snowmman

Georger on the Cooper sketches "I dont know if its ethnic or racial or what it is" Well, would you agree strong European? What about actual Belgium ancestry? I'm thinking of the comic book, oddly enough.

airtrwardo advised the cats love nothing better than bringing a dazed mouse in the house. letting it go, and catching it again. And when the oldest, best hunter (now dead) used to bring in a live squirrel, you could imagine the commotion of 3 dogs + 3 cats + squirrel all running around. hmm. let me count the ways I'm not a cat person. Way back when, in another house, I was tarring the foundation walls for waterproofing. Cat comes inside, after crawling in the trench and rubbing tar on it's fur. So I have the bright idea of trying to use some kind of cleaner to get the tar off, holding the cat in the bathtub. Cat goes berserk, shredding the shower curtain, my arms, everything. I couldn't tell if I was going to die quicker if I let go of the cat or held on. Full-on crazed cat, claws, teeth, screaming. I'm telling you, you want to be afraid of something? be afraid of cats. Especially if they sleep on your head. (edit) the dogs don't mess with the cats. The youngest one would like to and tries sometimes, but changes its' mind quickly. :)

See, now, if you have cats they can curl up on your lap or between you and the chairback, and you can work and still feel like a good pet-parent as they lie there purring :) our peak cat population was 3. It's down to 2 now. (they were all serious hunters. Mice had no chance. Birds and small field animals were problematic). The oldest one now, was from a pair we got as kittens from a feral cat. Long story, but it ended up with me sawing thru the floor of a closet of a rental house to get them. I remember confronting the feral mother in a crawlspace in an earlier attempt, unable to move with her in my face. Now that was scary. I'm not a cat person, but that one cat owes me! (weird seeing him old now..I still picture him as the young adventurous one, sitting up on top of some duct while the other one in the litter hid)

Is there a Jo analogy here? She gets the attention of newbies here, then after promising 50 times to produce probative evidence, they tire of her games. Yeah, it's probably exactly the same. See the newbs are confident they can add something..i.e. that Jo is just a dottering old lady that needs a little help, and that they can understand stuff others don't. There was one time, one dog got out in the front yard, without my wife realizing it. And there's a knock at the door, and this women is saying "Oh I think your dog is hurt, she's laying there raising her paw at me"...all concerned sounding (the one dog used to do this when she wanted people to pet her) ..and my wife scowls and calls to the dog to get inside, and the dog jumps up to the complete surprise of the woman, and runs inside the house. Dogs study humans non-stop. They know exactly what actions of yours lead to what actions. My dogs can tell by looking at what shoes or boots I put on, what I'm going to do when I go outside.

You can expect a visit from DPS, Dog Protective Services. Good thing dogs dont know how to use weapons. If they did, you'd be tossing the ball more frequently. 377 The classic thing is when they meet new non-dog-people and the dogs run up and drop the ball in their lap. And the people throw the ball, and the dogs come back with the ball. and the cycle repeats..and they think the dog is so cute...until the 50th time. Meanwhile I mumble to myself "Okay, you trained another human".

on being a parent: When I type on the keyboard. I have 3 dogs staring at me, for like an hour solid, without moving, each with a ball in front of them. All they want is for me to throw the ball. And I don't. Now THAT's a guilt trip. And I'm thinking about Jo's example, and I don't really have the feeling that I wished my mom lied to me more. Would anyone want that?

I wonder how the FBI first ID'd Petey as a suspect? Based on my personal experience in criminal cases it's a mistake to rule out a suspect based on a witness sketch unless there is a HUGE difference. Petey may not be Cooper but he is close enough to the sketch to stay in the suspect pool. 377 that's the weird thing. Somehow bruce got info about petey being investigated in 1971 "just days after the heist" .and a few years ago (inexact?) (with 3 agents and dna) . Petey supposedly wasn't in US in 1971, and very unlikely reachable to be brought back to US...and why would they all of a sudden investigate anyone a couple years ago? You know: when Ckret left at the end of 2008, I was sure it was tied to me forwarding him Petey's name. It was the same time period. And then Petey put up a page that said the FBI thought he was Cooper. I'm pretty confident that his page didn't say that before Nov 2008. So I always wondered if it was all connected. It'd be great if Bruce could get to the bottom of this. Ckret told us there was no investigation. But if petey was investigated a few years ago, or in 2008, then obviously something is going on. (edit) Bruce's post was Petey has been investigated twice by the FBI in conjunction to Norjak. First in 1971, just days after the heist, and then a few years ago by the Bureau's San Francisco office, who had three agents investigating him and got DNA samples (voluntarily, I believe) from him. Not sure on the results or findings. I have asked the SF PIO for an update, but somehow they have not gotten around to calling me. Or is petey lying? If so, great! we need new blood on the thread and he's got a great background. (plus he's a writer..he knows how to tell a good story)..Bruce needs to bring him in. Heck he might be dead soon..might as well spin some yarns here! I'd forward his book to Orange1, but I'm not sure she'd want to read it. I think you have to have some US perspective about typical f*ed up US guys of that era, to really understand what he's talking about (he's kind of a nutcase in a way, and some of his talk about women is unsettling). I would also note that apparently you can't get his ebook anywhere else anymore. I assume that's not related. (edit) There is no bigger liar than Jo, so heck, truth or lie, we can work anyone into the fold. Just need to be able to type. Spelling is optional. See georger's posts.

well I'll assume you're lying. Here's the sketch I got from that forensic artist book that was identified as being done by Rose. It looks slightly different than the colored ones we saw, maybe a draft by Rose. I posted this before. The mouth and nose are bigger? lower lip fatter? and there's more hair (hairline is more of a widows peak..thicker on top, combed back strongly? Head shape more triangular (as opposed to oval) (thicker head) looks older relative to the first sketch. I guess we've been thru all this before. And how it all points to Duane being Cooper. It would have been fun to do some crime with Duane. I wonder if he always crimed alone? Seems lonely if so.

ckret posted some info from the files on the sketches back in June 25, 2008 here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3250521;search_string=no%20sketch;#3250521 he said was reading up on the sketches today, it was just a summary, I'll have to find the file to get more detail. Basically, Schaffner looked at the first sketch and did not think it was a quality depiction, she suggested several changes. Mucklow and Hancock felt the first draft sketch did resemble Cooper but each suggested several changes. The changes were made and all three agreed the final sketch looked like Cooper. I think when you weigh each person's words it comes down to tolerances. Each changed the first draft, so each found that the draft was lacking. Perhaps Schaffner's tolerance for detail is more exacting than Mucklow and Hancock. So it's not that the sketches are so far off or people's memories of Cooper are way off. In fact, Schaffner didn't factually change the sketch, she just sharpened it, as did Mucklow and Hancock.

well, ckret said that he hated the idea that a sketch was done, and that basically we should ignore it. The funny thing is, that eliminates just one more thing to discuss. So, we're quickly back to: no facts, nothing really but random guesses. How much more random can it be, then guessing at a loadmaster? There is nothing that one can say, really, about anything. So, back to some good posts. Movies? Books? Reserve/cutaway videos? Cardrops? Stories about 377 jumping from 85,000 ft with a space helmet and a dry suit? (edit) georger: you will at least grant me that it's interesting I was able to dredge up someone who the FBI supposedly investigated, although when and where seems to be something we can't agree on... I mean, any time we learn more about the FBI investigation, we learn something potentially useful.

I think we can rule out petey. Georger will point out that he's not a good match for the sketch. Mouth is too big for one. This picture is a blowup (rotated vertically since his head was tilted) of a high school yearbook picture from Clark Air Base where he was teaching in 1966 before he went to vietnam. At the very least, it's interesting because it gives a perspective on what some people of the right age, and even background, looked like back then. We're so used to seeing Duane Weber and Gosset, etc, that it's easy to forget what other interesting people might have looked like. This is 5 years before '71. Also before vietnam experience. I mostly want to brag about my search skills, since georger has minimum wages folk that run circles around me. (edit) When the jobs run out, I'll be competing with them. There is no better grandstander than me. If there was, SI would replace me. (edit) I would point out that no one collected on any of the 3-4 photos available. Pitiful...but hey, put your money down..find the lady..even money bet...there's still a chance..a couple more out there!

bruce said "Then, letting Himms and Portland take center stage helped maintain the diversion of attention, which has continued to this day, except for the actions of Larry " But Dorwin said some good work was done on the Cooper case. I'm assuming he means the Portland guys did some good work? So there was stuff going on in Portland, post 1980?

Jo said "Here's hoping all of you have a good life and that you have learned something...about Cooper and yourself." The only thing I've learned is how men (especially older men) are suckers for an older woman with a story that they want to believe. All the woman has to do, is tell it with a straight face.

I was just reading the script for "Unforgiven"...Clint Eastwood. http://www.weeklyscript.com/Unforgiven.txt great movie, because nothing's clear, and myths get exposed as ..myths. I was thinking how this thread started out, where everyone wanted to believe they could see the truth that others were too blind to see. Then law enforcement gets involved, and people want to believe that finally there is rock solid truth. But it all kind of ends, with no truth in sight, and everything fuzzy. And like the great shootout in the end, where the eastern writer wants Munny to be acting like the great mythological gunslingers he's written about, but Munny isn't... This 10 minute clip starts with Munny being told they killed his friend Ned and propped his body up in front of Greely's with a sign, when Ned hadn't shot anyone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SO5VO2ixWY You can start at 2:12 if you want to skip ahead. "Who's the fella owns this shithole?" I like that the writer is there...I picture Bruce. The scene is filmed a little differently than the script. The script is a little better.

Yeah, the transition from the Portland guys to the Seattle guys seems key. The Seattle guys only had one day and found nothing. So they go back to Seattle with a "found nothing" story. I think the transition, plus the early ending due to snow, helped mess things up. This Portland/Seattle split, plus the Himmelsbach era ending in Portland and a new guy starting, almost is a perfect storm for information being lost.

I was wondering if Dorwin's team found lots of bits of paper, but maybe further testing revealed they weren't money fragments? But Dorwin would have learned about this, since he was responsible for Norjak in Portland. (which apparently kept its' own records while he was there in the '80s) I'm just thinking, there can't be any way Dorwin can be wrong about finding money fragments, can there?

A lot of people ask me if Jo Weber is insane. I just keep on walking.

It sounds like it might be right that it snowed on 2/14/80 - 2/15/80, closing down the money dig (maybe that's also why that picture of Brian was in snow in the papers, although I don't think it was on the beach) newspaper from 2/15/1980 talks about snow Thurs evening (2/14/1980) http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=c4suAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qocFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3999,4547645&dq=portland+oregon+snow&hl=en There had been a big storm around Feb 1, 1980 also. Says "Interstate 5 from Portland to Seattle was layered with snow and ice"

http://books.google.com/books?id=A2IzPOb0AfYC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=%22jack+pringle%22+fbi&source=bl&ots=WNBOX2qDhr&sig=r_qcwuquJcVJCrBlDRLojKn0dp8&hl=en&ei=DYVWS7m6K43INae87MsE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22jack%20pringle%22%20fbi&f=false This is an interesting account of the money find. "FBI agents found a few more dirty fragments of bills and some broken rubber bands." That may be just myth. Also, it mentions fresh snow covered the ground on Feb 15, which contributed to shutting down the search. Seattle FBI agent Jack Pringle said of the search, "We'll work today and tomorrow and probably knock it off and bring my troops back up here and reassess the situation. Some of the area is inaccessible and there's no way we can search the whole river". The hunt was called off on February 15, 1980 after fresh snowfall had covered the ground. I've never heard about new snow ending the search.

On Thursday Feb 14, 1980 (possibly earlier) Jack Pringle, "assistant agent" in charge of the Seattle FBI office took over the search operations. So there was a transition of power, during the money dig. Jack said "Not a thing" was found Thursday, and "In all probability, we will not be back out there tomorrow" So it seems like there's a distinction between the early Portland guys who found stuff, and Jack Pringle showing up, and finding nothing. article at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ogokAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IQgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6713,7352908&dq=fbi+fragments+cooper&hl=en The article says the search started Tuesday, and additional scraps of money were found on Wednesday. If Bruce talks to Dorwin again, it might be good to probe this apparent transition to Jack Pringle. Maybe I need to find Jack Pringle.

here's a video you can comment on for me.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8BbPtNbT3U&feature=PlayList&p=9A904F4FB31CC97E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12 tandem. two other guys videoing. BOTH of the guys videoing lose track of time (they had a plan to dock after the tandem pulled?)... BOTH guys have reserves deploy automatically. One guy rides in a double canopy (calls it a biplane?) the weird thing is the video shows one guy checking his hand altimeter a couple of times. I think the only way 377 goes in, is if he loses awareness because he's trying to post to the DBC thread on his iphone during a jump.

I have to keep you in the labs. You'll never do well with the powerpoint presentations to the chiefs of staff. You have to caveat it...that's what makes it believable. The slides will say "While talking to dead people of any time back is theoretically possible, our technology is only (currently) capable of talking to recently dead people..on the order of 1 to 15 months. Our research has shown that most actionable intelligence from dead people, is in that time window of death, so we don't foresee this being a limiter on USAF use of the technology" Then you set the hook "Instead of increasing receiver's time range of death, SI forsees using R&D funds to increase the portability of the Dead Guy Receiver. The guys in the lab think they can have it running on a Reaper drone using some innovative stuff from another company we're collaborating with, which also happens to be working with the CIA on the Big Safari Project (although I can't talk about that). All they need is the go-ahead"

Why is this? If the shards were there, why no collected and preserved evidence? What do we have besides people's recollections about the shards? I believe that they were there, but surely it must have been documented somewhere. Am I forgetting some shard photo or have none been produced? 377 I was reading an article that documented the return of money to Brian six years later, and how it was split between him and the insurance company, with the FBI taking a cut off the top first. Evidently they took turns picking, so no one could claim the other got all the good bills. BUT: it got me wondering...was the pool just the bills in Brian's bundle, or did it include everything the FBI found? There'd be no reason for the FBI to return stuff it found to Brian..so there must be something in the FBI stash, along with their stash, that's all the little pieces. I'm thinking maybe that's why we've never seen it. We've only seen stuff where Brian was involved?

I think I'm gonna watch the movie again this weekend

377, I'm working up the proposal to the CIA based on your post. These things never have timelines, so no worries about a development schedule. But we need a price? Is this a $1M thing, or a $10M thing? Should I say $10M and let them knock me down to $5M? I just want to be fair.