snowmman

Being a total aviation nut I want to know what Ralph flew as a military pilot. I know it wasn't an SR 71 but I would be impressed by any early planes. Jerry, can you ask him? 377 I'd like to hear stories about Ralph's days as a fighter pilot. I think I posted the exact plane he flew before. And when did he jump? Military or Sport? Was it before 1971? Ralph may have more expertise that's relevant than a lot of the posters here...well 377 goes back a ways, but we're missing 60s-era jumpers. (early 60s)

Thanks Tom. I don't know why you would post that there wasn't a Clay Report, if you didn't know if there was a Clay Report. By now, you must be sensitive to how myths get created with Cooper, and I'm surprised you create them so easily. You created the SR-71 myth. There is no data than anything happened with the SR-71, except that one line you provided. But you fell into the trap of implying something. It's really easy to see how people get sucked into creating myths. Everyone thinks they know stuff, or can digest stuff, better than others. And that secret data makes sense. Good luck with your plan.

wolfriverjoe said "The Poynter manuals have pics and descriptions of the NB-6 and Pioneer rigs too, but those aren't onlline that I can find. Maybe Snowmman can find them. " From the info Ckret provided, we can't identify the Pioneer rig. We can revisit that if there are more knowledgeable people reading now. With respect to the NB-6, there are subtleties. I don't think people realized that the NB-6 has slight changes over time, and different manufacturers. A current NB-6 (like you can buy on Ebay as surplus, likely '90s era) is not what a 1971 or earlier NB-6 looked like. Essentially the same, but the key point: We don't have an exact photo of the NB-6 Cooper had.

you're rehashing what was well published in the '70s from psychiatrists. There are books from that era you should read. Your "theories" are nothing new. But the '70s stuff has also been discounted by later people of equal stature. So what to believe? For instance, the papers on the contagion theory of hijacking make a lot of sense. How does that feed the madness that's inherent in the massses somewhere? We've gone thru this before. I've posted a lot of google book references, etc. Ckret made a point of saying he didn't believe in that stuff. I think we all agreed the drama of a hijack made the psych stuff more applicable. How about "prominent persecutory delusions" and auditory hallucinations? Paranoid delusional disorder, possibly acute schizophrenia? http://www.zimgreats.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=383&Itemid=35 that's from a shrink 1/23/2077 for Tinashe Rioga, Zimbabwean student who tried to hijack a South African plane. Please do not write about all the South Africa connections to Cooper. We know there are a lot, but we keep them well hidden. (edit) On the other hand, Tinashe was quoted as saying (his weapon was a syringe) when he tried to get in the cockpit "If you don't open that f... door, I will kill you" That just sounds like a common criminal, like Himmelsbach liked to say. Hmmmmmm? All about points of view I suppose.

Bruce: If you're just writing the sensationalism kind of story (which I love), you need to tie in Ted Kaczynski. You're a cooper-conspiracy-nut lightweight if you don't know about his participation in a MKULTRA experiment. (edit) Bruce: use the search feature for whatever you're interested in. restrict it to posts by snowmman. That'll get you to relevant pages, assuming you have a search topic. I generally responded to all themes, so you can get close. When you see who else responded to a theme, you can switch to posts by them. Etc.

"What I'm saying is that attacking material facts or evidence just because it suggests a different answer is wrong... and almost everyone on this board, including Jo, has done this." Ok, thanks Safe. FYI, I don't think there are many people that believe Jo's story holds any water, any more. It would be easier if you name names when you're referring to people, so they could defend their points of view. Because you may have some good feedback for them. It's good to point out whose information/thoughts you trust and whose you question. That helps frame a point of view. We all do that. It's how humans work. (edit) You make a good point about how only the crazy lady came up with a theory that could be slightly plausible. She had the benefit of coming up with it much later in time. But you're right: what does that say about everything else? Don't know. hey: I threw out a crazy-lady-theory about Himmelsbach. That's just as plausible as the Duane theory. Just as non-plausible as the Duane theory too. I just don't PR it like Jo. (Jo has no more evidence than I do) (edit) On attacking evidence. Jo had evidence of Duane's commutation. On face value, that seemed to imply something. I dug up stuff that showed it was likely not what it seemed, and something much more benign. Attacking evidence can be a good thing, if it's misinterpreted "evidence" or wrong.

Ckret is not a geologist, and can't come up with theories from pictures. Ckret posted here about the clay layer. Ckret must have read it in an FBI report. The Clay Layer Report is being destroyed, or hidden. Why? Is Himmelsbach involved? He's coming to the forefront at the same time the Clay Layer Report disappears?

Tom this cannot be true, and Safe knows it. There cannot be just pictures. There has to be words. The only words we have are in newspaper articles and Himmelsbach's Norjak book. Are you saying the theory about the clay layer was only printed in the newspapers and the Norjack book? there is no FBI report mentioning the clay layer? If so, this is good new data. Did the FBI pay the geologist, or was that volunteer work? Why didn't the geologist ever publish the work? (edit) So the theory is: Pictures were taken, the geologist talked to newspaper people, the FBI read the newspapers, and that's the whole clay layer story??? Is there anything else?

Hey it's actually cool to see that Ralph is back in the fray. I'm seriously all for getting the guys from back-in-the-day back out and cutting it up with the new guys who think they're all that! Go Ralph. Look forward to seeing maybe some insight from someone who was actually there, on all the questions we have. Thanks Jerry.

"Jerry I don't think I mentioned it to you specifically while we were together, but please do not post details about or findings." Reminds me: To everyone in the world who reads anything I post on DZ.com. I forgot to mention it, but please do not think about anything I write. Especially do not talk to TomKaye, JerryThomas, Ckret, skyjack71, 377, Sluggo_monster, SafecrackingPLF, wolfriverjoe, georger, Orange1, quade, NickDG, happythoughts, nitrochute, BruceSmith, 1969912, Skydivejack, javelin1, mark, AggieDave, Erroll, mccurley, Guru312, stratostar, ryoder, jonstark, dumstuntzz, Jim_Hooper, ltdiver, BillyVance, Albert18, airtwardo, Glitch, peckerhead, normiss, grimmie, IanHarrop, BigSky, Bgill, winsor, speedy, labrys (stop for breath. sorry if I left out anyone)

Yes I understand that Tom. I'm just ignoring it. Everyone wants there to be a club when they have some goals. The time to form a club is before you have some goals. You're asking for desired behaviors, but we're getting nothing in return. Give up the clay report, and I'll back down.

Thanks Jerry. All we know about the stuff recently discovered on the money is the news articles that say "metal" and "chemical markers" You've introduced the idea of minerals, which I take to be some kind of more natural (not refined by man) kind of deposit. Where did you hear the "minerals on the money" idea? Tom has alluded to this before the press stuff last week. I think he actually made a post but didn't specify details. So it was interesting last week when we transitioned from minerals to metal and chemical markers. (edit) Jerry: why do you think the sand that covered the money was there for a long time? Because of the condition of the money and rubber bands? (edit) Jerry you said "he sand and other mater that coverd the money" What other matter covered the money?

Tom K said "From what I understand the dredge spill is not very efficient at keeping sand up on the beach. It forms its own river that flows back to the Columbia and takes a bunch of sand with it. Hence half the sand ends back up in the water along the shore and you get the bump you see in the pics. " When we were looking for alternative transports, we were looking at things like storm drainage etc. It's interesting that this dredge slurry formed a temporary "river" draining back down. The money could have been deposited somewhere way up shore in '71, then eroded down by the slurry in '74 What's bizarre is I can't understand this clay layer theory. The dredge spoils don't come in different categories. It's all mixed up. Either all of the dredge spoils were "clayey" and formed the "clay layer" (don't believe that since the clay layer isn't so thick?") or ??? I think the clay layer theory is wrong. I'd really like to see the report. Safe thinks a non-reviewed report is correct. Why? (edit) In terms of evidence, all we have is a picture of a clay layer. Anything beyond the existence of the layer is theory.

thanks. I think they call that a hopper dredge? or maybe a specially modified one they use there. (since we love experts: the conservationists are correct. It does hurt the fish habitat.)

Jerry said: "He also stated that the propelers on the pump would tear anything apart" I've posted pictures of stuff that has gone thru pipeline dredges. We have the anecdotal story, told by Tosaw, from the dredge operator, of a bird going thru, and flying off afterwards. That story is likely false. I understand the "tearing up" theory, and it may be true. But there are some things that suggest it might not be true. We've been over this a lot, and don't need to revisit. It's just not black and white.

Okay Tom, then I'm still confused. So we really don't know what happened in '74. I agree that the aerial photos seem at odds with the current story. I think the output of the pipeline is like a pressure washer (with sand!) and can move a lot of stuff around. I've posted studies of the output plume for pipeline dredges. They study this for pollution/water turbidity etc reasons. The effects can go for a while. (i.e. large output plume) (edit) the fish species is salmon, spawning, I thought? Is there others?

If we're going to accept movement of the money, either in '71 from water, or between '71 and '80 due to water, then we shouldn't rule out some form of movement due to slurry action within 100' of the money find. I mean, 100' is close. You might use the distance to say the dredge didn't pick the money up and send it thru the pipe. But the slurry, draining down to the beach, causes a transport action also. Just thinking out loud, so nothing is excluded too quickly. "premature optimization" is a common failure mode in processes. (edit) Jerry said: "However he also stated that there was pieces of money scattered above where the bundle was found along with other debris that had been washed ashore." This is the first time we've had confirmation of the newspaper articles about other bits of money found. Ckret actually denied it, if I remember correctly. Said no other money was found. I think he just couldn't find the reports, maybe?

This is really good info, Jerry, thanks. So there was kind of a non-standard dredge going on. You can see how we were confused/scratching our heads about what happened. (edit) Maybe Tom can tell us what GPS coordinates he's used. We've had many. The latest were some I posted based on guessing from looking at the FBI pictures with circles. Tom: what coords did you use?

Jerry, take a look at the attached photo. This shows where dredge debris was put in 74. What do you think? Thanks for posting that georger. Thanks for the new info Jerry. I didn't want to jump on what Jerry was saying, but I'll throw out some questions maybe Jerry can noodle on. Pipeline dredge: my understanding is the output pipe ends close to shore, not 100 feet up shore. This is because the output is a slurry of water and sand. Pictures I've seen confirm that. Are the Fazio's saying they run pipe from the dredge on the river to 100' up the shore? Or is it not a pipeline dredge and the spoils get transported some other way? (now or in '74) Curiosity question: When the Fazio's get dredge spoils today (i've been told they get it every winter, I believe), who owns the dredge? Or does a barge come with dredge spoils from elsewhere? I've never understood how this sand operation really works. I believe they started it right around '74, right? Do you know Jerry? I think they had no sand before '74? (I remember thinking that from looking at the pictures Ckret provided of '71 etc) (edit) rereading, I'm wondering if Jerry is saying 100' up or down the beach from the money find, not 100' more inland? not sure.

Ok, then I see everyone's point, and the Warren Report is a good thing to muse about. I believe from the feel I get about the Cooper thing though, that a lot more resources were devoted to the JFK assasination. See we really don't have anything that tells us about the Cooper investigation. We don't have reports. We have a couple of transcripts. We know apparently a lot of "stuff" was filed. But you could file a lot of stuff just following tips. We just don't know anything about the investigation, other than Ckret saying he thinks it was a reasonable one. But simple errors in the flight path "minute" transcription, make one wonder. Okay, if we just accept things as is, then there's no scenario for the money getting to Tena Bar. There's no plausible natural transport, or reason for someone to put it there. So unlike the Warren Report, there's no scenario being presented. i.e. the only scenario presented is "no idea how it works"

Why can't the missing link be "Bad Data" Safe says that's implausible. Everything we've seen from FBI says to me "very plausible" Why does Safe love the data he's seen? He used the "army of people" argument. Why does that matter if the tools are wrong or they didn't crosscheck? Hmm. I don't think Safe understands FBI in 1971. I can imagine it based on reading. Safe is promoting some error-free view? Possible. Or that the error bounds don't change anything? Don't agree on that. Couple minutes and you're in the Columbia.

Ah okay. Well I can provide a missing link then. Himmelsbach found the money when he went looking. Maybe very quickly, and went and got it on foot/auto. (saw from plane?) He bought the Beech in '73 with part of the proceeds. He planted the money on Tena Bar right before his retirement, in an attempt to bury the case. (maybe it decomposed on him) All of his stuff to the press, was part of a long term continued deception about what happened to Cooper, as part of the cover up. (edit) Jo got some of the details of her story (burial etc) thru helpful discussions (hundreds) with Himmelsbach. Himmelsbach pushed Duane, because it helped the deception. (edit) Oh, and Himmelsbach monitors this forum, because he's still worried about the outcome. (edit) We went thru all this before, and decided it was a bullshit theory. (edit) Oh ps. I always wondered if Ckret already knew all the stuff Safe "discovered", and Ckret was just acting like the FBI didn't already know that stuff. Ckret kissed up to Safe just a little too much, in my view. Or, Ckret was saying the FBI was really really dumb for 37 years. I mean, Safe is just some guy. No magic powers.

So I'm speculating on the somehow obvious thing I should be able to see, per Safe. Does it end with someone finding the money and planting on Tena Bar? Or Cooper planting it on Tena Bar? I forget if Safe had some complicated float plan? Or does he think the Duane throw decomposed money in the river story is plausible? Does he consider that evidence or is that just random possibility? I thought upon examination of the state of the money and it's decomposition, it's unlikely. I don't think Safe has seen good photos of the money. Don't know. Maybe Safe is Cooper? Is that it? (edit) remember: the throw it in the river story is a total fabrication. Jo never saw anything. It's just plucked out of thin air.

I'm willing to take anything Safe wants to say. My cynical self says he's not really saying anything, so he can't be wrong. But that's unfair. I think he's picking and chosing from available data and pretending he's not. That's fine. I'd like to know what he's picking though. And rather than saying "everyone else is wrong therefore I'm right" Just say what he wants to say. Is he saying he thinks the '72 DZ map is accurate and Cooper jumped up near Ariel? Or does he accept a one minute error? Or does he accept a larger error, based on the oscillations vs bump thing? I mean just saying "follow the evidence" doesn't mean anything What evidence? The '72 DZ map?? Does anyone know what Safe's theory is, if you had to say "Cooper did this" as opposed to saying we're trying to cram square facts in a round hole? I couldn't care less what the hole is. It makes me think Safe really is misinterpreting all of us. The only ones with a bias, I think are Jo, and maybe Jerry because he believes Himmelsbach. Maybe 377 has a slight bias to Cooper living, but he's really just representing that side of the coin. I guess I like that side too, but can toss it. I don't care. I'm biased against the Wahougal river theories. I guess I'll admit that. What is Himmelsbach's bias? Do we ignore him? He's FBI? How come he isn't considered a "fact"...he must have seen evidence we don't have, yet I think we all agree, his opinions are dubious. How does Safe resolve all this? He must pick and choose. What does he pick?

I'm trying to digest what Safe is trying to tell us. If I grok it right, then taking it to the extreme says the FBI is most likely to be correct on however they said it happened. If that's true, then why do we have any issues at all? It feels like Safe wants us to accept some of the FBI claims, but discard others. What's not clear, is which are kept and which are thrown away, and why? Are they all kept, just re-interpreted? Is that what Safe is saying? Well of course, that means live jumper, who plants at the Columbia. But what's new about that thinking? It's just another theory. Is Safe saying it's the best theory? Maybe that's what Safe is saying. I don't understand the argument that it's the best theory though. I think Safe hasn't been following the discussion in the past few months. I also wonder if Safe is kind of a young guy. It seems like he's very dogmatic, and likes the idea of experts and such. Once you get a little older, you start to see how the real world works. Like you get paintball guys who say on tv (the first time) that they are paleontologists. :) Just kidding Tom. The subsequent articles and video were good. But you see my point. People can be crap. Data can be reinterpreted. Nothing is black and white. Except Safe's opinions. I wonder how Safe makes money being black and white? Who pays for that?