snowmman

No force of will needed. If there's a question there about what I think/believe, I actually I have no opinion. Did I raise issues that I thought were worth exploring? Yes. If I shouted down some other viewpoints, I apologize. Let's explore them now, then. (edit) Hey georger, I can't help it. You can't really be claiming lack of "force of will". Your posts don't show that. Now, I can understand that you can't be bothered. But call a spade a spade. Don't put it on us.

:)

I think Jo might even give consent, just to clear that up. I have no idea what went on 12 years ago, and don't really care. But I'm glad you see what I see: It's not good to be keeping tapes for 12 years and threatening people with them. Sure Jo's a little whacky, and sure she gets her 15 minutes of fame. But heck, look at Larr Carr, and the whole team of Citizen Sleuths on TV recently with their 15 minutes. They've contributed zero to the discussion so far. Now maybe they will, maybe they won't. Who knows. But independent of how whacky Jo can be (we've all seen it, and know that she's not really a set of behaviors to emulate or say is ideal).....there's no reason to keep beating on her. Geez. Especially, when Jerry came on and even though he's been searching for 12 years, he gave us absolutely no information. I mean how are we supposed to react? People come on, sling mud, say they're smart and we're stupid etc. If people can contribute some info, go for it! We're all ears! Plenty of space to post. Plenty of readers. Heck we've all read Bruce's stuff to help him get paid!

Shelly. I'm assuming you have Jo's consent on the tapes? Please publish them like you suggested. (mp3's would be ideal) I did some research around the laws regarding taping phone conversations. reading http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html Federal law only requires consent of one party in the call. However some states require consent of both. It becomes interesting on an interstate call. The advice tends to be that it's best to use the most conservative state's rules. see here: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/interstate.html OR only requires one party consent. WA apparently requires both, so it depends on where you were living at the time? However, looking at Florida, you may have an issue. I mention this because it becomes especially dicey if you threaten to "use the tape" in order to extract some behavior. It smacks of blackmail. http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/florida.html All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Recording, disclosing, or endeavoring to disclose without the consent of all parties is a felony, unless the interception is a first offense committed without any illegal purpose, and not for commercial gain. Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03. These first offenses and the interception of cellular frequencies are misdemeanors. State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (1976). Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02. See also Stevenson v. State, 667 So.2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996); Paredes v. State, 760 So.2d 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000). In Cohen Brothers, LLC v. ME Corp., S.A., 872 So.2d 321 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004), the District Court of Appeal for the Third District of Florida held that members of a limited liability company’s (LLC) management committee did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to participation in telephone conference calls with other committee members to discuss continued financing of the LLC, and thus could not hold the committee members liable for recording the conference calls. A federal appellate court has held that because only interceptions made through an “electronic, mechanical or other device” are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate the law. The court found that business telephones are not the type of devices addressed in the law and, thus, that a life insurance company did not violate the law when it routinely recorded business-related calls on its business extensions. Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). Anyone whose communications have been illegally intercepted may recover actual damages or $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Fla. Stat. ch. 934.10.

"If you would like I can send every one a copy of all our telephone conversations from the first time you called us just after duane died." It's like a virus or a disease. People act like they're perfectly normal, then it turns out they're keeping copies of 12 year old phone conversations, like it actually might have some value. "You're crazy" "No you are" "No you are more" How far does the virus go? "or just get off this forum. Shelly" Shelly, there's only one person here with the off switch, and that's Quade. You can't tell someone to get off the forum. Well I guess you can, but it's kind of pointless. The problem with making dogmatic statements against other posters is that it prompts people like me to respond, just so it doesn't appear that the silence means people agree with you. So it ends up all being a waste of "bandwidth" as they say.

georger brought up Gen-X. I am always up for understanding the passions and drives of the next generation. Every generation is different. Responds to different times. Every older generation, whether they like or not, rides the back of the next generation. Sure it's a great idea, that somehow you can kick ass while you're young, and bank away enough of something, so you can give the middle finger to the next generation, and say "You guys don't know how it was done". But that's never true. So Gen X-Y-Z? Hats off to you! See what you can do. The best thing us older folks can do is try to smooth the path a little, whether we think they deserve it or not. There's no other workable alternative. So suck it up!

Georger: I wasn't clear, are you asking me to share my sexual fantasies about Jo, or are you all set? I already said I figured she was a goer back in the day. What more do you want from me? Drawings? Hey I was reviewing the logs from last night's fork in the toaster Big Ear...It's hard to make out, but I think there's a "Duane is God" message there (I circled) (edit) segue

Near miss. I was born in 1959. Cousin Brucie will be happy to know it was Brooklyn! Gen-X is old news anyhow. Various sources cite Generation X as born between 1965 and 1980, 1961 and 1981, 1964 and 1979, 1963 and 1979, 1965 and 1975 or since the mid-1960s

I have this image of a drunk old guy, dribbling spittle out of the side of his mouth, trying to pick a fight in the parking lot with a younger guy. And everyone standing around all thinking the same thought "god, I hope that doesn't happen to me, when I get to be like that"

AND Ahhhh! Now my work is done. Sluggo takes a "deep bow". See 377, that’s how you do it. snowmman, Thanks, you played you hand straight as an arrow, just as I hoped you would. See what we can accomplish when we work together. No problem. Deception is part of the game here. Oh yeah, check your credit card bill next month. Rule #1: if you don't know who the mark is, it's probably you.

georger said: "I simply was looking for a chance to discuss DB Cooper with an FBI agent in charge of the case, but you would not even allow Sp Agent Larry Carr the freedom to talk, without hurling accusations and allegations at him and the FBI, and on and on and on and on. " The history of the thread is that it was started by Jo. Ckret was a johnny-come-lately who hopped on it after it had gone on for a while. Ckret had nothing to do with starting the thread. If Ckret wants to start a thread to talk with guys like georger, he's got plenty of ways to do it. Georger? I can't see where you have the high moral ground here. (edit) Actually Georger can start his own thread anywhere, much like Jo did. This thread was relatively successful in a variety of goals. Was it because of Jo's ramblings? Maybe, I think so. Rationality can be overrated as a organizing force.

georger said "Has Jo ever considered her threats on the Internet can be reported to the Authorities, as well as any threats she has issued via email ? As Jo's caretaker maybe you need to advise her of that before she gets herself and you into hot water. " Yes, there must be much court time. (I don't know which is weirder, Jerry threatening Jo with court time, or Georger. Maybe equal?) Actually the only interesting thing about law here, is the recent stuff about anonymity on the web, as a result of that woman who taunted that kid who committed suicide. That was real and should give us all pause. It would be lousy if laws were passed that made it illegal to be anonymous. I'm not sure what the current state of affairs is, but I thought some states were pursuing it. You know I was thinking about how everyone was treating Duane's possession of a weapon all serious like, and how it was really trivial when you look at the big picture with guns in the usa etc. Here's a video of grandma getting her gun off.. I don't know what's weirder, the shooting, or what she says. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--K3X6rptE4

This is exactly what Iam talking about. You dont even know the history of this. You hear somebody say "cat" and you call everybody you know saying: "Cats are taking over the world". You are an IDIOT! Georger I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying. Jo is correct. Why is she an idiot? Byron Brown was the son. James Brown was his father, who supposedly got the story from Coffelt. James Sheehan was the writer for the Las Vegan who wrote the story and toured around with Byron Brown at the time when Bryon Brown was telling it. (1983) The story was written after James Coffelt died. At 59 in 1975. press blitz was 11/23/83 Note the Coffelt story was that the back rig was faulty, and he "grabbed" for the chest rig. Implying he opened the chest rig? But that's not correct. (see attached)

I have exchanged a few emails with Cook and despite his odd choices of media (Coast to Coast AM) and that Depoe Bay rag, I find him to be quite far from the Art Bell type kooks in his personal outlook. He is a smart guy. He thinks Gossett is the man. The Dan Cooper comic is a far out speculative connection to DBC, but who knows, it could have inspired the assumed name. I am not sure who first surfaced the Dan Cooper comics. What rules Gossett out? He jumped, he was army special ops trained, had money problems, looks more like the sketch than other suspects, apparently spent time in France and spoke French, had Ft Lewis connections, etc. He has some good credentials to be a possible Cooper. Ckret ignores Gossett, but based on what? Prints? DNA? Alibi? Witnesses? A frequent poster here has a good suspect with perhaps even more Cooper matches than Gossett, but Ckret ignores that too. Ckret must know something that he is not sharing that allows him to summarily dismiss otherwise qualified suspects. Could it be that the FBI has a very good idea who Cooper is/was but lacks unequivocal evidence and is seeking it through the forum? That would explain why Ckret doesn't pursue person leads nearly as much as physical evidence leads. Am I off base in this speculation? 377 You're right on the money, Three-Seven-Seven. I read these dynamics exactly as you do. By the way, Galen Cook has been wonderfully responsive to my outreach to him. Quite chatty at times, and helpful with phone numbers, etc. I feel blessed by his encouragement. The most important thing about D.B. Cooper. Even though it's 37 years and we know everyone was just working with rocks, paper and scissors back then: THE FBI INVESTIGATION MUST NOT BE CRITICIZED. and ALL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RELEASED and WELL, EXCEPT FOR THE STUFF WE DON"T WANT TO RELEASE and WELL, MAYBE COOPER DIDN"T JUMP IN THE DEEP WOODS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER. and WE KNOW HE'S DEAD, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE HE MIGHT HAVE JUMPED. and SINCE HE'S DEAD (see previous) THE MONEY MUST HAVE FLOATED THERE. and ANYONE POSTING TO AN INTERNET FORUM IS AN IDIOT AND JUST GETTING IN THE WAY OF GETTING THE JOB DONE ALTHOUGH ITS UNCLEAR WHAT THE JOB DONE GOAL IS and CITIZEN SLEUTHS ARE WORKING THE CASE. and ITS CHAOS WHEN YOU JUMP OUT OF A JET and COOPER WAS AN IDIOT (edit) forgot some more and THERE IS NO INVESTIGATION, THE INVESTIGATION WAS COMPLETED and SEND IN YOUR TIPS VIA EMAIL TO FBI.GOV and IN 3 MONTHS THERE WILL BE NEW DETAILS ON TV

I've posted on Coffelt with some jpgs of articles. search for "coffelt" posted by snowmman, here. You'll like the reference in the recent abe lincoln book by the Inside Edition guy. Also, there's a quote from Himmelsbach about the wind "blowing like Billy Hell" that's worth something.

Sluggo. I'm still not understanding. I thought Duane was imprisoned as John Collins. (at least the commutation that released him was John Collins. Don't know about the other times). Are you saying the felony conviction was on John Collins or on Duane Weber? Obviously they never connected Duane Weber with John Collins as an aka. If they picked up Duane Weber and he had a weapon, why would alarms go off? What year are we talking about also? I'm wondering about how tied together all the records were. It sounds like you're saying they should have been able to tell Duane Weber had been convicted of a felony. What tells us they should have been able to tell that? I'm still not clear on when this gun thing happened anyhow. Seems like a house of cards is trying to be built based on something. But it's not clear what any of it is. I think you're saying: -Duane was stopped by police -They should have been able to tell at that time he was a convicted felon. -He had a weapon. -He was not charged with anything, therefore that means something nefarious about his background. Is that it?

Galen Cook made this 8mm film of Gossett in 1973 available at Coast to Coast last year. We never really discussed it, just the photos. I love it. Has the the "Magruder film" quality that every good '70s conspiracy needs. Gossett is kind of fat in 1973. White belt is funny. Cook is apparently saying that Gosset could read and write French, since the comic book action went into play. (windows media player wmv file) http://mfile.akamai.com/5022/wmv/coast.download.akamai.com/5022/video/032908_db_cooper_suspect_1973.asx The DBC thread will never die.

"He is found to be carrying a concealed weapon and a the new DL in the name of I.P. Freely. He’s taken to the County Complex, questioned, and released the same day. No charges are made, no indictment follows, the weapon isn’t taken, nothing happens." Sluggo: I think you're overdramatizing the story. A big part of the story is that Jo lobbied for Duane, saying that he was sick. I thought the weapon was in the car, not concealed on his person. I don't see what the big issue is. An old supposedly sick man does something crazy. Wife intervenes and pitches a medical story. Law enforcement cuts him loose because he's done nothing. You leave a lot unsaid. Are you implying that somehow someone talked to LE and they let him go because of some secret background? Why not just say the theory? (edit) also: are you mixing stories? I thought the gun was found during the '76 or '80 DUI, and that Jo was a passenger in the car for one of those. I guess I don't know if a gun was additionally found during the DMV event or what. We've never had a good summary of the Duane LE interactions while Jo was married to him.

Georger, Thanks for laying out your point of view. I respect it, and you have valid points. From my side of the fence: -I don't think I'm an enabler. I consistently tell Jo straight up that I think she's a bit crazed, and that Duane had nothing to do with it. I say that in PMs and I say it here. I actually am more impressed with Jo now than before, because she seems to digest things on more levels than her posts show. Although I agree at times her posts are annoying or naive. -I don't think Jo creates a path of destruction. If she does, it says more about the other side being weak, or untrained in dealing with people with Jo, when there's a task to be done. -Jo is very good at picking out when I'm trying to be funny and when I'm not. -Jo just thinks of me as another random person on the forum. Sometimes I have something she's interested in, sometimes not. I think we all have to avoid trying to speak for other people's minds. (edit) Hell, I just did it. trying to describe Jo! You can see Sluggo trying to do it..i.e. he gets worked up because Jo isn't telling the Duane story like he wants it to be told. I think that's funny, but I don't say Sluggo is creating destruction because of that. We all just post on whatever we feel like posting. If people like reading it, they comment. The thread meanders, like a river, as a result. Hell, even Bruce gets a little support. Hey: Google Books now has Popular Mechanics going way back, and World Weekly News too! (for all you tabloid fans) Was looking around for stuff 377 might enjoy: -attached a 1928 photo (Popular Mechanics) of a "fin"..interesting this is early wingsuit like? (Aug 1928, page 256) -photo of jumper with broadcast unit in 1928. I think this was 377? Jumped from 20,000 ft with a 25 lb transmitter. -You guys like squidding. Here's some off a biplane. 1928 (Jan 1928, page 104)

geoger said: "Shelly is not attacking Jo, so why invent that? You have no conscience in any event, one way or the other. You're just another frustrated reporter." Hi Georger. I am perfectly willing to accept the premise that I am what other people think of me. But: why does this thread have anything to do with conscience or even morality? What boundary have i crossed that gets you pissed at me? I mean I can understand I'm boring. But besides that, I can't see what the issue is.

Good summary Sluggo Last night, I was surprised to realize I had never read "A Walk on the Wild Side" by Nelson Algren. I imagined that Orange1 would tell me she did long ago....:) Nelson famously had his own rules of life: -Never play cards with a man called Doc. -Never eat at a place called Mom's. -Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own. The third might apply? (edit) His mugshot is attached. Anyone mentioned in a DBC thread has to have a mugshot. Too bad he's too old to be Cooper.

377 said "If you look long enough someone will tell you that Duane could take a 1.5 volt dry cell and a back brace and convert it into a gadget that would receive proximity info from a VOR transmitter." Funny you mention that 377. Look no further: I experimented with this just now. I took a back brace and bent 3 of them to form a rudimentary coil. I worked out the coil diameter and spacing in my head, to get an approximate L. I made a capacitor from layering 8 of the stays in between layers of magazine paper. I used a knife blade tip and a rock and made a rudimentary detector. I went to a VOR, and although I couldn't get the proximity info, I was able to detect a 3 digit CW id. I was surprised at this, and so read up to understand why I got a signal. VOR's transmit, in addition to the 9960 Hz FM stuff, an omnidirectional AM signal with 1040hz CW modulated on it. I can only detect the CW id when I'm very close, because of the poor receiver. But that's enough for use a proximity detector. (edit) Bruce can incorporate this into his treatise, free of charge. Although I guess I'm missing an earphone and some wiring details. (edit) Everyone has their own individual crazy thoughts, when you think about it: Ckret: loadmaster/comic book; H/Jerry: 305 flying off in the hinterlands; Sluggo:cemetaries; TK: mentioned money roots for a second. The whole thing inspires crazy thinking. It's because the basic facts are so obscured by the FBI. (the bump testimony, the clay layer report, the flight path data, the weather data, the wind data) There is no reliable information. (edit) The Seattle ARTCC transcript stuff I highlighted seems to me to be consistent with them tracking 305, and 305 being correctly on route. I'm surprised I got no reaction. Instead Shelly comes on to attack Jo once again. Weird.

ksea (western washington traffic control) http://www.liveatc.net/flisten.php?mount=ksea 119.2 - Departure East 120.4 - Departure West 133.65 - Seattle Final N/S 123.9 - Arrival East 125.6 - Arrival West 119.9 - Seattle Tower ksea tower http://www.liveatc.net/flisten.php?mount=ksea_tw SeaTac Tower: 119.9 (EAST) 120.95 (WEST) ksea misc. http://www.liveatc.net/flisten.php?mount=ksea_misc Seattle Approach: 126.5, 391.9 Seattle Center: 126.6, 343.6 KTCM Tower: 124.8, 125.15, and 259.3 links from http://www.liveatc.net/feedindex.php?type=all#ksea

maybe you're mixing two stories 377. (hey I'm looking at lockeed constellation crashes and found a couple of interesting stories) here's one, but no beef in this story, and the plane wasn't lost. oct, 1981 (some incorrectly report it as 1980) crew of 5. 2 rescued. 1 body. pilot/co-pilot never found. cargo. fruits and vegetables. picture of it floating attached. it sank while they were towing it, and is now a popular dive site (sits in 45 feet of water, 100 yards off shore)

377 said: "How did ATC radar in 71 get lat lon on plane echoes? Was it just electronically estimated from the position on the scope? As far as I know there was nothing on a domestic NWA 727 in 71 that generated lat lon info. International aircraft had INS gear, but not domestic ones. " It does sound like it's estimated. (see info from a company at bottom of this post). It might be just how the system presented information, like you say. You're right that only altitude and the 4-digit code would have been there in '71, from the plane's transponder. Maybe the web page I was quoting was just referring to modern gear? (don't think so..think it was referring to what data was "presented/stored/logged?) -------------------------------------------------------------- re modern gear: Here's a post talking about how new ADS-B equipment transmits lat/long from planes, but old mode C transponders just did pressure altitude and the 4-digit code. He's talking about this system which is an amateur box that can receive the ADS-B stuff. "The SBS-1 allows you to track ADS-B aircraft on the radar screen and identifies and displays Mode-S equipped aircraft." http://www.kinetic-avionics.co.uk/sbs-1.php from a forum post: "Ground stations send out "interrogation" signals, and the receivers in the aircraft broadcast replies that are picked up by the ground station. This amateur box just picks up those replies. That's why it'll only show you aircraft with ADS-B equipment (that means pretty much only airliners; newer GA aircraft with advanced avionics like a G1000 have Mode S but not ADS-B) -- the "old" Mode C transponders just transmitted pressure altitude and a 4-digit code, so without an additional DF or primary radar scan, you'd have no way of knowing the aircraft's location. The newer ADS-B systems broadcast a lot more information, including the aircraft's latitude/longitude. This thing receives those ADS-B transmissions that were meant for FAA stations, decodes the latitude/longitude/altitude information, and spits it out." ---------------------------------- Hey! here's a company that converts the radar data from the FAA into more understandable data... they say: http://www.atc-radar.com/serv02.htm "Radar Data Analysis A radar target location is determined by the range (distance from the antenna) and azimuth (direction from the antenna). The range and azimuth of a radar target report can be affected many factors. The approach control antenna (TRACON) rotates 360 degrees in approximately 4.6 seconds. Therefore you would expect to see a target report every of a particular aircraft on every sweep of the radar antenna. The enroute radar antenna (ARTCC) rotates approximately once every 11 seconds. The ARTCC computer converts the range and azimuth values to X/Y values and then to Latitude and Longitude locations. This firm has the experience and expertise to convert the computer data list provided by the FAA to an understandable and visual presentation. " "Radar data listings from the FAA can be provided in different formats. There are two basic types of radar facilities. The Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) provides radar coverage throughout most of the United States, subject to line of sight of the radar antenna. The Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility only provides radar coverage within 60 nautical miles of the facilities antenna. TRACON facilities are normally located at major airports. However, not all TRACON's record radar data. The location of the accident/incident and the length of the flight track needed determines the number and type of radar facilities from which recorded the radar data is needed. This firm, through the use of special computer software can provide graphical depictions of the flight track of the aircraft flight. With a full analysis of the radar data, ground speed, direction of flight, and rate of climb/descent can also be determined."