georger

Quote RUMOR has it they have, or have not. I missed the public announcement. Do you know ? Was there an announcement? I think they would use the term....."not a person of interest" and leave it at that Quote I have an idea! Let's write a book! Let's call it: Letters to Cooper! Instead of "Letter from Cooper". Hmmmm. Aren't these thousands of posts tantamount to "letters to Cooper". Mr. Cooper if you're out there, please confirm! Aren't you lonely? Wouldn't you like some mail from home? Just let us know where to write, and we'll take care of the rest - hugs and all - Georgey!

Hasn't the FBI ruled out all the "Suspects" presented in this thread, based on the actual physical evidence? MattQuote RUMOR has it they have, or have not. I missed the public announcement. Do you know ? Was there an announcement?

Quote Say, what is this we are hearing about you threatening to sue Bruce Smith if Bruce mentions KC being gay in his book? You still deny that Kenny was gay? What would allow you to threaten and sue Bruce over this? Why are you now attacking Bruce Smith, officially with threat of legal action, forcing Bruce to run to an attorney for legal advice on how to handle your threat(s) ? Is Geivette a part of this?

Quote Still they could compare dna between the letter/envelope and the samples of Petey and Cooper they have - would be no big deal. My concern is they don't have a 'modern' workup on Cooper dna, socalled, in the first place. Of course they could have. No way of knowing because in the final analysis it is an active criminal case ... the minute they decide to use that catagory. It's all good! I wondered about the DNA make-up and the FBI's stance that it could only rule out a suspect. If this were a fact, why would they waste the time, effort and $$ on taking a DNA sample from L.D.'s daughter? Because they evidently have no specimen from LD himself or are doing a double match, so are seeking a specimen from a close relative who would share LD's dna traits. It's a backdoor way of evaluating LD's dna against their Cooper sample. And if they can do this, it tells me they have a pretty solid "partial" socalled, they are using, or something better than a 'partial' which tech's feel is exclusionary, statistically. My feeling is what they have fits the standard protocols of the CODIS-13 system. They have at least 7 loci they feel are statistically sound. Maybe something more than 7 loci, which would be excellent news. If it's Cooper's in the first place? Bu that is the reason they would want and use LD's daughter's dna. They are sincere about trying to evaluate LD if they have done this. Since NGS (Next Generation Sequencing) cost is no issue - people still make a buck! In 2008, Larry Carr went on record stating that a familial sample could not be tested against the sample they have. http://www.stevenrinehart.com/uploads/LarryCarrInterview.mp3. However, I understand the science of DNA is always evolving and this may not be the case any longer. Hypothetically, how could a a family member, son and daughter, have their DNA compared to the FBI's samples they believe are Cooper's. Let's presume the son and daughter (of a possible suspect) already have their DNA samples in the Missing Persons side of Codis through Namus http://www.namus.gov/. In addition.....how can the fingerprints be compared. Are these pieces of Cooper evidence locked up tighter than a _____________ ?....(insert your own euphemism here).Quote So far as I know finger prints are still unique to every individual, so far. I have no idea what Carr's statement means. Carr is no longer here to question. It was Carr who informed the world the FBI had a "Partial" which was exclsuionary, but he didn't define that or elaborate. So everything we are talking about here is speculation. Maybe Big Bird knows ? Hard information about any of this is lacking, unless Big Bird knows? I dont even know who Big Bird is, day to day, hour to hour, universe to universe! I suppose if you asked the FBI to do comparative testing with certified samples you have, they would consider and give you a response ? That might best be handled by an attorney or law enforcement. Ive already explained how 'hypothetically' a familial member's dna can be compard, to a parent, sibling, or a neutral party. Maybe this will help: http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human_bio/activities/blackett2/overview.html or this: http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human_bio/activities/blackett2/str_codis.html

Quote Still they could compare dna between the letter/envelope and the samples of Petey and Cooper they have - would be no big deal. My concern is they don't have a 'modern' workup on Cooper dna, socalled, in the first place. Of course they could have. No way of knowing because in the final analysis it is an active criminal case ... the minute they decide to use that catagory. It's all good! I wondered about the DNA make-up and the FBI's stance that it could only rule out a suspect. If this were a fact, why would they waste the time, effort and $$ on taking a DNA sample from L.D.'s daughter? Because they evidently have no specimen from LD himself or are doing a double match, so are seeking a specimen from a close relative who would share LD's dna traits. It's a backdoor way of evaluating LD's dna against their Cooper sample. And if they can do this, it tells me they have a pretty solid "partial" socalled, they are using, or something better than a 'partial' which tech's feel is exclusionary, statistically. My feeling is what they have fits the standard protocols of the CODIS-13 system. They have at least 7 loci they feel are statistically sound. Maybe something more than 7 loci, which would be excellent news. If it's Cooper's in the first place? Bu that is the reason they would want and use LD's daughter's dna. They are sincere about trying to evaluate LD if they have done this. Since NGS (Next Generation Sequencing) cost is no issue - people still make a buck!

I still wonder why the FBI insisted on a subsequent DNA sample from Sheridan if he had a solid Nepal alibi. Maybe they had their doubts about the Alibi. Sailshaw, even if envelope DNA shows Sheridan was lying about being in Nepal during the skyjack, the FBI has ruled him out by comparing his DNA to what they believe is Coopers DNA. They seem very sure they have Coopers DNA. Not a perfect complete sample but enough to rule out suspects. The way I see it is that the FBI doesn't care if Sheridans alibi is real or fake. His DNA doesn't match Cooper's which for them conclusively rules out Sheridan. 377Quote Still they could compare dna between the letter/envelope and the samples of Petey and Cooper they have - would be no big deal. My concern is they don't have a 'modern' workup on Cooper dna, socalled, in the first place. Of course they could have. No way of knowing because in the final analysis it is an active criminal case ... the minute they decide to use that catagory. It's all good! After reading Kaye/Carol's account of Cooper stripping the reserve, if as Carol says Cooper began this work immediately upon liftoff (a lengthy process) all to make a container for the money since the the backpack had not been delivered ... that seems to contradict Carr's assertion that Cooper intended to bail immediately after takeoff to stay near Seattle. If that was the case he likely would have demanded the backpack before liftoff, and he could easily have done that. The need for backpack or money container might indicate the intention to "travel some distance on foot" after landing. ?? Why didn't he demand the backpack? He could have. What is all of this (confusion?) about making a container for the money, making one from the reserve container and shifting money into that, then evidently deciding against that, and pouring the money back into the bank bag, then tying that to himself ... ? Is this description correct on Kaye's site? Cooper seems to have displayed some skill and deftness in cutting and using the reserve to try and make a container that would work ... then deciding against it and using the bank bag after all? Or do I have this all confused? Kaye's site is a little hard to follow on this complicated scenario ... Im guessing Cooper had some pretty good crafting skills. Maybe he was a chef ... or a Food service Worker! Whose restaurant needed bailing out!

Quote What was once very simple is now very complicated. Too many people with side interests got involved - We offered to help but never even received a reply. Undoubtedtly 377 and Tom Kaye got involved in this. Ask them where the whole matter is! ? With respect to NGS testing of Cooper evidence?

The PI Cooper transcripts are 99 pages long and identical to those on Sluggo's web page. There is no obvious information on Sluggo's page about when he obtained the transcripts and/or their source. On August 20, 2008, the FBI sent a FAX to someone, presumably Sluggo, that was 17 pages long. Pages 001/017 thru 007/017 are now known as the "FBI Notes" and are not duplicated anywhere else outside the FBI to my knowledge. Pages 008/017 thru 017/017 are two separate and identical sections of the PI and Sluggo transcripts. So it appears that the PI had access to everything that is now in the "public domain" except the "FBI Notes". Robert99Quote I would have said the same but wasn't really sure. I will speculate the Seattle PI likely got their copy of the Transcript from somebody at the FBI in Seattle, then produced a pdf. But its pure speculation. Sluggo did receive the NWA Transcipt directly from Carr and presented it here.

Quote Bruce, the whole issue of the reserve lines is covered here in depth: http://www.citizensleuths.com/pink-parachute-gallery.html

will PM you tonight - its crunch time here .. I can include Shutter if thats ok ... Including Shutter is fine with me.Quote Will send PMs shortly - btw the PI Transcript is still available at: http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/files/library/dbcooper_transcripts.pdf or: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2010/11/22/p-i-archive-d-b-cooper-search-photos-and-evidence/ Its labaled as "Part of the Transcript (pdf)" They dont say where the rest is -

Quote To find an unedited transcript if one exists and the actual tapes! We are probably asking for the Moon!

Jo, P.I. refers to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, a newspaper. They released a written transcript of the flight communications between Flight 305, the plane Cooper was on, and various other entities, from the beginning of the hijacking to the end when it landed at Reno. The Transcript figures prominently on Sluggo's website and in people's research on the case. It was released by the Seattle newspaper sometime around 2008 when Ckret came here to talk about the case. Nobody seems to know how they got the transcript or from whom ?

Georger, Are the tapes of the original communications between the airliner and the Seattle ATC and the ARINC system still available? If so, who has them? Robert99Quote By the way, I did locate the pre 1974 water level data. If you want that I can tell you where to get it privately. Please send me a PM with the information. My personal e-mail address has been changed recently due to problems with would be hackers. If you don't want to go the PM route, get in touch with Shutter. He has permission (this sentence) to pass my current e-mail address to you. Or, you can confirm that your former personal e-mail address is still the same. Robert99Quote will PM you tonight - its crunch time here .. I can include Shutter if thats ok ...

All descriptions delivered later are subject to this original basic first description. Georger, Are the tapes of the original communications between the airliner and the Seattle ATC and the ARINC system still available? If so, who has them? Robert99Quote By the way, I did locate the pre 1974 water level data. If you want that I can tell you where to get it privately.

Quote The first official description of DB Cooper was given by Wm Scott at 3:54pm pst on 119.5 MHz (reel No.1 PI Transcript) saying: "305: Also, name of man unknown. About 6 feet 1 inch high, black hair, age about 50, weight about 175 pounds, boarded at PDX. MSP Flight options ok." Presumably, the description was provided Scott by one or more of the cabin stews: Hancock, Schaffner, and Mucklow. All descriptions delivered later are subject to this original basic first description. Georger, Are the tapes of the original communications between the airliner and the Seattle ATC and the ARINC system still available? If so, who has them? Robert99Quote Tough question! I was told in '08 (if this makes sense) that 'all of the tapes in various locations were collected, as much as still existed, and were transferred to either NWA or the FAA, then assembled, and transcripts made - and the tapes and/or copies of the tapes still exist and NW, the FAA, and FBI have a copy.' Would I swear this is true in Court. No! It's just hearsay. R2 who we both talked to, confirmed the tapes at his location were talken away. He didn't seem to know much beyond that. I tried to find out where the PI got their pdf and ran into a roadblock - they wouldn't talk (to me) except to say the people involved were no longer at the PI. But they wouldnt give me any names or references either. One manager at the PI told me bluntly: "This isn't current news!" The current staff I spoke with there didn't care and they weren't going to lift a finger to help ... That is literally all I can say on this subject. I literally don't know anything more except, I put out a few new feelers this morning. This has been a question in my mind since day-1. Maybe Sluggo, Kaye, or Snowmman know more? Somebody knows more (that is almost certain)! And, I have never tried to talk to the FBI about this and the reason I didn't was because I was trying to follow Carr's original mandate which was to analyse the money, focus on that, and not go on a wide fishing expedition. But the PI transcripts have always bugged me, as you know. Those flight comms are a key - What has always bugged me about the PI Transcript(s) is they are a strange mix of technical and other rather specific information, while obviously having been redacted of other deeper information and content, someone thought was more vital and should be redacted?. This concerns not only gaps in the technical information you want, but the deeper content given the wide communications that were obviously going on between Cooper and the crew, including the cockpit crew, at various times. At one point Al Lee even hears Cooper talking in the background! We even know that Cooper actually wrote out a second and third set of instructions (togive to Scott?) completely separate from his original hijack note(s) - and presumably Cooper got those back in the course of the hijacking also? We are told also that the crew didn't know and thought Cooper might still be on board clear down to Reno, but the Transcripts are deep enough that they tell another story - and those communiucation were left intact in the transcript(s)! That is an example of what I mean by "strange mix". The transcripts are superficial on the one hand then suddenly rather deep in the next set of passages ... and what kind of redaction or censuring by whom is that? Scott was a busy man communicating. That's an under- statement! Rataczak says he chimed in now and then especially during the fueling stall at SEA. (Where is that in the transcripts, identifying Rzck vs Scott?) Somebody who worked at the PI has a story to tell.. I did put out a few new feelers this morning. Maybe something will come of that. I have no idea. I finally stopped persuing the PI Transcripts in lieu of other opportunities and information that surfaced. I will get to that in due course but I decided getting an original copy of all of the flight comms and radar data per se, was an impossibility. It was a personal judgement and decision I made at the time, the full consequences of which are yet to be determined. Frankly Robert99, I thought your chances were better than mine and you would eventually get to the bottom of this, based on your credentials. I never communicated that directly to you, but that was part of my reasoning (and hope) at the time... and I want you to know that.

Quote The first official description of DB Cooper was given by Wm Scott at 3:54pm pst on 119.5 MHz (reel No.1 PI Transcript) saying: "305: Also, name of man unknown. About 6 feet 1 inch high, black hair, age about 50, weight about 175 pounds, boarded at PDX. MSP Flight options ok." Presumably, the description was provided Scott by one or more of the cabin stews: Hancock, Schaffner, and Mucklow. All descriptions delivered later are subject to this original basic first description.

Quote He says he's already with Gates and Microsoft, not to mention the Director of the FBI. I think his best bet would be to take this mystery and go directly to a Russian airport and plead for protection/entry into Russia, China, or Argentina, Equador? Not even Dvorak, Myers and Weber, or the Titanic! went throught his kind of *xxit*. This is a FIRST in Cooperland? Good nite Irene -

So we have transcripts that are incomplete and/or redacted vs multiple eyewitness memory accounts, 30- 40 yrs later, from people who were in the cockpit flying the plane. Ahhhh...the Cooper merry go round.

Great POST Georger. Thank You! Now I am going to go back and try to find the different references you gave in the post. AT least there is some clarification now at least for me. Quote Quote You're welcome. Robt99 raises a very important question. There are no direct references to icing in the transcripts. There are many outside references. The transcripts were redacted. Was icing a fact redacted or made up, or true? I think that is Robt99's point and one worth answering. What were the criteria for editing the Transcript and who would do that? Is there an unedited version somewhere? Someone asked earlier who released the Transcripts first and where did they get their copy? The Seattle PI is somewhere in this loop. Lots of questions -

As for the icing, I merely posted what is quoted from Rataczak's talk at NW History center.... and then asked a question which stemmed from it. Nothing more, nothing less. I didn't need, want, or ask for your conclusions. From Rataczak: At 10,000 feet out of Seattle there was a cloud layer, causing icing to occur on the aircraft. We were flying what we call a “dirty airplane” with flaps and gear down. We were unpressurized. We had another problem besides Cooper. Icing." Quote sorry to be late - Exactly as per yours above. The reference (pdf) can be found here: http://www.nwahistory.org/newsletter/12_fall_newsletter_web.pdf Ref #2: "_ "Rat reported icing and turbulence .... he described the flight as 'rough at times' saying he and Scott 'had their hands full through the Washington part of the flight' ..." (researcher) _ "Rataczak told me that there was some turbulence earlier in the flight..............and some icing. But as the plane neared Vancouver/Portland the clouds were broken and he spotted Vancouver coming up ahead. He thinks Cooper saw it also." (researcher) Ref #3: "... _ "... we had two flights come in that day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon around 4:00pm. The one in the AM encountered rain and a little turbulence but the one at 4:00pm radioed and said he was in severe turbulence and hard rain and icing, he almost turned around and went back, but he came in and landed. He was very glad to be on the ground and his face said it all .... that was at 4:00 oclock. I dont remember any more storm activity that day and I finally went home about midnight after we had been monitoring the hijacking just west of us at Portland, but we did listen to some of the hijacking chatter that evening. As for ......." (airport manager) Ref #4: " ... I would not doubt this. The 8pm forecast for Portland says broken at 2700' base and overcast at 5000' base. This means that, looking up from some position at the airport, the blocking at least 4/10 of the sky (if the lower 2 layers were blocking .5 of it). It is possible a pilot could see down between clouds in different layers, as several have rerported looking somewhere other than directly at the airport--the reverse of the path used by the airport observer. And the airport observation might have been a little different by 8:15pm. 5000' layer, plus the lower layers, had to be blocking over .9 of the sky. The reports of icing and turbulence were documented at several airports ...... so Rataczak's report is consistent with the facts." (FAA meteorologist) Ref #5: "I found this news article about a talk Scott gave in 1997 to a local Aero club where he lived. (edit) It's the first news article at this search http://news.google.com/...st+pack&ie=UTF-8. " (Snowmman 2008) Ref #6: "... Tina came forward and was with us in the cabin. She reported the hijacker was preparing to jump so I called to the back about 2005 and told him we would try and stabilize the plane for him to jump. It was the turbulence and icing that caused me to call back to him. We didn't want anything happening... and we wanted him gone!" (Wm Scott 1997) Ref #7 email just received: "I went back to all of my notes from six hours of inteviewing Rataczak and we found this from our 2008 discussions: On icing: Rataczak: "We were flying through several cloud layers of drizzle between SEA and PDX. We had engines boosted up b/c of our dirty configuration. I could see icing around the cockpit windows. It was a big concern to both Capt. Scott and myself." "... Scott called back to him about 2005 to reassure him. He didn't answer at first but then finally answered. (was out testing the stairs). He said thanks and left ..." (source witheld)

"We had another problem besides Cooper. Icing."Quote That quote is from R's recent NWA talk. I have posted the whole passage quoted above. And Bill Scott gave a talk and said the same thing only expanded it saying it was 2005 when conditions caused him to call back to Cooper and explain the turbulence and icing, and they would try to even out the plane for himto jump. Scott is *very specific*! I have to go. (run). So once again Blevins is totally wrong in his outrageous attack on Smokin99. later .. am late for a meeting already...

Please check.Quote will do - give me a couple of days. You don't need a couple of days. I will give you the answer NOW. There was NOT a problem with icing on the wings of Flight 305 anytime between Seattle and Portland. Are you kidding me or what? Quote Quick post in reply - Blevins you literally don't know what you;re talking about. I said "two days" because I knew it would take time to round up replies and call a few people - but response has been quick and almost savage in response to your Dropzone OUTBURST AND WRONG FACTS! This comes from both Rczk and Bill Scott: quote: "Icing occured between SEA and PDX .... it was the reason I called back to Cooper at 2005, the icing and turbulence since he was trying to set things up to bail ... " So the icing was between Seattle and Portland roughly during the 2005 period specifically ... and I will post many references (sources) tonight when I have time. Robt99 your citation is from the recent Rczk NWA presentation: Let me quote the passage: "At 10,000 feet out of Seattle there was a cloud layer, causing icing to occur on the aircraft. We were flying what we call a “dirty airplane” with flaps and gear down. We were unpressurized. We had another problem besides Cooper. Icing caused Bill to call back to Cooper about 2005 ... we knew he was wanting to jump and we were trying to accomodate him thus we were flying "dirty"..." So Blevins once again you are wroing, with prejudice. I will post more tonight when I am home and have more time - There is more. 100% of all replies and calls today have Blevins wrong. The icing was between Seattle and Portland, just as previously recorded by many in this forum over the years. Later.

Please check.Quote will do - give me a couple of days. You don't need a couple of days. I will give you the answer NOW. There was NOT a problem with icing on the wings of Flight 305 anytime between Seattle and Portland. Are you kidding me or what? Even a non-pilot like me understands that icing would rapidly change the configuration of any lift to the aircraft...especially since it was flying with flaps and wheels down at lower than normal speed. The crew would have contacted Cooper immediately and told him they had an emergency, as well as the ground. Then they would have descended to combat the icing and hit the wing de-icers. This is downright ridiculous, and only proves that Smokin99 has one thumb placed somewhere, and another placed elsewhere...and switches every thirty minutes. Source, please.Quote Stop attacking posters

If "We had another problem besides Cooper. Icing.", and Cooper was gone, or thought to be gone, then either they didn't know Cooper was gone, or the reference is before the 8:16-20 period ? In other interviews (Cook etal) Rczk has always referenced the icing as occurring early in the flight before Portland ... I can check but Im pretty sure this is the case. Please check.Quote will do - give me a couple of days.

Smokin, the only icing mentioned in the transcripts was well south of Portland. Robert99Quote If "We had another problem besides Cooper. Icing.", and Cooper was gone, or thought to be gone, then either they didn't know Cooper was gone, or the reference is before the 8:16-20 period ? In other interviews (Cook etal) Rczk has always referenced the icing as occurring early in the flight before Portland ... I can check but Im pretty sure this is the case.