MeyerLouie

Even as old and decrepit as I am.. I could do that jump and survive.. given the same gear. AND the same conditions. THOUSANDS of US Army Air Corp personnel saved their lives by bailing from their shot up aircraft .. many of them in far worse weather with aircraft far harder to get out of. Most of them ended up as POW's. agreed, let me ask this, how would you have done the jump? and what would you have done with the "X" chute? I would go down the stairs so I could look down and forward looking for any light coming up thru the clouds..to give me an idea of the "spot". But then again I only have about 30 or so night jumps I have jumped a few times with some "industrial haze" and if there is light below.. it lights up the "industrial haze" REAL nice The X reserve would be tossed I know what a good reserve looks like.. I have a similar rig to what he jumped and have at least 3 belly warts out in the loft. several have said they would toss the "X" chute, can we believe Cooper did? if I was in his spot and didn't have much knowledge of jumping, I probably would have went down the stairs sideways with both hands on one rail, as for the "style" of leaving the stairs? since I'm not a jumper, I think I''ll leave that one alone ----------------------------------------------------------- It seems somewhat probable that the "X" chute would have been found by now if tossed. That tiny little placard card from the aft stairway was found afterall. True, the "X" chute is bigger, bulkier, so there's more chance of it getting hung up in a briar patch or treetop. It seems to me,though, DBC would have been more apt to toss the briefcase -- since it was so bulky and awkward to carry and stap on -- unless the briefcase served a useful purpose -- like carrying some of the money, or harboring a homing device, or carrying the road flares for a starting a fire later. If DBC tossed either or both, then they're still out there, and if you find 'em, you're going to be famous.

I'm sure your 'friends and relatives' at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie-Mellon appreciate your vote of support. Why would you trust the government to do these tests? These are the same guys who've already had 40+ years to solve the case, put up Marla Cooper's 'Uncle LD' as a 'viable suspect,' and once admitted that some in the Seattle FBI thought Christiansen was a good suspect, but refused to do even a cursory investigation on him. Okay, we won't count that last part. Still...I would want an INDEPENDENT entity to test the bills, somebody with no axe to grind. The FBI's official position RIGHT NOW is that they think Cooper died in the jump. They've said so. This means they already have a preconceived notion going regarding the money and the hijacker. (That he's dead and the money ended up on Tena Bar somehow as a result of his non-survival) You are justifiably large on double-blinds and verifiable research. Fine. So your answer is 'let the government do it.' I disagree. MIT. Carnegie-Mellon. Perhaps another science-heavy university. That's my vote for additional testing on any of the ransom money. Government, NO. ---------------------------------------------------------- Blevins......What???????????? I didn't follow that -- you went in all directions all at the same time all in one post. I think I just witnessed an ADD classic moment. MeyerLouie

You took the words right out of my mouth! You have more courage than I do. Ditto, I second that emotion. MeyerLouie

QuoteUW Burke Museum's Tom Kaye has claimed that because of the condition of the rubber bands.... ------------------------------------------------------------ So Blevins, I guess this label gives Tom Kaye some serious scientific credentials then. It's impressive -- UW Burke Museum, wow! But it's just a label. There are people who receive doctoral degrees who have never set foot in a classroom -- they're called honorary doctorates -- mostly a label of respect for contributions outside the classroom. I know a guy who is the Executive Director of a Fisheries Commission but, to my knowledge, he has never set foot in a science lab. He's is very famous, very influential, he is just a figurehead, his name adds credibility to the Commission, that's it. He has very little scientific aptitude or abilities. So, linking Tom Kaye with Burke Museum doesn't make him any more scientifically credible than my friend with the Fisheries Commission. Moreover, most paleontologists I have met at the University have a doctorate in the field. Look at the guy's resume -- diplomas, degrees, certificates, work experience -- the total package. Labels are meaningless without real credentials. MeyerLouie

------------------------------------------------------------ I am always suspicious of TK's conclusions. Remember this guy does science for a hobby. He may have taken high school chemistry. His wimpy analysis and conclusions may be because he lacks formal education, training, and experience in scientific inquiry. We'd be better served with someone with real credentials in science. MeyerLouie

Blevins said: Never said I went to Tena Bar. Can't go there without permission, and when you get there everything is different from 40 years ago anyway. ----------------------------------------------------------- Everything Blevins, I don't think so. Look at the maps, there are a lot of changes, that's to be expected, but not everything. Look, see -- once again you confuse your assumptions with reality. MeyerLouie

And so how would you solve it? Unlimited budget, labs galore, phD's, any resource you wanted - ? What would you look for in the money? How would you connect the money to the rest of the case? I am always interested in people with BIG ideas. Better than small minded people who say and do the same assinine things day in and day out. How about just keep digging? Pun intended. Something, anything, is better than nothing, and that's all we got now. We need smart guys like you to solve the money mystery -- it will help make the other pieces of the puzzle fit together.

------------------------------------------------------------ Sounds like what SafeCrackingPLF said in his analysis using Occam's Razor -- most probable solution is the simplest, one that introduces the fewest assumptions. Any accurate information on the dredging would be key. And again, I come back to the fact that some seem to be ignoring -- how do you explain the pitted, blackened, worn, tattered condition of the Tena Bar bills? Check out 377's 20 -- if he'll let you. If the bills got to Tena's Bar by "unnatural means," ie, someone planted them there, way after the fact, then how did the planter get the bills to look so tattered and worn? Did DBC take the money and chemically "antique" the bills, then later plant a few bundles at Tena's Bar just to throw us all off? Or maybe it was a passerby, at some later time, who found the DBC money bag, after it had been rolling down the River for years, and then planted 3 bundles at Tena's Bar -- just to throw us all off -- just to get a good laugh? All kiddinh aside, I believe there is a logical explanation, we just haven't found it yet. Any theory that does not explain the tattered condition of the bills is bs, plain and simple. MeyerLouie .....And then there is also the suggestion that the money find itself might be suspect. That the money might have been "planted" for the child to find. At least this was brought up the last 2, 3, or 4 times the money find was discussed in minute detail on this forum. No reason to leave it out now......

--------------------------------------------------------- I don't live all that far away from Tena's Bar, 1-2 hours away. , I'd be willing to help out. Send me a pm, let's talk. MeyerLouie

Farflung continues: This is the simplest design to deliver some money to Tena Bar. Agreed? Yes/No? If No, What is a simpler solution? Present it. If Yes, what data set would move or modify the original points? You must have a source, no more ‘because I say so’ or wishful thinking. It just can’t be this difficult to make this point. How do you know Cooper didn’t jump over Guam? If you can reason that out, or into the equation, then any other data set you possess or covet, should work just as well. It would be a matter of resolution and not process, since they are the same. Did Cooper jump over Christmas Island? See, two places are on or off the list, but YOU maintain the things, because I want to know what lies in the realm of most probable (least complex)…. to less probable, based upon things which exclude unicorns, wishful thinking and pure bullshit. R99 replies: The simplest way for the money to get to Tena Bar is a direct jump or, more likely, crater on Tena Bar. There is no accurate information on the exact jump point, FBI maps to the contrary. The Tena Bar money find and location is a single, independent data point. It is not an "outlier", but is a valid point and how the money got there has a rational explanation even if it is not known at this time. Hopefully, Georger will expand on the dredge operations later today. Robert99 ------------------------------------------------------------ Sounds like what SafeCrackingPLF said in his analysis using Occam's Razor -- most probable solution is the simplest, one that introduces the fewest assumptions. Any accurate information on the dredging would be key. And again, I come back to the fact that some seem to be ignoring -- how do you explain the pitted, blackened, worn, tattered condition of the Tena Bar bills? Check out 377's 20 -- if he'll let you. If the bills got to Tena's Bar by "unnatural means," ie, someone planted them there, way after the fact, then how did the planter get the bills to look so tattered and worn? Did DBC take the money and chemically "antique" the bills, then later plant a few bundles at Tena's Bar just to throw us all off? Or maybe it was a passerby, at some later time, who found the DBC money bag, after it had been rolling down the River for years, and then planted 3 bundles at Tena's Bar -- just to throw us all off -- just to get a good laugh? All kiddinh aside, I believe there is a logical explanation, we just haven't found it yet. Any theory that does not explain the tattered condition of the bills is bs, plain and simple. MeyerLouie

Many of us care Jo, just few agree with your conclusions. The dredge image comparison software was a joke, sort of a spoof on the face match software. 377 ------------------------------------------------------------ So 377, are you recanting your statement earlier about the dredge image software providing some king of match between your 20 and some previous dredging -- just a joke then? MeyerLouie

Definitely not much that others have not done. Snowmman was doing a lot of sites and using mulitple band space so that was probably one reason Quade ousted him. He had good manners (most of the time) and was never rude to anyone - just flooded the thread with lots and lots of relevant information and lots and lots of trivia that was unrelated. That man could find things NO ONE ELSE could. No one knows how Sluggo is or if he is still even alive. His site has not been updated at all - at least the last time (about a yr ago) I checked. Sluggo had a lot of health problems and I often wonder if he is still alive and if so how he is doing health wise. Would be nice if someone up-dated us on the status of Snowmman and Sluggo. ------------------------------------------------------------ And Bruce Smith, I've lost track of him. I hope he is doing okay. MeyerLouie

Georger whines a lot about 'personal attack,' yet his every post about yours truly always includes an insult or two. I know he whined to Kaye and that Kaye felt obligated to post a modest defense on DZ. However, I also have Kaye's original email where he talks about WHY Georger was distanced from the Citizen Sleuths. With Gmail, it really IS true: You never have to delete anything to save space unless you want to. So I keep every message except the spam. If Kaye comes onto this thread and gives me permission, I will publish his original email comments on Georger. And some of those comments are not necessarily flattering. It's not my wish to discredit Georger. I think he has been, and continues to be, a positive contributor to this thread. But if most of his posts are aimed simply at 'baiting and trapping' people, or flippant insulting comments, then I will definitely pull the covers away and expose that fact. I think those facts already exist. In the interest of peace and not alienating people, or trashing real research into the Cooper case, I believe in a happy middle ground. So should Georger. Check-in time at the Reality Hotel. Top floor, penthouse suite. ------------------------------------------------------------ Blevins, I'd like to ask a favor. Would it be possible for me to be the referee in a UFC-style match between you and Georger? One big knock-down-drag-out extravaganza. Remember you guys, no eye gouging, and you can't kick each other in the nuts -- just a good ol' fashioned fist fight. Get all that frustration out between the two of you -- once and for all. If we charge admission, I'm thinking we may be able to raise enough money to put on a good DBC Symposium. What do you guys think? I'll be an impartial referee, I promise. MeyerLouie

As for your personal attack (now two years old, Tom addressed that himself to you, right here on Dropzone. Sorry you missed (or dismissed) it. So address it with Tom again, ... or this time give Tom a break and discuss it with your proctologist instead, since you obviously have an inflammatory disorder of the intestine. ----------------------------------------------------------- What's all this talk about proctology lately? You know, Blevins, proctology is the only profession where you start out at the bottom and stay there. When your proctologist checks your prostate, is he the one who goes 'ahhh'?

Already did my practicing for the day...yesterday. Most of those 'arguments' you cite don't address the issues I raised, but either play word games with them or somehow try to compare them to Christiansen. There is a difference between offering evidence and actual proof of a crime. I think regarding the former we did quite well. There is a lot of evidence and witness testimony out there against Christiansen. Some of it has to do with Bernie Geestman's lies at key moments. Comparing the case between KC and Weber is actually pretty simple. The only real evidence, if any, against Weber is the word of one woman. When I said 'physical evidence' I didn't mean fingerprints or DNA. I meant for example, a missing airline ticket stub, which cannot be produced. In the case of Weber, there ARE no witnesses. Just Jo. Even Gossett, if you believe his son(s) has a better case, since there is their testimony about certain quotes and incidents. There are things which have been proven in the case of Christiansen. For example, we can prove he lent the alleged accomplice's sister five thousand in cash less than six months after the hijacking. We can prove he spent 16k in cash on a house less than eight months after the hijacking. And we can prove that Bernie Geestman, despite his denials, was involved in both these transactions. We can also prove that KC and Bernie were together, and missing, over the week of the hijacking. We can prove Kenny had parachute experience, although he hadn't jumped in some years. We can prove that without any visible means of how he acquired it, that Kenny died with a much larger estate than someone in his position could be expected to have. We can prove that Geestman told lies that directly relate to an effort to distance himself from any possible involvement in the hijacking. For example, when he said he couldn't have been involved because he was gone to sea with Foss Tugs ten to eleven months of the year in 1971. Foss says that is not true. Or when he said he didn't know the details on how his own sister got the loan from Kenny...but it was HE who delivered the money. Or when he said he didn't know how Kenny got his house for cash...when Kenny bought it from a couple where Bernie served as their Best Man at their wedding only three years previously. None of that is proof Christiansen hijacked Flight 305, of course. But it IS evidence. And there is a lot more of that in KC's case than anything you'll find regarding Weber...

------------------------------------------------------------ Blevins, I think Jo has pretty much shot down all of your arguments against her theory and premises. When I look at your KC=DBC theory, I have to ask, "where's the beef?" What proof have you offered? Zip. Don't think you have any room to criticize anybody else's lack of proof. That's pretty arrogant, Grand Miestro Peepee. Go practice your guitar now.

Quote***Yeah! What SHE said! You might not agree with her, but why pick on a lady who is old enough to be almost anyone's mother on this thread? ------------------------------------------------------------ Hey Blevins, this is one of stupidest, most disrespectful things you've said yet here. For one thing, it's just not true -- take the time since 11/24/71, add 20 or so years, and that total is not too far behind Jo's age. That does not make her old enough to be anyone's mother here. Pathetic Blevins.....really pathetic! MeyerLouie

----------------------------------------------------------- Jo, I'm sorry, I still haven't got past Carter's farter starters. That's a hoot, cracks me up. MeyerLouie

Farflung, get a hold of yourself (maybe you have already). I'm betting your pictures of Marla are sittin' on top of the water tank in your bathroom, all stuck together. Snap out of it, Farflung!

Blevins, how many times are you going to do the it's-on-again, it's-off-again routine? Don't get pissed, throw a temper tantrum, and threaten to quit when things (like the tentative agenda) don't go your way. It's a broken record, like most of your posts. MeyerLouie Is that so? Guess you must have skipped over this part of my post on that: ***'...I know a lot of you out there in ThreadLand gave me the 3rd-degree because I canceled that idea last year for Auburn Days. But here's the deal: ALMOST NO ONE WAS INTERESTED. I put up a webpage on it for six months, and got TWO EMAILS...' THAT'S why it was canceled. Did you think I was going to pay the added expenses involved, go through months of organizing, and then no one wanted to participate? The alternate event at the theatre was a big success. By the way, it's posts like yours (see: negative) that were partly to blame. Maybe I didn't explain myself sufficiently the last time. The theatre event is a part of Auburn Days. I am on the Auburn Days committee and I co-chair this theatre event. This means the city allows me to do whatever I wish at the theatre for the weekend. My co-chair does the Sunday stuff, I do Saturday. But this also comes with responsibilities, and the biggest one is to present to Auburn Days' Head Honcho Connie Henke an event for the theatre that people will actually attend, and/or participate. If there is no interest, then I have to decide on something else. If anyone around this place is interested my email is adventurebooksofseattleAT G frickin' mail Dot Com. Connie has told me that besides the theatre and the city employees to help us, that we might actually get a budget this time, too. On a less smart-ass note, I have a few thoughts on what might work. A quick list: Cooper-type parachute/money bag/briefcase demo, done by someone with access to similar items, i.e. a visual on how the skyjacker popped a chute, cut cords, and probably put together the whole jump package. Short film about all the known suspects. Even the ones out on the edge. Invite Geoff Gray. Invite Himmelsbach. (although I hear he charges a fee) Invite the retired agent who helped interview the witnesses in Seattle. (Still lives in Seattle) Slideshow on KC. What the heck. Dona Elliot has told me she would be willing to load up a van and bring Cooper items from Ariel and sell them from tables in the lobby. But she won't come if the program isn't solid. It's a long trip and a lot of hauling. But she's willing. Invite the Bobby Dayton book folks. They live not far from Auburn. Panel discussion with questions from the audience. Now you're getting somewhere Blevins, talking about what might be on a symposium agenda. That's a step in the right direction. In addition, I would suggest asking for a demo of the flight simulation that one of our colleagues has been working on lately. Blevins, are you getting more bold these days? Your posts these past few weeks have a "I ain't takin' no shit off anybody" kind of tone. No more Mr. Nice Guy. The change is good... I think I like it. MeyerLouie

Blevins, how many times are you going to do the it's-on-again, it's-off-again routine? Don't get pissed, throw a temper tantrum, and threaten to quit when things (like the tentative agenda) don't go your way. It's a broken record, like most of your posts. MeyerLouie

Why cant you or SafecrackingPLF state and share the model here? And if you cant or wont why are you posting here? It began with Safecracking backing Duane Weber, as the most likely (modeled) candidate. It ends now in silence. The Shadow knows! ------------------------------------------------------------ By model, I mean Safe's TTLOL model -- based on Occam Razor's principle/the Law of Parsimony -- the simplest solution is usually the correct one, based on proposed subjective probabilities, his "Cracking the Safe" problem that proposes his Discovery Axiom and Money Axiom; his 7 proposed solutions, his 4 premises/quadrants, his 3 proposed paradoxes -- these are all the ingredients he's assembled to define and explain his model. Like it or not, it's a model. Disagreeing with the premise, development, and conclusion of a model does not mean it doesn't exist. MeyerLouie

There are a very few on DZ that know my RL name. It's not that it's a huge secret or anything, but who I am shouldn't really matter as much as what I say, IMO. I appreciate your sentiments. There is one fellow on here in particular (you can take a stab at who that might be) that told me (and I could cut n paste the quote if needed) that doing the series would be a waste of time since everything I could possibly discuss had already been discussed here on DZ. That was blatantly false, and I knew it. There is more that I know which I'll discuss a little at the bottom of this post. You did say I'd like to know what these were. I've found some mistakes in the series, but they're minor and would not lead to any different conclusions. Perhaps I've missed something? When you first said that I used stats liberally, I wasn't quite sure what you meant. I knew you would be correct either way... a lot, sure used em a lot. The other way, as you put it, took liberties. That's putting it lightly, and in particular the instance that you noted with Palmer's one year opinion and the timeline. What you'll notice when I take liberties is that it doesn't matter. I'm making a point and using some sort of reference to make the point. The references might be arbitrary or incorrectly applied... for example, I do not know for sure if we ran a hypothetical money find 1,000 times if Palmer's opinion would follow a normal distribution. The beauty as I said is that it doesn't matter, I was trying to illustrate a point which I think was shown very well using the bell curve. SKyjack71 and I have spoken, through PM and what have you, enough since I've been away from this message board for me to understand where she's coming from. It's a touchy thing to have a discussion with someone that may or may not be a witness. It's easy to accidentally tamper and ruin a source of knowledge. I've definitely had to proceed cautiously in that regard, but if you look closely you'll notice that her narrative has changed some in the last 3 years or so. Much of this has to do with my occasional phone discussions. I will tell you that the original narrative that she told me was totally incorrect. When I say narrative, I'm talking about her viewpoints and not events that she claims to recall. TTLOL focused on looking at the evidence for the story it tells (or probable story it tells if you will). Biases and cognitive error have massively distorted public opinion, opinion of those that are interested in the case, and unfortunately investigators in the case. Removing those mistakes is what TTLOL was about. FWIW, similar mistakes are prevalent everywhere and are not only found in the Cooper case. The model (optimal solution as I called it) is one I've been working on for years. No one seemed to be too interested in it, so I worked on it alone. What I can tell you now is that the model is not only to be favored from a mathematical standpoint on the evidence alone, it's actually quite profound in the sense that I've made predictions with it and seemingly verified with Jo on the veracity of them. Those confirmations, if you will, have led to me to become 100% convinced that it not only should be favored, but that it is what happened. If I've somehow misjudged this, I'm not incorrect in saying that the model explains the evidence perfectly where all other theories do not. When I stop and think about this, with some of those predictions, the hair on the back of my neck stands up. It's that strong. I'm hopeful to explain all this down the road at some point, but time is a huge factor. I had a good 10 minutes to waste just now, thus the post... but to put this together will be an undertaking as you say. It has kept me sleepless at times over the last 2 years in particular. The final breakthrough was achieved around a year ago, so I've made pretty much no progress on it since then. I believe that I know about 80-90% of what can be known. There are some people that have far more energy, time, and resources that could potentially fill in some of the remaining holes through a lot of hard work - but I'm not that person. I'm more than happy to discuss things with you, especially since you're mathematically inclined. I'm also willing to discuss with any person of science given that they use the scientific method. I will not discuss anything with self proclaimed logicians that add nothing to the case and ride the coattails of their friends, nor with people off their meds, nor book writers. Use the PM. I'm not here often, but in time, I'll do my best to correspond. ----------------------------------------------------------- Safe: any contradictions I noticed were quite minor, one responder to one of your TTLOL episodes noted a minor contradiction. I retract the statement, anything I noticed was minor and does not change my opinion of your work. What's different about your work is you have developed a model, and from that model you search for suspects. Most folks here have done just the opposite -- they have narrowed in on their chosen suspect, then they have created a model (or theory) that fits the suspect. The suspect dictates the model or theory, rather than the model creating possible suspects. In spite of (overwhelming) evidence that contracicts their chosen suspect, and theory, they still stick to their guns. And, as noted earlier, I see no problem with one making assumptions in statistical analysis. As long as you state your assumptions up front and live within the limitations of those assumptions, there should be no problem. I think you've done okay with that. And it's okay, as you have done, to take liberties when using statistics. You went out on a limb. That's what you have to do if you want to learn new things. You're trying to blaze a new trail for crying out loud! Be well. MeyerLouie

Here are but two examples in an endless list of such suppositions Safe makes, which he calls 'premises'! (1) "Nothing was found within 1 square foot of the Ingram find, and nowhere else". True? (2) "The Tena Bar money involves money that was either in a bag, or not in a bag". True? Are these the only options? I could list another twenty examples of similar suppositions Safe makes; on which he then claims to perform a logical matching and reduction. He even goes so far as to attach probabilities to the suppositions he choses. Well if the actual number of known options available at some point in his logic are say 4-6, and Safe has only chosen 2, how accurate can his estimates of probabilities of 1 and 2 be, if 3,4,5, and 6 are excluded? It is acceptable to attach subjective probabilities to real life scenarios, statisticians do it everyday. Choosing fewer options is not necessarily a bad thing either. As Safe stated, every time you add another less than 1 probability to the mix, it makes the overall scenario more complicated and more unlikely -- a simple application of the multiplication rule for probability. And it's totally acceptable to make assumptions in probabalistic analysis -- as long as you tell everyone up front what they are and why you're doing it ... and Safe seems to have done this -- I see no problem with what he has done.