snowmman 3 #11576 July 30, 2009 Quote A visible tattoo would commit him. It would also help recruiting from a population of bright young people who see the FBI as impossibly square. Your thoughts Snow? 377 If I was recruiting for the FBI, the first event I'd have for the newhires is a paintball war with the CIA newhires. Then the losers would hack the winners network and crash everything, just to be able to claim not-total-loser status. Visible commitments: well, props to Himmelsbach. Old man, and he's still willing to go out there on TV and claim Cooper was a dirty rotten scoundrel with a foul mouth, even though he knows everyone's going to scratch their head and say "huh? where did he get that?" Hey, do you think it would be a tipoff if I showed up at a DZ and said I was just interested in learning how to use a emergency round, and kept on hounding them about why I can't I do a night jump right away? kind of like the guys that wanted to learn how to fly jets, but were nonplussed about learning how to land them. (edit) Jo mentioned national security. I wonder if people think DZO's are part of the national defense network, i.e. an early warning system for people who want to do crazy things. I'm thinking the DZO might just say "whoa! dude! no-way but-way!" and then brag about how he AFF'ed the dude after reading about an event in the paper. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snowmman 3 #11577 July 30, 2009 I searched back, and post #748 of this thread, from me, on Mar 31, 2008 2:22 PM --------------------------------------- Mar 31, 2008, 2:22 PM How the money got to the dredged beach The money floated down the Lewis River. It got upstream to that dredging operation on the Columbia in a very interesting way. They had been using the dredging equipment up by where the Lewis drains into the Columbia. The equipment wasn't 100% cleaned out/some material was still on the barge when they moved upstream to the Tina Bar location. Dredging Tina Bar dumped out some of the debris left over from the Lewis River dredge ------------------------------------- then I post Remember that random coincidence is the least likely option assume the FBI map is right. The money goes into the Lewis River. The reason it gets found at a site that got dredged is because the dredging operation put it there. -------------------- then SafecrackingPLF reams me a new a**hole with this post: (post 755 Mar 31, 2008 3:41 PM) Let me get this straight. Your theory is that the money landed at/near where the parachute was found, it then gradually made its way down Cedar Creek into the Lewis River and then made its way to the Columbia River at which point it had sunk. It would have sunk before this, but I'll let that go. Next, you think "the dredging operation" began north and made its way UPSTREAM as it went. You then think the cash got stuck in the machine for 10 miles. Meanwhile, the machine continues to spit river sludge the whole time until finally at mile 10, it yaks up the money. The money would have been "in" the 1974 layer, not above it. As it was, the money was found about 18 inches above the 1974 layer. The money was not muddy or browned from hanging out on the river bottom. The money was, however, moldy and decomposed. The rubber bands survived the travel but then quickly became brittle once the cash was on the sand. Individual stacks of cash can only float for about 10 minutes and 30 seconds. Sunken cash at the bottom of the river will not float its way miraculously to the top for a sand bar deposit. You took care of that one. The rest of it does not fit. See attached photo, you will see the "layer" in the sand about 18 inches down. There's a distinct difference between river silt and normal sand. Great try grasshopper. --------------------------------------------- I've been suffering over that reply, ever since. I think I can claim now, that I was a little bit right. I just didn't think of propellers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SchlitznGrins 0 #11578 July 30, 2009 I just picked up a copy of the DB Cooper card in the 2009 Allen and Ginter Baseball set. Image Attached. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snowmman 3 #11579 July 30, 2009 the guy at http://cooper71.com is posting updates daily. interesting to see what he adds each day. He posted a news article from 2/19/80 that weighed in against a lewis river tidal theory (from Dr. Alyn Duxbury, a Univ. of Wash. tidal specialist. Also: new theory: the Washougal "Block of Ice" theory. I like it. Plus it's vintage. ..from 1980!! there's the "three feet" reference, but the good Dr. may have been referencing what he read in the papers (which we've posted about before..i.e. the FBI agents talking about fragments up to 3 feet deep...who knows what the truth was) Spokane Daily Chronicle – 02.19.1980 D.B. Cooper Ideas Grow Vancouver, Wash. – Lumps of rotting $20 bills found last week on a Columbia River beach have led to a wealth of new theories about the D.B. Cooper hijacking. Experts quickly established that the money hadn’t been buried intentionally on the beach, about 10 miles downstream from Vancouver. First the FBI suggested the money had come down the Lewis River from the primary search area after the skyjacking and floated up the Columbia on an incoming tide. Later, other agents suggested the bills probably came from other watersheds and discounted the Lewis River theory as a longshot. Cooper parachuted from a Northwest Airlines 727 on Thanksgiving Eve 1971 with $200,000 strapped to his body. A picnicking family found some of the loot Feb. 10. Dr. Alyn Duxbury, a University of Washington tidal specialist, said it is “pretty hard to take” the FBI theory that Cooper landed in Lake Merwin and that the bills floated down the Lewis River, hit the Columbia River tide and then went upstream 12 miles. He noted as much as three feet separated the bills from top to bottom when found, and said it would have been impossible for the tide to carry objects the same distance day after day and place the money in the same spot. Some FBI agents now say the bills may have come downstream from the Washougal or Little Washougal rivers, perhaps in blocks of ice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snowmman 3 #11580 July 30, 2009 QuoteI just picked up a copy of the DB Cooper card in the 2009 Allen and Ginter Baseball set. Image Attached. Excellent! I've been searching for that online ever since they announced the card. Thanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snowmman 3 #11581 July 30, 2009 Arlington is about 100 mi upriver from Portland photo attached. Cool! Ice blockade, Columbia River. Arlington, Ore. Jan. 19, 1909. Description A black-and-white photo. The caption written on it in white ink says "Ice blockade, Columbia River. Arlington, Ore. Jan. 19, 1909. Foto by, M.E. Shurte." A fishing or tug boat and two row boats are hemmed in by the ice on the river. Butted up against the larger boat is a raft or dock, with a man standing on it leaning over a railing. The smaller boats appear to be tied to this raft or dock. Although there is a little water in the foreground, the river appears to be mostly covered with ice. Low bluffs line the far shore. 2nd photo Ice banks, 20 feet high on the banks of the Columbia, at Arlington, after the blockade, Jan 21,1909. Description A black-and-white photograph. At the bottom is written in white ink "Ice banks, 20 feet high, on the banks of the Columbia, at Arlington, after the blockade, Jan 21,1909." On the riverbank the ice is piled up in geometric chunks and is beginning to melt. Behind the ice two black shapes, like boards or masts, stick up diagonally. In the distance are low hills. 3rd photo Arlington, Ore. Jan. 12, 1909, 20 below zero. Columbia River Frozen over, The first time in 24 years. Description A view of the Columbia River shore at Arlington, Oregon, on January 12, 1909. The Columbia River is frozen. In the foreground is the white riverbank, with a large boulder to the left. Near the shore on the right of the photo is a pier, with a sailboat at its end. In the center we see a stern-wheeler. A long rope leads out from it and is coiled on the frozen river. A group of five men stand nearby, close to a rectangular area of water that has been freed of ice. Their attention is on a sixth man who is standing in a rowboat pushing at the ice with a long pole. One of the group on the river also carries a long pole. The writing on the photograph says the temperature is 20 below zero and the first time in 24 years the river had frozen over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryThomas 0 #11582 July 30, 2009 This post is directed to all. I just got off the phone with Tom K.He did explain to me the reason for his comments on Nat Geo.What he said was not supposed to be aired it was just a theory he thought of at the last minute.He did not mean it to be taking seriously.How ever The powers to be( the producers at nat geo) took what he was saying out of context and aired comments that he did not realy believe.This happens it has happened to me in the past. The only difference is that I always specified to the producer that I must review the documantary prior to it's release. Tom was not given that option and was not aware of the fact that he could. Tom would not have approved of this documentary if he had been allowed to review it.He also states that he would have consulted each member of the team if he had known this incident was going to take place. Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snowmman 3 #11583 July 30, 2009 I've been getting a lot of phone calls from Slovenia asking who played Cooper in the Nat Geo documentary that has now been disavowed. Here's the credits per IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1466352/fullcredits#cast Directed by Philip Day Cast (in alphabetical order) Marc Bossley ... D.B. Cooper Grant Buckerfield ... FBI Agent Pete Freeland ... Co-Pilot Christopher Haskell ... The Pilot Produced by William Martens Original Music by Grant Buckerfield Cinematography by Roy Kurtluyan Film Editing by Aaron McAdams Art Direction by Mark Fenlason Makeup Department Lorraine Martin First Assistant DirectorJeremy Gilbreath Budget estimate ($280,000) is from here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1466352/business (edit) Next broadcast: Sunday, August 2, 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM, 68 NGC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryThomas 0 #11584 July 30, 2009 Snowmman. Tom does not realy know. He say's that this case is very complicated.He thought that the answer's could be found in the money. He now believe's that Cooper did not land in the columbia River. We did agree on one theory. That was there is a 1 percent chance that ET sat on Tina's Bar and eat the money and the debris field was ET"s left over's.Will maybe not 1 percent (a lot Less)Still he did obtain some good Info. He has know known answer's at this time.I'm sure Tom will post on the forum soon.Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snowmman 3 #11585 July 30, 2009 ET is findable. If we know ET eats money (Thanks Jerry: good data), that's our first clue. He also shits money, you say. So we have two good clues. We have more than when we started with Cooper. Should only take 6 months. (edit) Tom can post anything he wants and it would be useful. Minimally I just want to hear the silver nitrate story, and if anything was found about the damn black bills! (edit) "He say's that this case is very complicated." No! it's just we're all a**holes on the internet! it's not complicated. We're a**holes! (edit) Rules of the tavern: everyone only gets one theory every 72 hrs, otherwise he has to drink. "He now believe's that Cooper did not land in the columbia River" (edit) Did someone squeal on this thread? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8202511&page=1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryThomas 0 #11586 July 30, 2009 Snowmman. UHmm You caught me of guard.When it comes to ET's droppings Maybe that is why the small pieces are black .Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snowmman 3 #11587 July 30, 2009 QuoteSnowmman. UHmm You caught me of guard.When it comes to ET's droppings Maybe that is why the small pieces are black .Jerry I accidently overwrote a post of mine. I was wondering when Tom changed his theory, since he was saying it on-camera. And where the science pointed if he didn't believe in what the documentary said. There are 3 parts to Toms Theory. The Lewis River DZ The propeller The deposit on Tena Bar, before the dredging...ie.. an early deposit circa 1971. I also didn't understand how a $280,000 documentary would wait till the last minute to come up with the closing theory off the top of the head of a main character. Something must have changed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryThomas 0 #11588 July 30, 2009 Snowmman. Actually The interview took place a week after the team seperated.Tom did not have any other recourse. How ever I'm sure Tom can clarify a lot of these question's .Personally all I can state is what Tom told me.Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snowmman 3 #11589 July 30, 2009 QuoteSnowmman. Actually The interview took place a week after the team seperated.Tom did not have any other recourse. How ever I'm sure Tom can clarify a lot of these question's .Personally all I can state is what Tom told me.Jerry ah okay, got it. If Tom doesn't think Cooper landed in the Columbia, and apparently is backing away from the Lewis River, where does he think Cooper landed? It must not be water related, because the Columbia is easily speculated about, given the timeline...so he must be ruling out a water landing? I guess we won't know till he posts. Unless he's supporting the Washougal theory? Maybe you're right, Jerry! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georger 268 #11590 July 30, 2009 QuoteI've got something zanier than the propeller theory for upstream transport: freighter wakes. DEAD MAN SURFING. Who said you had to be alive to catch a perfect wave? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5PsF7y1Jdk 377 ship wakes were mention long ago - you were sleeping in the stands being entertained. Try for the wheel and fire? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryThomas 0 #11591 July 30, 2009 Geoger. Now you join the conversation. About Time.Freighter wakes, does cause objects to move up stream or against the current. However depending on the size of a object it's travel is not that far. The smaller the object is the further it travels. The larger it is( depending on it's boyancie)does not tavel far at all it beachie's it self on the shore line. Now if at High Tide objects are floating ,they will beach themselfs at the spot the water leaves them,Or should I say as the water rescends. I have observed this many time's.It was even pointed out to the team back in March. But the distance it could travel was not that great.Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snowmman 3 #11592 July 30, 2009 georger: I've always wondered something. Why does Sluggo say I'm mentally unstable and hateful, but you don't get that label? Do I really appear that way, and you don't? What about Jo: mentally unstable and hateful, or not, or just one or the other? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryThomas 0 #11593 July 30, 2009 Snowmman. Please ask me that question.It would be safer.Or Not .Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snowmman 3 #11594 July 30, 2009 QuoteSnowmman. Please ask me that question.It would be safer.Or Not .Jerry okay, let me have it Jerry. I won't be snarky and reply. I'm curious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georger 268 #11595 July 30, 2009 QuoteThis post is directed to all. I just got off the phone with Tom K.He did explain to me the reason for his comments on Nat Geo.What he said was not supposed to be aired it was just a theory he thought of at the last minute.He did not mean it to be taking seriously.How ever The powers to be( the producers at nat geo) took what he was saying out of context and aired comments that he did not realy believe.This happens it has happened to me in the past. The only difference is that I always specified to the producer that I must review the documantary prior to it's release. Tom was not given that option and was not aware of the fact that he could. Tom would not have approved of this documentary if he had been allowed to review it.He also states that he would have consulted each member of the team if he had known this incident was going to take place. Jerry Comments I made to Sluggo offline earlier now have context! So it appears 377 and Snowboy have hung the wrong person! They dont care. Another fire engine to chase will be coming up soon . . . get your spurs and your and lasoo and litlte red hat on Snowboy! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryThomas 0 #11596 July 30, 2009 Snowmman. Sucker! NO COMMENT.Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georger 268 #11597 July 30, 2009 QuoteSnowmman. Tom does not realy know. He say's that this case is very complicated.He thought that the answer's could be found in the money. He now believe's that Cooper did not land in the columbia River. We did agree on one theory. That was there is a 1 percent chance that ET sat on Tina's Bar and eat the money and the debris field was ET"s left over's.Will maybe not 1 percent (a lot Less)Still he did obtain some good Info. He has know known answer's at this time.I'm sure Tom will post on the forum soon.Jerry Isnt it pretty obvious. Snowmman invented Cooper as a child prodigy. Snowmman invented the Internet! Snowmman controls our weather. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snowmman 3 #11598 July 30, 2009 QuoteSnowmman. Sucker! NO COMMENT.Jerry I don't follow either of georger's or your post here. Yes I am oftentimes a sucker. But this is just a web forum, I mean what's the negative? Someone thinks less of me? who cares. I mean a post means nothing. If there are new suspects. great. I'm not attached to anyone. Why would I be? On to the next. It''s all interesting. I enjoyed reading about SOG and Vietnam. Anyone who didn't missed out. ?? Do I misunderstand myself? I have hidden agendas? I want to see everyone naked? (edit) It is quite amazing to see a reaction from you guys. I can't imagine why you'd bother. I provoke reactions, but aren't they all fact-related? You guys seem to latch onto random things. I do have big feet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georger 268 #11599 July 30, 2009 (edit) Tom can post anything he wants and it would be useful. Minimally I just want to hear the silver nitrate story, and if anything was found about the damn black bills! Quote You answered your own questions about the black bills ages ago, so go with that. 377 will point out you posted it and scooped everyone. You invented the Black Bills, so you tell us! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JerryThomas 0 #11600 July 30, 2009 Geoger. At least we have someone to blaim.Not sure it's Snowmman. But still it's a start.Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 Next Page 464 of 2617 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 52 52
JerryThomas 0 #11600 July 30, 2009 Geoger. At least we have someone to blaim.Not sure it's Snowmman. But still it's a start.Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
