snowmman

no georger! now you're presenting rants presented as facts which are myths. That picture you posted is Art Hurand. Everyone knows that. Including Jo!

I think Jo has created an inconsistency. on Feb 2, 2007, 9:38 PM Jo posted the following and attached the Ed Hurand photo, which I've attached here. In this post, the claim is Ed was met at a convention. "Photos obtained from family members and prison files. Help Me Identify this Man: This is photo I made of a man at one of our conventions in Colorado. He was a diabetic at that time in 1978 and his health was poor. This man knew Duane from WA, OR and MT. I do not know the dates of their acquaintance as he inadvertenly mentioned it in a coversation when I asked how he knew Duane. I do not remember much of the conversation as we were only alone a few minutes, but this man had something to do with the aviation field....mechanic, repairman - may have been a helicopter or plane pilot. I remember his eyes the most - the shade of blue. Before Duane returned he asked me not to mention our conversation to Duane - since Duane had never mentioned having lived in those areas - that it may have been a part of his life he didn't want to share with me. The name was Ed Hurand (not sure of the spelling) and I don't know what the Ed stood for. The Hurand may be spelled Horand, Horan or any other variation you can find. Perhaps someone out there has more capabilities than I have in finding people. I know he would be deceased and that he would have been born in the 1924 to 1930 range as he was near Duane's age."

Jo wrote back in the vodka-and-pill-soaked past: "The name was Ed Hurand (not sure of the spelling) and I don't know what the Ed stood for. The Hurand may be spelled Horand, Horan or any other variation you can find. Perhaps someone out there has more capabilities than I have in finding people. I know he would be deceased and that he would have been born in the 1924 to 1930 range as he was near Duane's age" Jo: Could this have been Ed Hermes? (edit) Guess not: Ed's obit is at smokejumpers.com. Died in '63 I guess that means it wasn't him, since you visited him later than that. http://www.smokejumpers.com/obituaries/item.php?obituaries_id=397 Hermes, Edwin T. (Missoula 1953) "Ed died June 2, 1963 in the crash of a helicopter that he was flying from Twin Falls, Idaho, to New Mexico where he had a contract to spray crops. The wreckage was found in a remote area near South Powder Horn, Colorado, two months after the crash. " (edit) Okay here's something curious. I was getting the newspaper article announcing Ed Hermes helicopter crash. Curiously, the NW Orient crash near Sitka, Alaska, which I've mentioned before, was on the same page. next to it. I've attached a snap about the Ed incident, but am going to get a little more. This was 6/4/63 (edit) Very good detail on the NW MATS (Military Air Transport) crash near Sitka is at http://www3.gendisasters.com/air-disasters/8663/queen-charlotte-bc-airliner-crashes-june-1963 A partial passenger listing is part of the article. Interestingly, there was a passenger from Kirkland, WA. Some from Seattle.

Someone mentioned this book, so I ordered it. Just got it. Thought it'd be fun to realize you can make a post and something physical happens. Flipped open to a page: "But you say: That's fine when it comes to my child, spouse or close friends, but what does this have to do with skydiving? I don't love my teammates. I don't even like some of them. We fly together and have some fun but it's just not the same thing. Why should I bend over backwards for someone who's not doing much of anything for me? Why should I let someone take advantage of me like that? My [DeRosalia's] answer is: You'd better love your teammates. Even if you don't like them you'd better love them on some level, or at least treat them as if you do, because you've given them a very special place in your life. Not only do you spend a significant amount of time with them in a sport that demands interdependence and fellowship, but you've also entrusted them with the responsibility of helping you make one of your dreams come true. That's a big deal and requires a major investment on everyone's part. A gesture of love nurtures and sustains that investment and helps to guarantee it's success"

I was reading up on some firsthand smokejumper reminisces: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_199904/ai_n8848560/print?tag=artBody;col1 "There were other dangers too, of sorts...these were young virile men and at that time there were no women smokejumpers. The first summer I jumped we went into a place called Cedar Station in the Kelly Creek District in the Clearwater National Forest...12 of us went over to Perce, Idaho. Now Perce is a town that you have to have seen to understand. In the 1950s, it was strictly out of the wild west; false-front buildings, no paved streets, no fire department...rough and tumble...house of ill repute. One night a bar caught on fire so they formed a bucket brigade and as the water was going in, the beer was coming out. So after the fire they had a big party. Next to the tavern was the local hotel and the local madam which they had to move out (for fear the hotel would catch fire). So the next weekend they (the smokejumpers) thought they would patronize her, but they didn't have much money and so they thought they would pool their finances. Nine out of the 12 thought they would take part...the cost was $10 and they each put in about $1.12. They put ten slips of paper in the hat - one was blank. If she pulled your name, you got to partake of her services and had to describe vicariously to the others what happened. If she pulled the blank slip, she got her choice. Well a guy's name was drawn and the deed done. The next year, when he got married, he begged the others not to tell his wife!"

"this week's"? That was in the first series. And Scofield has already figured out Westmoreland was Cooper before he gets sent to Fox River - getting his hands on the Cooper loot is his plan. They eventually find it has had a housing development built over it but Scofield being Scofield, they still get it see! I knew I always need to run new evidence by the group! Actually, I'm redfaced. I never watch the show. that just came up on my daily google news search for cooper. I'm creating myths related to tv shows! Sluggo needs more room on his web page: TV myths presented as TV facts! It all helps though!

If there are any "impressionable young people" out there, and I doubt it, I find solace in knowing that they can recognize truth, regardless of how loud someone rants. The longevity, or volume of a rant, means nothing as to its quality. Truth always has a quality that speaks for itself and needs no mouthpiece. That's what drives the ranters berserk.

Found something on the plot summary for this week's "Prison Break" tv show. Not sure if it means anything, but when there's zero facts, every little bit potentially helps. It's a quite stunning event in the storyline. This show has been going on since 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Break Fox site is: http://www.fox.com/prisonbreak this week's full synopsis: http://www.dailypress.com/stv-prisonbreak-seven-episode,0,6963101.story "Charles Westmoreland hears terrible news from the warden. His daughter has terminal cancer and only a few weeks to live. Unfortunately, the warden can't allow furloughs for prisoners to visit sick relatives, they may only leave the prison for funerals. With this news, Charles has a change of heart - he wants to be in on the escape now. Michael's not sure that he can let him in - what would he "bring to the table?" Charles says he can bring cash - and lots of it. As it turns out, he IS the legendary thief D.B. Cooper as Michael suspected. Michael finds this admission to be a little too convenient since Charles proved to him earlier that he wasn't that guy. For proof, Charles gives him one of the marked $100 bills. While Charles is a great addition to the team, now there's a new problem: time. The whole plan has to be completed in 18 minutes in between the guards rounds. The escape crew has seven guys: Michael, Lincoln, Sucre, John Abruzzi, T-Bag, C-Note and now Charles. With five minutes to get through the pipes and 2 minutes for each man to escape (5+14=19) they have one guy too many. Somebody has to go." We need someone to use the names "T-Bag" or "C-Note" here? Maybe the 3 that conned Jo?

well, unless he lost the money, he had 20+ lbs of cash to carry. He probably didn't carry it on foot. Too risky? So whatever happened with the cash, the canopy went there too? (30+ lbs?) I always thought Cooper might have stashed and returned with a car for the loot plus canopy (if recovered)

what a small world. You use Erik? I'll tell him you'll appreciate a joke next pack.

good thoughts 377 In reading Gunther's book, I mused that maybe Cooper's canopy HAD been found but the evidence was ignored. Gunther recounts a story where someone (a deputy) called in with a parachute in a tree that was sighted. The agent asked "What color" and the deputy said "Orange"...Agent said "nope". And that was the end of that. I always wondered if maybe a white canopy discolored in the sun or something, got misidentified, and actually was Cooper's canopy. So Cooper's canopy may actually have been found and ignored. Hey Gunther's book provides a much better picture of the placard found. I was going to scan it in, but I don't think it adds any value. (I was asking georger about a placard picture a while back)

I thought I addressed this sufficiently before. Did I not present strong enough evidence? (people's posts). 377 is the only rational poster. If you disagree, please provide the post numbers that prove your theorem.

Orange's Law (or, to be technically correct, theorem): A million monkeys hammering a million typewriters for a million years will eventually come up with a credible suspect for the DB Cooper case. And then you're left with a million monkeys and a million typewriters with monkey crap all over them.

I saw a guy get arrested for drugs on "Cops 2.0" one time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi3lDLg9LYg Just trying to contribute to the thread.

"If a DBC thread runs long enough, all posters will have been accused of being motivated by money." example:

Jo, you're dating yourself. Today, the revolution will not be televised. It will be on Youtube. Get with it grrrrrrl!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTCQSk2l8bc

jo, if you said "did" you might be accurate about whatever you're trying to say, because you'd be assessing past data. By saying "do" you're implying knowledge of the present and future, which is not possible, so your post is incorrect, on its face. Although by replying, I may be validating your post. So your post is neither right nor wrong, and as such is perfect for this thread.

We were talking about skydiving risk/injuries a while back, for us whuffos. I was reading another thread here at DZ.com, and I think the discussion of risk factors left out one thing: skydiving seems safer if you jump alone. Quoting a poster on another thread: "Your best bet will always be to stick to the plan when it comes to factors that are agreed upon for the entire load. You are sharing the sky with these people, and they will be expecting you to abide by the choices you all made proir to take off, as you should be expecting of them." So even if you've figured out the appropriate risk you want to take, it seems you've also bitten off some assessment of risk created by the people you share the load with. So it's not just about you and your technology. It's about this group that gets created on the fly, that's going to exit the plane in the same area. An interesting problem! Maybe that's what drives a lot of the social culture! Be interesting to see breakdown of that risk aspect vs injuries also!

The problem with people analyzing for Turing, is they assume the desired result is somehow to mirror the people they know. Let's call that "The High End Error". That shouldn't be the Turing goal. The Turing goal should be "can some desired outcome be achieved that wouldn't have been achieved without the Turing machine?" With humans, most communication is done to achieve more communication...i.e. keep the engine going as 377 pointed out, the only rational poster on this thread. So the maddening thing for this thread, is that the bot is successful as long as the thread continues with more than one poster. Now on the other hand, if there is a goal of finding Cooper....and this thread's contribution is thru information maximization, then a successful strategy is any that creates new information. Information sits, and isn't useful sitting. It needs to be made to rise up and march into the collection. The only currency here is information. And it's unclear what information is relevant or correct. We have not liars, but non-liars with potentially bad information. Or missing information. Since the only currency is information, any information held should be used to gain more information. That's the only rational behavior. Whether private or public. Theoretically, at some point, there will be enough information, potentially not all held by one party, that causes Cooper to be "discovered". This doesn't require all information to be correct, or public, or minimal. Ckret argues that there is a minimality goal, i.e. avoidance of noise. But that is only correct if it's known what collection of information is needed. For this Cooper thing, the avoidance of noise will work against the primary goal. That's reasonably assumed because of the non-finding of Cooper for 37 years. In short: maximization of information is the only rational goal. All other goals for this thread work against finding Cooper. Arecibo is one theoretical solution to a problem. Ten million amateur astonomers is another. Both have successes. The thing is, the amateur solution scales up more rapidly with advances in technology/knowledge. Takes advantage of certain "freenesses" (edit) re Contact: Palmer gives Ellie a compass "so she won't lose her way". The question is, was the compass needed? Unclear.

Hap: I had posted a collage of EVERYONE that was visible in that clip before. It's attached again. Are you sure there are 3? which? I don't see any that match the cooper description. (i've numbered them for easy reference) You can't just look at attire. You have to look at hair, age, height and weight. Skin color and eyes if you can. Can you redo your 3 count using the attached collage? Which of them match the Cooper physical description in your view? Thanks. I'm asking because I've heard that "everyone looked like Cooper" a lot. I think that's just myth?

I've been inspired by the group goal to dig up new evidence, and am going to put up the money to get to the bottom of this new evidence that arrived in my email! Looks promising! Date: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: victor turay vt100mailbox@yahoo.com To: ... Subject: PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENT Dear Sir, My name is Dr Victor Turay, the manager of bill and exchange at the foreign remittance department of Bank of Africa (BOA) Abidjan Cote d' Ivoire.I came to know of you in my search for a reliable and reputable person to handle a very confidential transaction that involves the transfer of a huge sum of money to a foreign account. In my department we discovered an abandoned sum of US$174,000 (One Hundred Seventy Four Thousand U.S Dollars) . In a dormant account that belongs to one of our foreign client who died in a 727 plane hijack in the year 1971 in the USA that almost took the whole life of the pasengeres on board. Since we got information about his death, we have been expecting his next of kin or some body with complete information about the account to come over and claim his money. Because the money can not be released, unless somebody applies for it as next of kin or relation to the deceased with complete data of the account, as indicated in our banking guidelines. But uptill now nobody has come up as his next of kin to claim the fund, which means that the next of kin also died leaving no body behind for the claim. It is therefore upon this discovery that I and other officials in my department that knows about the fund,decided to make this businness proposal to you for you to present your self as the next of kin or relation to the deceased and apply for the transfer of the money into your nominated foreign account for subsequent disbursement. Since nobody is coming for it and we don't want this money to go into the Bank treasury as unclaimed Bill. The banking law and guideline here stipulates that if such money remained unclamed after three years, the money will be transfered into the Bank treasury account as unclaimed fund. The need of a foreigner as next of kin in this transaction is due to the fact that the client involved was a foreigner and an Ivoirean can not stand in as next of kin to a foreigner. You will be given 30% for your assitance and effort at the end of the transfer, after removing any expences incured by both party if any. Modalities have been worked out at the highest levels for the immediate transfer of the funds within 14 working days to your nominated account. Subject to your satisfaction of the above stated terms. Our assurance is that your role and the transaction is risk free, as all modalities has been in place for the transfer. If you can handle this project. Please get back to me through my e-mail address for more details on what you are to do.Mind you that this transaction requires the highest mutual trust and absolute secrecy. Please indicate your private telephone number where I can always reach. Yours sincerely, DR VICTOR TURAY

Orange1: Jo pointed out a while back to me that some people gang up on her repeatedly. You seem to? why is that? Most people just ignore her. Why do you jump on her so much? (edit) Just realized I need to defend myself. I "think" I only jump on her when she says something new that I want to dissect. I then do try to slice her as much as needed to understand what she's saying. But I don't repeat? I think?

I don't understand. First Jo wants to see the FBI files for "truth" Then she says she knows something about the FBI file. Does anyone even know if Jo is woman or a man? Is she just jerking us around? Do I have to hack into her machine too? Now there is no truth to the rumor that a log file with IP addresses of everyone lurking at DZ.com was accidently dumped in the recycle bin, and the addresses extracted thru the search bug feature I noted, over a period of 1000 hours using a rack of 50 1U servers. Because if you had those ip addresses, and knew someone in Estonia with no morals, and if there were any bugs in the Windows operating system, then there'd be a lot of new data for sale!

-Getting a list of people who jumped in WA area from '62-'71 A thru D license. -Getting a list of people in the boeing informal jump club from '62-'71 -Getting a list of people in the Seattle Skydivers from '62-'71 Of course, if Ckret says "the FBI did all of that, and everyone that matched the physical description checked out fine" then it's not worth it. It can't be more than 100-200 people? Can anyone guess? I'm scratching my head wondering why people are bitching about secret data. That's secret data for sure! How about jump logs from the same time period and location!

Okay I have some information for discussion. Repeatedly people have implied the C-9 28' in a NB-6 was some kind of death pull for a novice. That it was like some "special deal" Cossey did. I already provided info that suggests the right hand outboard pull may have been not just a "Cossey special"...So I got curious about the C-9 in a NB-6. I've repeatedly found NB-6's for sale on ebay with 28' canopies. That's when I realized we have to understand the year and manufacturer also. By example for both, the NB-6 on Sluggo's site appears to be of a 1995 vintage....I think it matches a 1995 manufactured NB-6 (for instance the purple webbing loops are a giveaway...colored webbing like that is fairly modern) So Sluggo's NB-6 is not what Cooper's NB-6 looked like. This is important for estimating, say, whether the chest reserve hooks could be clipped on the harness somehow. I've got a collection now of photos of NB8's (mostly) from 1959 etc. Not many, but some. But it makes me believe early NB-6 models had lighter weight webbing on the straps. If I see a couple of NB-6's on ebay with 28' canopies, what does that mean? Are they modern canopies with lighter weight nylon (less volume)? What years were people talking about when they were going on about hard pull before anyhow? Isn't this whole "hard pull" discussion pretty absent of hard facts? The ebay url showing the 1995 NB-6 http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/US-Navy-NB6-Parachute_W0QQitemZ150080385359QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMotors_Aviation_Parts_Gear?_trksid=p4506.m20.l1116 bigger pics here directly: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/US-Navy-NB6-Parachute_W0QQitemZ150080385359QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMotors_Aviation_Parts_Gear?_trksid=p4506.m20.l1116#ebayphotohosting I got a conspiracy question. There are plenty of facts out there. How come no one's looking? Is everyone in on the conspiracy? Me, I've decided Jo is in on the conspiracy too.