georger

Just make up your mind, Flo. I can take it one way or another. You just dont get it do you! This case is NOT ABOUT YOU! With all of the pressure you and your team have applied, nobody's testimony about anything is worth salt now if it has any association with you ... most especially anything from Flo or Tina. You can rant and rave all night. Maybe some angel will answer?

Nice to see you didn't address a single point I made about Christiansen. Well, except for posting up a video on cricket noises or something. Yeah...that's REAL research. Did you really believe Porteous and I could just go out there and waltz through the mud that is the Cooper case without a few stumbles along the way? Regarding the Cooper case in general, here's a modified quote from Apocalypse Now: People occasionally lie to you, or they get things wrong. Records are sometimes difficult to find, because forty years have gone by since Cooper pulled his little stunt and made fools of the Bureau. Dead ends pop up here and there. Sometimes you get things wrong, but the only way you can stay on the path to the truth is to figure out where you went wrong and move on. It ain't easy, trust me on this. You asked a good question: That would be me, and to a certain degree, Porteous. However, I am the one who reviews the ms for publication and responsible for final content. There were a lot of flaws in the first edition, back in March. It was no more than 75% accurate at most, and there were a lot of holes we couldn't fill. But it's ten months later and we found out the places where we went wrong, plus discovering a lot more about Kenny along the way. Comic book link to Shemya, wrong. Being able to put Christiansen and Geestman together on the weekend of the hijacking in the first edition=fail. Saying Scotty went back to talk to Cooper, wrong. Assuming the famous pic of KC walking in through his front door three weeks after the hijacking was a self-portrait, wrong. Many other things, I'm sure. But a funny thing happened. After all the missteps, we finally started getting some things right, and nothing we found out really pointed AWAY from Kenny anymore. Such as when we found the original property record for the house he bought in Bonney Lake for cash, and after running down the person who sold it to him, discovering that the seller just happened to be a friend of Bernie Geestman, and that Geestman helped arrange the sale. I didn't mention it in the book, but Kenny bought that adjoining lot not at the same time as the house. That was a bit later, and he got it for TEN DOLLARS from the same guy. We have the property record on that, as well. I wondered how Kenny managed that one with Grimes, talking him out of a parcel of land months later for just a few bucks. The difference between some folks who are researching the case and us is simple. We don't just SAY we have these things. We actually publish them for people to see and let them judge for themselves. Another difference is that unlike Cook, we don't rely on family members as primary witnesses. Lyle Christiansen is only mentioned in a few places, and then only briefly. Everyone else, all the other witnesses, are actual living people. Not dead judges you may have confessed to, for example. (*laughs*) Farflung asks: It came from poor information. And it was one paragraph, more or less. Not being an expert on the case (I'm not) has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that I went into this thing with no preconceived notions because I didn't know that much about the case. The dis-advantage is that sometimes you might miss something that's already been established as a fact. Like that Scott did not go back to the rear cabin, for example. Oh, you begin to learn though. You discover the truth about the hijacking doesn't really come from whether Cooper burned the ends of some paracord or used a knife. It doesn't come from whether he jumped at 8:15 or ten seconds later. It comes from trying to establish other important evidence that could reveal two things: Whether Cooper lived, and who the heck he was if he did. That's the bottom line, and it won't be found in the transcripts. What really interests me in this whole thing isn't the money, but whether I'm right or wrong about Christiansen. Maybe something will come up as a result of the new book that will prove absolutely that Kenny wasn't the guy. Or maybe the opposite will happen and irrefutable evidence will surface that he was. That's the really exciting part, the not-knowing. I've never claimed 100% that KC was the hijacker, because I can't. But I think something WILL break at some point, I really do. I won't lie...a lot of copies of the book are going out. Someone is going to come forward with something, I'm almost certain of it. If KC is proven without a doubt NOT to be the guy, then I will pull the book and finish writing my crime novel. If it's proven he WAS, then I have the satisfaction of knowing we were right about him. I just hope it goes one way or another in 2011. I mean, at some point you get tired of chasing this stuff. You want it to end, whether it goes in your favor or not. I'm going to try one more effort to ID Kenny as the hijacker. She may not be the best witness, but right now she's the only game in town. I'm going to send the new edition of the book to Florence Wheeler (Schaffner) down in Charleston, along with copies of all the new photos in 11x14 in a ring binder and see if she responds. If she decides to respond, I won't be satisfied with anything except a strong answer from her. No waffling, no 'he's the closest I've seen yet...' stuff like she told Geoff Grey. Just make up your mind, Flo. I can take it one way or another. This above is why I dont give this guy any marks. Its all narcissism.

If the Amboy parachute isn't the DB Cooper parachute (and we know it's not; right?), then who gives a rats ass? He blames the FBI for not publishing the names and forgets the PRESS hasnt either? I wonder why.....

I'm hard on Cook. I had respect for him at one time, but that was when I thought he was a serious investigator. Once he supported the Janet story and went public with it, even speculating that the FBI threatened her because it would divert search efforts away from Merwin Lake...I lost all respect for the guy. If I tried to push off a ridiculous story like that one around Dropzone, I would be blasted to pieces by other forum members. Couldn't believe some of you actually swallowed that story. Raise your hand if you did...say no if you thought it was hogwash. ... which proves you havent read this thread. Galen received a big shot of cactus for the Janet story, and then it was dropped. Galen inherited the Janet story from Tosaw. You may disagree but I have communicated with Galen. Galenand Tosaw were close. I think Galen put out the Janet story out of a sense of duty to Tosaw, his friend. And of course for any sense of intrinsic merit he was wondering about - the story had. Galen wanted opinions, simple as that? What's the object of your Jehad against Galen?

Bill says neither he, Scotty, . . . Quote Bill. Scotty? Shorty. "The Scott". "Peaches". ? Beam me up, Scotty.

The stacks being a part of an original deposit.

I cant claim special knoweldge about this book - how would I have that? It wasnt covered in Madison's course on Foundational Mathematics, or Chaing's Bio Chem either. Or in sociology 101 ... or in that basket weaving class I took but that was all in the stone age. Some people say the author of HaHaHa is the illustrator. I know someone who would know. He sits in the basement of his Dairy Queen chucking out books for the last 30 years and talking New Age nonsense on Coast-to-Coast. I will have to consult my Guru!

Yes, I said that. Just my way of saying 'the canopy'. Never said I was a skydiver or had all the terminology down. I think most people understood what I meant. the silk part = canopy? What silk part? What silk canopy? Oh! The silk Amboy canopy you keep insisting was the Cooper chute. Just slip that through the back door and it will become commonly accepted fact? I think most people will fall in line?

Ok I will bite. I am talking about how the bag may have been carried .......... to the plane, from bank to vehichle, from vehicle into SEA, from there to All Lee and from his car to the plane. These were all hand carries. A Brinks truck did not roll up to the plane to offload a large heavy limp white type canvas money bag. I am suspicious. I am suspicious that multiple people each have part of the story but no single person may have the whole story, and this has happened before in the Cooper case where you have multiple people reporting supposedly about the same event but none of these folks have the whole story. And the SeaFirst has done this to us before! We had one agent of the bank who swore the money was bundled and handled in one manner, then another agent saying something different, then a third agent saying something still different. Three different versions of the same event all sure of their stories. Turned out each was right but only to his own actions vis-a-vis the money. A did his thing then turned over the money to B who did his thing. B turned the money over to C who did his thing, and so on. You get the picture. Only by combining all of the stories did we know the whole true story which then made sense and fit what other witnesses were saying etc. Larry was involved in one of these events involving paper straps vs rubber bands and it took two weeks to unravel with Larry finally posting here about the snafu. This may be a similar story. Maybe not. I dont know. But I suspect there was photo evidence if it still exists and if someone cares to try and dig it up. This is why Im so cautious and reticent about these things. You just never know until ... There were so many official parties in this thing its amazing anyone got anything straight ... Here we are, seems like centuries after the fact, half the parties dead, trying to put pieces back together again. You know the problems with that. We've discussed that before.

Georger enquired: Mitchell made NO comment about the Capt coming into the plane. GEORGER! DON'T YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS CAPT SCOTT THING BEFORE IN THIS THREAD? Geeze, Guys - I am a 70 yr old woman with DUMB BLONDE SYNDROME and none of you remember the posts about the HAHAHA book by D.B.Cooper. Georger, remember you told me the author was evident - but I still couldn't figure out who wrote the book. If you know contact him and tell him to call me if he is still alive...probably not. ALSO note-Porteous was gleaning information from me yrs and yrs ago and I told him about HAHAHA. Guess he read it! Porteous blames Blevins and Blevins blames Porteous... The HA HA HA was also discussed in the Unsolved Mysteries thread - but, not positive I discussed in there or not. But it has been discussed with people who have called me and in interactive sites (Porteous had one of those at one time). Find the author of HAHAHA. Yes I know we discussed all of this before. Ckret finally posted saying Scott DID NOT leave the cockpit. The HA HA HA book is nonsense Jo. Its author is just some guy. If Porteous borrowed this from that book, how can I know? He says he got this from Rataczak. Thanks for the reply.

yet just about everything he uses in regards to the crime itself came from this thread reply] I have the authors name in my files but dont want to spend the time looking it up - its not relevant. DID MITCHELL SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SCOTT COMING BACK AND SITTING WITH COOPER? WHERE IS RAT GETTING THIS FROM?

I spoke with Mitchell, the college student who sat across the isle from Cooper. I had 2 conversation with Mitchell and the contact was orginated with a family member. Without going back to my notes, he didn't pay much attention to Cooper and was the last person to reluctantly move forward, because he was studying. He didn't really pay much attention to the man. What he said "There was something sticking out from under his pants." I asked if it was socks and he didn't think so because the man had on Dark pants and socks don't hang down so he felt it was LONG UNDERWEAR. He told this to the FBI. He said he was a college student at the time and it had been too many yrs to remember what Cooper looked like. As for the photos I had at that time of Duane - he thought the ears might be too large, but it was his only negative comment and it had just been too many yrs for him to say that a photo of anyone was Cooper. He was young and just went on with his life - and that he truely did not remember what the man looked like. This is the same with any of the witnesses if they are being truthful. If you were on a plane in 1971 and 30 yrs later (I talked to Mitchell about 10 yrs ago) even though there was a commotion about this man - would you be able to identify a photo of Cooper after 30 yrs. I frankly do not believe there is anyone who could do that. It was Mitchell's opinion that Cooper was wearing long John's and that is the ONLY thing he really remembers regarding Cooper. Did Mitchell says Scott came back and sat with Cooper, as Rat/Blevins/Porteous are claiming?

Except, of course, just because he accepted the parachutes and money didn't mean he HAD to use them in his escape. Up until the moment he steps into the void, he's still has 100% control over the situation. The crew thinks he has a bomb and virtually everyone is cooperating with him. He has virtually all night to decide what to do. I'm going to suggest that the giddy reaction to the money and his decision to quickly escape shortly after getting it means it was his motivation. Or, that his bailout shortly? after receiving the money indicates his giddy reaction was a cathartic event bringing him out of a malaise (which had set in due to long hours waiting) to get to a decisive point - and he had decisions to make if he was going ahead with the plan, and he did. "Up until the moment he steps into the void, he's still has 100% control over the situation", except that he has just hijacked a plane and nothing to do except perhaps minimise it by giving up - your 100% control? Control over what? Ten years in prison no matter what at that point? It depends on how you define the game and the rational player. A rational player does not hijack in the first place and once done what defines rational becomes a variable ? Contrast all of this with McCoy. McCoy exercised far more control (strict controls) on the plane, chose a hijacking situation with far more variables for something going wrong, and screwed up both in the execution and in the landing. Correct? McCoy shot his mouth off and got caught. Cooper chose a very tightly restricted situation by comparison, less people to control, a smaller area to act in, remained polite, and bailed... Whcih one is the rational player in a hijacking scenario? Can you compare them?

EDIT: I called Skipp Porteous and since that quote about Captain Scott supposedly going back to check with Cooper came from him, I asked him to verify his source. He says he thinks Sluggo is wrong, but I have to admit I wondered about it myself. Skipp says he will check on it (from his files, etc) when he goes to the office tomorrow and let me know. If it is inaccurate, I will correct it and reload the print file. This only takes a few minutes. If it IS correct, then I'm going to quote a source, along with the statement. I will have to check to see if we even put that in the revised edition. Not sure. verbatum: (plane landed Reno at 11:02) "11:08 PM PST 305 Ok uh, I’ll tell you what – stand by just a moment – We’re uh, We’re gonna look back here and see what’s going on. RNO LC Ok. 11:09 PM PST 305 Ah Ground uh or Reno? Stand by for just a few moments please. We will be back with ya. RNO LC 305 Roger. 11:11 PM PST RNO LC 30 Northwest 305. Tower. Northwest 305 Reno Tower. 11:12 PM PST RNO LC Northwest 305. Tower. Northwest 305? Reno Tower. 11:13 PM PST*** RNO LC Northwest 305. Reno Tower. DO NOT TOUCH ANYTHING ABOARD THE AIRCRAFT. EXIT THE AIRCRAFT FROM THE FRONT. DO NOT TOUCH ANYTHING ABOARD THE AIRCRAFT AND EXIT FROM THE FRONT. 305 AE Reno this is Northwest uh 305. RNO LC Northwest 305. Reno tower. 305 OK SIR. BE ADVISED THAT UH WE APPARENTLY UH.. OUR PASSENGER TOOK LEAVE OF US SOMEWHERE UH .. BETWEEN HERE AND SEATTLE. WE HAVE MADE A RATHER ‘CURSORY’ EXAMINATION OF THE AIRCRAFT FOR THE UH, BRIEF CASE AND UH, WE ARE UNABLE TO DO THIS, WE WOULD LIKE TO SECURE THE AIRCRAFT. WE’LL LEAVE THE BEACON ON. WE’RE GOING TO, WELL FACT OF THE MATTER, IS WE’RE GOING TO SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN. WE’RE GOING TO TAKE LEAVE OF THE AIRCRAFT. WE WOULD REQUEST THAT UH WE HAVE GROUND TRANSPORTATION IF YA WOULD. AH WE DON’T NEED THE FUELERS. WE CERTAINLY THANK THEM FOR STANDING BY AND EVERYONE ELSE WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT AND HELP WE GOT AND IF WE COULD GET SOME UH TRANSPORTATION INTO, AH WELL AH I THINK UNITED HAS AN OPERATIONS AK DEPARTMENT HERE DO THEY NOT? 11:14 PM PST RNO LC 305 Affirmative. Do not touch anything on the aircraft. Depart the aircraft from The front entrance. Do not touch anything on it. Just depart it from the front. We Will have transportation available. . . . " What you are saying Blevins is that Rataczak's purported NEW evidence given to Porteous trumps the PI Transcripts ? This would obviously mean the PI Transcripts leaked to the PI were redacted. Yes or No? BTW: Its a distinct pleasure to help you write, edit, and manage your and AB's books? Do we get honorable mention? Is Rataczak being paid a commission? Why wont he talk to anyone else!? You do realise you and Gayla and Porteous have now put Rataczak's reputation on the line notto mention the reputations and former testimonies of others . . . not that it matters at all! Ckret posted on this matter: Ckret PM Friend Jumps License In sport : : : Dec 16, 2007, 11:35 AM Post #693 of 1694 (1684 views) Copy Shortcut Registered: Sep 7, 2007 Posts: 522 Re: [NickDG] Video of Cooper Evidence [In reply to] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No one from the cockpit ever left it until they reached Reno. We may never know whether he jumped with the dummy chute or not. But if he went through the bother of throwing out the dummy, why not the second back chute and the one he took apart. The statements made by the witnesses indicate he tied the money to his waist. ibid: Scott speech `1997 Az Aero Club - Scott does not mention going back and sitting with Cooper.

Interesting. If he REALLY didnt care about the money he may have abandoned it or stored it and never tapped it. The feds and the public were looking for an enriched Cooper, hoping to spot some guy with a big delta between earnings and spending or someone who was in real serious money trouble prior to the skyjack. Offering a bundle to Tina was really really odd. I mean he knows she cant accept it and that it is stolen money. Why offer it? To make Tina like him? Who would really appreciate getting an offer of stolen money? Did it really happen? 377 Whatever his motives were going into this I think once he was on the plane and time dragged out things changed in his mind _ a new motive set began to apply, which isnt uncomon but defines him. He was excited to see the money and surprised, "giddy", but more pressing concerns were in his mind and growing larger, exponentially. Survival and Freedom are powerful motivators .... for a certain class of crminals. This guy was in a huge bind now, on that plane, if he didnt have parachuting skills and luck. What good is money or a grudge if you're going to be dead in the next 20 minutes? His politeness may have been tantamount to a plea for mercy in the end, whatever politeness did to help control things earlier... think about it.

Once on the plane his primary concerns are escape and survival. He confirmed that in his comments to Tina which includes "I dont want it!" in reference to the money. He valued not being apprehended and survival over the money. Those core values on his part, may be one of the reasons he was never found, with or without any money. He apparently got his wish, by accident or by design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9gw5vIu7L0 Amazon and Snowmman both think they could survive the Cooper jump, but Jerry disagrees. Some Hollywood production company is missing a good bet. Recreating the Cooper jump wouldnt be horrendously expensive, no need to use a jet, just add footage of a real 727 exit or use computer animation. I think an interesting half hour show cold be made. 377 You might not duplicate the exact conditions part of which are not known, ie Quade's upper air facts .... and who in their right mind would carry the insurance? Thw problem with tests of this kind is there are people who will chip away at any results claiming 'not a strict duplication of the conditions at the time ... which apparently knowbody knows'. I have NEVER- been able to get the govt people who have the upper air charts to release them. Tey have a backlog of 6-8 months and rarely answer emai - you have to snag them by phone. And if youthink that is bad, it only starts to describe the situation at Treasury - Bureau of Printing and Engraving Forensic Section run by _____________________________ . I know there is disagreement with me on this point (upper air condx) but I happen to agree with Quade's concerns 100% and I have strong reasons to suspect Quade is right and maybe even more correct than he knows. I am sure there were convection cells in that area during the time period at stake. How high up these cells went I do not know. But they were there at 6:00am at 5000ft and higher that day. That is a fact I can prove. I do not think Scott and others talked about "turbulence at 10k feet" for nothing. I dont think they were making that up ........ I know exactly where the data is. I just cant get the folks to release it... the data is in storage at a specific facility. There is a universoity that may also have a copy of the charts for that evening ..... its on my list of things to do when I ever get to it. So test away but be ready for a mountain of criticism (from high places). Those are my opinions.

Good find!

Remember that serial killer in CA who was a parachute rigger? He was caught by some really good forensic work that identified some colored fibers on a victim as being unique to parachute suspension lines that had been used to tie her up but were not left at the scene. 377 An allegorical tale. Why do I chose this form? In order to protect forensic data ... from book writers! The story: Dick and Jane went down to the sacred river to drink and be blessed. Jane was simply thirsty but Dick was looking for immortality. After a long arduous journey they arrived at the river Isotope. Jane bent down to drink but Dick stood motionless. Jane looked up at Dick and said: "Drink! We have arrived at the river of our desire." But Dick continued to stand and finally said, "I will drink, when God gives me a mouth"! Jane looked up at Dick and for the first time ever she realised: "Dick has no mouth". 'What a cruel endictment by the gods', Jane thought. 'I wonder what Dick has done to be given such a cruel fate .... Dick can never have immortality. And I must look elsewhere for mine!' Jane drank her fill and stood up, kissed Dick on the cheek, and walked aaway. After another long journey Jane met Adam and they populated the world. 'Aadamah' means 'Mankind'. And that is why you never hear about Dick from that point on, or Duane either, who was standing behind a bush watching it all. And why Duane's alleged money could not be the money that was found downstream from where Dick and Jane drank, at the River Isotope which is the tears of the gods bound twice with Hope. This is not a statement of opinion but a statement of fact. All candidates who stand at the River Isotope had better think twice because the world was only created once, and will not be stopped and re-created for them alone.

On fishing boats we'd tightly wrap a synthetic line in vinyl electrical tape along several inches, then use a knife to cut the line in the middle of the taped section. Next, you'd take a propane torch and melt the exposed end of the line. It made a better frizz free end than cutting with a hot knife. More BTUs and a deeper melt area. Remember that serial killer in CA who was a parachute rigger? He was caught by some really good forensic work that identified some colored fibers on a victim as being unique to parachute suspension lines that had been used to tie her up but were not left at the scene. 377 Here is this image from the vid showing the cut line ends ...... cant tell much except why would anyone have melted-sealed the 'parachute side' of the same cut lines? He wouldnt. So I guess you are looking at the frayed cut ends ...

We need to take advantage of the thread's expert on such matters as parachute materials and knives. So Amazon please give us the benefit of your knowledge on pocket knives, hook knives (which are undoubtedly the best solution for cutting a shroud line while oscillating wildly), shroud lines, and how you would do things if you had been in Cooper's place and were having to make decisions based on his assumed level of experience and knowledge. Amazon, it is understood that you would have done things differently from the outset if you had actually been Cooper. Robert Nicholson Good call. I agree. Amazon has worked with (thousands?) of students so has seen just about everything to be seen in these matters -

Melting simply fuses and bonds all the ends of the fibers together. I don't think it has anything to do with turning anything into a "more stable" state. I am talking chemistry of the material. You are talking doing. For example. its already been cited these material is dfficult to tie to a hard knot - fibres wont compress and sinch down. That has to do with chemistry of the material. Specifically synthetic fibre vs natural fibre. (different nuclear binding energies in materials which mustbe overcome in order to physically manipulate a material into a form you may want ie. tied knot. Some atoms dont like to be compressed, tend to preserve the space around their nuclei and outer electrons... ). ..... When you melt a thing you re-arrange the atoms and molecules ....... that is what melting does. The melted end enteres a semi-glass state .. Tg. You can find Tg on various materials in any chemistry handbook... Every material involved in the hijacking had a Tg ..... etc. This is basic forensics.

Cooper was problem solving with a canvas bag of money and a reserve chute without attach points. What could be realistically gleaned from Cooper’s solution? . He may have turned to what (he felt) was most expediant irrespective of what 'could be done' with more work? Work = time in this situation. But I think your points about his problem solving are very close to the mark. Safecracking should do another magnum opus 'through the lens of logic', on that. I love it! When I first read your post I thought you were going to say: "Cooper was problem solving with a blank canvas".