Leaderboard

This has absolutely nothing to do with DB Cooper, but....

Hi folks, IMO the right decision: Novak Djokovic ousted from Australia over lack of COVID-19 vaccination - oregonlive.com Jerry Baumchen

So called "Witnesses" can be BS'ers or embellishers. When Richard DeCample the fuel truck driver was interviewed back in 1971 by the FBI he claimed he didn't see the hijacker, only the crew as the rear of the plane was dark lights out. In a 2017 media interview he claimed he saw the face of the hijacker. He embellished his story for the media because he knew that elevated his experience and involvement. https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/investigations/author-invites-public-to-solve-db-cooper-mystery/281-493832199 "Richard DeCample remembers the moment he saw one of the most famous faces in American history. "I had hooked up to the airplane and I was under the wing, but I could look up and I could see him looking out, but I'm like, 'What can he see?'" "DeCample says he was in the process of transferring fuel to the plan when he glanced toward a cabin window and saw the face that's been memorialized in those famous DB Cooper sketches." Blevins so called witnesses are not credible either. They are making claims/opinions 40+ years later about an event they have no direct knowledge of to an amateur researcher not under penalty of perjury. Witnesses like this, including McCoy's kids need corroboration because people lie, exaggerate, speculate and manufacture memories all the time. When Chaucer tried to discredit Ratazcak I posted news reports going back over the years that confirm Ratazcak was telling the same story.. Chaucer then applied his worn out strawman tactic to claim I only rely on news reports.. where did Chaucer go by the way.. he seems to have run off after his argument got decimated with the facts. Ratazcak is solid. Chaucer's Columbia R argument amounts to discrediting Rataczak, the FBI, Soderlind, me, the crew, logic, Santa Claus, Ghandi, the sled test and participants.. with no evidence to support it. The totality of the evidence shows the "bump" occurred between Merwin and Battleground. The only possible way Cooper jumped into or next to the Columbia is if the "bump" was not Cooper leaving the plane. That is an entirely different argument and I have seen no evidence to support that. The big "bump" felt by the crew was the last one..

I was wondering if I overthought it. Like I said it was fine and I wasn't ever worried. Thanks!

Piece by piece. We’re not as far apart on the topic of as you like to make out; we value the long term and short term differently I also don’t think that EVs will overtake ICs in the next three years. For one thing, even if they were to in segments of the market, there is a gigantic installed base. But the direction is towards EV; it’s the least bad that reasonably fits the lives many of us already live. 110 years ago, making the system better for IC was a much smaller proposition than moving the technology. The Green New Deal, as exactly proposed (in all the many forms, depending on the person), won’t happen. But, again, it’s the direction we should head. If nothing else, conserving resources is better than using them up so you get your “fair share.” It’s more responsible. Eventually fossil fuel will be a niche product, kind of like leaded gasoline. Not in our lifetimes, but my lifetime isn’t the only one that matters. Nor even leaving the most moola and stuff to my offspring. BTW, he agrees with me. On exactly how many ppm of CO2 will be the tipping point; I don’t want to stumble into it. Is that how we should manage our lives — spend everything and then hope something comes through? That’s kind of like using the lottery as your safety net. And I agree that levels will continue to rise; I just don’t think that’s a good thing. The whole thing about pursuing low and zero carbon policies is to reflect the actual (as we understand it now) cost; not the short term “we’ll solve that problem when we have to” cost. Because we’re suffering the costs of lack of planning — crumbling infrastructure, toxic waste and air that have to be dealt with, etc. As far as temperatures skyrocketing, I think that if you consider the number of people who depend on a fairly narrow range of temperatures, and who will be displaced by that range changing or widening (maybe they’ll want to come to Pennsylvania), maybe the definition of “skyrocketing” isn’t one that you’re qualified to make. As far as the NASA prediction of corn, do you have any basis other than wanting to see them wrong for your assertion? Or if it’s 24% reduced, will you come back and say “told ya!” Or if we’ve discovered a new strain of grass that’s even better so no one wants to plant corn any more? So we can agree on some facts and likelihoods. However, I rather doubt that any acknowledgment will come other than something to the effect of “Wendy thinks I’m right — as usual.” Which is utter and arrant bullshit, because individual facts paint a story; if a story is what you’re after, more power to you, but understand it’s just a story. Wendy P.

More like 'pathetic'.

Yup, and significantly hotter than 120 years ago. In life there are people who can see a big picture and there are those who can only handle one little moment at a time.

You spelled it wrong. It's obfuscation.