snowmman

Fair enough. Back in the thread, when I called you an idiot, I really thought that just based on your posts. But more of you is coming thru now, and I realize I was wrong. I do want you to know that every time I posted about Vietnam I wondered if it caused any bad memories for you, but I thought it was better for people to see it if they hadn't before. Even if we can't fully understand something, doesn't mean we should sweep it under the rug and never talk about it, at least at some level. So that's what I was thinking. I was really surprised to find that picture of a tanker spraying agent orange, almost on top of the guy taking the picture.

Genius! You trully are an Einstein. But you invented Einstein too. Reply.

Are you saying that one side of selected bills was painted with a silver nitrate solution (the entire bill), and they eventually blackened? It seems odd since human salt is required for silver nitrate->fingerprints and wet bills would have lost all the salt. And what about the purple stains? Do I have the answer but not realize it?

I don't follow either of georger's or your post here. Yes I am oftentimes a sucker. But this is just a web forum, I mean what's the negative? Someone thinks less of me? who cares. I mean a post means nothing. If there are new suspects. great. I'm not attached to anyone. Why would I be? On to the next. It''s all interesting. I enjoyed reading about SOG and Vietnam. Anyone who didn't missed out. ?? Do I misunderstand myself? I have hidden agendas? I want to see everyone naked? (edit) It is quite amazing to see a reaction from you guys. I can't imagine why you'd bother. I provoke reactions, but aren't they all fact-related? You guys seem to latch onto random things. I do have big feet.

okay, let me have it Jerry. I won't be snarky and reply. I'm curious.

georger: I've always wondered something. Why does Sluggo say I'm mentally unstable and hateful, but you don't get that label? Do I really appear that way, and you don't? What about Jo: mentally unstable and hateful, or not, or just one or the other?

ah okay, got it. If Tom doesn't think Cooper landed in the Columbia, and apparently is backing away from the Lewis River, where does he think Cooper landed? It must not be water related, because the Columbia is easily speculated about, given the timeline...so he must be ruling out a water landing? I guess we won't know till he posts. Unless he's supporting the Washougal theory? Maybe you're right, Jerry!

I accidently overwrote a post of mine. I was wondering when Tom changed his theory, since he was saying it on-camera. And where the science pointed if he didn't believe in what the documentary said. There are 3 parts to Toms Theory. The Lewis River DZ The propeller The deposit on Tena Bar, before the dredging...ie.. an early deposit circa 1971. I also didn't understand how a $280,000 documentary would wait till the last minute to come up with the closing theory off the top of the head of a main character. Something must have changed.

ET is findable. If we know ET eats money (Thanks Jerry: good data), that's our first clue. He also shits money, you say. So we have two good clues. We have more than when we started with Cooper. Should only take 6 months. (edit) Tom can post anything he wants and it would be useful. Minimally I just want to hear the silver nitrate story, and if anything was found about the damn black bills! (edit) "He say's that this case is very complicated." No! it's just we're all a**holes on the internet! it's not complicated. We're a**holes! (edit) Rules of the tavern: everyone only gets one theory every 72 hrs, otherwise he has to drink. "He now believe's that Cooper did not land in the columbia River" (edit) Did someone squeal on this thread? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8202511&page=1

I've been getting a lot of phone calls from Slovenia asking who played Cooper in the Nat Geo documentary that has now been disavowed. Here's the credits per IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1466352/fullcredits#cast Directed by Philip Day Cast (in alphabetical order) Marc Bossley ... D.B. Cooper Grant Buckerfield ... FBI Agent Pete Freeland ... Co-Pilot Christopher Haskell ... The Pilot Produced by William Martens Original Music by Grant Buckerfield Cinematography by Roy Kurtluyan Film Editing by Aaron McAdams Art Direction by Mark Fenlason Makeup Department Lorraine Martin First Assistant DirectorJeremy Gilbreath Budget estimate ($280,000) is from here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1466352/business (edit) Next broadcast: Sunday, August 2, 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM, 68 NGC

Arlington is about 100 mi upriver from Portland photo attached. Cool! Ice blockade, Columbia River. Arlington, Ore. Jan. 19, 1909. Description A black-and-white photo. The caption written on it in white ink says "Ice blockade, Columbia River. Arlington, Ore. Jan. 19, 1909. Foto by, M.E. Shurte." A fishing or tug boat and two row boats are hemmed in by the ice on the river. Butted up against the larger boat is a raft or dock, with a man standing on it leaning over a railing. The smaller boats appear to be tied to this raft or dock. Although there is a little water in the foreground, the river appears to be mostly covered with ice. Low bluffs line the far shore. 2nd photo Ice banks, 20 feet high on the banks of the Columbia, at Arlington, after the blockade, Jan 21,1909. Description A black-and-white photograph. At the bottom is written in white ink "Ice banks, 20 feet high, on the banks of the Columbia, at Arlington, after the blockade, Jan 21,1909." On the riverbank the ice is piled up in geometric chunks and is beginning to melt. Behind the ice two black shapes, like boards or masts, stick up diagonally. In the distance are low hills. 3rd photo Arlington, Ore. Jan. 12, 1909, 20 below zero. Columbia River Frozen over, The first time in 24 years. Description A view of the Columbia River shore at Arlington, Oregon, on January 12, 1909. The Columbia River is frozen. In the foreground is the white riverbank, with a large boulder to the left. Near the shore on the right of the photo is a pier, with a sailboat at its end. In the center we see a stern-wheeler. A long rope leads out from it and is coiled on the frozen river. A group of five men stand nearby, close to a rectangular area of water that has been freed of ice. Their attention is on a sixth man who is standing in a rowboat pushing at the ice with a long pole. One of the group on the river also carries a long pole. The writing on the photograph says the temperature is 20 below zero and the first time in 24 years the river had frozen over.

Excellent! I've been searching for that online ever since they announced the card. Thanks!

the guy at http://cooper71.com is posting updates daily. interesting to see what he adds each day. He posted a news article from 2/19/80 that weighed in against a lewis river tidal theory (from Dr. Alyn Duxbury, a Univ. of Wash. tidal specialist. Also: new theory: the Washougal "Block of Ice" theory. I like it. Plus it's vintage. ..from 1980!! there's the "three feet" reference, but the good Dr. may have been referencing what he read in the papers (which we've posted about before..i.e. the FBI agents talking about fragments up to 3 feet deep...who knows what the truth was) Spokane Daily Chronicle – 02.19.1980 D.B. Cooper Ideas Grow Vancouver, Wash. – Lumps of rotting $20 bills found last week on a Columbia River beach have led to a wealth of new theories about the D.B. Cooper hijacking. Experts quickly established that the money hadn’t been buried intentionally on the beach, about 10 miles downstream from Vancouver. First the FBI suggested the money had come down the Lewis River from the primary search area after the skyjacking and floated up the Columbia on an incoming tide. Later, other agents suggested the bills probably came from other watersheds and discounted the Lewis River theory as a longshot. Cooper parachuted from a Northwest Airlines 727 on Thanksgiving Eve 1971 with $200,000 strapped to his body. A picnicking family found some of the loot Feb. 10. Dr. Alyn Duxbury, a University of Washington tidal specialist, said it is “pretty hard to take” the FBI theory that Cooper landed in Lake Merwin and that the bills floated down the Lewis River, hit the Columbia River tide and then went upstream 12 miles. He noted as much as three feet separated the bills from top to bottom when found, and said it would have been impossible for the tide to carry objects the same distance day after day and place the money in the same spot. Some FBI agents now say the bills may have come downstream from the Washougal or Little Washougal rivers, perhaps in blocks of ice.

I searched back, and post #748 of this thread, from me, on Mar 31, 2008 2:22 PM --------------------------------------- Mar 31, 2008, 2:22 PM How the money got to the dredged beach The money floated down the Lewis River. It got upstream to that dredging operation on the Columbia in a very interesting way. They had been using the dredging equipment up by where the Lewis drains into the Columbia. The equipment wasn't 100% cleaned out/some material was still on the barge when they moved upstream to the Tina Bar location. Dredging Tina Bar dumped out some of the debris left over from the Lewis River dredge ------------------------------------- then I post Remember that random coincidence is the least likely option assume the FBI map is right. The money goes into the Lewis River. The reason it gets found at a site that got dredged is because the dredging operation put it there. -------------------- then SafecrackingPLF reams me a new a**hole with this post: (post 755 Mar 31, 2008 3:41 PM) Let me get this straight. Your theory is that the money landed at/near where the parachute was found, it then gradually made its way down Cedar Creek into the Lewis River and then made its way to the Columbia River at which point it had sunk. It would have sunk before this, but I'll let that go. Next, you think "the dredging operation" began north and made its way UPSTREAM as it went. You then think the cash got stuck in the machine for 10 miles. Meanwhile, the machine continues to spit river sludge the whole time until finally at mile 10, it yaks up the money. The money would have been "in" the 1974 layer, not above it. As it was, the money was found about 18 inches above the 1974 layer. The money was not muddy or browned from hanging out on the river bottom. The money was, however, moldy and decomposed. The rubber bands survived the travel but then quickly became brittle once the cash was on the sand. Individual stacks of cash can only float for about 10 minutes and 30 seconds. Sunken cash at the bottom of the river will not float its way miraculously to the top for a sand bar deposit. You took care of that one. The rest of it does not fit. See attached photo, you will see the "layer" in the sand about 18 inches down. There's a distinct difference between river silt and normal sand. Great try grasshopper. --------------------------------------------- I've been suffering over that reply, ever since. I think I can claim now, that I was a little bit right. I just didn't think of propellers.

If I was recruiting for the FBI, the first event I'd have for the newhires is a paintball war with the CIA newhires. Then the losers would hack the winners network and crash everything, just to be able to claim not-total-loser status. Visible commitments: well, props to Himmelsbach. Old man, and he's still willing to go out there on TV and claim Cooper was a dirty rotten scoundrel with a foul mouth, even though he knows everyone's going to scratch their head and say "huh? where did he get that?" Hey, do you think it would be a tipoff if I showed up at a DZ and said I was just interested in learning how to use a emergency round, and kept on hounding them about why I can't I do a night jump right away? kind of like the guys that wanted to learn how to fly jets, but were nonplussed about learning how to land them. (edit) Jo mentioned national security. I wonder if people think DZO's are part of the national defense network, i.e. an early warning system for people who want to do crazy things. I'm thinking the DZO might just say "whoa! dude! no-way but-way!" and then brag about how he AFF'ed the dude after reading about an event in the paper.

uh, are you referring to the idea that even joe-blow general contractors use a transit to measure elevations? (would you pay a contractor who pours the foundation based on those techniques?) I hired a contractor recently who drove a backhoe to level some ground. He set up a rotating laser level, with a reflector on the backhoe, so he could level to 1" accuracy...just one man...constant measurements while driving. And this was over about a 100' distance. Cool to watch, because he was just a guy with a high school education, but was able to latch onto technology that he knew gave him an advantage.

And can you tell the forum why that interests you? 377 Jo has always intrigued me, because she doesn't map onto any person I've ever met, at that age. So I'm always looking for signs. I long ago decided to accept there wasn't anything...i.e. she was just what she says. But I still can't tell. Random things would make my ears itch: The first suspect I forwarded to FBI was a semi-recently dead guy. Then Jo started talking about exhumations. I think I forwarded a photo of him to Jo, and she posted about getting a phone call from China with information and forwarding to FBI. Sheridan has significant China ESL background, just like the nightclerk, who suddenly appeared after I forwarded Sheridan's name to the FBI. Most interestingly, Sheridan had a web page, which suddenly transitioned to him saying the FBI was sure he was Cooper, right after I forwarded his name. (edit) Actually I'm a little fuzzy on that. It does say that now, but the detail about it transitioning around the right time, is fuzzy and may be in error. A lot of odd things. But then I can string together most any two random things with random facts. So it all doesn't really matter. But it explains why those were the only two things I was interested in from Jo. I can get interested in a blade of grass. (edit) I mentioned how everyone has a model of expected posts from others, depending on what's going on. I've always paid attention to both the content, and the delay between posts, and who reacts to who. Especially over long periods of times, and whenever it changes. It probably means nothing other than we're all human, but it's interesting. It's one of the things I find interesting about this thread. Of course maybe that makes me mentally unbalanced and hateful. But that's not bad. On a skateboard sticker or tattoo it actually looks good.

you have a longer list than me, 377. There are only two things that Jo ever said, that interest me. 1) She way way back in the thread, talked about an exhumation and a search by the FBI. We never heard more about that rumor. 2) She said the night clerk had China in his background. That's all that ever interested me, in terms of what Jo said.

It's interesting Jo says she's waiting on verification. She never worried about verification before...why bother now?

Jo said "and I will say it was a WOW!" who would have thought a crazy old lady would be making side references to the WOW! signal posts we made way way back in the thread. wowie zowie! oops. I mean, interesting.

I'm been getting a lot of PMs suggesting that one of the Postit notes has the username/password for a porn site. I have no information along those lines. (edit) re: 377's question about "typo". I guess I do change my thinking a lot..at least weekly. So I guess the right thing is "I still believe what I just posted..say within the last 72 hours". If I was on camera, I'd have a hard time saying that anything definite could be said about anything.

377 said: "Did the particles come from the found bundles after they landed at Tena bar? That seems unlikely to me." I had theorized that the brittle edges of the bundles were debrided, when maybe the Ingrams washed the bills when they got home (speculation since no sand was on the bills the FBI showed a couple days later). Now, the edges are missing. The "particles" could be from these edges of the bills. Or from the edges of other bills. It would be really nice to have all the pictures of bills, including the modern high res pictures that I posted from the auctions, and walk thru them with the Fazios, trying to get a "sketch" of the particles we're talking about. it's very unclear.

I don't see any problem with the "internet chat" behaviors. I also am comfortable with the idea that "I am what other people think of me". Sluggo says I'm mentally unbalanced and hateful. That's not so bad. In the past, I've known some definitely unbalanced people and enjoyed time spent with them. Do I still think everything I posted? Yes. Sometimes I wonder if the problem is that people don't really want to know what people think. Everything I post, is me. If that's perceived extremely negatively, that's okay with me. I could pretend to be something else. I could post in a way that veils my thoughts. But why do that? Yes, if you were sitting next to me, you'd probably get less from me. Because we'd be focused on that moment, which might be primarily social. Do people want this thread to be more social? You know, in the past, I perceived Orange1 as way too negative on Jo. But she was just being specific about certain thoughts of hers. Seemed fine to voice them. Now: what am I looking for (in case it matters). Feedback. New information. Tell me where my thinking is broken or what data is wrong or can be dug up somewhere. If the attempt is to try to connect with me socially here, it will fail. I'm not interested (I think I've said this like a bazillion times). Now, if Orange1 made a move...that's a different story.

Thanks for the clarification, Sluggo.

Sluggo said "Tom’s Science – Tom employs electron microscopes, x-ray spectroscopy, x-ray fluorescence analysis, optical microscopes, infrared photo-spectroscopy, and hopefully some isotopic analysis. This is what he does best (with fossils). This is what he is providing for NORJAK. The Nat-Geo piece focused on Tena Bar. Why did they show Tom closing the shield on a telescope? Maybe, it’s art! (Just let it flow over you.)" Sluggo, you pick and choose the standards you apply to various things. That's fine. Other people pick and choose different standards. That's fine too. I'm not you. You constantly seem to want other people to have philosophies that match yours? Am I misinterpreting? It's a perfectly reasonable thing to expect scientists to not take part in misinforming the public thru smoke and mirrors. Actually, your point of view gets me wondering about the whole nuke industry! Hopefully you're a singleton. Sluggo said: "Wait for the science… it won’t be disappointing… where ever it leads us. Those who know aren’t talking, those who are talking… don’t know." Yes. That's the whole point. I don't know. Have been waiting since November. Would be fine except we've been teased non-stop with stuff saying "just wait, we've got something". Our reaction is appropriate and correct. (edit) Reminder: The show presented itself as being based on new uses of forensic science by Citizen Investigators. If I had to write a paper about it for my science class, what would I write? (edit) Example: The first attempt at money analysis incorrectly focused on silver, which was a contaminant. How do we decide if the pollen on the tie is a contaminant? (It is mentioned by Tom). (edit) Example: Is the science about measuring the money find, and saying it was 150' from the dredging, a misapplied fact...that is, did the Fazio's spread the sand from the dredging over that 150'? Previous accounts say the Fazios spread sand on the beach. I think the Fazios said it again recently? So even that "science" about the dredging sand vs money, is wrong? Why can't we discuss that? Why cut Tom slack on this theory? Tom uses that "fact" to "prove" the money arrived quickly on Tena Bar. (edit) Example: In the TomsTheory vid, you can see Tom proposes only two LZ's: Lake Merwin for a high pull, Lewis River for a low pull. There is no data presented that validates either of those. In fact we know the analysis from 1972, the search map we have, goes against that, presenting a larger zone (due to the vagaries of prediction). What narrowed the zone from 1972? So did Tom do some new analysis that created the two LZ possibilities, or not? So we're reviewing claims Tom made. There's no reason to wait for science. He's already made the claims, with no visible data.