...I think Tom Kaye measured 20+ feet of shroud lines missing and that would be sufficient to work up a "net" to restrain the money bag.
There is considerable controversy surrounding how much cord was cut by Cooper. Carol Abracadabra told me/wrote on the CS website that the FBI documents on the subject were not consistent. One docu said two lines were cut; another said three. However, when the CS inspected the parachute five lines were missing. Each lines was approximately 15 feet long. Hence, Cooper had a minimum of 30 feet of cord, possibly 45, and maybe as much as 80 feet.
As I have written in my book, we have to consider where all of Cooper's gear went - the reserve chute, the briefcase and bomb, and the moneybag/Cooper and his chute. Was it all tied together into one Big Bundle (Uno Bundola Grande) and either retrieved or lost together? Or did everything leave Flight 305 separately, and we have the uncanny situation of multiple bundles getting themselves lost Gawd-Knows-Where for over 40 years?
Cooper's hijacking was a "minimalist" hijacking ... doing a lot with a little. I think that thread runs through Cooper's hijacking and separates him from other hijackers making Cooper unique. The power of suggestion vs overt force. He replied on a few critical judgements about people (chose Tina over Flo etc), and probably had some survivalist training assuming he would have to 'walk his way out' and 'hide' once on the ground. That is probably why he took the reserve, to use as a canopy and cover while traveling. He probably knew that the Columbia and Portland were south of where he jumped, if the FBI/AF/NWA location is correct. That seems to be the theory the FBI and searches were relying on when they did their early searching and sent up an SR-71 looking for campfires etc on the ground.
He probably covered as much ground on foot as fast as he could and his theory would work as long as he stayed away from populated areas. He may have found and followed a rail line going south. But, the viability of this theory changes the closer he gets to Vancouver-Portland, especially if he is following rail lines. That is destined to take him right into the hands of people also using the same resources and locations. That scenario could literally explain why Cooper and none of his gear was ever found, except for money bundles eventually found on the shoreline of the river.
I think Cooper was trying to get back to an urban environment where he could secure transportation without raising any attention and put distance between himself and the Northwest. His choice of the Northwest as a place for a hijacking may be unique, especially if he was of Latin extraction. His goal may have been exactly what he said, namely 'a beautiful place you would like' ... south of the US border. This also fits with the amount of money he asked for, $200,000. $200,000 in 1971 would have gone a long way south of the border. McCoy asked for $500,000, but his economic reference point is north of the border! This difference between what McCoy vs. Cooper asked for may solidify the fact they were different people with different life-references/experiences and expectations.
I think Flo's testimony that Cooper was of Latin extraction carries a lot of weight, and is the one clue in this case that has been largely overlooked, especially by the public. Tina has received the greater attention of the public. I am also quite sure Flo's testimony did not escape notice in Washington DC! It is Flo's testimony that creates an archetype that fits very closely other primary evidence in the Cooper case. The public, however, has always been more focused on Tina! Ironically, both Tina's and Flo's physical description of Cooper agree.
If Flo's testimony is correct, Cooper could not possibly be Sheridan Peterson! Cooper and Peterson are two totally different people, according to Flo's testimony!
And the same for Weber, Christiansen, etal.
I think the public has been lead to be so totally focused on Tina's personality and testimony, that Flo's testimony has been forgotten and dismissed as being an anomaly when in fact Flo's testimony may have been crucial in identifying who Cooper was, and was not.