Talk:D. B. Cooper/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

L.D. Cooper Photo

I must question the appropriateness (and legality) of keeping the recently-added L.D. Cooper photo. First, it is a copyrighted photo, and my understanding is we cannot use it without specific permission from the holder of the copyright, as opposed to the usual blanket (non)permission. If I am wrong, someone please disabuse me. But even if its use is legal, is it appropriate? No photos accompany any of the other suspects -- and L.D. Cooper is one of the least notable, since there is no credible direct evidence that he was the hijacker. Opinions, please? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 20:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As for legality, we can use copyrighted images under "fair use" terms under certain circumstances. Basically, the rule of thumb is that if it's encyclopedic and no free image exists or is likely to be created or found in the future, then we can use a copyrighted photo. In a case like this, where the photo is of somebody deceased, who wasn't famous when alive, it's very unlikely a free photo will ever turn up. This is how we can have a photo of Robert Johnson, for instance. So it's not a problem on that front.

It's appropriate as well. L.D. Cooper has gotten quite a bit of coverage lately as possibly D.B. Cooper, and just as we cover the written evidence in the article, we also need to cover the visual evidence (that is, L.D.'s resemblance or non-resemblance to the D.B. Cooper sketch). It's not our place to judge whether the evidence is "direct" or "credible"—if it receives coverage, then it's encyclopedic.

As for there not being picture of the other suspects: that's basically an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and hence inappropriate. I wouldn't object to having photos of the other suspects as well, but their not having been added (so far) is not relevant to whether this photo should be kept.—Chowbok ☠ 21:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's relevant in the sense that it makes L.D. Cooper look like a more viable suspect than he is at this point in time, with his candidacy hanging by a tenuous hearsay thread. I can certainly find photos of most of the other suspects if, as you say, we're allowed to use pretty much anything we want -- but I'm not sure the photo police are going to agree. I would like to hear some other opinions, however -- what say ye, other editors? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 23:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: You may wish to re-read OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- you imply that any use of that argument is automatically inappropriate, which is certainly not true; and it is not relevant, in any way that I can see, to this discussion anyway. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 23:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ufc fighter chael sonnen claims his father knew db cooper on joe rogan podcast.

About two hours and three minutes in this video he tells the story. I thought it might be interesting to mention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.178.29 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not watching 2 hours of video to see what?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You can skip to two hours and 3 minutes in to see it and the story is only about 6 minutes long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.178.29 (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Skipping forward isn't easy...having to wait for all of this to load. Does he offer any names? I'll wait for the highlighted & abbreviated version of the video.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I'll get back to you in a few days when i can find someone who has edited down. It's very common for this clips to pop up on youtube especially when it's an mma fighter speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.178.29 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I know a guy who claims that his dad and two uncles knew Sasquatch. So what? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 20:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fingerprints from both DB Cooper + Richard Floyd McCoy, Jr.

The article says that fingerprints were recovered from DB's flight: "Aboard the airliner FBI agents recovered 66 unidentified latent fingerprints."

According to the article, these fingerprints are used by the FBI to eliminate Duane Weber as a suspect: "The FBI eliminated Weber as an active suspect in July 1998 when his fingerprints did not match any of those processed in the hijacked plane."

Why is there no mention that Richard McCoy, Jr.'s fingerprints were matched with those 66 prints form the airliner to provide further evidence that he was/was not the hijacker. So is the article accurate that fingerprints were recovered in both cases? If so, were they ever compared? Why would they be compared with Weber's but not Cooper's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djlindholm (talk • contribs) 04:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that a fingerprint comparison is pretty much the first thing the FBI does with any suspect. McCoy was ruled out on multiple criteria -- see previous detailed discussions herein -- and fingerprint non-match was surely one of them. But since we do not have a source that specifically states that, as we do for Weber, we can't specifically state it in the article. It's all a matter of following WP rules; everything must be sourced. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 19:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

However

However means notwithstanding, nevertheless. It does not mean and or furthermore.[1] Its overuse here on Wikipedia is a sign of weak writing. There is no contradiction between "Himmelsbach observed that bundles floating downstream would have had to wash up on the bank "within a couple of years" of the hijacking; otherwise the rubber bands would have long since deteriorated." and "Evidence suggested that the bills arrived at the area of their discovery, a beachfront known as Tina's Bar, no earlier than 1974, the year of a Corps of Engineers dredging operation on that stretch of the river." so we do not need to use however. --John (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, John. Thanks for the great explanation, and for improving the article. I believe the only word overused (and misused) more often might be "only". Cheers! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see why this is such a "good catch." In the first sentence, Himmelsbach said that the bundles would have had to wash up on shore within 2 years. The second sentence says that evidence suggests that they did not, in fact, arrive within 2 years, they could not have arrived before at least 1974, and probably quite a bit after that. How is that not a contradiction? Without "however" (or "nothwithstanding" or "nevertheless", but "however" is most appropriate) it is not clear to the reader that the two pieces of physical evidence (the rubber bands and the geologic data) contradict each other. We DO need to use "however". May I also add, with all due respect, that condescension does not become you. I have a degree in English literature; my writing may not be perfect, but it is better than average, in my humble opinion. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 18:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there have been no further comments, I will add it back, and I will add some clarifying data so that there will be no doubt that the "however" is appropriate and necessary. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 04:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Very much agree. David J Johnson (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on your degree. Explain to me again how this is a contradiction, please. --John (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The bundles were found with intact rubber bands; rubber bands disintegrate within a fairly short period of time (within 2 years, according to the first source) when immersed in water. That would mean that the bundles would have had to wash up on Tina's Bar by November of 1973 at the latest. "However", the geologic evidence, as spelled out in the article, indicates that they could not have arrived until well after the 1974 dredging operation. That's the contradiction, and I added clarifying information to make it more obvious, as noted above. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As a retired banknote printer, could I just add my support for what DoctorJoeE has wriiten above. I agree with the comment regarding the rubber bands. From photographs I've seen of the banknotes, I would doubt that they had been at Tina's (?Tena) Bar since 1973, or for that matter in the water since 1972! Regards to all, David. David J Johnson (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Christiansen

I removed some material in relation to this section after an OTRS ticket pointed out problems. However I noticed most of this section is reliant on one NY Times source - and from my quick review it appeared to lack support for most of the material it was cited to :S I presume this is due to source churn over the years but it probably needs looking in to! --Errant ^(chat!) 13:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I realize this is an old post, but could someone please tell me what an "OTRS ticket" is? I've reviewed the History Channel documentary, and the claim that Christiansen routinely wore a toupee before the hijacking, and never wore it again after it, is clearly stated -- and repeated several times -- and is attributed to Lyle. Are you saying that Lyle has retracted his statement? Or that History Channel's fact checkers got it wrong? In short, why exactly was this content removed? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS is Open-source Ticket Request System which is (confusingly) explained as to Wikimedia's uses at WP:OTRS. —EncMstr (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you.

Now, how would I go about locating the specific ticket in question, which is number 2012050910006081?

Sorry to trouble you, but I've never encountered this issue on WP before, and I can't find a search box or anything similar. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 19:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I had always assumed the system was open for verification, inspection, and browsing at least for superficial information like date submitted and whether it was approved. This is the first time I have looked into it. It looks like you have to email a volunteer with a request to find out anything. The closest I got was following a ticket URL https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2012050910006081 (where I substituted with your ticket number), but that leads to a login screen greeting. From what I can tell, only a hand full of people are allowed passed that screen. —EncMstr (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I should ask the user who called attention to the ticket in the first place. Seems like there should be a way to verify it; otherwise, why would he/she have bothered to give us the ticket number? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 20:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

20 minutes from Sea-Tac to McChord? What?

The article notes in a couple spots that Cooper "correctly" noted that McChord Air Force base is 20 minutes from Sea-Tac airport. All such sports seem to come from the same source ([2]). This assertion always seemed kind of fishy, and a Google Maps driving directions proves it entirely false - [3] says 42 minutes. Now, Seattle didn't have the awful traffic in 1972 that it does today, but even looking purely at mileage (29 miles of freeway plus time on local streets), you'd have to be going crazy fast to get there in 20 minutes. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

20 minutes is a reasonable approximation for drive by timing. That entire section was posted at 70 mph in 1972 and there was not commonly traffic heavy enough to keep one from actually going 75 to 80 mph. 26 miles at closest I-5 approach is 20.8 minutes at 75 mph, and 19.5 at 80 mph. I don't recall there being any traffic signals or even more than one or two stop signs between I-5 and SEA. —EncMstr (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

While it does indeed seem a "reasonable approximation", I would remind everyone that none of our opinions matter; only sources matter. Relevant sources (and there are more than one) state that Cooper made the 20-minute-drive-time remark, and go on to assert that he was correct. If you can cite any reliable sources (which Google Maps is not) stating something different, we can certainly consider that dissenting statement for inclusion in the article; otherwise it will have to stand as is. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 16:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Google maps is absolutely a reliable source for driving times - on what planet is it not? Sure, it says nothing about DB Cooper, but you don't need to know anything about DB Cooper to know how far it is to the airport. That said, I think it might make sense to make a footnote that "The speed limit on Interstate 5 was 70 MPH and Seattle didn't have the traffic congestion it has today, making 20 minutes a reasonable travel time in 1971." Ego White Tray (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"On what planet is it not?" Let's start with Venus? Mars? Jupiter? Saturn? Shall I go on? Does anyone else consider Google Maps a reliable published source, by WP rules? DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 01:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say Google Maps is reliable for travel times on Earth in developed countries. That's probably the only thing it's a reliable source on, but that's exactly what we're discussing. Besides, I'm not suggesting putting it as a source in the article. Frankly, if I get from Sea-Tac to McChord in 42 minutes, I consider myself lucky. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is that WP does not regard Google Maps as a reliable source; we have to use published sources, which all (AFAIK), in the Cooper context, say 20 minutes. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Tarmac

I have tried two times to edit the word "tarmac" in this article with no success. On both occasions, responses have been "sources specifically say tarmac." Yes, that is true, but tarmac is not technically the correct term on this occasion. The first time I replaced the word tarmac with airport ramp, and it was quickly reverted. The second time I left tarmac but linked it to airport ramp, as "airport ramp" is the proper term for what is being described. I thought this was acceptable, as it preserves the wording of the source and links the reader to what is being described. The second edit was also reverted to the original configuration. Sources can say one thing, but what if sources are inaccurate in their wording to begin with? Apologies for being pedantic, but the current wording/link is not correct and is possibly misleading.

Aviation Glossary: Tarmac — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.57.142 (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion, and mine, are unimportant in this venue. What is important is sourcing. If you have a D.B. Cooper source that mentions "airport ramp", by all means, let's see it; but every source I know of specifically says "tarmac". DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 19:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DoctorJoeE, I have seen no reference to "airport ramp" in this instance. I am happy to agree to a change if several sources state this. Regards to all, David. David J Johnson (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Doubt

The article page has an Infobox titled 'Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 305' listing passengers count as 36 + the hijacker, a crew of 6, and yet survivors = All 42, Basic Math suggests there is some misinformation. Can anyone please clarify the data/clear my doubt? Compfreak7 (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The infobox in fact lists the survivor count as "All 42 passengers and crew" -- which means the 36 passengers and 6 crew members.

It specifically lists a passenger count of "36 plus hijacker" for the obvious reason that Cooper cannot be counted as a passenger per se, nor as a survivor since we don't know if he survived.

Seems pretty clear to me. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Internal note about adding additional examples

My edit based on good faith was reverted by DoctorJoeE with a mention of "Please read internal note about adding additional examples." within 20 minutes of my edit. Could someone point out this note to me please and also why the other examples cultural phenomena are uncited? I can supply a link to unofficial subtitles: ([4]) by means of going beyond good faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.lyon (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The internal note is quite clear, but I'll reproduce it here:

This section describes the Cooper phenomenon as it has been discussed in reliable sources. Please do not add additional examples here. If you have a worthy example to add, please consider adding it to the article "D. B. Cooper in popular culture".

The reasoning, as I understand it (it was established by consensus before I became involved in editing the topic) was that the section became so cluttered that it negatively affected the entire article. As it says, you are welcome to add your example to D. B. Cooper in popular culture, where it is far more appropriate and relevant, if you wish. Apologies for any misunderstanding, no offense was meant; we are merely attempting to maintain the article at FA levels. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 18:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Seat number

The article currently states:

Cooper boarded the aircraft, a Boeing 727–100 (FAA registration N467US), and took seat 18C^[1] (18E by one account,^[2] 15D by another^[3]) in the rear of the passenger cabin.

Given that three sources give three different seat numbers, why should one be preferred (by stating it as factual) over the others (in parentheses)? Does it matter? Can't this simply be amended to read:

Cooper boarded the aircraft, a Boeing 727–100 (FAA registration N467US), and took a seat in the rear of the passenger cabin.^[1]

1. Conflicting reports have cited different seat numbers. New York magazine reported it as seat 18C; History's Greatest Unsolved Crimes. Frances Farmer Archive (retrieved February 7, 2011) reported it as seat 18E; Gunther 1985 (p. 32) reported it as seat 15D.

—sroc (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I listed all reported seat numbers as a matter of maximum (encyclopedic) accuracy; a reader who had previously only read one of the sources would think that the seat number listed in that particular source was accurate, so the article makes it clear that the exact seat is in dispute. 18C is "preferred" because it is the one used in most sources. I rather prefer it the way it is, but it's a minor point and I will obviously abide by consensus. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If 18C is mentioned in a clear majority of sources, then I think it's fine as is. I only raised it because only one reference is given for each so it was not clear whether/why there was a favourite. —sroc (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree DoctorJoeE's is the proper handling. Probably the article should not count sources, but how many cite 18C? —EncMstr (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I will go through my stack of books and articles when I get home, but IIRC, all sources that specified a seat number specified 18C except for the Farmer archive (18E) and Max Gunther's book (15D), the two that are cited for the alternate seat numbers. One recent magazine article stated that he sat in first class, which I didn't bother to add because there is otherwise general agreement that he sat in the back of the plane. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

To make it clearer that 18C is in most sources, could this perhaps be rephrased along the lines:

Cooper boarded the aircraft, a Boeing 727–100 (FAA registration N467US), and sat in the rear of the passenger cabin in seat 18C^[1] (although others cite seat 18E^[2] or 15D^[3]).

? This wording would also put the emphasis on him sitting at the back of the passenger cabin (which is almost universally agreed) rather than the specific seat (which is a detail) and avoids the parenthetical remark disrupting the flow of the sentence. Just a thought. —sroc (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's an improvement. "although others" is vague and could mean more than one or two. The original is clear in noting that two sources present different seat numbers. Also, I think that the original sentence as a whole is very adept & better reading, compared to the alternatives. Finally, I think you are incorrect that the alternative puts focus on the are of cabin he sat in. By ending the sentence on the detail then you make that the focus and the cabin area merely an aside in the middle of the sentence. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, don't mind me then! 8^p —sroc (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Name: "D. B. Cooper" vs. "Dan Cooper"

This fascinating and excellent article has one glaring flaw: it really has very little to say about the name "D. B. Cooper", an erroneous media attribution, and the voluminous wacky lore surrounding that character in the public's mind; it's really about the individual using the name "Dan Cooper", his 1971 skyjacking and subsequent FBI efforts to find him. Accordingly this article should be re-titled "Dan Cooper" with a memo in the "Other Names" field noting "D. B." As it stands, someone using Wikipedia to find excellent info on Dan Cooper and his skyjacking doesn't get sent directly to this article.

Put a little differently: this article isn't really about the fictional "D. B. Cooper" and the lore/speculation surrounding that name that popped up in the popular media; it's about a real individual who used the name "Dan Cooper" during the commission of a crime and what's known and hypothesized about his escapades and identity. Thus it should be titled "Dan Cooper" - that's how the FBI/USDoJ would reference him in any prosecution - so people can find the factual information about that individual and his skyjacking crime.

Those wanting the lore/speculation surrounding "D. B. Cooper" and the characters that have popped up over the years using that name should be referenced to the "D. B. Cooper in Popular Culture" Wikipedia article.BLZebubba (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You have clearly explained why you think the article should be moved. However, Wikipedia's article naming convention is to the use the most widely and popularly known name. That is without a doubt D.B. Cooper. If—somehow—Dan Cooper became the widely used name, then we could revisit the proper article name. —EncMstr (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. In addition, the lede explains the name discrepancy, and the body of the article explains it in more depth. Anyone searching for a Dan Cooper is in all likelihood looking for the founder of the Fox News Channel, not the hijacker. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Gotta disagree. Anyone searching for "D. B. Cooper" is most likely a dilettante inquiring about the lore and characters arising from the erroneous use of that name. Someone referencing "Dan Cooper" is most likely interested in the facts and evidence surrounding the real case, not the zaniness. The two names really apply to two different phenomena. Since the article at hand is mostly a discussion of the facts it should be titled/cataloged under "Dan Cooper" (and of course cross-referenced under "D. B. Cooper"); cataloging it under "D. B. Cooper" perpetuates an error, thereby obfuscating the factual details of the case and making - should there ever be a prosecution of "Dan Cooper" - for a more convoluted path for an interested reader to get to the facts. There may not ever be a prosecution of "Dan Cooper", but there will definitely never be one of any "D. B." Cooper, and perpetuating that name makes the writer appear to be sensationalistic amateur, not an authority.

As for Fox News Channel's Dan Cooper, I really don't know why the man even has a Wikipedia page - he must get off seeing it there and probably wrote it himself; it's extremely doubtful anyone else will ever care about it unless they accidentally stumble across it while searching for the skyjacker.BLZebubba (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The article title is mostly to assist a user finding and identifying the proper article. Once found, the article clearly explains the D. B. Cooper vs. Dan Cooper situation and how it came to be in a very non-senationalistic manner. Hopefully the media which screwed up still regrets it, but the public consciousness is not easily changed.

Like it or not, sea star are popularly called star fish, a water heater is commonly referred to as a hot water heater (instead of a cold water heater), and a pine is commonly called a pine tree. Each of the popular terms are—in some measure—"wrong", but that doesn't mean we make it hard to identify the intended subject. —EncMstr (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat good points, but they're all about common names - the person who first wrote "starfish" could've just as easily decided to call them "glorkii" or "scrimmelbags" rather than the name for them that eventually became most popular, perhaps because it did a good job of alluding to the beings' geometry as well as their living, aquatic-animal nature. When it comes to common names I have a hard time accepting that one is better than another except when one perpetuates ignorance, in which case it should be avoided - which may be why Wikipedia has no article titled "hot water heater" (that undesirable, as you point out, term is merely referenced in the text under "Water heating", which is where you automatically get taken to if you search for "hot water heater"). Nor is there a Wikipedia article titled "Pine tree" (searching that term takes you automatically to an article that you (somewhat) pined for, "Pine"); you may want to research your points a little before employing them rhetorically, at least when dealing with me (many other times, not doing so will be of little consequence - lamentably the practice is quite common).

So, I still have to recommend that an article on "Dan Cooper" follow similar logic and be so titled (and coded such that folks searching for "D. B." Cooper get taken there).BLZebubba (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Mistake it was to call "Dan Cooper" D B Cooper, but the name has entered the public lore as the person who hi-jacked the 727 and got away with it. The lede of the article mentions the confusion over names and there it should stand. Frankly, to say "should there ever be a prosecution of "Dan Cooper" etc is nonsense - as he would be prosecuted under his real name! Leave article title as it currently stands. David J Johnson (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't "nonsense": apparently there's an outstanding indictment of "John Doe, AKA Dan Cooper" in this matter, as the article points out (such that the statute of limitations doesn't apply). If he's ever caught, his trial isn't going to be delayed simply because he refuses to divulge his real name.

With all respect. I researched this subject extensively before rewriting the article a couple of years ago, and he is identified in virtually all (if not all) books, web sites, and magazine and newspaper articles as "D.B. Cooper." Take a gander at what the FBI calls him on its web site. [[5]] I would guess (but cannot prove) that most ordinary citizens have heard of "D.B. Cooper", but only those who have done some reading know that his actual pseudonym was Dan Cooper. You can call me a "sensationalistic amateur" if you wish (I've been called worse, I assure you), but you're being unfair, because "Dan Cooper" appears in the fourth sentence; so it's not as if anyone except those who can't get more than three sentences in would not know about it. Besides, "Dan Cooper" is no more his real name than "D.B. Cooper" -- they're both epithets. If we knew the guy's real name you would have a stronger argument; but even then, WP convention is to go with a title that is most likely to steer readers to the desired article. The Black Dahlia article, for example is so named because most people simply do not know that her real name was Elizabeth Short. There are hundreds of other examples. So I have to go with the others and vote for keeping the title as it is. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I can do no more than agree with DoctorJoeE contribution above. This really is "a storm in a teacup". Because of a incorrect news service account, he will always be associated as "D B Cooper" regardless of the fact that he bought a ticket as "Dan Cooper". To use argument about possible, but highly improbable, trial proceedings is just POV and not the way the Wikipedia operates. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

POV in "Cultural Phenomenon" section

This section prefaces the statement that his crime 'inspired a cult following' with a lengthy condemnation which seems to me unnecessary. Should it be removed or replaced with something more impartial?

"While D.B. Cooper was an air pirate and extortionist (Himmelsbach famously called him a "rotten sleazy crook"[177]) who endangered the lives of 42 people and caused immeasurable inconvenience for many others,"James.wallacelee (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that the preface (which is sourced) is necessary because it neutralizes the "cult following" statement. We don't want to appear to be endorsing the fact that a criminal has become some sort of folk hero. The preface maintains our NPOV. Other opinions may differ. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in bill amounts

I'm a little confused by something. Earlier in the article it states that the police gave him 10,000 $20 bills. However, later on it says "two packets of 100 bills each and a third packet of 90, all arranged in the same order as when given to Cooper.[39][40]"

This doesn't make sense. The first way of interpreting is it that they found two packets of $100 bills (not mentioning the total amount in each packet) and a third packet totaling $90. This contradicts the earlier claim of all the bills being $20 notes. The second way of interpreting it is that the packets totaled $100, $100 and $90. This also doesn't make sense as you can't make $90 out of $20 bills.

Can someone clear this up? Either this section is wrong or the earlier claim of 10,000 $20 bills is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.35.38 (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Both sections are correct; you are confusing the money given to Cooper on the plane with the money found at Tina Bar, which was only a small portion of the total ransom. To spell it out, the ransom was given to Cooper as stated -- 10,000 twenty-dollar bills, 100 packets of 100 bills each, totaling $200,000. The money found at TIna Bar was 3 of those packets, two of which contained all 100 bills, and a third containing 90 of the original 100 bills -- total of 290 twenty-dollar bills, totaling $5,800. The other 97 packets have never been found. Okay? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Spoken article

Cooper's spoken article is already 5 years old. Could someone with a pleasant voice please consider updating it?- Gilliam (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the first that I've heard of this. My voice is pleasant enough, I suppose, and I'd be happy to do it, but how exactly would I go about it? Lord knows the article is totally different than it was 5 years ago. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What is this all about?? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Instructions are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. Thanks!- Gilliam (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Self-contradictory sentence

Under Theories and conjectures, paragraph 3, at the end:

"..., since witnesses stated that Cooper had no distinguishable accent, Canada would be his most likely country of origin if he were not an American."

Canada is in America, ergo Canadians are Americans... unless the article means "native Americans" (e.g. Americans we incorrectly refer to as "Indians"). I'm tempted to replace "American" in that statement with "United Statian" since we're the ones that most commonly use the word American as if we're the only ones, however as a literal person I'd rather leave that to someone who's more knowledgeable about the D. B. Cooper case: there are other American countries besides Canada and the USA, and I can't find evidence of which ones Cooper would most likely be from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.230.25 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think you're going to get much of a consensus on changing this. While you are technically correct that both Canada and the U.S. are part of North America, most readers think of Canadians as Canadians, not Americans. The paragraph seems pretty unambiguous to me as it is. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And most Canadians (at least the ones I've talked to) hate the word "Americans" because of the fact that us United Statians so commonly use it incorrectly. Whether you like it or not, the paragraph is technically ambiguous: while it's true most people think of the USA when they hear/read "American", not everyone is familiar with that incorrect usage, and there are people literal enough that they immediately think of the entire double-continent before they think of a single country. If no one more knowledgeable than me wants to change it, I'll do some research when I have the time to, so I know what country to replace it with if not the USA. 98.111.230.25 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The most widely accepted and familiar demonym for U.S. citizens is "Americans." Reading this Wikipedia page gives me the idea to specify "Americans" as "U.S. Americans;" that way, everyone wins. I, as a U.S. citizen, am not familiar with "United Statian;" while that might be correct, to me, it is unfamiliar, although I can guess its meaning. Also see the linked page under the heading "Alternative terms" for reasons that replacing "American" with a lesser-known term might cause problems. TCMemoire (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Just because it's widely accepted doesn't mean it's technically correct, nor does it mean it won't be confusing to some. Despite being an "American" in the widely accepted use of that word, I still hate that usage, and I stand by what I said earlier: there are people who will find it confusing. For example, did D. B. Cooper come from Mexico or Chile? Those are both American countries, and there are people who don't oft hear the incorrect usage of "American" or who (like me) are literal enoguh to think for the entire continent before think of the USA.

To be honest, I had not intention of actually using "United Statian" in the article, it does look rather unprofession and a quick glance makes it appear to be frigteningly similar to an infamous demon (which doesn't really bother me considering the reputation and history of my country). I'd be more apt to use "United States citizen" or something similar: but again, if further research doesn't proved me wrong. My mindset as an English language purist drives me to do some research before editing the article. 98.111.230.25 (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I never meant to imply that it wouldn't be confusing to some, only that using a lesser-known term would be even more confusing. I definitely see your argument here. Sorry I wasn't clear. I do like the idea of using "United States citizen." Usually, I would be picky about using the word "citizen" instead of "resident" or something similar, since we don't know the hijacker's citizenship or place of birth (which would make him a U.S. citizen under jus soli). But in the context that it is used, I don't think much argument would be made against using the word. TCMemoire (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Barbara Dayton

I'm pretty sure we discussed this before, although I don't see it on a quick scan of the archive. Do we feel that Dayton was "born a male and named Bobby", or "assigned male at birth with the given name Bobby"? It seems to me that the latter phrasing will be confusing to the average reader. Generally, when a child is born with a penis and scrotum, he is assumed to be male -- he isn't "assigned" anything. I'm aware that MOS:IDENTITY "favors self-designation", but the cited source indicates that Dayton self-identified as a male as a child, and in the military and workplace before gender reassignment surgery; the book uses male designations and pronouns before the surgery, and female designations and pronouns afterward, and we did the same in the article (until today). Does political correctness trump clarity? Thoughts? Obviously I will abide by consensus. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 07:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY says to use a "person's latest expressed gender self-identification", and yes, respecting a person's self-identification should be a priority when drafting a paragraph. (Wikipedia:Gender identity has a FAQ essay that attempts to put the MOS into context.) It shouldn't be beyond our wit to write something that both respects the subject and is clear to the reader; it looks like other sources refer to Dayton's birth name as "Robert", so simply "born Robert Dayton" may be enough here. --McGeddon (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that Robert Dayton was born male, lived as a male and did military service and much, much, later had gender reassignment surgery. The article, before recent changes makes this quite clear, and I see no reason for the recent changes -apart from political correctness. My view is that the recent revisions should be reverted and agree with DoctorJoeE's comments. David J Johnson (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

But MOS:IDENTITY very clearly says "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." - did Dayton indicate a preference for her early gender to be referred to as male? --McGeddon (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the Forman book indicates that Dayton self-identified as a male as a child, and in the military and workplace, until she underwent gender reassignment surgery in her sixties. She also claimed to have conducted the hijacking as a male, after the surgery. Beyond that, I don't think we can presume to know her early gender preferences. I would also point out that the MOS is a set of guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Specifically, it says "we favor self-designation", not "we require" it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Skimming Forman's book, I can't see anything to support Dayton subjectively self-identifying as male. It quotes her describing being female as her "true identity" and saying that she "continue[s] to live as such, regardless of type of clothing, kind of work". It also quotes her saying how she became aware that she was "different" when she was "about five". I appreciate that she was presumably considered to be a boy by her parents and was employed by the military as if she were a man, but it is only her private self-identity that's relevant here. --McGeddon (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

With all respect, I must disagree. Her private self-identity is really none of our business. Some people privately self-identify as Napoleon, or Jesus, but we don't identify them as such in their articles. The fact, as you mentioned, is that she was considered to be a male by her employers, the military, and her family and friends until her gender reassignment, after which they considered her a female, per her wishes. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY says to defer to third-party sources for identity (so we would not flatly describe somebody as being Jesus or Napoleon) but explicitly adds that "[an] exception to this is made for terms relating to gender". This issue has been already been thought about and discussed a lot, and the current MOS reflects the consensus of those discussions - there's no need for us to argue it out again from first principles. --McGeddon (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else wish to weigh in on this? So far, we have two favoring the original content and one favoring the changes. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Two editors favour the changes - IPs are human too. But an obvious and easy compromise would be to rewrite the first half of the section without using any pronouns at all. --McGeddon (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any IP comments above -- what am I missing? But your most recent edit is indeed a reasonable compromise, IMO. When I get a minute I'm going to do a little minor ce -- no pronouns, I promise -- hope you don't mind. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The pronoun change was originally made by an IP editor. And sure, copyedit away. --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

All disputes should resolve this well! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that all looks good. --McGeddon (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys, textbook example of co-operation. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Bad sentence

"Dvorak died in 2007,[158] and the pair's investigation and book apparently died with him."

I think this should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.194.171.242 (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

To what?? Please supply reason and sign your posts. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia prose should avoid WP:IDIOMs, in part because they can be ambiguous. (What did it actually mean for the book to "die"?) But the assertion that Myers abandoned both the investigation and book is unsourced, and Dvorak's death is only sourced to a forum post, so we should probably just lose this sentence, unless Dvorak's death was written about elsewhere. --McGeddon (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, lose the sentence. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, especially since all of 8 minutes were allowed to discuss it. Since the book never came out, I felt that a brief explanatory sentence was warranted. I cited the blog post, even though it bent the rules slightly, because it was written by Myers, and offered a clear, concise explanation. (This falls under WP:COMMONSENSE.) I've added a second cite for Dvorak's death, and changed the "idiom" (even though readers, I think, understand what it means when a book project "dies") with a clear fact. If consensus prefers no explanation at all, I will of course abide by that -- but let's allow adequate time for discussion. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}

/_{talk to me!} 18:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite happy with Doc's version. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the change is good. The statement is now "Dvorak died in 2007,[158][159] and to date, the promised book has not been published." I think this is more clear and better, and I agree that the figurative language is not desirable. This is a featured article and therefore this article gets read a lot by non-native English speakers and is queued for translation into other languages. Figurative language is difficult for much of the audience we have for this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

A valid point. Thanks. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Could we clarify the dummy parachute

Something I wondered while reading the article is the degree to which the dummy parachute worked. It seems like if he jumped wearing a parachute that didn't open, he would've certainly died. But people consistently speak about the case as if there is a possibility that he lived and the dummy parachute isn't cited as a reason why he likely died. To me, that information needs to be explained. How functional was the parachute? Did it not work at all? If it didn't work at all, why is that fact not being cited as a likely reason why he died? Why even talk about weather conditions and all that if he jumped out of a plane without a parachute? Cpuser20 (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Read that section again. The dummy was the RESERVE 'chute. He jumped with a functional main 'chute. This is clearly explained in the article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

DNA

I feel like a little more should be said about the DNA testing done. I had no idea there was DNA evidence available at all. That seems like a pretty big lead and should even be mentioned in the article's lead. I can do some more research on that tomorrow. Cpuser20 (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

All info on that subject that is available in WP:RS is already in the article, so far as I know. It is not a particularly big lead, nor worthy of inclusion in the lede, IMO, because (as mentioned within the article more than once) it is impossible to prove that the organic material obtained from the tie actually came from the hijacker. For all we know, he spilled soup on it. In fact, there is continuing debate as to whether the tie belonged to Cooper at all. The official position of the FBI is that "we don't know if it's his tie." I would be very careful about adding anything else, because most everything written about it, other than the facts in the article, is unsourced speculation by conspiracy theorists. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if it's not a huge lead, it's still interesting! Maybe it's just interesting to me, but I think readers would enjoy reading about that development. I'll see what other feeback is on the topic :-) Cpuser20 (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, everything about that development that is reliable sourced is already in the article, to the best of my knowledge. If you find anything other than the usual conspiracy rumors, by all means, we would love to see it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're bringing up conspiracy theories. What does that have to do with finding a partial DNA profile? I think that section could be expounded on a little bit, but what I'd really like to do is include it in the lead because it's a really interesting fact about the case. Cpuser20 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Further explained the DNA findings as I mentioned, feel free to edit or revert if you feel necessary, but I think it explains exactly how the DNA fits into the story. Cpuser20 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm bringing up conspiracy theories because a lot of Cooper info on the web is conjecture, not fact. The content you added is already in the article in later sections, where the qualifications about the samples' uncertain origins are more relevant. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I've consolidated the DNA info, so that there is no ambiguity about its uncertain origins. Thanks for calling attention to this. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bomb

Does that claim include only the US or all of the Americas?

the only unsolved air piracy in American aviation history

Great wealth of detail in this article. And yet the question of what happened to the bomb goes unasked. Was it left on the plane? Did he jump with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.51.34 (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, please sign your contribution - which has been placed in the wrong position. If you check reference 30, it states that the "bomb" and other items D.B.Cooper had with him were not on the aircraft when it landed. David J Johnson (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure what else we could possibly say about the bomb; it was not left onboard the plane, it was never found. All we know is already in the article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In answer to the new question asked above (and BTW, you should add new posts to the bottom of a thread, not the top, to avoid confusion): One of the cited sources calls it "...the only skyjacking in the world that has gone unsolved." Since the world includes all of the Americas, I would assume that it includes all of the Americas. And since we have a source that says it's the only unsolved case in the world, perhaps we should amend the article to say that. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

National Geographic theory

According to a theory on the National Geographic channel, Cooper did not survive a fall into the Lewis River; that his body was snagged on a ship's propeller blade {explainng the money found in the sandbank} and that his remains were washed out to sea; his real identity remains unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.242.65 (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I did not see this entry until now -- but this is a perfect example of what is wrong with every single one of the many TV documentaries on the Cooper case -- they are not held to any factual standards whatsoever. Each new one breathlessly unveils a brilliant theory, and none of them stand up to even casual scrutiny. The original twist in this one is the zombie element, since Cooper's corpse would have had to swim 30 miles upstream from the Lewis River junction to Tina Bar, where the money was found. Other than that it's perfect, I love it. But his identity does, in fact, remain unknown; at least they got that right. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Anyone interested in the wealth of (mostly ridiculous) D.B. Cooper conjectures and references may wish to have a look at the supplementary article, D. B. Cooper in popular culture -- although now that I look at it myself, I see that it has accumulated a substantial collection of unsourced trivia -- a common problem plaguing such supplements. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor inclination to clean it up at the moment; but I'll put it on the old to-do list, and get to it eventually. Unless someone else wants to give it a go, of course. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Richard Lepsy

WZZM-TV out of Walker, Michigan, (a suburb of Grand Rapids) just did a news story yesterday about the theory that a Richard Lepsy of Grayling, Michigan, could be Cooper. They also posted an expanded version of the story on their website. Imzadi 1979 → 09:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ashcroft, Brent (November 24, 2015). "Could missing man from Grayling, Mich. be D.B. Cooper?". Walker, MI: WZZM-TV. Retrieved November 25, 2015.

I would not place much credit on this story. The only link appears to be that Richard Lepsy went missing just before the D B Cooper saga. There is no evidence that he had the motive, or had any parachute experience. Also the article then goes on to mention yet another suspect! Thanks for the infomation though. David J Johnson (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The summary of the Cooper hijacking appears, as usual, to have been drawn largely from this article—some of it verbatim—although they got a few details wrong, again as usual. Note that Lepsy disappeared more than 2 years prior to the hijacking (October 1969), not "just before". While that doesn't rule him out, of course, I agree with David that there is precious little credible linkage here, and no discernible means, motive, or opportunity. That said, he probably wasn't included on the list the FBI compiled of people who disappeared around that time frame, since 2 years was probably outside their criteria, and even if it wasn't, he was not officially declared a missing person until 40 years after the fact—so the Bureau just might take a look at him. If they do, he might merit inclusion in the suspects section unless they summarily rule him out. I'll keep an eye out for followup stories. Thanks for calling it to our attention, Imzadi. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on D. B. Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140611082243/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-171721183.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-171721183.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

305

Was flight 305 Tokyo Portland Seattle-Tacoma? No info in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:815A:DE3C:0:3E:A133:C01 (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Cited sources don't mention the flight's origin, and it's irrelevant to this article anyway -- but I'm reasonably certain that 727s lacked the range for a trans-Pacific jump. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:52, 18 July 2016 (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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130909113338/http://www.king5.com/news/investigators/40-years-after-the-crime-new-evidence-unveiled-in-DB-Cooper-case-134417003.html to http://www.king5.com/news/investigators/40-years-after-the-crime-new-evidence-unveiled-in-DB-Cooper-case-134417003.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Third reporter claiming responsibility for name miscommunication

According to a new article Columbia Journalism Review John Long of the The Oregon Journal might have been the original reporter behind the spread of D. B. Cooper as the name of the kidnapper. This is probably worth adding? P. S. Burton (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Why does the FBI presume Cooper perished?

I have never understood why Special Agent Carr and the FBI think Cooper perished in the jump (and the body never found). I would think just the opposite presumption is more logical. Why? If he died in the jump, then how many men fitting his general description and had been capable of pulling this off could have disappeared at just that time? I assume they went through missing persons cases in that period. Can anyone help me out here? Thanks.

BTW, I 'm pretty much convinced he was Lynn Doyle Cooper. Everything fits and there are holes in every other known suspect. The DNA on the tie didn’t match his, but as the FBI acknowledges, there is no certainty that the DNA from the tie was that of the hijacker’s. It wouldn’t surprise me that a man this audacious would use his own last name, and the Canadian comic book character “Dan Cooper” was a longtime favorite of his. His age was right and the testimony of his relatives is most suggestive.

Unless L. D. Cooper's niece and sister-in-law were out and out fabricating their account, then I say case closed. According to them, the niece's father (L. D.'s brother) said his missing (but seen shortly after the event with bruises and a bloody shirt) brother hijacked an airplane. All other hijackings have been solved. Therefore, they (or the brother) are/were lying or it had to have been Lynn Doyle Cooper.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You might want to go hiking in the woods around here in November sometime. Not on a trail, but cross country. It is easy to trip, tumble, and be in dubious condition to continue. As an additional exercise, toss a mannequin from a low flying aircraft over a forest and then try to find it. It is not going to be easy, even if you knew where to find it. 100-200 foot tall fir trees obscure the surface and create mounds and small hollows which a) increase the surface area by four-plus times, b) darken the surface, and c) creates an "everything looks the same" situation.

Besides the challenging forest conditions, what is the likelihood that the FBI investigated the hijacker as suspect? 10%? 20%? Your question presumes it is closer to 100%. Does that seem sensible? —EncMstr (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I quite agree that the chances of the body never having been discovered under these circumstances are very likely. I’m going about it the other way around, the missing person angle. An author has a theory that Cooper was a family man from Michigan who had disappeared in 1969. But even if this man voluntarily ran off and abandoned his family (not unheard of) wouldn’t he have established a false identity in the interim period and that man would have been reported missing? What I am suggesting is that it would seem a fairly easy matter to follow up on missing men who fit the hijacker’s description and who had vanished shortly before the incident.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

While I sometimes share the bias about most men being family men, as I age I notice that this is not clearly a majority choice. Even if only 20% of men were loners in the early 1970s, that still provides tens of thousands of people who could disappear and no one would notice. —EncMstr (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve considered the loner possibility. I think the FBI should have, perhaps a month after the event, issued an appeal for tips about any white man, say 35 to 50, who had recently disappeared: from neighbors, mailmen, employers, landlords, people who might not have been sufficiently interested to have brought the matter to the attention of the authorities. I think this was a missed opportunity, assuming Cooper perished which, as I stated, I don’t believe. I watched clips of Marla Cooper discussing her uncle and she impresses me as credible, though she might have fooled me and others. Judge for yourselves:

http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/1094404847001#gsc.tab=0 HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read the article; the FBI's reasoning is explained fairly clearly, I think. Also explained is that the FBI did look, but never found anyone who disappeared without a trace that weekend. Marla Cooper's motivation was clearly a book deal, IMHO, and the Bureau was nowhere nearly as persuaded as she (or you) about her uncle's involvement. And there's the eentsy problem of a complete absence of direct evidence. Anyhow, this is not a forum, and on WP our opinions are irrelevant, so -- any suggestions for improvements to the article? If not, this speculation needs to be taken elsewhere. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, good points all around. I did reread the article just now and I agree that why the FBI’s presumption that the hijacker perished is adequately addressed. You also made me less convinced about L. D. Cooper, though not because of his niece having possible ulterior motives. (Of course, I considered that. She just seemed convincing to me.) What I mean (and this will lead to a bonafide suggestion to improve the article as you request, so please bear with me) is that I hadn’t realized that the comic book “Dan Cooper” character had already been long considered by the FBI as the origin of the alias and that the niece could have read that somewhere and fabricated her uncle being a fan of the comic character. Leading into my improvement suggestion, under the “Theories and Conjectures” section, it is stated:

“Agents theorize that he took his alias from a popular Belgian comic book series of the 1970s featuring the fictional hero Dan Cooper, a Royal Canadian Air Force test pilot who took part in numerous heroic adventures, including parachuting. (One cover from the series, reproduced on the FBI web site, depicts test pilot Cooper skydiving in full paratrooper regalia.[94]) Because the Dan Cooper comics were never translated into English nor imported to the US, they speculate that he may have encountered them during a tour of duty in Europe.” [Emphasis added]

However, under “Suspects.” “Lynn Doyle Cooper,” it is stated:

“[L. D. Cooper} was obsessed with the Canadian comic book hero Dan Cooper.” [Emphasis added]

This is a contradiction as to whether the comic book series in question was Canadian or Belgian. As the first account states that the comic had never been translated into English (by the way, do you know if it was written in French or Flemish?), I assume the Belgian origin is correct. Thus, the contradiction should be corrected under the L. D. Cooper subsection if so.

On a final note, if this is true, then it makes me wonder if L. D. Cooper or any suspect to date could read French or Flemish (whichever the case might be, the former is more likely, I think). It is possible, of course, that a person might like to look at foreign language comics without being able to read them. Still, it might add a potential clue.

No more speculations. Thank you and all.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If you will re-read what you yourself quoted from the article, you will see that there is no contradiction at all. The fictional Dan Cooper was, as you noted, a Royal Canadian Air Force pilot -- and therefore a "Canadian comic book hero". The comic books themselves originated in Belgium (and were also sold in Canada, as noted in the very next sentence after the one you quoted), but their hero was Canadian. The article describes the hero as Canadian, not the comics; it never says that the comics themselves were Canadian. So no contradiction. Sources don't say whether he spoke French, and I doubt that it would make a difference -- the lack of advocates other than his niece, coupled with the complete lack of incriminating evidence, puts him near the bottom of the suspicion hierarchy in my mind. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

“Canadian comic book hero” seems to me a textbook example of ambiguity (to be avoided) in writing, i.e., what does the adjective “Canadian” refer to, the comic book or its hero? However, I respect you too much to quibble so leave it be. Thanks again for your kind assistance and thoughtful points.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks. Not to belabor the point, but that textbook will tell you that it's a case of compound adjectives, both modifying the noun "hero"; "Canadian hero" and "comic book hero" combine to become "Canadian comic book hero". DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://foia.F.B.I.gov/filelink.html?file=/cooper_d_b/cooper_d_b_part01.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://foia.F.B.I.gov/foiaindex/dbcooper.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap5/aim0503.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708203700/https://crimeslam.com/2008/05/yet-another-d-b-cooper-suspect-william.html to http://crimeslam.com/2008/05/yet-another-d-b-cooper-suspect-william.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

NORJAK

someone claimed this was discussed, I find no discussion indicating that "NORJAK" is wrong to have indicated in the article -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't find it either right now, but it's in there somewhere. I don't see where anyone has said that it's "wrong" to mention it; in fact, it is mentioned; it's just irrelevant. "Norjak" was the FBI's internal nickname for the case, nothing more. It rarely appears in source material, except in passing -- for example, in the title (but seldom if ever in the text) of Himmelsbach's book. The FBI doesn't even use it in its own website pages about the case. As you probably know, WP is source-driven; if sources don't address it, we don't either. It's worth a mention, to explain why Himmelsbach used it in his book title, and that's already in the article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I included a reference to the Seattle Field Office of the FBI that used NORJAK, so I can't see how you can say that the FBI doesn't even use it, when I already referenced it. "Norjak" appears nowhere within the body of this article, otherwise a text search would find it. "Further reading" is not the text of the article, it is other things that are not part of the article that you may want to read. That more than two sources [6] use NORJAK is already a reason to have it in the article. (so it is not unused in possible source materials) I did a search with NORJAK as the search term in the talk archives and on this talk page, it did not appear except here, so I don't see how this was discussed -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Th FBI refers to it as the NORJAK investigation in this press release Check-Six (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Aviation flight codes

Aviation incident articles on Wikipedia carry the flightcodes in their articles, since this is about a skyjacking, I find it very weird the the IATA flight code for this flight is missing. I also see no discussion about it. Why would pertinent aviation information be missing from this article? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please explain why you feel it is relevant or informative. What is the advantage of describing the flight as "NW 305 / NWA305", as opposed to simply "Flight 305"? If anything, it serves only to confuse readers; most probably don't even know what an "IATA flight code" is. If you can explain why the change would be important, and you can provide a reliable source, please do. (BTW, the source you added is a novel about the case - a writer's fanciful account of what might have happened - hardly WP:RS.) DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The IATA flight code is the thing you find on your air ticket, the thing that most people look for at the arrivals and departures displays, and the air gates. It's what normal people use to identify the flight they or the people they are meeting are on. It's what MH370 is (an IATA flight code), it is normally found in articles about civil aviation flights, such as the MH370 article. This is an aviation article, so should have the flight code, since it is a normal identifier for such a thing, and this was most certainly an aviation incident aboard a scheduled commercial aviation flight. Indeed the reference I provided for the NWA History Center primarily refers to the incident by its flight code (NWA 305). ;; I did a search with the flight codes as the search term in the talk archives and on this talk page, it did not appear except here, so I don't see how this was discussed previously. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

For reference, a photo of Cooper's ticket reciept can be found here

If this was an article about an aviation incident it would have been named Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 305 but it has been written more like a biographical article with related biog type infobox not an aviation incident. If you use the flight number as an article title then the article would have to change infobox to suit but at the moment it is clearly about the alleged criminal involved and the search for him. MilborneOne (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Should the code "NW305" appear in the article at all (it currently does not appear in the article) ? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The airline is identified multiple times in the article as Northwest Airlines, and the flight is identified as "Flight 305". It's not clear to me why you do not think this is sufficient -- particularly, as MilborneOne pointed out, when the article is not even about the flight, but about the person who committed the hijacking. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a 1E article, it solely concerns a skyjacker and the skyjacking he committed, the investigation into the skyjacking and the identity of the skyjacker, so yes, the airline skyjacking is the major point of the article. The common popular culture naming is the person the press calls DB Cooper, instead of the flight number. That is is solely about the events and person revolving around a particular skyjacking makes the flight code particularly relevant to the article, thus should be included. It barely adds any more text characters to the article (plus two refs), so I don't see why you are so adamantly removing it. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ordering of suspects

It makes the most sense to organize the suspects on this page in the order they are considered/discovered, and not based on perceived addition of "evidence" or coverage to the page. There is a cottage industry of Cooperites who tout the pros of their suspects, and the cons of others, and - with Wikipedia being a de facto go-to resource for the world, it is incumbent to share and order the info provided in the most non-bias matter. Check-Six (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume you meant "non-biased manner" -- but I frankly don't see the bias in ordering the suspects by the amount of attention they have received, rather than chronological order, which is completely irrelevant. To begin the section with a suspect who was never really a suspect, and is no longer considered one by anybody, and arguably does not belong in the section at all, makes no sense to me. And your chronological order is wrong anyway. Does anyone else want to weigh in here? I'll abide by consensus, of course, but this is a Featured Article, and I, for one, would like to keep it that way. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It has been over a week with no further interest or comment at all, so in a day or two I'm going to change it back, with a few modifications, both in the interest of compromise and to be sure that the notability order is correct. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Changing it back "in the interest of compromise"?! Interesting word usage... Look, chronologic order makes far more sense than the subjective and variable amount of coverage a suspect receives (which can be affected by "Cooperites" peddling books and wares). Chronological order is unchanging (but if you think my posted order is in error, please edit). Check-Six (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's worth saying that though this is a Featured Article it was promoted over 8 years ago and the section we are discussing here was not included at that time. Interestingly, the promoted article lists them in Chronological order. Why was it changed and what objective measure are we using to judge the amount of coverage? For example McCoy obviously has enough source material to have his own article so surely he should be at the top? --Errant ^(chat!) 11:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

<high five> Thank you, Errant, for doing the research and digging to prove my point. I think this establishes "chrono" as the way to go. Check-Six (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, then we continue to disagree. First of all, I said I planned to modify the order "in the interest of compromise". Secondly, we are told that a suspect list was not included when the article was promoted to FA—but there it is, in the 8-year-old linked version. Suspect lists are usually chronological at first, because new suspects are added to the end of the list as they come to light. Eventually, it makes more sense to look at the bigger picture and reorder them in order of notability, as defined by cited sources. That's what other encyclopedias have always done, and it's in WP:MOS somewhere. (Sorry, I don't have time right now to track it down and cite it specifically.) Don't you think readers are more interested in reading about the most notable suspects first, rather than John List, whom nobody even considers a suspect anymore? Thirdly, the article was promoted 8 years ago, but approximately 3 years ago it had deteriorated to the point that demotion was proposed. To avoid that, I undertook a complete rewrite of the article, which including reordering the suspects, and it seemed to meet with everyone's approval. Please note, I'm not making any sort of claim to "ownership" just because I did the rewrite; and I understand that consensuses (consensi?) can change, but so far there is obviously no clear mandate for change. Let's see if we can work this out to everyone's satisfaction; for starters, once again, I can't see any justification for putting a non-suspect like List first -- and he wasn't even the first suspect -- Mayfield was apparently proposed as one before the hijacking had even ended! Again, I'm sure we can work out something that is acceptable to everyone. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

How do we determine the most notable? Is there a source to help us with that? We'd need an objective measure. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC

As the suspect population has grown, it may merit transfer to separate article, akin to the pop culture article. But, I strongly think that a "chrono" ordering is vastly superior to the variable nature of the amount of coverage. BTW, List WAS actually considered a suspect but the FBI while he was at large. Conversely, Ken Christiansen has NEVER been widely considered except for a few, very vocal, writers and researchers - and after his death. Leading off with Mayfield is acceptable to me, given the pre-landing consideration by investigators. Check-Six (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a start -- so we'll start with that, and I'll make the change. Actually, if you re-read the section, you'll notice that NONE of them was ever "widely considered", and ALL have "a few very vocal writers and researchers" making the case for their particular guy. I actually wrote that in the intro:

While none satisfied the Bureau's standard of "beyond reasonable doubt", a handful of men—and one woman—continue to be promoted as suspects by various private individuals and groups based on varying amounts of evidence, real and imagined.

The only exception is ... List! He was only a suspect because they couldn't find him; and when they did, he was quickly eliminated. There's no evidence that anybody ever seriously believed he actually did it. So that dog won't hunt, I'm afraid. But at least we have some movement; I'll make the agreed-on change, and we'll go from there. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

DB Cooper

What if DB Cooper never jumped off the plane? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.224 (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

First, WP talk pages are not forums for discussion or speculation on an article subject; they are intended for discussion of potential improvements to the article. Second, WP does not deal in "what ifs", it reflects only what has been published in reliable sources. As numerous sources have documented, and as clearly stated in the article, the plane was thoroughly searched when it landed in Reno, and Cooper was not aboard. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624203847/http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews6/crimes.htm to http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews6/crimes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721041334/http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap5/aim0503.html to http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap5/aim0503.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

FBI video on the Washington Post website

I've posted the following in external links:

• The D.B. Cooper case baffled investigators for decades. Now, scientists have a new theory., Washington Post, January 16, 2017. Includes FBI video

It's an intersting article, but what's most important to me is that they include an FBI video. The FBI video should be PD. I have a very vague idea, almost, how to download it and convert it to .ogv (at least if it was on YouTube). Does anybody have the skills to do that right and include it in the article? Any help would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

"the only unsolved air piracy in world aviation history"

Even if this were amended to "commercial aviation history," it would be weasel-wording because it is unknowable, especially when one considers cases like Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 that were likely piracy. "In world aviation history" (outside of regularly scheduled airline flights) the claim can be dismissed out of hand. Consider all the Latin American cases that never even got documented. CousinJohn (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

While I appreciate your point, multiple sources - including several cited in the article - refer to it specifically as the only unsolved commercial air piracy, so WP does too. The word "commercial" used to be in there - I don't know when or why it was removed; I'll put it back. Speculation on the missing Malaysia Air plane is, of course, just that. I don't know of any WP:RS regarding undocumented Latin American commercial airline hijackings (if you do, please share), but I would point out that by definition, a case (of air piracy or anything else) has to be documented and unsuccessfully investigated before it can be classified as "unsolved". DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)