackstraw" as the two top suggested searches), and that interest seems to have resulted in a lot of coverage in further reliable sources beyond the special itself (such as the articles linked by Mowster above). It shouldn't be hard to cite reliable sources listing him as a suspect. I do want to note though that I watched the special, and the two experts who were evaluating the evidence (a former FBI assistant director and a crime journalist) ended up being doubtful that Rackstraw was D. B. Cooper. So while I think it makes sense to add him to the listed suspects because of the TV special, I also think it is important to note that the special concluded that he probably wasn't Cooper. Calathan (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
For me, it's more compelling to uncover two articles from 1979 that identify him as a suspect. The History Channel program seems to have simply surfaced a one-time suspect that was largely forgotten. If we're going to not list everyone who wasn't Cooper - there was only one culprit, after all - we'll need to narrow the suspect list down to one.

Mowster (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The Case Solved? documentary came to the conclusion that Rackstraw was not DB Cooper. It secured an interview with the flight attendant who spent most time with Cooper and she stated, having been shown a photo and video of Rackstraw talking, that he was not the hijacker. The FBI also ruled him out as a suspect as long ago as 1979. It is totally unnecessary to add him to the suspect list. aldiboronti (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have yet to see the program, as The History Channel in the UK did not run it. However, from what I understand the FBI ruled him out ages ago and I agree that is unnecessary to add him to the suspect list. I hope to catch-up with the documentary online soon. David J Johnson (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As we have discussed previously, the principal problem with the many TV documentaries on the Cooper case is that documentary producers are not held to any factual standards whatsoever. The fact that yet another let's-dig-up-some-old-rumors documentary was aired, and that some media reported that it aired, does not, per se, make this guy worthy of inclusion as a "serious" suspect. WP does not lead, it follows; we wait until sufficient citable source material accumulates before adding new content. It's not about "not listing everyone who wasn't Cooper"; it's about listing only those that are (or were, e.g. John List) considered viable suspects by citable sources over a long period of time. And as someone already pointed out, the consultants in the documentary in question eventually admitted that even they weren't persuaded that this guy was a viable suspect. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 08:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, I see it differently. First of all, I'm not sure that DoctorJoeE's standards for inclusion reflect any sort of Wikipedia-wide or sanctioned guidelines. Second of all, the History Channel program and the attendant media hype re-energize interest in the story, and send people looking for more info, including info about Rackstraw. It's equally valuable to the Wikipedia audience to find his name in the list with all the caveats - ruled out in 1979, documentary participants didn't think it was him, etc.

Mowster (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE, I don't think I agree with you. For one thing, I think some of the people we have listed as suspects currently have never really been considered viable suspects by the FBI (e.g., I don't think the FBI has ever said they considered Barbara Dayton a serious suspect). We are also listing people right now despite them being ruled out and having evidence showing they couldn't be Cooper (e.g., Ted Mayfield). We are listing those people because they received media attention naming them as a suspect. Robert Rackstraw apparently was a serious suspect at one point in the 1970s, and has received significant news media coverage as a possible suspect both in 1979 and now. Perhaps an argument could be made that we are already listing too many potential suspects, but it doesn't seem consistent to list the people we have now and not also include Rackstraw. You say that we should we should wait until there is "sufficient citable source material" available, but that seems to be exactly what has happened now. It isn't our place to judge which suspects we think really are good candidates, but only to report which suspects the media has given attention to, and now that the media is giving attention to Rackstraw as a suspect I think we need to mention him. Calathan (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
"think"? Either you agree or don't agree with DoctorJoeE. Personally, I do not want to see Rackstraw added to the list of potential suspects. Surely, the History Channel knew full well that Rackstraw had been discounted as a subject many years ago and this was an attempt to improve their ratings. I do not see any recent "citable" sources - apart from this television program - for Rackstraw: the other suspects have all been mentioned as possible candidates in recent times and have references to support their inclusion. David J Johnson (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Several of the other people listed have been mentioned as possible candidates in recent times by relatives, acquaintances, or amateur sleuths, and then the news media has covered those claims, providing reliable sources to cite. That is exactly the same thing that has happened here. You say that there aren't any citable sources besides the documentary, but what is the news coverage if not citable sources? The documentary itself is a citable source, and then the news coverage are citable sources, and together they are plenty of coverage to mention him in the article. I'm completely baffled by why you would say there aren't sources, because there certainly are sources. Calathan (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the bar of inclusion set by previous editors, I think the History Channel suspect should be included. 2601:151:C301:1D90:6C18:FD1:8C5D:A642 (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The suspects included in this article are the ones who have stood the test of time; they have been consistently mentioned by a succession of reliable sources over a protracted period. Rackstraw is a flash in the pan; he was proposed as a suspect in 1979, eliminated, and forgotten until the History Channel decided to dig him up last month. A month from now he'll be forgotten again. If I'm wrong, and he doesn't disappear from the literature, then by all means, let's include him. An entry on him right now, though, would essentially be a description of the HC documentary, since there has been no independent coverage of him in the interim, and that fails WP:N -- and smells of WP:PROMO. So I vote against -- and if it turns out that I'm wrong about his notability, I will say so. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
A printed source has been added - his name has come up more than once. He's notable. Please get it a bit a time, rather than being a deletionist... 2601:151:C301:1D90:6C18:FD1:8C5D:A642 (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The source you cited appears to be a promo for a book. The documentary does not reach the conclusion that your summary says it does. This all smacks of WP:PROMO -- WP is not here to promote books or documentaries. Please address some of the problems raised by me and others above, rather than edit warring. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Please itemize those concerns, as I see that they have all been addressed. 2601:151:C301:1D90:6C18:FD1:8C5D:A642 (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Concerns have been itemized, you can read them above. I'm withholding further comment until I receive and read the book -- but in the past, attempts have been made to use this article to promote book sales, and I'd like to be sure that this is not one of those situations, as opposed to a serious attempt to improve the article. There are also significant notability concerns, as already mentioned. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Update: I've read the book (another collection of circumstantial evidence and dubious associations), so I'm going to modify this section to better reflect the source material -- and to make it look less like an ad for the book & documentary. As time permits, I'm also going to add a short section about the four mysterious letters -- something I've always hesitated to do, since there is no evidence that any were genuine -- but since more & more sources have referenced them of late, it now seems an appropriate addition. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I added information to the article on Rackstraw that I formatted in my sandbox. Please let me know if there are any formatting issues that I may have caused when adding the information to the article. I was thinking of adding a separate page for this guy but I am not sure how the standards work for that. Many of the listed suspects do not have their own page so I thought best to simply add the information here first. The image I added was a comparison of the D.B. Cooper sketch and the Army ID of the suspect. I am not sure if I did that correctly either so any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papapeel (talk • contribs) 18:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

While I am definitely in favor of having a section on Rackstraw in the article, I don't think I agree with your expansion of that section. He isn't the most prominent suspect, and we don't want to give him undue weight compared to other suspects. Also, they way you've written the section, it seems to be implying he is a fairly strong suspect, when in fact the FBI has concluded he isn't D.B. Cooper and the History Channel special also basically came to the conclusion that he wasn't Cooper. I definitely don't think he deserves his own article, as he isn't notable separately from the D.B. Cooper case. Calathan (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I quite agree. Many guideline violations could be invoked, but WP:UNDUE is the main one. I also agree that there is no justification for a separate article on him until or unless he is shown to be Cooper, or at the very least, a lot of additional convincing evidence in favor of that possibility comes to light. Per WP:BRD, I'm reverting the section. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

By reverting my three minor edits back to the wrong flight attendant, the suspect's wrong age at time of jump, and the wrong escape that first caught the Cooper task force's attention (even with each correction pulled from articles already numbered and entered in reference), today's editor appears to display no interest in the actual facts, let alone history. Very sad47.148.57.13 (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Thomas J. Colbert, 19:22, 19 December 2016

Please see note on your talk page. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
DoctorJoeE, really appreciate you reconsidering most of my Rackstraw edits -- I take back the "no interest" line. I may have a COI, but I'm a stickler for facts -- good or bad to my cause (CBS News training). In that regard, here are my 3 last edit points: Point #1) I read that you have my book, The Last Master Outlaw: On Page 240, please see Note 12 which documents the TINA MUCKLOW History Channel interview. Point #2) I have Calaveras County Superior Court Judge Joseph S. Huberty's 5/4/78 Bail Petition Ruling, which states Rackstraw "FLED THE UNITED STATES to Iran, which has no treaty of extraditon...in anticipation of criminal prosecution against him." In addition, an old Stockton Record clipping (1/26/78; Bag of clippings discovery noted in book, Preface page x, Note 17) which states officials arrived at his home with warrants on 12/22/77; neighbors told them he packed up and left on 12/9. Finally, Point #3) I have a Stockton Record clipping (2/3/79) that states "FBI agents questioned Rackstraw about about being D.B. Cooper when they ARRESTED HIM AS HE STEPPED OFF THE PLANE IN NEW YORK AFTER BEING DEPORTED FROM IRAN (per the FBI's request). He reportedly demanded an attorney and the questioning on the subject was halted." Thanks again for your patience, DrJE -- I'll be forwarding you the court bail document, the 2 noted clippings, and my literary attorney's vetting letter on the book (for your scrutiny), all via Check Six, who I have conversed with before. Sorry, but I don't have the mindspace or time to learn how to post them myself. 47.148.57.13 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Thomas J. Colbert
Still waiting for this material. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, DoctorJoeE, I posted details on 2/20/17, obviously wrongly, because it vanished! Here's the rewrite:

I've added a new button on top of DBCooper.com homepage, "Research," for your scrutiny, and if you feel so inclined, to post among your article's "Footnotes." These are the key 30 materials (most originals) and photos that have been gathered for our coming federal court motion, delivering to judge in March. Now, regarding my 12/22/16 Three Points: Point 1) Tina Mucklow: Here's a newspaper link, listing her as stewardess in History Channel interview (towards bottom):

http://www.dailyastorian.com/Local_News/20160712/did-db-cooper-visit-astoria

Point 2) Calaveras County Superior Court Judge Joseph S. Huberty's 5/4/78 Bail Petition Ruling ("fled the United States"): It's the 20th of 30 materials under DBCooper.com's new "Research" button. Point 3) Stockton Record Clipping, 2/3/79 ("arrested him after he stepped off the plane in New York"): It's the 17th of 30 materials (2nd page of 3-page PDF article) under my "Research" button. Appreciate your patience, Doc, all the best 47.148.57.13 (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Thomas J. Colbert

Article issues affecting the FA status

YouTube links are used, most of them copyright violations. One link is dead; I tried searching it at Internet Archive, but its Wayback Machine "excludes" (i.e. doesn't save) it. Most importantly, a recent investigation about Cooper might affect the quality of the article. One sentence was tagged as "Quantify". I don't know whether the article has BLP issues, but the article has one section about possible suspects. An FBI report is cited for one information, which might have OR issues. This needs fixing. --George Ho (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I see one edit was reverted. George Ho (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE and Anthony22: Thoughts about my concerns? George Ho (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Over the years that I've been involved with this article, I've deleted or replaced many citations that did not meet WP criteria, as have other involved editors. The article still contains a few YouTube links; there is no blanket ban on such links, as I'm sure you know. If there are specific citations that you are concerned about, please share them, and I will look into fixing them as time permits. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. The "Ted Mayfield" section claims, "[Daniel] Dvorak died in 2007." The information is cited by a discussion forum and Crestleaf.com; neither source seems reliable. Mayfield's "death" is cited by a blog The Mountain News, powered by Wordpress. The rest of the "Suspects" section may need trimming of unnecessary details, including ones that may violate the BLP policy. George Ho (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, the "Robert Rackstraw" section mentions a book and History Channel program (a documentary?). Would potentially be too sensational or contentious. George Ho (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I've addressed the Dvorak issue before -- I cited the blog post, even though it bends the rules slightly, because it was written by Dvorak's partner Myers, and offered a clear, concise explanation. (This falls under WP:COMMONSENSE.) I added a second cite for Dvorak's death. There are other sources for Mayfield's death; I'll run them down as soon as I can get to it. I don't see anything in the suspects section that could be construed as a BLP violation; and anyway, the only listed suspect still alive is Rackstraw. The Rackstraw section has already been discussed at some length, above. I've already trimmed it considerably, taken out the promotional stuff, and made it as uncontentious as I could, despite the efforts of others (including one of the book authors) to the contrary. The fate of that section may well depend on the outcome of the Freedom of Information suit, which could take quite a while to resolve. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I tagged the YouTube link of the local TV station clip as copyright violation. It seems like a recorded personal copy of the segment. I could not tag the other because this guy claims to be the producer of the Inside Edition segment. George Ho (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Richard Lepsy

I recently added Richard Lepsy as a suspect, including about three paragraphs. This was then heavily narrowed down, citing "marginal notability" and "zero hard evidence". Conveniently, the bulk of the fair amount of evidence/similarities was deleted in the edit. I feel the change was one based on the editor's personal opinion, rather than objectively looking at the facts and the numerous similarities between Lepsy and Cooper. I am not proposing that Lepsy was Cooper but I feel that there are enough circumstantial facts to put his inclusion on the list is beyond any doubt, especially when compared to other suspects with a weaker case. IMO the notability is not hugely relevant, as if a new suspect emerges with considerable similarities, of course they are not going to be historically notable but it is still worth including them. And there are dozens of recent articles about Lepsy's possible link.

I am disappointed at how the Lepsy addition was heavily shortened to remove all of the convincing similarities, and how the three paragraphs were judged to be too long, despite other - less convincing - suspects having longer descriptions. I appreciate feedback and understand I can be verbose - I will keep it concise but will re-add the more obvious similarities which were deleted to support the "zero evidence" comment, such as the identical tie + pin and the physical features and demeanour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidStories (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

So, what's the evidence? (1) Lepsy disappeared 2 years before the hijacking; (2) his family says he looked like the hijacker; (3) his work uniform was similar to what Cooper was described as wearing. That about sums it up, yes? Lepsy has been discussed here before (see archives), and consensus was that without something in the way of credible/tangible evidence or mention in reliable sources, we could not justify including him. Now, we at least have some RS -- but still nothing in the way of real evidence. Not one thing links him to the Cooper hijacking, other than what his family members have said to some reporters. So, while a good argument could be made that he doesn't belong in the article at all, I left in the basics on the strength of the RS material, tenuous as it is.
New suspects are always added by someone who sincerely believes that they have found the real Cooper; our job as editors is to pare those new additions down to reasonable length, based on notability and credible evidence. Please do not re-add extraneous material on this suspect unless you can gain consensus here for doing so. And please sign your posts. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
So now, MorbidStories, I see that you have gone ahead and started adding back material, despite my request that you gain consensus here before doing so. I'll wait to see if others agree that the content you added back is redundant, adds nothing to what is already there, and makes the similarities (such as they are) no more convincing. I'm also interested in why anyone believes that this guy would still be wearing the same clothes he disappeared in, 2 years later; if anything, that's an argument against his involvement. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
No one needs your - or anyone else's - permission or consensus to contribute to an unlocked Wikipedia article. That goes against the ethos of Wikipedia. You quote: "New suspects are always added by someone who sincerely believes that they have found the real Cooper". Not in this case. I am not convinced it is Lepsy but having read the entire article, there are more potential links to him than for some other candidates listed, so it seems reasonable enough to add him. I am not arguing one way or another as to who Cooper was, simply adding sourced information. Regards, User:MorbidStories. —Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point. While it is true that you don't need consensus to add content to an article, you do need consensus for it to remain. Nobody owns an article or its content. WP:BRD applies here; you were bold, and you were (partially) reverted, so now we discuss it, before you start unilaterally adding material back. The information you added back is already in the article. "Physical features" include eye color, hair color, and height, yes? Articles of clothing include his tie and tie clasp, do they not? So your add-back is not, IMO, an improvement to the section. And I don't get your reasoning that physical appearance and clothing constitute "more potential links" than other suspects. I'm also bothered by the Twilight Zone-ish aspects -- that this guy would emerge out of nowhere, wearing exactly the same clothing he wore when he disappeared 2 years prior, hijack a plane, and vanish again into oblivion. It's unencyclopedic at best, pure fantasy at worst, in the absence of more substantial evidence -- some sort of parachuting experience, for example, or eyewitness testimony, or a criminal record at the very least. Thank you for manually signing your post -- but if you do it by typing four tildes, the date will be added as well. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that this discussion has gone off topic. Wikipedia is not a place to sort theories, but instead, a place to mirror information which is presented in the best sources. Space in an article is given in proportion to the influence of the weight of each source. The discussion about evidence is misplaced because Wikipedia is not a place to discuss the subject of an article. If a great source gives no evidence but everyone accepts it, then that gets lots of weight here. If a lower quality source gives great evidence but it is not accepted, then it treated as fringe here. Instead of telling the story, put the information in context of the authority of the source and decide how much weight to give that source.
If there are multiple sources describing the "Richard Lepsy" theory then it might meet WP:N and have its own article, in which anyone can add all the content without regard to what is WP:UNDUE here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
If someone wants to create a separate article, be my guest (but good luck getting it through AfD). I was soliciting comment on whether the content that was added back was redundant or not -- whether "physical features" was sufficient, or if it was necessary to specify eye color, hair color, and height, for example. As to allotting space or hierarchy of importance within an article "in proportion to the influence of the weight of each source" -- when I tried to make a similar argument here some months ago, I was told that there was no objective measure that could be used to determine such things. Is there? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
With regard to quantity and quality of sources, I forgot to add that the central source for this suspect is one self-published book; the only reason he can be included in the article at all is that a few RS newspapers picked up the story -- as they always do when a new suspect is proposed, whether or not there is hard evidence (or logic) to support it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

دن کوپر؛ یکی از عجیب ترین و پیچیده ترین معماهای تاریخ اف بی آی ؛ داستانی که هنوز حل نشده و گمانه زنی ها درباره آن همچنان ادامه دارد...

📚روز چهارشنبه مصادف با ۲۴ نوامبر سال ۱۹۷۱ میلادی، مردی به نام «دَن کوپر» یک بلیط یک طرفه ۲۰ دلاری از پورتلند به سیاتل را خریداری کرد. این تازه آغاز ماجراست و ادامه داستان شما را شوکه خواهد کرد.

کوپر در حالی سوار هواپیما شد که کت و شلوار و پالتوی سیاه به تن داشت و یک چمدان و پاکتی کاغذی همراه خود آورده بود. وی پس از نشستن روی صندلی هواپیما، نوشیدنی سفارش داد.

وی در ادامه یادداشتی به یکی از خدمه پرواز داد، اما او بدون نگاه کردن آن را در جیب خود گذاشت. کوپر از مهماندار درخواست کرد که نامه هرچه سریعتر را بخواند. در کاغذ نوشته شده بود که وی یک بمب همراه خود دارد.

او یک لیست از خواسته هایش را نوشت و به مهماندار داد. ۲۰ هزار دلار پول نقد قرار داده شده در کوله پشتی، دو عدد چتر نجات پشت و دو عدد چتر جلویی، از خواسته های کوپر بودند. وی همچنین گفته بود که هنگام فرود هواپیما، یک تانکر سوخت برای سوخت گیری مجدد حضور داشته باشد.

درخواست عجیب دیگری که کوپر مطرح کرد، این بود که تمام وجه نقد درخواستی به صورت اسکناس های ۲۰ دلاری تامین گردد. هنگامی که هواپیما فرود آمد، وی ۳۶ نفر از مسافران را با پول و چترهای نجات معاوضه کرد. او برخی از خدمه را نگه داشت و سپس به سمت مکزیکو سیتی پرواز نمود.

کوپر از خلبان هواپیما درخواست کرد که در ارتفاع کمتر از ۱۰ هزار پا پرواز نماید. او در نمیه دوم پرواز از عینک آفتابی استفاده نمود. همین ویژگی بعدها در نقاشی که از صورت وی کشیده شد، به کار رفت.

هنگامی که هواپیما در جایی بین سیاتل و منطقه رنوی نوادا قرار داشت، کوپر همراه با چترها و پول از درب جلو به پایین پرید و دیگر هیچگاه دیده نشد. وی قبل از پریدن گیره کرواتش را درآورد و همین وسیله تنها موردی بود که محققان توسط آن می توانستند دی ان ای کوپر را تشخیص دهند. آن ها به دقت تمام هواپیما را گشتند، اما تنها کاری که قادر به انجام آن بودند، این بود که شماره سریال اسکناس های داده شده به کوپر را رهگیری نمایند.

هشت سال بعد، پسری جوان یک بسته پوسیده حاوی ۵۸۰۰ دلار وجه نقد را پیدا نمود. شماره سریال آن ها با پول های داده به کوپر مطابقت داشت. اف بی آی تمام سواحل اطراف را به دقت جستجو کرد، اما نتوانست چیزی پیدا کند.

طی سالهای آینده، نامه های زیادی به اف بی آی فرستاده شد و ادعاهای زیادی مبنی بر مرگ او و یا آن که برادرش پیدا شده مطرح گشت.

در طول فرایند تحقیقات، بیش از ۸۰۰ نفر مضنون مورد بازجویی قرار گرفتند و تمام آن ها به غیر از ۲۴ نفر تبرئه شدند. البته این کار فایده ای نداشت و ظاهرا آقای کوپر با هیچ از مظنون ها در ارتباط نبود. خدمه پروازی که وی از طریق او درخواست هایش را مطرح کرد، مجرم را مردی حدودا ۴۰ ساله با ۱۸۳ سانتیمتر قد و چشم های قهوه ای توصیف نمود.

گرچه اف بی آی در آن زمان قادر به شناسایی او نبود، اما بر اساس قانون هابز که هیچ محدودیتی نداشت، کوپر هنوز هم می توانست تحت تعقیب قرار بگیرد. بنابراین اگر کوپر اصلی پیدا می شد، می توانست تحت پیگرد قرار بگیرد.

نکته جالبی که باید به آن پرداخته شود، این است که کوپر تنها نام مکزیک را برای فرود بیان کرد. همین مسئله احتمال داشتن هم دست روی زمین را به صفر می رساند.

کارشناسان بعدها اعلام کردند به نظر می رسد فردی که از هواپیما به پایین پریده، مهارت چندانی در این زمینه نداشته است؛ هرچند که در چنین مواردی فردی که پریده احتمالا کشته خواهد شد، اما جسد آقای کوپر هیچگاه شناسایی نگشت.

فرضیه دیگری که از سوی گروهی موسوم به «کاراگاههان شهروندان» مطرح شد، این بود که کوپر یکی از کارمندان بوئینگ بوده است. آن ها با قرار دادن جزئیات پوشش و لباس آقای کوپر کنار یکدیگر و تطابق دادن آن ها با موارد مشابه، دریافتند که تنها در شرکت بوئینگ می توان این موارد را در همان زمان مشاهده نمود.

علی رغم تحقیقات وسیع صورت گرفته و تشکیل پرونده های زیاد با انبوهی از اطلاعات، هنوز مشخص نیست که واقعا چه اتفاقی رخ داده و یا آنکه دن کوپر چه کسی بوده است. این ماجرا به عنوان یکی از طولانی ترین و خسته کننده ترین پرونده های اف بی آی شناخته می شود. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abtin336 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on D. B. Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Composite Cooper drawing

It's worth mentioning that Florence Schaffner was very skeptical of the FBI sketch of Cooper. I saw an old Unsolved Mysteries on the hijacking last night, in which Schaffner is interviewed extensively, and she clearly states that drawings we've all seen and associate with Cooper is "not his real face". I'm sure she must have said many other times and that there is a good source for it. Seems pretty important to leave out, given she interacted the most with Cooper during the heist. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 13:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on D. B. Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on D. B. Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Claim

The claim that Cooper did not notice a non-functioning parachute is still there.

See 140.90.47.70, who seems to be an expert.
I suspect that the FBI are trying to frighten other hijackers with a silly lie.
Firstly, sign all your contributions and do not add your personal opinions without quoting reliable sources. Please see your Talk page. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Letter released about Nov 20. 2017

The news media has been reporting on a recently-released letter, ostensibly from Cooper, see http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/D-B-Cooper-Seattle-FBI-cover-up-evidence-12357487.php It seems to me that there should be some mention of that in this article. Epanue (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it is wise to await further developments, rather than jumping-in on initial reports. David J Johnson (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on D. B. Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Article introduction

As a guest, I just wanted to suggest a slight modification to the opening paragraph's statement: " ..the FBI nonetheless continued the hunt for Cooper until 2016, when he would have been 90 years old." It seems that the word "approximately" should be added before Cooper's age, because the current phrasing implies that the unidentified hijacker's exact age is known, which is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.70.203 (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added the word "about" to the age.
The CIA are mentioned. Much of Cooper's knowledge was easily acquired in the Air Force or the like.
See comments in next section. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


I am curious as to opening statement which states "knowledge that was virtually unique to the CIA". This CIA connection does not seem to be supported anywhere else in the article? Bryanm61 (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Further, when I first read it I thought it was unclear as to what 'knowledge' was virtually unique to the CIA. I've proposed a clarification that some have attributed his daring jump as indicative of potential military or espionage training. Scotty.tiberius (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The offending line should be taken out, unless someone can find a reliable source/reference. David J Johnson (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the sentence discussion of jumping out of the plane with the ransom money is valuable, just the CIA portion should become parenthetical or be deleted. Scotty.tiberius (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on D. B. Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on D. B. Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Name of article

Since the Highjacker went by the name "Dan Cooper" never referring to himself as "D.B. Cooper" shouldn't the article be named "Dan Cooper (highjacker)" or something along those lines? John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 04:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

We go by what ever the most common name is.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert Rackstaw identified as D.B. Cooper

Numerous media sources are reporting Robert Rackstraw as DB Cooper, based on a letter to a newspaper:

https://www.oregonlive.com/expo/news/erry-2018/06/cc9c62a1082655/the_real_db_cooper_provided_en.html

I think this should be added someway to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piercebutler1927 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)



I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4E70:CFB0:88AD:951C:4B7:C4F6 (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Aftermath | Airport Security Section

The final sentence of this section mentions that only 2 hijackings occured in 1973, and goes on to indicate that one of them was Samuel Byck. But the Saumel Byck hijacking attempt occurred in 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:8880:66A5:340A:C1E9:6B23:2605 (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

New suspect identified by Oregonian in November 2018

A new suspect named William J. Smith (died in 2018) was identified by The Oregonian in November 2018, and the story was carried by a number of other news outlets. Should this suspect be considered to possibly be added to the list sometime in the future? The compelling piece of the article was the similarity between the sketch of the hijacker and the suspect. A FindaGrave link was added to the comments section with some information on him. Article linke is https://www.oregonlive.com/expo/news/erry-2018/11/e18eba2aa14557/new-suspect-in-db-cooper-skyja.html SidG887 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Request Admin Review: Last update on Sheridan Peterson

Editors or Admins-Please review the 9 DEC 2018 addition of Sheridan Peterson for the following reasons: 1. It falls under the Biographies of Living Persons Policy (BLP) and may require scrutiny, and verification with the living individual. 2. User cites a self-published source (his own writing from a web entry) and does not provide link to source document. 3. Photo of suspect is not cited. Copyright concerns could be raised. 4. Reliability of sources (Smokejumper newsletter). 5. Information is cited from an article in a small local newspaper. 6. Multiple edits were made about Sheridan Peterson by same editor (Ericulis) on 16 June 2018 and reverted multiple times. KatDales (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes made by Ericulis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the grounds that the alterations were self-published material, there were copyright violations on the pic and there were unreliable sources - You Tube and hearsay remarks. This person has been warned before on these matters. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it Tina Bar or Tena Bar?

The spelling is inconsistent throughout the article. 65.183.99.20 (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The entire ransome seems to be at that location but pulverised by dredging judging by the FBI agent accounts of minced fragments of banknotes for several feet down around the bills that were found, but the article does not mention this.Overagainst (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it really a mystery

Has know body ever thought that this high jacking was planned and exercised by the US authorities to remove someone working with them that either had gotten lost in a mission and it wasn’t very well thought out or to remove someone that was a valuable source to their purpose. Matsfineline (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh please - not "conspiracy theories" without any back-up for this event!! David J Johnson (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Some kind of CIA connection is likely because apart from their paramilitary units virtually no one else knew about the peculiarities of the plane making it good for parachuting from. The stewardess said he had olive skin. FBI didn't think he was dead judging by the agents that remained on his case for decades. The search (official and bounty hunters) did not find a body or parachute most likely because there was none, and the FBI deactivated the search because he would be likely be dead of old age--he was in his 40s according to the strew, although the article skates over that detail. Overagainst (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Why? Most folk at the time were aware that the 727 had a rear door. No body: why? unless he survived. And what does "olive skin" mean? Conspiracies again - no thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
"No body: why? unless he survived", well he is certainly dead or debilitated by now, he'd be pushing 90 years old. Not even the hijacked pilots knew it could be safely flown with the rear door down. The article certainly should mention the stewardess said he was in his 40's and had olive skin (as can be seen from the FBI artist impression) because that is more pertinent that the 13 suspects that help push the article out to its current ridiculous length. The lede is also bloated and disconnected. It is a very important fact left unmentioned that the the FBI had the serial number of every ransom bill, and none of it was ever spent. Both local law enforcement and an FBI agent who saw the sand bank where some ransom bills were said it looked like the bulk of ransom was down there minced up into tiny fragments, but the article does not so much as hint at that either. The article is full of reasoning from selected facts rather than encyclopedic content, and it is far too long.Overagainst (talk)

Theory added by 71.54.201.147

I reverted the large addition by 71.54.201.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as original research. The addition was interesting but, as far as I can tell, unsupported conjecture. It is possible the content was in a reliable source but uncited. I include it here for discussion:


There were two citations appearing but they were not added at the same time.

  1. ^ "DB Cooper Vault". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved July 26, 2018.
  2. ^ "Update on Investigation of 1971 Hijacking by D.B. Cooper". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved July 12, 2016.

Much—if not most—of the text seems plausible. But flying south from SEA along V23 overflies many more sensible landing locations than the Columbia River, such as the farming communities between Brooks (Oregon) and Mount Angel, or the same near Olympia. A night river landing is a high risk undertaking without ground support. —EncMstr (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert. Unfortunately, most of the text placed by the IP was not sourced or referenced and was poorly placed regarding Wikipedia style. Whilst interesting, it does appear to be WP:OR, unless the author can supply reliable, secondary sources for all the points they were trying to insert. My view is to support the reversion, unless valid references can be supplied. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Ordering a drink

Part way into the article is says this "He ordered a second bourbon and soda, paid his drink tab (and attempted to give Schaffner the change)" There is not a point in the article that says he ordered a first drink. He did in fact order a drink shortly after sitting down (bourbon and 7-UP). If someone wants to add that in, please do. Call it a Bourbon and Soda or Bourbon and 7-Up. If not, I'll get to it at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwnoone1 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Rackstraw's FBI Death File Revelations

Editors: Thank you for entering Robert W. Rackstraw's 7/9/19 passing. With due respect, I suggest you consider updating what happened 9 weeks later in federal court: The release of his FBI "death file." Two British publications -- Daily Mail (NYC pub version) and Daily Express -- both studied FBI agents' own memos and 302s, then pulled quotes and posted copies of pages. The Daily Mail concluded he was the "prime suspect for the bureau." Daily Mail also posted/highlighted the top 15 FBI pages at end of its web article. I note you've included other so-called tabloids in your DBC Wiki references (Telegraph and NY Daily News), would hope you'd consider these articles too. Posting both paper URLs and FBI website URL -- in case you'd like to read original bureau documents:

[1] [2] [3]

Thank you for your scrutiny and consideration47.148.49.216 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Thomas J. Colbert

References

  1. ^ Daily Mail, "New files 'prove' that the FBI covered up the identity of DB Cooper" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7472345/New-files-prove-FBI-covered-identity-DB-Cooper.html
  2. ^ Daily Express, "DB Cooper found? How FBI files 'reveal' plane hijacker was CIA operative Robert Rackstraw" https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1179927/db-cooper-found-plane-who-is-fbi-files-cia-robert-rackstraw
  3. ^ FBI "Rackstraw's Released File; Part 40, Pages 364-417" https://vault.fbi.gov/D-B-Cooper%20/d.b.-cooper-part-40-of-44/view

Did DB Cooper survive?

The second paragraph of the DB Cooper Wiki entry states:

"Available evidence and a preponderance of expert opinion suggested from the beginning that Cooper probably did not survive his high-risk jump, but his remains have never been recovered."

The source for this comment is the FBI website: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2007/december/dbcooper_123107, it states on that page:

"As many agents before him, Carr thinks it highly unlikely that Cooper survived the jump. “Diving into the wilderness without a plan, without the right equipment, in such terrible conditions, he probably never even got his chute open.”"

In this case, it seems that expert opinion is actually the FBI's opinion. If the FBI are the only experts, then the comment should state something like "FBI experts suggested that...."

There are other experts out there, many who have edited this page and offered information on suspects such as Robert Rackstraw and Walter Reca. 12 of the 13 suspects listed here on Wiki all survived that day, yet this article begins off by saying DB Cooper died. Why would the FBI investigate close to 1,000 suspects if DB Cooper had died? Where is the body? Where is the majority of the money? Available evidence actually does not indicate that he died.

The DB Cooper forum is a closed forum (only members can post). Many of the members on there have consulted with the FBI on the case and are well respected. A survey on the forum was taken asking if people thought Cooper lived or died. 58% said they were 75% or more certain that he lived. Another 23% were 50/50 on whether he lived or died.

A suggestion I can offer is to consult individuals who know about the case outside of what is on Wikipedia. Then determine what statement should be made about him living or dying.

At a minimum, the statement on Wiki is not in line with what is written in the source

Dwnoone1 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That line is in the lead, which is supposed to be summary of the body of the article, so the ref in the lead should not be the only thing backing this up. What do the refs in the body say? If they are also FBI-only and we cannot find other refs to back this claim up then this probably should be changed, but as I said when I undid the edit, this is a long-standing lead and after the change was challenged it should have been brought to the talk page per WP:BRD before it was restored.
Weasel wording such as "other experts out there" or "Available evidence actually does not indicate that he died" doesn't help. What experts? Who says they are experts? What do they say? Available evidence certainly does not suggest that D B Cooper didn't die either. I'm willing to look at what you can show us, but the fact that you are suggesting a poll on a user-generated forum is evidence does not bode well. Neither does the mere existence of theories that various people could have been Cooper. Meters (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Meters: Understood. All I can ask is that you take a look. I looked at your edit history and that of Dr Joe, and you are indeed neutral parties. To answer your comment about "experts" and a "user generated site" consider this:

https://citizensleuths.com/team.html

The Citizen Sleuths were created by none other than FBI Special Agent Larry Carr, the same person whose quote is used in this Wiki article, and is the basis for our current disagreement on wording. The leader of the Citizen Sleuths is Tom Kaye (a scientist), he is a contributing member of The DB Cooper Forum, the so called user generated forum. The Citizen Sleuths site gives special thanks to a number of people, The Seattle FBI, Special Agents Carr and Eng, and others. On that list of contributors are some of the most prolific posters on the DB Cooper Forum: 377 and Snowmman. 377 is a real person with thousands of skydives, he's also an attorney, and engineer. He believes DB Cooper could easily have survived. If the lead agent on the DB Cooper case consulted members of the DB Cooper Forum, then that should give a little bit of weight to their thoughts. The DB Cooper Forum is not Reddit or Facebook. I'll be happy to message offline and list out who is who on that forum in terms of authors, engineers, skydivers, former and current military, college professors, PhDs, etc. Of the 20-25 main posters, all are credible individuals.

I can see where you might say these people are not experts on the DB Cooper case. However, if they are not experts, then who are the experts? If the answer to that is "The FBI" then again I offer that the line in the Wiki entry should at least be neutral. When the second paragraph of a major Wiki entry states that DB Cooper likely died, it is somewhat misleading. It is not a neutral comment. Dwnoone1 (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Straight from the Citizen Sleuths site, sanctioned by the lead FBI agent in the case:

"Did Cooper die in the jump? It is a huge public debate if Cooper died in the jump or not. Experienced skydivers say he would have died if it was his first jump but if he was an expert, no problem. One experience parachutist believed that anyone who had six or seven practice jumps could accomplished the jump. The cold weather may or may not have killed him in the woods even if he landed ok. No body or parachute was ever found. Debate factor* = 9 of 10" Dwnoone1 (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Something to consider is what is available in the current Wiki page, versus other sites that may not have the same controls as Wiki. There are two sections that may be of value. 1. The section that discusses an author who researched World War II bailouts and the likelihood of survival. 2. The section on copycat hijackings that discuss five individuals who pulled off similar hijackings from similar planes, jumped, and all survived.

So, I ask. Who are the experts? Are they all US Government employees? How did five other men survive, but not DB Cooper? What is the available evidence that says he died? A better statement for the page might be something such as "Experts disagree on whether DB Cooper survived the jump" or "There is much debate on whether DB Cooper survived the jump"

As someone who has spent many hours researching the case, I am often told by people with no knowledge of the case that DB Cooper died in the jump. When I ask where they got that information, they typically say "Wikipedia." With that said, the DB Cooper article should adhere to Wiki's rules for NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Dwnoone1 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I edited it to read “Many FBI agents are of the opinion that Cooper probably did not survive his high-risk jump, but his remains have never been recovered”. The source listed,number 6, I believe says just that. The only thing I didn’t do was add the name Larry Carr, since he is already one of many agents that believed Cooper died. I wrote it that way because it’s simple, and it’s exactly what is written in the source by the FBI. Paige Matheson (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Walter Reca and birthdates

A number of suspects here do not have any info on age/birthdate, etc. For instance, Walter Reca was born in 1933 but that is not in his profile https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/walter-reca-obituary?pid=179265482, birth years would at least give some reference for the suspects. Are obituaries allowed as references to establish birth year? Dwnoone1 (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Cursive writing on note handed to flight attendant

Quote from Wiki-"The note was printed in neat, all-capital letters with a felt-tip pen." The source for this is a 2007 article. In 2017 documents were released under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) that have testimony from flight attendant Florence Schaffner that say only MISS was in all caps, the rest of the note was in cursive. This is relevant because some suspects were known to not use cursive. Dwnoone1 (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Four pieces of evidence

"Only four pieces of evidence (two definite and two potential) linked to D. B. Cooper have turned up from 1978–2017:" is followed by only three bullet points of evidence, not four. Statalyzer (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The third bullet point covers two items. 216.255.171.122 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Reca

No official FBI comments regarding Reca? 216.255.171.122 (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The Mystery of D.B. Cooper

The recent documentary thus titled is available on BBC iPlayer under the Storyville programme section, if you're in the UK or can fool the site into thinking you are. Mr Larrington (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

too many 'suspects'

After having watched another special I revisited the page and it seems like there are even more so called suspects. Several of the suspects are true speculation with little support and the individuals are not otherwise notable. While I think any genuine suspects should be included, but I think the page goes overboard. Any thoughts?SailedtheSeas (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to independently decide who is and isn't a "genuine suspect". Maybe though, the section could be split into those who have been ruled out and those who haven't? ItsKesha (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like a decent split suggestion. And I don't think there need be OR as an example one of the people was a woman who claimed she dressed like a man and did the crime until she found out that she could be prosecuted and then she recanted. Does/Should she really be in what's a long list. I'll have to re-read with a purpose and pencil/paper to count how many fit in the categories. If memory serves, there were also not many that the fbi considered potential suspects while the rest are truly speculative sometimes by lay people and other times by media. Maybe that could be a potential split, ie, those actually considered suspects by law enforcement vs those conjured up by the media. In part I'm probably drawing on what happened to Richard Jewell although I think most of the people on the list are deceased now. If you look through the list, some that are suggested truly is without any real evidence and someone could suggest I was db. I was in the military, jump qualified, had sere and mountain training, could resemble the sketch, except i've never smoked, lived in nw, and have an alibi. SailedtheSeas (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Just a thought that occurred to me. The term suspect is generally if not exclusively limited to legal/leo stating as such. Almost all if not all of the suspects are postulated by non-leo/legal people. So not sure suspect is actually the right name. SailedtheSeas (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I'd say that's a better suggestion re: FBI suspects/media suspects as a split. Regarding Barbara Dayton (the woman who claimed she dressed as a man), for what it's worth she is one of the four people highlighted in the recent BBC/HBO documentary The Mystery of DB Cooper (along with LD Cooper, Richard McCoy, and Duane Weber). So while I agree her inclusion in a suspects list is perhaps tenuous as the article currently stands (when compared to some of the others mentioned), and the documentary doesn't necessarily portray her as a likely suspect, she is in it nonetheless and is worth mentioning. And as it says in the article the FBI never even commented on her, so she is more of a media suspect. Regarding using the word suspect, it's probably the most easily understandable word even if not technically correct; the editors of the Black Dahlia suspects article have opted to include sentence that reads "the following suspects are discussed by various authors and experts". ItsKesha (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Search

Was the plane fully searched afterwards, was it possible he threw some money out, hid in the plane, and then escaped afterwards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AUnicornWithNoLife (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The largest search and recovery operation in US history where hundreds of investigators were literally turning over rocks in the vast northwestern wilderness, and you seriously wonder whether or not the plane was "fully searched"? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

National Geographic on D.B. Cooper case

Several years ago "National Georgaphic" had a special program on D.B. Cooper..the premise is that he ended up in the Columba River; and that the reason only a part of the missing money was found was becuase at that time to Columbia was a major throughway for Ocean going ships..and that Cooper and the rest of his ransom were casught by such a vessel and ended up on the bottom of sea... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.142.38 (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Barbara Dayton

Someone is trying to inject gender identity politics into this article by deleting information about suspect Barbara Dayton, specifically that they were born with a different (male) given name. Identity politics have no place in a wikipedia article. (2A02:C7D:DE28:900:9C52:253:7CDF:22B2 (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC))

Agreed. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 12:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The Manual of Style explains "Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis."
It also says the birth names or other dead names, may be "mentioned", but not "used". ie : Never use the name to refer to the person, only in sentences about the name itself.
I think the article, as written[1] correctly applies those guidelines.
. ApLundell (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Currently this passage has two issues:-
>> Barbara Dayton (1926–2002), a recreational pilot and University of Washington librarian who was born Robert Dayton, served in the U.S. Merchant Marine and then the Army during World War II.[144] After discharge, Dayton worked with explosives in the construction industry and aspired to a professional airline career, but could not obtain a commercial pilot's license. Dayton claimed to have staged the Cooper hijacking two years later, dressed as a man, to "get back" at the airline industry and the FAA, whose insurmountable rules and conditions had prevented her from becoming an airline pilot.[145] Dayton said that the ransom money was hidden in a cistern near Woodburn, a suburban area south of Portland, but eventually recanted the entire story, ostensibly after learning that hijacking charges could still be brought. The FBI has never commented publicly on Dayton, who died in 2002.[144]
This is incoherent. It does not explain:
i/- The change of name from Robert to Barbara.
ii/- The use of the phrase “two years later”.
Books and articles (easily checked on the internet) make the story clear. The phrase “gender reassignment” relating to how Robert became Barbara in December 1969 might be the correct term but I leave that to others to sort out.
31.124.106.3 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Please see the discussion immediately above your post, which succinctly explains why that section was written as it was. Since Barbara Dayton is a minor and peripheral component of the D.B. Cooper story, we don't need to go into great detail about her name change; readers can refer to those "easily checked" internet articles if they are interested. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I have read the discussion with great care - what a great idea, thanks for the suggestion - but sadly it sheds no light on the unexplained use of the phrase “two years later” in the article, which I had queried. Not sure I am the one who can’t read. Perhaps, as originally suggested, “identity politics” trump internal coherence and grammar. In which case, goodbye.
31.124.106.3 (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
If you look at the article history, you will see that I took out "two years later", as you suggested. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Small addition to the "In Culture" section

Under the In Culture header, Loki can be added to the list of series that adapt the events of the hijacking to their narrative. In the series, Loki is shown to have been the perpetrator of the bomb threat. Source can be found here: https://www.polygon.com/tv/22526045/db-cooper-loki-mad-men-theory 2600:1700:5BC0:A380:F0C8:50C1:8876:12B8 (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This fiction is hardly a reliable source. David J Johnson (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This bit of fictional trivia has already been added to the separate article D. B. Cooper in popular culture, which was created specifically as a repository for similar bits -- so there is no need to add it to this article as well, IMHO. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Small addition to the "In Culture" section

Under the In Culture header, Loki can be added to the list of series that adapt the events of the hijacking to their narrative. In the series, Loki is shown to have been the perpetrator of the bomb threat. Source can be found here: https://www.polygon.com/tv/22526045/db-cooper-loki-mad-men-theory 2600:1700:5BC0:A380:5474:1314:47B:6C3D (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Protection has expired on the page, so anyone may edit it. RudolfRed (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
But see the response above to a similar request. RudolfRed (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"In Culture" addition - xkcd, 4 August 2021

The 4 August 2021 xkcd web comic (#2498), entitled "Forest Walk" includes a tree-bound parachuting D.B. Cooper as a key element of the comic.

This bit of trivia belongs in the separate article, D. B. Cooper in popular culture -- if indeed it belongs anywhere on WP. DoctorJoeE Stalk/Talk 13:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency as to when Cooper died?

Well, not a logical inconsistency, but certainly an inconsistency of emphasis. The article starts by saying the preponderance of evidence and expert opinion says Cooper didn't survive his jump, which means he died in 1971. But (at least) 13 of the 14 highlighted suspects died after 1971. 75.169.135.222 (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want changed. The preponderance of evidence/opinion says that he died in '71 -- but if the majority is wrong and he did survive, we have assembled a list of notable suspects, as reported in reliable sources. I don't see any inconsistency. DoctorJoeE Stalk/Talk 02:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

TFA?

I was considering nominating this for TFA for its 50th anniversary of the Cooper's mysterious disapearance. Thoughts? Article appears to be in decent shape.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure -- why not? DoctorJoeE Stalk/Talk 23:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Investigation section

Does anyone know if searching for missing/unaccounted persons was part of the investigation? I'm not sure how things worked back then, but even if the family didn't report him missing (either out of embarrassment or because he had no surviving immediate family) he would have failed to show up to work, pay bills, maintain his home, collect pension, and so on. Seems like a pretty obvious lead to discard 2001:BB6:78A5:C600:9A2:9057:FF54:B7C3 (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article, the FBI did look, but did not find anyone who disappeared that weekend. Some have used this as indirect evidence that he survived -- but as we all know, an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. DoctorJoeE Stalk/Talk 23:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Available evidence and a preponderance of expert opinion suggests that Cooper probably didn’t survive his high-risk jump...

As someone who has researched the case for many years, I'm curious as to what is the available evidence and the preponderance of expert opinion? Available evidence to indicate death would be a body, body parts, clothes, a parachute, a missing persons report, the money, etc. None of this has occurred except for about 300 of the 10,000 bills. Available evidence really does not indicate that he lived or died. The copycat hijackers survived. The FBI kept the case open for years and spent probably millions of dollars looking at living suspects.

The footnote cites a FBI page that says this "As many agents before him, Carr thinks it highly unlikely that Cooper survived the jump. “Diving into the wilderness without a plan, without the right equipment, in such terrible conditions, he probably never even got his chute open.”"

This citation indicates that it is the FBI that says he did not survive. Agent Larry Carr has stated before that he has never skydived. I can think of a number of FBI agents who believe he survived, granted most of them are quoted around specific suspects.

Here are a number of entries dating as far back as 2001 when the page was created:

No conclusive evidence has surfaced regarding Cooper's whereabouts, and several theories offer competing explanations of what happened after his famed jump.

Despite hundreds of suspects through the years, no conclusive evidence has surfaced regarding Cooper's true identity or whereabouts, and the bulk of the money was never recovered. The FBI believes he did not survive the jump.[2] Several theories offer competing explanations of what happened after his famed jump.

Published reports indicate that FBI agents currently handling the case consider it highly unlikely that Cooper survived his risky and ill-advised jump.[6] “Diving into the wilderness without a plan, without the right equipment, in such terrible conditions, he probably never even got his 'chute open,” said Larry Carr, the Special Agent currently in charge of the investigation.[7]

It looks like on 19 September 2016‎ DoctorJoeE made the edit that added in the words preponderance and expert opinion.

It seems odd that a free page like Wikipedia would use an FBI page as the sole reference for a topic that is disagreed on. Why not say that some in the FBI believe he died and that others believe he lived? Dwnoone1 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've taken it out, agree that 'preponderance of sources' is WP:WEASELy , I think 'His fate is unknown' is a fair summary and already in that paragraphJeffUK (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

FA concerns

A few of the sources here don't look like the high-quality RS required for WP:WIAFA.

  • ""History's Greatest Unsolved Crimes". Frances Farmer Archive. Archived from the original on June 24, 2016. Retrieved February 7, 2011."
  • "Research Conclusions: Cooper Research Team web site Archived November 25, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved August 28, 2014." - what makes citizenslueths.com a high-quality RS?
  • "Martin Andrade Jr, MBA (December 1, 2014). "Survival Probability Analysis of the D.B. Cooper Hijacking, using Historical Parachuting Data" (PDF). Martinandrade.files. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 30, 2015. Retrieved September 30, 2017." - any indication that this wordpress site is RS
  • " "Suspects". Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved May 29, 2018." - website is dbcooperforum, almost certainly not RS
  • What makes crimeslam.com RS?
  • " Craig, John S. "D.B. Cooper Suspect Named: William Pratt Gossett," associatedcontent.com." - what makes this source RS, web search indicates this is almost certainly self-published
  • What makes thinairpodcast high-quality RS?
  • "Richardson, R. Still Missing: Rethinking the D.B. Cooper Case and Other Mysterious Unsolved Disappearances. Terra Mysteria Media (2014), pp. 142–147. ISBN 099600470X" - what makes this high-quality RS?
  • " Skyjacker – The Richard McCoy Jr. Story (March 2, 2011). ParachutistOnLine.com Archived July 3, 2017, at the Wayback Machine Retrieved February 25, 2013." - what makes parachutistonline.com a high-quality RS?
  • "Lehigh Valley International Airport began as airmail stop (September 3, 2010). Lehigh Valley History Archived July 8, 2011, at the Wayback Machine Retrieved March 8, 2011." - wordpress site, are you sure it's high-quality enough for FA?
  • dropzone.com refs are forum posts

This is the sort of article with a high risk of original research/poor sourcing being added, so sourcing, especially for theories, needs heavy attention. Hog Farm Talk 17:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The Dan Gryder documentary film[1] - released 12 Dec 2021 - has extensive first-person live interviews with Richard McCoy's children, speaking publicly for the first time in their lives about their father's history. Dan had tried for over 20 years to interview these children, but they wouldn't talk because their mother (complicit in McCoy's Utah hijacking) was still alive. Their mother died very recently, which opened the door to Gryder's ground-breaking, and frankly case-solving, interviews. Agreed "You Tube" is not, by itself, an RS. But first-person, on-camera interviews with McCoy's children is not only a RS, it is (in my opinion) the most important reference, to-date, that could appear in the D.B. Cooper Wikipedia article. I urge all editors to allow this critical, ground-breaking reference to the D.B. Cooper article. To continually remove it shows a blatant disregard for first-person, first-hand evidence under the rubric that "You Tube can never be used as a Wikipedia source" Driz7 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Pictures of suspects

I noticed that not all the suspects have pictures, yet many have been referenced in news articles. Example is Sheridan Peterson's picture from a news article. Is there a way to upload pictures of suspects if they have been cited in reputable news sources? I've tried to upload a picture of William Smith from an article in The Oregonian, but my editing skills on Wiki are lacking. I was able to upload the file to Wiki at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smith_for_Wiki.PNG but not to this page. It might be good for the page to have pictures of suspects. Dwnoone1 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, if the image is from a copyrighted newspaper, you will need to establish a fairly strong use rationale to meet WP:NFCC, as fair use will need to be met. This will most likely only be met for suspects whose descriptions are the subject of significant discussion in this article's text. Also, WP:BLP is still relevant - suspects should only be identified as such here if there is coverage in truly reliable sources identifying them as such. Hog Farm Talk 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Two suspects with entries on this page, but without pictures have been in the news (TV, newspaper) recently: Walter Reca, William Smith. Both had pictures up for over a year, but now those pictures are gone. John List is fairly well known, but does not have a picture under his entry. Frankly, I do not know how to weed through all the copyrights or even know how to upload a picture in the right format yet. I was hoping someone could enhance the article by adding pictures of the individuals who have warranted an entry. If there are copyright issues, then I guess there will not be pictures. Dwnoone1 (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UuRpW8wdVA
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:D._B._Cooper/Archive_4&oldid=1144446620"