Chaucer

Georger, On Shutter's forum on April 15th, 2021, I posted directly to you about the ability to extract DNA from human hair. You never responded. That said, if DBC's hair sample is found, it could be the key to the case. Also, georger, on September 15th, I posted that I had submitted a public records request with law enforcement about the Heisson store break in, but was told there were no records currently in existence from that time period. Hope that answers a couple of questions you asked on here.

The calculations are not wrong. Density = mass/volume Mass of money bag = 10350 grams Volume of money bag = 187500 cm squared Density = Mass/Volume Density = 10350 grams/187500 cm squared Density = .0552 cm squared Density of water = 1 g/cm squared Conclusion = buoyant However, while the calculations above are correct, the numbers might wrong be due to the uncertainty of the size of the bag. There have been multiple descriptions of the money bag. Passenger Cord Zum Spreckel "two foot by 1 foot by one-half foot" Passenger Robert Gregory "about two feet tall" Passenger Nancy House "about 10 inches by 12 inches by 18 inches" NWO Airlines employee at freight desk: "1 foot by 1 foot by 9 inches" Eric Ulis concludes that it was a SeaFirst Size H which is 75 cm by 50 cm by 50 cm (29.5 inches by 19.5 inches by 19.5 inches). These are the dimensions I used in my calculations. Other money bags from that time period measure 28 inches by 14 inches by 0.1 inches. We simply do not know the exact dimensions of the bank bag that Cooper jumped with. The assumption has been that the bag was turgid with money - so much so that he had to try to place the overflow cash in the reserve chute. Perhaps this assumption is wrong. Perhaps the money fit just fine in the bag he was given. All that said, let's look at just the money without the bank bag. $200,000 in twenties = 0.3988 cubic feet or 11293 cubic centimeters in volume $200,000 in twenties - 22.03 pounds or 9.992 kilograms or 9992 grams in mass Density = Mass/Volume Density = 9992 grams/11293 cubic cm Density = 0.885 g/cm squared The density of the money alone (if it were just one big block by itself) would have less density than freshwater (1.0 g/cm squared) and would be buoyant. In fact, the money would have to take on well over a third of a gallon of water (1.3 liters) to make it sink. However, the money did not enter the water in one big block. It was contained inside a bag of uncertain size and shape. It is also impossible to factor in the mass and volume of the rubber bands and their contribution to the overall density of the money and bag. Also, according to Tom Kaye, DBC cut about 100 feet of shroud line with which to secure the money bag. Larry Carr has stated that Cooper used this shroud line to wrap the money bag top to bottom and around its sides. We can assume that the money bag would have been tightly secured - especially so since Cooper would not want to risk the losing the money while jumping from the aircraft. How would this much shroud line contribute to the mass or density of the bag? Considering how tightly the bag would be tied and secured, it would seem unlikely that it would be immediately infiltrated by water. Additionally, if the bag was tightly secured as suspected, the money would not have been able to fan out and sink until it became free of the bag. We also do not know how porous the canvas of the bag would be, but traditional cotton canvas absorbs water and will provide a level of water resistance to the contents inside for a period of time. That fact, along with its durability and sturdiness, explains the popularity for its use in bags in general. The bottom line is that regardless of how you want to calculate the density/buoyancy of the money, the conclusion remains the same: the money bag would float in freshwater - the same conclusion you yourself arrived at.

What a very strange reply. I have no theory to “decimate”. I’m merely pointing out that you are relying on statements from Rataczak made years and even decades after the event - of which there is no documentation and assuming - again without documentation - that this statement was recorded by Soderlind and assuming - again without documentation - that Soderlind’s written record of this alleged statement was used to pinpoint the time of the jump. That’s an unsound way to conduct an investigation, and I expect better from you since you are the best at his. Regarding strawman? What strawman am I attacking exactly? I provided factual evidence in the form of 302s and transcripts in comparison to your rank speculation and specious reasoning. There were no reports of “jumps” in this case. Not one. Not two. Not 100. No reports of jumps. This is false regardless of how many times you repeat it. Again, I’m not arguing that Soderlind wasn’t involved. Of course he was involved. But there’s no evidence that he recorded Rat’s alleged “leave of us” comment and used that to develop the LZ. My argument uses nothing but documented evidence directly from the 302s and transcripts. Anyone paying attention can see that. You are the one making leaps of logic and engaging in speculation. If you wanted to use evidence to support your argument, you’d post a 302 stating that Rataczak said “Our friend has taken leave of us. Mark it.” If you wanted to use evidence to support your argument you’d find a document where Soderlind wrote that down in the company log. If you wanted to use evidence to support your argument, you’d locate a 302 where the FBI states that Soderlind’s notation of the time indicated by Rat was used to create the time of the jump. Why haven’t you? Because you can’t. You accuse me of the exact behavior that you exhibit. Your attempt to gaslight everyone and make me think my argument has no evidence while yours does has failed. Try a different tactic. It makes you look desperate. Here are the facts: 1. No official documentation exists that Rataczak stated “I believe our friend has taken leave of us. Mark it.” At the time of the jump. 2. There is no evidence that the crew immediately reported this event to Soderlind. 3. There is no evidence that Soderlind used this alleged time notation to reconstruct the landing zone. 4. There is no evidence that the crew ever reported that the HJ had “jumped” or left the aircraft prior to 11:13 in Reno. If you would like to abandon your ad hominem arguments and provide evidence that refute these facts, go ahead. It should be easy for you. You’re the best researcher in the this case. Have a terrific night.

Good stuff, FJ! You were the one who first mentioned Rat’s comments to Carr, so I responded. Glad you agree they are irrelevant. I’m not saying Soderlind wasn’t involved in the reconstruction of the flight path or the landing zone. My point is that there is no evidence that Rataczak made the “took leave of us” as the plane passed over southern Washington State, and no evidence that Soderlind’s notes or company log were used in that reconstruction. Saying so is just assumption and conjecture on your part, and not based in any known documentation. Rat DID say …”our passenger took leave of us somewhere between here and Seattle…” at 11:13. That’s is likely were this urban myth came from. It’s also important to recognize that Soderlind provided an LZ extending to the river to Tosaw. If this is true, then how does this fit into your narrative? As far as newspaper articles? You are the best researcher on the case. The elite of the elite. I’m shocked you would rely on news media reports - which are notoriously inaccurate - to support your argument. I found an article in which that quote is attributed to Scott when he returned to the cockpit after checking the rear of the aircraft. If the 302s can’t be trusted, how can news articles? If Rat did say “Our friend took leave of us. Mark it” sometime around 8:11 and Soderlind wrote down the time, then why is that never mentioned in the 302s? Why does the FBI repeatedly state that the 8:11 time for the jump comes from a correlation of the report of the oscillations with radar data? Why does Rataczak state the time was 8:13, not 8:09? 8:11? 8:12? The reason should be a clear to an expert on the case like you: it either didn’t happen or happened later (11:13 to Reno Tower) and changed over the decades. Also, the crew never reported that Cooper had jumped or left the aircraft. It’s not in the 302s. It’s not in the transcripts. Not in the FBI’s interviews of the crew. Quite the opposite. The comms and the behavior of the crew indicate their confusion and their assumption that Cooper was still aboard. There would be no reason at the time to believe the pressure bump = Cooper jumping. That wasn’t confirmed until the January sled test. To be clear, this discussion is independent of my belief of a jump closer to the Columbia. This is about verifying secondary and tertiary sources against primary ones. You’re a smart guy. The smartest researcher in this case. No one comes close to you. Frankly, I’m surprised you would engage in rank speculation and assumption like this based upon zero evidence. You’re so much better than this.

First, I agree with Carr (and you) that information provided closer to the event is more accurate. To my knowledge, both the “5 to 10 minutes” and “10 to 15 minutes” statements were made both to Carr decades after the event. I may be wrong on this, and if you could clarify that would be great. Second, regardless of Rat’s statements (again, decades after the event) Sonderlind is hardly mentioned in the 302s, and all official FBI documentation indicate that the jump spot was formulated from a combination of the comms and the radar data. The comm that was used specifically was the one where Rat indicated they were experiencing oscillations and his ear piece fell out. Sonderlind was certainly involved, and was certainly a genius, but there is no evidence that he wrote down the time of Cooper’s jump or that his notes or the company log was used in creating the drop zone. This anecdote from Rat comes decades later, and as we agree, statements made closer to the event are more accurate. If we really want to complicate things, Tosaw claims in his book that Sonderlind extended the jump zone to the Columbia. Third, Anderson and Rat disagree. Rat says he reported it immediately. Anderson states that they waited to report it because they weren’t sure what it meant and wanted to know if they would experience it again. Fourth, again, you are relying on Rat’s statements which as you pointed out aren’t as accurate as contemporaneous evidence. An examination of the 302s and transcripts indicate that the crew was not certain if Cooper was still on the plane or not. Even Tina radioed back that for Cooper to put up the stairs because they were about to land. The Harrison notes indicate that the crew had “decided not to contact him till near Reno”. Then, of course, they try to radio him in the back at 10:36 and 10:48. This doesn’t seem to be behavior of a flight crew that believes he jumped out of the aircraft hours earlier. Fifth, it is an anecdote which is defined as a “short story about a real event”. Rataczak made this claim in the DVD. It does not appear in the 302s. It does not appear in any FBI interviews with the crew. It is a story Rat decided to share decades later. I’ll refer to our agreement that statements made closer to the event are more accurate. More likely, this story originated from the statement that I referenced earlier made at 11:13 to Reno Tower. Lastly, it’s quote possible that the crew knew they were near the BTG/PDX VORTAC. But that’s not what Rat is stating here. He is stating that they were in “the suburbs of Portland or the immediate vicinity.” Ariel, Battleground, and Orchards would not be considered “suburbs of Portland” the “immediate vicinity” IMO. And again, they weren’t even sure what that bump meant exactly until January - regardless of what time it occurred. It seems that you are relying on various statements made by Rataczak decades removed from the actual event rather than on the FBI documentation. A clear-eyed examination of the FBI docs and transcripts reveal the following: 1. No statement from Rataczak about “taking leave of us” exists except at the end of the flight. 2. The timing of the jump was based on the crew report of “oscillations” correlated with radar data. Sonderlind’s notes in the company log are never even hinted at as being part of the reconstruction. 3. The crew was unsure if he jumped, let alone when. I’m glad we can agree that documentation closer to the time of the incident is more accurate than statements made decades later. Enjoy the new year!

A few things… First, Rataczak later told Carr that it was 10 to 15 minutes after last contact. So, we have a pretty ambiguous range to start. Second, the 302s state that the original drop zone and search area in the vicinity of Merwin Dam was based entirely on the pilot report of oscillations in conjunction with radar data. There is no mention of Paul Sonderlind’s notes or the company log ever being used by the FBI to develop the dropzone. In fact, Sonderlind is hardly mentioned in the 302s. Third, Anderson was interviewed a few years ago and stated that the crew waited “for some time” to report the pressure bump - that it wasn’t immediate. How long they waited is uncertain. One minute? Three? Five? Fourth, at no time in the transcripts or interviews does any of the crew indicate that they thought Cooper had left the plane. In fact, the crew tried to call him in the back at 10:38 and again at 10:46. When the plane landed, Scott searched the rear and obviously found nothing. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence that the crew knew or assumed he jumped in 8:09 to 8:12 time frame - or at any time for that matter. They didn’t even know what the bump meant exactly until January 1972 when they did the sled test. Fifth, the anecdote (which again, doesn’t appear in any 302s) about Rataczak declaring “I believe our friend has taken leave of us.” does not happen between 8:09 and 8:12. It did not occur until 11:13, according to the transcripts, when the crew radioed the tower in Reno and said, “…be advised that, uh, we apparently, uh, our passenger took leave of us somewhere between here and Seattle…” Lastly, it is hard to imagine anyone describing Ariel, Battleground, or even Orchards as “the suburbs or immediate vicinity” of Portland - especially in 1971 when that area was much less populated and much more rural than it is now. Nevertheless, it’s possible they could see the city glow through the clouds, but I would hazard a guess that any accurate determination of exactly where they were would be nearly impossible given the visibility.

Takes a special kind of asshole to bring someone’s children into this. Who should be embarrassed?

I left because you are a stubborn narcissist. Besides…don’t worry about me…”you got this”

Indeed it does...

Nine.

And this is why no one worth a damn posts her anymore. Enjoy your circle jerks about fluctuating, oscillating, bumping, and the like!

Not according to Flyjack. Any deviation from 8:10 and you are an utter moron who knows nothing about the case. Careful, Blevins, you might end up in Flyjack’s personal cancel culture for no other reason than daring to disagree with him.

And it appears I am done with you because like Eric Ulis, it’s either your theories or antipathy with no room for respectful discussion.

FJ, I am an academic and professional researcher. It’s literally what I do for a living. Nothing about the Columbia theory requires a rejection of evidence - only a rejection of your flawed conclusion about the fluctuations, oscillations, and bumps all somehow being the same thing. Regarding the 8 minute time span, how do you reconcile Soderlind’s calculations of a DZ all the way to Columbia? Going to ignore that too? Or what about the the crew’s statement that it could have been as late as 8:15, 8:17 or even 8:20? We going to forget about that too? What about Carr’s suggestion of a jump farther south? Going to reject one FBI special agent in favor of others that are closer to your theory? What about the fact that there is nothing in the transcripts or 302s describing anything such as a “violent pressure bump” or any indication that the crew reported Cooper left the aircraft? Just going to whistle and forget that too? The fact is that you are engaging in the same behavior that you accuse me of. Parsing terminology. Ignoring one anecdote in favor of others. Making certain phrases synonymous without a shred of evidence. Jamming a round peg in a square whole. The plane was one place, the money ended up somewhere else. If you actually want to use deductive reasoning, you would conclude that the most logical vehicle for how that happened would be the river. The evidence leaves open the possibility of a later jump. Whether that’s absolutely what happened? Who knows? Maybe Bigfoot ate the money and then walked over and shat it all over Tena Bar. The entire point of my argument is that there is uncertainty about where the plane was when Cooper jumped. That’s not new and it’s not controversial. You claim to know precisely where the plane was when Cooper jumped. I think anyone claiming to know anything with precision about this case is on a fool’s errand.

Your last 8 posts on this board have been about me. Perhaps you should focus more on DB Cooper and less about me. I’m a nobody. Peace, my friend.

How are you so sure about the use of the terminology? Pressure fluctuations/oscillations/pressure bumps, etc. How are you able to parse the difference? What evidence do you have that this is what these words mean and that the FBI and flight crew were using these words in the way that you state? I disagree with your assessment and your Chevy Corvette analysis. I don’t think it’s accurate. I’ve already explained why and I won’t bore everyone repeating myself. I respect your adherence to the FBI flight path, and I’d be curious to see what evidence you have that would explain how the money ended up in the Columbia months or years after the hijacking after previously landing near Ariel. Either way, enjoy your Independence Day.

FJ, for the most part, we agree. Where we differ is on the timing. All I'm saying is that there is a degree of uncertainty that would allow for a jump a closer to the Columbia. Can I prove that Cooper did jump closer to the Columbia? No. But there is enough of a range that the time frame makes is possible. That's all. Regarding you question about what the FBI knew vs. what I know? All I can say is that I think the FBI confused the report of oscillations with the actual pressure bump when Cooper jumped. SA Carr thought the same thing among other researchers more knowledgeable than myself. The only thing I object to vehemently is the comparison to Ulis.

I'm saying your are confusing the oscillations with the pressure bump. Don't feel bad. The FBI did that for decades. Unfortunately, conflating these two events and trying to shoehorn them into the 8:10 time frame is where your theory falls apart. Regardless, It seems none of the facts I can offer you will change your mind. Good luck in your research.

I haven't attacked you personally. I disagree with your conclusion, but I have nothing against you personally, and I respect you immensely as a researcher. If you want to degenerate this into name-calling, then I'm out. FACT: There were minor oscillations long before the crew reported "getting cabin oscillations" at 8:10 (they had increased), FACT CHECK: There is no evidence to suggest this differentiation. Of course the crew is going to report "cabin oscillations" because they never left the cabin. Also, the transcript you provided above conveniently has time stamps faded out so as to be unreadable. According to the time stamp, that report was given at 8:12, not 8:10. I've attached a clearer copy below. The oscillations were reported as late as 8:12 which means the pressure bump happened after that. Anderson states that they were "flying dirty" so they would have felt something early on, but they all felt oscillations and presumed it was Cooper "doing something with the aft stairs". Any other conclusion is an invention. FACT: During the sled test oscillations did not increase when a man went down the stairs and stood on the end. FACT CHECK: The FBI document reports "very little change", not "no change". Anderson himself said that the oscillations were so minor that Scott wasn't even sure he felt them. Here's Anderson: "These were minor oscillations. We detected on the guages only." FACT: Fluctuations/Oscillations increased violently when the weight was dropped. FACT CHECK: The "fluctuations/oscillations" did not increase "violently". The FBI statement says that the gauge reacted "violently". Anderson states clearly that after the the "pressure bump" the oscillations ended abruptly. You are implying that after the sled test, the oscillations increased dramatically in the cabin which did not happen. FACT: Anderson claimed the oscillations and pressure bump were exactly the same during the test. FACT CHECK: Anderson claims no such thing. He only claims that the sled test matched his experience the night of the hijacking: a series of oscillations which they concluded was Cooper messing with the aft stairs followed by a strong pressure bump that ended the oscillations. In fact, in his statement, Anderson makes it clear that the oscillations and pressure bump are separate things: "What we noticed was the pattern of the oscillations was continuing" "We all agreed that the guages were detecting a disruption of airflow, most likely caused by Cooper testing out the aft stairs. But we all felt one physically distinguishable "bump" with our ears" "When the final bump happened and the oscillations stopped that sealed it." FACT: Anderson referred to the pressure bump as "the largest by far".. (that means many) FACT CHECK: This changes nothing. Anderson and others have used multiple terms to describe these events. This isn't some smoking gun here. See above. FACT: Rataczak said his ears popped at 8:10. FACT CHECK: Rataczak has said multiple things over the years. You yourself supplied a document that gives a range from 8:10 to 8:15. He later said that the jump occurred 5 to 10 minutes after last contact (8:05) and then told Carr it was 10 to 15 minutes after last contact. Anderson has said there was uncertainty over when the pressure bump occurred. Soderlind gives a range from Ariel to the Columbia. Also, this statement is from a newspaper article which we all should know should be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to statements and "facts". My point is that you want the jump time to be 8:10 so badly that you are engaging in behavior that you are accusing me of: ignoring evidence, distorting evidence, and confusing the facts. Now you seem to want to engage in personal attacks. Sorry, it's not personal to me. It's just that your conclusions are wrong. Cheers.

No, I haven’t screwed up anything. You are confusing terms and cherry-picking statements to prove your point. The statements from the crew all point to a series of oscillations, fluctuations, etc. happening and that those concluded with one final pressure bump. The reports all state that the “oscillations” were an on-going, continual event (“he’s fiddling with the stairs”, “he’s doing something with the stairs”) There’s no indication that they were report a singular event. The sled test confirmed that the pressure bump was caused by Cooper leaving the craft. It did not confirm that Cooper left the craft, there were a series of oscillations, and then a pressure bump. You have the chronology ass-backwards. The fact remains that the oscillations are NOT the same thing as the pressure bump, and the oscillations were reported at 8:11/8:12 per the transcripts. Thus, the pressure bump - if was reported - was reported some time AFTER that. One more time: the oscillations/fluctuations/small bumps, etc. are NOT the same thing as the pressure bump/large bump. Whether my theory that Cooper ended up on the north bank of the Columbia is irrelevant. The above are facts of the case.

OK, so we’ll use your terminology for the sake of argument. There was a series of small bumps which occurred for an extended period of time ending with a large bump. We don’t know for how long the small bumps happened, and we don’t know the time of the large bump. To suggest that when the crew reported the small bumps they were also reporting the large bump is not supported by Anderson’s statement: “What we noticed was the pattern of the oscillations was continuing and there was a very minor disruption of the slipstream. Scott said at first he wasn’t feeling anything for sure, then a little later he thought there was more drag and the nose was deviating a little. When the final bump happened and the oscillations stopped that sealed it. But even then we weren’t sure and we waited before calling anybody.” So, Anderson confirms that the “pattern of oscillations” continued for an extended period of time. He also differentiates between “bump” and “oscillations”. Lastly, he confirms that they waited before alerting anyone of the final “bump”. How long did they wait? What time did they report the final bump? No one knows. If you want to continue to believe that the report of a “pattern of oscillations” or a “series of pressure fluctuations” are the same thing as a “pressure bump” or “larger bump” then go ahead, but I don’t think that’s correct.

I’ve read the evidence. I agree with everything you said. Whether you call it “pressure changes” or “oscillations” or “small bumps”, we know that was Cooper going out on the stairs. Whether you call it a “pressure bump” or a “larger bump”, that was Cooper leaving the plane. Anderson says this and the sled test confirmed this. So, what exactly are we even talking about?

I honestly don’t know if you’re purposefully trying to muddle things at his point. Are you now saying that the “oscillations” they reported were not actually oscillations but rather “small bumps”? Are you saying that the “larger” bump reported by Anderson is a separate incident from the “pressure bump” that the sled test proved was caused by Cooper leaving the craft? Are you saying that the “oscillations” reported at 8:11/8:12 are not oscillations at all but actually the “larger bump”? Frankly, you’ve lost me, and I truly don’t know what your even theorizing here.

This discussion is getting a bit reductive. The facts are this: the crew reported oscillations at 8:11 and 8:12. The oscillations preceded the pressure bump. Therefore, the pressure bump had to have occurred after 8:11/8:12. That's simply the truth. No one knows exactly when the pressure bump occurred. Hell, the CREW doesn't know when the pressure bump occurred. You can't use the contemporaneous crew statements while ignoring the fact that they hadn't reported oscillations at 8:10 let alone a bump. Also, you keep wanting to use the terms "pressure bumps" and "oscillations" interchangeable depending on how it suits you. They are two distinct, though correlated, events. Analogous to labor pains and child birth. The crew reported labor pains at 8:12, but the baby hadn't been born yet. Isn't it logical to conclude that the baby was born after 8:12? We also have to differentiate between the terms "evidence" and "proof". Can I prove that Cooper jumped near the Columbia? No, I cannot. Is there evidence to suggest that possibility? Yes, there is. Meanwhile, if you can provide supporting evidence that Cooper jumped near Ariel while also accounting for the money find a dozen miles west, I'd love to hear it. Lastly, while the money find can't be used as evidence, it is one of the few confirmed data points in this case. It is perfectly reasonable to use this data point along with others to form opinions. I've said my piece, and I have little left to add. Without more information, there will always be uncertainty about this topic.

I’m not suggesting my argument is novel. On the contrary, Tosaw and Carr both subscribed to it. Second, I’ve done the math on the forward throw. Wind would have little or no influence on the fall from 10,000. I encourage anyone to do the same calculations. Third, I have never once suggested that the plane was OVER the Columbia. The plane doesn’t have to be over the river for Cooper or the money to end up on the northern banks for reasons I have stated above. You keep saying the crew said 8:10/8:11. That’s impossible because that is when they reported the oscillations - not the pressure bump. You also are ignoring the fact that they said it could have been as late as 8:15. That underscores the fact that they didn’t know the precise time of the jump. Regarding Anderson, how is that pertinent? The “largest bump by far” would have been the pressure bump, and he states that he isn’t sure when it happened, but that it wasn’t reported until later. There’s no report of a pressure bump at 8:10/8:11 as you claim. I still don’t know what evidence I’m “ignoring”. I’m looking at the same 302s, the same transcripts as you. The conclusion I arrive at is that there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding where along the flight path the plane was and when Cooper jumped along that flight path. It’s imprecise. All we have is a range. Based on the information we have that range is 8:13 to 8:17. 8:13 is one minute after the last report of oscillations. 8:17 is when the plane reached the Columbia. You’re right. By itself, the money find can’t be used as evidence. But when you take the flight path and you add where the money was found, the only logical way to triangulate those two data points is via the river. Either a human being put the money in the water months after the hijacking or it ended up there by natural means. I think my conclusion is more reasonable. Can I prove it? No. But that doesn’t make it wild speculation as you imply. Lastly, the LZ after the hijacking was based on Paul Soderlind’s calculations. In Chapter 8 of Tosaw’s book, Soderlind reviewed the flight data and came up with an LZ extending to the Columbia - the same conclusion he says he arrived at the night of the hijacking. Agent Carr also questioned the original LZ and suggested moving it farther south. Clearly, I’m the least qualified person to questions the original LZ, but I’m not the only person to do so. At the end of the day, Flyjack, you have to reconcile the FBI flight path with the money find. How did the money end up miles west of where you believe he jumped? Human intervention? Where’s the evidence? Flow from tributaries? Where’s the evidence? Aliens? Where’s the evidence? All of this is speculation, and to dismiss my theory as baseless speculation is ironic considering,