georger

Although the Manhattan Project had a world class team of physicists working on it, I have always viewed it as an engineering project not scientific research. About those rubber bands, didn't a manufacturer give an opinion that flew in the face of a bunch of FBI conclusions? 377 I dont know that the FBI had a lot of conclusions about the rubber bands. I dont know what passed between the FBI and the maker, if anything. I have no evidence the FBI ever contacted the maker. The owner of the company told me they had engineering tests of the bands but we waited for the data, never got it, many phone calls passed back and forth, and I dont know that Tom ever got the maker's data, or the FBI either. I cannot speak for the maker. I dont know if anyone can but for me it became a major disappointment. Thankfully many discussions did occur over the phone. The maker described his data. I finally took that as tantamount to having the data itself, was was a risk on my end. (Thats not good science). Tom was on board through all of this and knows everything I was told by the maker.

I'm surprised, Snow. I don't know exactly what you studied but presume sciences. Mathematics and Philosophy have always seemed to me like wonderful subjects to study in tandem. likewise music, math, and phil/science.

All you can say is that processes like that produced certain results. Would other processes work? Maybe? But sometimes the experiment only gets done once. Thats exactly right. Could a bear drag a body and chute into the Lewis and it winds up in the Columbia for a snag and drag scenario dumping money only at Tina Bar? I cant buy anyone hitting the Lewis from the air - probability too low.

You need to have this conversation with him again Georger. Engineers don't really do science, but we know enough about it to recognize when it isn't being practiced. I didn't see science on the TV show. I'd guess you are a scientist by training, not an engineer. Correct? 377 science first, engineering second, but the two can be intimately connected and usually are in the end if the goal is things that work in the real world. But people get dug in and defensive and impossible to move, in their positions. The history of science is full of this. Likewise human affairs. On the upside we now have three distinct theories, flight paths, dropzones, . . . only one or none can be true.

Can you explain. I have not seen the Nat Geo program. What analysis of Tom's proved this conclusion, according to who? Please explain - Didn't Tom say it in the documentary? If they didn't show all the data, I'm assuming it was just edited for brevity. I'd go look in that youtube clip I made, but my memory is pretty certain that Tom just said it, I think based on his measurements or something. (edit) Georger: this is a low res mashup of Tom's Theory as presented on TV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwlCiCXxeUk I'm a little confused now that you remind me, because thru third parties, Tom recanted 2 days after the broadcast. So maybe you're right. I don't know what Tom thinks. It would have been better if he had gotten published, so we'd have something to read. I watched the video. Its not as bad as I feared. It's simply a theory and nothing more. Tom has no hard data; just claims. That's my reaction. It's like this all began just yesterday, to me. Nothing has changed. Bruce's account presented here turns out to be very accurate. The sole specific claim of Tom's which is testable is his claim the dredging spoils stop 150' from where the money was found, but Tom does not actually say that! Tom fudges... What Tom actually says is: " 'Dredging' stopped 150 feet away from where the money was found. We believe the dredging sands did not interfere with the original burial of the money and the money got buried 'there' within a few months of Cooper's 'daring' jump". So, the Fazio's are wrong. Himmeslbach is wrong. Palmer is wrong. The dredging experts are wrong. Everyone including Ckret has been wrong to date about the spreading of the dredge wastes at Tina Bar ... and Tom is correct. Exactly what is Tom basing his NEW 150' MEASUREMENT on? At least Tom is consistent. Tom has been pushing the "arrived early" assumption since the day he got involved in this case, even before he knew where Tina Bar was, on planet Earth. Tom could be correct and a great guesser, but he must have proof! The photo shown by Nat Geo is not a satellite photo but a aerial photo provided the FBI by the Corps of Engineers. The money location circled on this photo sits right at the edge of one major dredge dump pile, which later was spread out by Fazio. But Tom does not say 'dredge spoils' or 'dredge sand'. Tom says the "dredging" itself stopped 150 ft away from the money location. Is Tom now saying the dredge wastes were not spread at all by Fazio? What are Tom's measurements based on? Otherwise, Tom's whole argument is circular, ie. 'the money got deposited early therefore the dredge spoils did not interfere with the money as per Palmer therefore, the money got deposited before 1974 all based on new measurements using the latest technologies ...' How does Tom know where the money was located? Nobody has ever answered the question but there is a growing list of "experts" who claim to know, but none will tell you! Secrecy allows Circularity. I kept telling Tom "this is science Tom. You can't make large assumptions like this". For me, this deja-voodoo all over again. But I actually like Tom's 'snag and drag' theory because finally it offers something which is specific and testable. Very specific consequences must follow a theory of this type and that is a unique contribution, at long last. A passing ship snags the chute and drags Cooper right by Tina Bar and out to sea, the money spilling out as Cooper is dragged along .... one version of this theory could explain a debris field being deposited along Tina Bar ... wherever the secret location of the money is! But wouldnt such a theory require other debris fields in other places? Why only at Tina Bar? Tosaw should get ready to probe new areas next summer! Tom is saying there must be other money deposits somewhere along the Columbia. Tom's theory requires this. Tom's theory requires that because in all Tom's 'calculations' Tom forgot to calculate the volume of money as well as other variables which are constants in this statistical episode, all of which add up to a wide distribution vs. a narrow specific deposition, as I see this, and I think any statistical model will demand this. This is a spread function, after all. The Cooper money was not shot like from a water canon onto Tina Bar only. The ship was moving for one thing. There are currents and tides for another thing. There is a volume of money and probabilities involved not simply 2 1/2 bundles in Tom's theory. This require more than one money deposit, and other debris fields. Presumably all other deposits and debris fields escaped notice over time. Of 10,000 $20 dollar bills only $5800 wound up at Tina Bar via Tom's deposit theory. That defies all odds. Would Tom bet money on his theory aired to the world? Lastly, let's follow Tom's example here and just skip any discussion about the rubber bands in a 'snag 'n drag' violent specific dispersal theory. But, what Tom is saying is no after-thought. Tom has always been anxious to place the money early at Tina Bar by some set of circumstances. Because doing so (Tom thought) avoids a lot of other problems. Tom's first attempt involved a revision of Sluggo's flight path which I supplied Tom. Tom focused on DME tags in the data and smoothed out and extended the fp timeline. That in Tom's estimation (along with appropriate winds) brought Cooper and money directly to Tina Bar early, or very near to Tina Bar. (Snowmman tried the same using different manipulations). We always come back to the central issue of adjusting flight path to money at Tina Bar and yet nobody seems able or willing to resolve the dilemma of two official flight paths: FBI-Ckret-Sluggo fp vrs. Himmeslbach-Thomas flight path. They cant both be correct and each asserts a wholly different set of facts. Tom then opts for the first original flight path and dropzone, which was at Lake Merwin! I see no evidence at all that what Tom has said here was some slip of the tongue or an after thought while Tom is working on the real science behind the scenes? What you are seeing in this video is the real Tom Kaye at work. Tom has evidently convinced Larry Carr to float along, snagged on Tom's propellers? [edit]: In Tom's defense let me say this - In the beginning, I thought it was asking a lot of Tom, or anyone, to come up to speed on the full slate of facts and facets involved in the Cooper case. That was why I recommended we stick to the task of examining the money only, with all other issues pushed to the side as much as possible. So far as I know Tom had never considered the Cooper matter at all before joining this adventure. Since there is so little hard data available from the FBI, it literally is a task of building data from the bottom up. Again, this is why I recommended concentrating on the money alone while leaving other broader (theoretical) issues aside. This is my take on the whole affair -

Tomorrow's an other day... I might as well post this in as much as Jerry Thomas has not appeared here, as I thought he said he would. Jerry was going to call the Fazio's and confirm the date of their 'fragment field' observation. If you recall Jerry said the Fazio's thought the money had come to Tina Bar with 'the last high tide'. Snow has just posted Tom says the money was at Tina Bar all along! I have no idea where Tom is getting that .... maybe has something to do with Tom's interest in Jo Weber's story about 'the pipeline road' and a 'pipeline shack' and 'where Duane came out of the woods' ??? During a phone conversation with Jerry several days ago Jerry said he thought the Fazio's made their observation after (a) after the Ingram find (b) after the Fazio's were contacted by the FBI, and (c) during some meeting with the FBI at Tina Bar. Presumably it was during this joint meeting at Tina Bar that Fazio's (and everyone) saw a fragment field, 100-200 feet long parallel to the river. The meeting would have been during the week of Monday Feb 11th, 1980 - Jerry Thomas can come here and clarify this if I have stated this incorrectly.

in the documentary he clearly showed that the money was deposited soon after the jump, based on his analysis of the money, and other data. Can you explain. I have not seen the Nat Geo program. What analysis of Tom's proved this conclusion, according to who? Please explain -

Quantico had laboratory methods, equipment, and resources available in the 80s. My impression is (its only an impression) the FBI was more focused on finding Cooper the person than on forensic analysis of 'extraneous artifacts' and a judgment call was made after initial examinations. That is why the money was tested for finger prints after a cursory examination. In like manner the tie was examined and tested for anything that would lead to a person. Eventually the tie was used to try and pull dna. It all adds up to a focus on Cooper the person vrs. forensic testing which may have been judged irrelevant. I am not a historian in this. I was not there! It is my hope Tom Kaye will submit his work to true forensic experts and let them examine his conclusions. If I were the FBI I would not settle for anything less and it is well within the FBI's means to do this... no matter what Mr. Kaye was paid or not paid by whomever. Bullshit is expensive in any event.

Ckret jumped to conclusions which contradict his own thesis. That's one place to start. I would tackle Jerry/H flight path vrs Ckret's/FBI? Something is definately screwed up there. But, I sense the lockdown has occurred following Tom's debacle on Nat Geo. Funny how that works. Tom gets rewarded and they all go secret. Isnt that how secret beaurocracies work? Where is Jerry? He was suppsoed to come back here with a report. He hasnt. I fear Jerry has been shut down or something. Probably more Tom Kaye backwash. Doors are being closed. Fundamental to the process. Funny how that works. Doors open. Doors close. But being worldly folks you already know this. Hell you probably knew what Tom was going to say before he did! Who writes the Cooperphelia script shit !? Gomer Pyle?

Tom Kaye has shown their forensic analysis of the money was flawed, so who knows? What "their forensic analysis of the money" ? The FBI did no forensic analysis of the money, that I am aware of. All they did was a low level inspection and then contaminated the bills by' dusting old wrinkled paper money for finger prints. Finding no alien life forms with signs reading "HELLOW EGYPTH" they left it at that. Tom will sort this all out by expanding his efforts. The FBI and Ckret will not participate in anything public here again. They are gone. Its all in Tom's hands. Tom may have received a bailout.

Snowmman is actually a warm, hospitable, modest and likeable person. He is very smart, but we all know that. He doesn't show off his brains in social situations. He is quite tolerant of foolish errors made by mortals. Of course, who I met might have been a plant with the REAL evil CIA controlled Team Snowmman all laughing like Jokers and Jackals at my naive gullibility. How could I have been so dumb? 377 You have said this 500 times! There must be a reason?

I'd agree with Snow here. The question of whether or not Cooper was a whuffo wouldn't even have arisen if he had brought his own; instead it is a subject for debate and possibly has clouded the trail along the way. I dont see any evidence at all suggesting experience outside of the lone comment about McChord. Air Force Base = Parachutes. He did not mention any private resource in relationship to parachutes. Tossing the packing card was brvado/ nerves. Frankly, he acted scared shitless, silent, and sad (which even Jo picked up on). Ckret says he dawned the chute early intending to bail near Seattle. I think that is wrong. (sorry Johnny Utah Hollywood). I think he dawned the chute early to make damned sure he could get one on! His primary thought was: escape, dead or alive. Cooper had "tells". Everyone has "tells". He showed his "tells". Anyone care to guess what they were? Its never been discussed here before .... Back to your scheduled programming -

I still see the good side of Jo, but she makes it difficult. Jo said unequivocally that Duane Weber was Dan Cooper and promised proof. Until she retracts her claim I will remind her now and then of her unfulfilled promise. 377 thats very well put . . .

Yes. When people sign on to research this-or-that they need to stay "on topic" and not go off on tangents. How do you know a mere "inquiry" from Jo resulted in ......... at the FBI? Do you believe Jo's accounts? Why would you believe Jo's accounts of anything? Because if you do, the next person you should doubt is yourself. The hard questions never get answered. That allows the soft questions to continue forever. Trade in that Cooper Klunker!

All I'm saying, is I'm impressed Jo said "suppressed", not "silenced". Jo is an Ad-man. Clues in on buzz words and concepts to sell. Havent you figured that out yet and calculated the consequences!? You people must lead barren lives.

What's the right perspective? I don't know. Seems to me Braden spent most of his time avoiding home soil USA once he got into trouble, and hijacking 305 would NOT have been forgiven? Its one thing to fuck around in other countries. Its another to screw around with your own family onm home soil. People tend to get a little pissy about that. Has driven a number of Presidents out of office! Didn't we come to this conclusion months ago? And if it takes months of talking about Braden's to reveal the depravity of Webers, what is the depravity here which requires such deep therapy? We search for Cooper only to find ourselves? Never mind the fact "Cooperphelia" is a hot commodity, potentially. Tom Kaye has tapped into that. The FBI likewise. Experts beget experts and each has a table on the steps to the Temple.

This is a very good point. Like a candle in the abyss?

NIKITA 377 & OLEG SNOWVIETSKI LAND ON MARS! DUROC.

The Vietnam HALO jumpers jumped with reserves, at night, in the rain...why don't you question why they jumped with reserves??? Thats a good point!

We dont know whose terminology it is. His or Schafner's. Front/back. Sounds like the stews? But the notion of "two sets" is preserved. It does not say models of chutes! [edit] and he did not specific where the chutes were to come from, if he knew the area of SEA so well.

I believe most parachutists even those with only first jump experience would associate a front and back parachute as a "set" i.e they would know that the reserve went on the front and the main on the back. I tend to agree. Non jumpers would take it as a "set". Examples was the FAA Psychiatrist. Two sets = he's going to take a hostage out with him, ie. set implies intended action plan ...

I guess I don't follow the reasoning that just because he knew jumpers, he would be motivated to hijack a plane and get away by jumping. Seems a stretch? Can you expand? He wanted money and he hatched the plan based on what he had heard others talk about? Or he was a wannabe jumper and figured he could jump out at night in the rain, for first jump? And didn't hesitate? None of the above. Experienced jumpers here have been specific: (a) Jumper experienced would know the chutes, (b) know the odds, (c) would select based on background of experience...

two back plus two front (chest), makes no sense, unless you're a jumper. or unless you are simply following a script... Remember, the unanimous opinion of experienced jumpers here is any reserve was unnecessary (beside the point). That experienced jumper would not take a reserve... We actually never asked: why would an experienced jumper chose to take a reserve ... as a pillow?

To increase the odds of getting a working chute nobody had screwed with - You know the wild conclusion the FAA Psyst jumped to-

Ramparts? Thats (was) a deep political rag. Not the kind of place many SOG people would publish. Flags go up^