georger

Jo has already confirmed he did not cease his criminal ways; i'm not sure how much he did, but we know from her that he at least stole coats etc from restaurants ...while she was with him. This might be "minor" compared to some of the other things he did, but if someone stole my coat i'd sure as hell lay theft charges. I agree with yours above. But if I had said this Jo (and others) would only say: "Oh Baboon is wrong. I never said that, He didn't commit more crime. Just a little crime, for old times' sake, like a child stealing candy". So a lot is wrong and a little is acceptable. And Jo was the poor-suffering wife tolerating but not liking any of it (and Sluggo says Jo hasn't "presented" her case well). In the meantime Duanes' small "Spok Ears" are very distinctive and present themselves. In a world like thsat you could leave raisans out of Raisan Bran and nobody would miss them or care but go on discussing breakfast anyway, until the cows come home to roost and lay eggs!

People throw words around. DNA is one of Jo's dropwords she knows nothing about but doesnt hesitate to drop. But in Jo's early posts (pages 0-50) Jo relates an astounding amount of material about Duane including a rather extensive synopsis of his criminal and anti social background. It is more than enough to catagorise Duane as an anti social personality. Not surprisingly that profile does not fit the profile for Cooper. However, it leaves no doubt Duane was a seriously maladjusted person and perhaps even a career criminal. Jo also says in these early pages (once again) that Duane was "seriously" ill with kidney disease (as Pasternak reported). (Nobody in these early pages bothers to ask Jo how a person seriously ill with kidney disease hijacks and parachutes out of an airplane!) But Jo herself documents Duanes condition, then denies it a hundred+ pages later! Jo claims Duane had a change of heart and ceased him criminal ways, once he met and married her! But reading Jo's description of Duane's anti social background, could Duane abrutly stop being a criminal, just because he became married? It's a legitimate question. The implications are potentially profound as regards the whole attempt to fashion Duane Weber into being Dan Cooper. If you apply the very same metric Jo herself applies in convincing everyone that Duane was a serious criminal and up to the job of being DB Cooper (in the early pages), if you extend Jo's same metric to the post 1971 period of Duanes life right through the period of Duanes marraige to Jo, well then does Jo become ensnared in her own petard, as it were? Can you have one without having the other? It's a fair question based on Jo's own words and descriptions. What is the reality behind the Jerry Springer stage, as Sluggo keeps calling it ? Was Duane criminally active after his marraige to Jo? Jo has always claimed 'no' but reading her own descriptions of Duane's serious social maladjustment, one is forced to wonder ... because Jo herself has set the stage for it being a serious question and Sluggo worked for years with Jo and should know something about this.

It seems to me what matters most is what Harold Anderson said, not what 2nd and 3rd parties say he said or may have said. We all know who and what the Jerry Springer aspect of this forum has been for 450 pages. That anyone would actually ignore and claim that these (attached) "ears" hijacked flight 305, and get traction from that for years, is stuff fit only for a Jerry Springer stage. That has nothing to do with me. You worked with the party. You explain it! [edit.] Let me be totaly candid about this. It is my right here to be - I think there is something fundamentally wrong about a bunch of otherwise intelligent adults standing around 'discussing' whether "Ears Weber" was Cooper or not for years, when at its core is a basic physical description like the choice between whether a bowling ball and a comet are the same thing? The difference is that great. So the whole debate must be over something else, like who can hold his breath longest or make the biggest threats?

so did something special happen to Michael Cooper we dont know about? He landed at SEA and that was the end of it - yes?

Well evidently it was just another trick question. The author hasn't replied. Must have something to do with Jo Weber.

Good report. I wonder what Jerry thinks about this?

Witness Statement #1 ... testified that the reaction during the test was identical with the occurrence during the hijacking." Witness Statement #2 ... testified that the reaction during the test made him recall a similar occurrence during the hijacking." Sluggo_Monster Its the difference between a Direction Asocciation vrs. an Indirect Association. The immediate recognition of a direct identical match between two events vrs. a qualified recognition of what may be only two similar events (not necessarily identical) . Strong proof vs. weak proof. Ckret has always opted for the Identical match, in this matter. There is also an element about Statement #2 I find peculariar (suspect). #2 version makes Andersn sound as if he never had a full grasp of the original event(s) if they happened at all, or he had almost forgotten the event by the time of the test.(which if it happened that way may conflict with other testimony (ie. pressure in their ears etc). Version #2 leaves open the possibility that the reaction was nondescript or may not have happened, or that Anderson was being distracted 8:08-8:15. Version #2 is definately the weaker version and might not stand up to scrutiny, which could come back on Anderson as a reliable witnesses, or question the events itself, or both. That's how I see this.

well you need to revisit the old posts by the experts here - and bring yourself back up to speed.

Right you are Jo. My mistake. 377 I have to laugh at how this bit has mutated. From a throwaway comment claimed to mean nothing, to "not proven" ., to "evidence" (although it seems to be typical Jo evidence i.e. not actually shown to be proving anything at all) to a whole long explanation and then another "i need to find" some connection... sigh. I've even lost the track as to whether Jo is trying to link this to Duane, or to Cooper. But either train of thought is irrelevant - however it certainly does act as yet another signpost that Jo has lost the plot completely. One upside of this is that she will be able to publish the definitive encyclopedia of american conspiracy theories at the end of this. Now, does anyone have any other insight into the DB Cooper case? I went back re-read pages 0-35 going back into 2007. Most revealing to compare then vs now. Ckret had just joined and Jo was already making his life impossible. 377 & Sluggo hadnt arrived yet, but you were there. Cabbage made a post then retired until Oct 2008. What surprised me a little were the number of experienced divers who felt the money bag came lose, while DBC himself may have survived. Almost nobody agree with Ckret that the jump was a death sentence automatically. In addition almost everyone disagreed with Ckret and Jo about the type of training that would have been most advantageous to Cooper doing his jump (Jo argued almost bitterly about that and would not accept the experts advice). This early period was very productive. In the space of half a dozen posts or so, Jo basically stated very susincintly every point or link she has in her Duane case, including her debate with the FBI over dna, but it raises the possibility Jo does not even know or understand what dna mtdna testing is! But she's an expert nevertheless. You might enjoy going back and filing through those early posts - I did.

Quote Is there a IGNORE button or filter we can set to eliminate from seeing one person's posts? Jo Weber's specifically.

Why the heck did the post on Oswald upset anyone? Why would that piece of information upset anyone? Because only a complete lunatic would post such crap. Oswald! Wallace! (I didnt say anything about Wallace, you did). It is clear as day what you think of us here. We are just playthings to take or throw out at will... and I seriously doubt you think any of us including 377 and Sluggo and Snowmman even has good sense (is rational). We are just pawns for your superior intellect. So have fun Jo. You are on your own as far as Im concederned.

Georger what about all the other individuals who have claimed someone was Cooper - Coffelt wsn't Cooper but he sure knew who was - want to bet on Your post on Oswald did it for me. Im gone for you. You have no respect for anyone in this forum - this is just a self gratifying game with you to fill your boredom. Any further PMs from you will be flushed on sight.

There may be other herbs de vours involved?

aw c'mon, it's only a little over 10 000 posts... Anyone besides me see the analogy between this forum and this organism? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-largest-organism-is-fungus Both are rooted in the Pacific NW and neither can be killed. There are other more subtle similarities that I am sure won't be missed by Orange. Welcome aboard Cabbage! What does your screen name signify? Mine is the model number of a favorite Boeing airliner from long ago. 377 Public TV had a 2 hour special on the 1976 Algerian hijacking, if you didnt see it. The program was extremely well done - (cold windy stormy night here so settled in and watched it all). Check it out if you didnt see it! http://www.iptv.org/series.cfm/20130/age_terror/ep:103

How so sure? Because of the timing, the condition of the money, and the conditions at the money site. BTW Jo has never said it was money or identified the contents of the bag, just some article. She has always left others to provide the word "money" . Jo always waits until the subject of money comes up then she brings her story up (over and over) and lets the buyer connect dots from their mind. If Spring came up Jo would bring up lilacs on the Columbia and lilacs on 305, and Duane's favorite flower and scent - lilacs! Thats how it works. Jo never specifically says anything other than Duane was DB Cooper. Its an old sales (snake oil) tactic. Jo is nos feratu. Its always illusions in mirrors ... that allows the motivated buyer to follow the trail Jo has laid. (Its called horse trading and people used to get hung for this sort of thing!) And to be accurate Jo has specified three separate sites/opportunities where Duane went 'down to the river to pray'.... not just the I5 bridge near Apple Park. But the facts of the money preclude anything like what Jo suggests happening, especially when she said these 'meditations and big tossing at the river;' happened. Keep in mind Jo is not a technical person. She has to wait until technical facts surface and then she bends to accommodate those - as best she understands them! Jo knows nothing about the technical facts of the money (and neither does anyone else except the panel), so Jo is biding her time waiting. If I told her the money was radioactive she would then claim Duane was involved in nuclear materials trading - Jo follows the dog's tail wherever it leads - she's like a memory bank. If the dog goes nowhere, Jo goes nowhere. That is an established fact here at Dropzone. In other words, its all bullshit. Georger Why do you have to constantly refer to what Jo said? If you really believe her posts are 'bullshit' you'd do better to ignore them as your rants just tend to draw attention to them. (maybe you're part of the conspiracy and you want to draw attention to Jo's posts) I asked why Jerry was so sure the money hadn't made it's way down the river and before giving him the chance to answer you float up answering for him then having another rant about what Jo said. It's all getting very childish with the main characters posting here spitting the dummy (pacifier?) like spoiled kids when someone has an opinion which differs from theirs. The thread did hold some intrest for me to begin with but I think it's run its course and I'd be happy to see it killed off. I'm not usually in favour of censoring forums but this doesn't need censored - It needs put out of it's misery. Cabbage Oh. its personality you want. Got it. Rather than killing the tread why not kill yourself!? Until just now weve never seen your posts before. You are brand new, where have you been, up there in Olympus? Will the Yanks win this year? We have lots of experts here. Its just a matter of which one you like. That's fine. May I recommend the 34B plan? It comes with guaranteed over night in Detroit. From the safety of your bullet proof window you can view the collapse of American at your leisure. Only $499 per night. Carry on - I wont intrude further. Fuck me. I think I may have touched a nerve there Another typical Georger ranting response to criticism including an invitation to kill myself closely followed by an invite to engage in sexual relations with you! - And all in the one post! Cabbage By the way, I really like you pendant (avatar). You cant be Archie for that reason alone, but I never know.

I think I may have touched a nerve there Another typical Georger ranting response to criticism including an invitation to kill myself closely followed by an invite to engage in sexual relations with you! - And all in the one post! Cabbage Cabbage. Are you Archie?

How so sure? Because of the timing, the condition of the money, and the conditions at the money site. BTW Jo has never said it was money or identified the contents of the bag, just some article. She has always left others to provide the word "money" . Jo always waits until the subject of money comes up then she brings her story up (over and over) and lets the buyer connect dots from their mind. If Spring came up Jo would bring up lilacs on the Columbia and lilacs on 305, and Duane's favorite flower and scent - lilacs! Thats how it works. Jo never specifically says anything other than Duane was DB Cooper. Its an old sales (snake oil) tactic. Jo is nos feratu. Its always illusions in mirrors ... that allows the motivated buyer to follow the trail Jo has laid. (Its called horse trading and people used to get hung for this sort of thing!) And to be accurate Jo has specified three separate sites/opportunities where Duane went 'down to the river to pray'.... not just the I5 bridge near Apple Park. But the facts of the money preclude anything like what Jo suggests happening, especially when she said these 'meditations and big tossing at the river;' happened. Keep in mind Jo is not a technical person. She has to wait until technical facts surface and then she bends to accommodate those - as best she understands them! Jo knows nothing about the technical facts of the money (and neither does anyone else except the panel), so Jo is biding her time waiting. If I told her the money was radioactive she would then claim Duane was involved in nuclear materials trading - Jo follows the dog's tail wherever it leads - she's like a memory bank. If the dog goes nowhere, Jo goes nowhere. That is an established fact here at Dropzone. In other words, its all bullshit. Georger Why do you have to constantly refer to what Jo said? If you really believe her posts are 'bullshit' you'd do better to ignore them as your rants just tend to draw attention to them. (maybe you're part of the conspiracy and you want to draw attention to Jo's posts) I asked why Jerry was so sure the money hadn't made it's way down the river and before giving him the chance to answer you float up answering for him then having another rant about what Jo said. It's all getting very childish with the main characters posting here spitting the dummy (pacifier?) like spoiled kids when someone has an opinion which differs from theirs. The thread did hold some intrest for me to begin with but I think it's run its course and I'd be happy to see it killed off. I'm not usually in favour of censoring forums but this doesn't need censored - It needs put out of it's misery. Cabbage Oh. its personality you want. Got it. Rather than killing the tread why not kill yourself!? Until just now weve never seen your posts before. You are brand new, where have you been, up there in Olympus? Will the Yanks win this year? We have lots of experts here. Its just a matter of which one you like. That's fine. May I recommend the 34B plan? It comes with guaranteed over night in Detroit. From the safety of your bullet proof window you can view the collapse of American at your leisure. Only $499 per night. Carry on - I wont intrude further. Fuck me.

Come on Georger. How about editing the last word (emphasis added) to be a bit less derogatory? The thesaurus has plenty of less inflammatory choices that will get the same message across. Jo has toned down her attacks on those who disagree with her and we should reciprocate. I disagree with Jo all the time but we have a respectful discourse. Just a suggestion from the Rodney King ("Can't we all just get along?") of the DBC forum. 377 I dont see anything wrong with "BS" when it is BS we have gone over endlessly, to no avail or any progress on the conveyors part at all - its endless because its all she has and can convey. Why would I back up and walk through the same intersection 500 times just to prove the light has three colors! Some require that level of proof - I dont. And I am damned sick and tired of being targeted for not being nice to the group pet. If you and Jo want to discuss Jo forever, form your own group. Most people would have figured that out after the 5th day a year ago -

How so sure? Because of the timing, the condition of the money, and the conditions at the money site. BTW Jo has never said it was money or identified the contents of the bag, just some article. She has always left others to provide the word "money" . Jo always waits until the subject of money comes up then she brings her story up (over and over) and lets the buyer connect dots from their mind. If Spring came up Jo would bring up lilacs on the Columbia and lilacs on 305, and Duane's favorite flower and scent - lilacs! Thats how it works. Jo never specifically says anything other than Duane was DB Cooper. Its an old sales (snake oil) tactic. Jo is nos feratu. Its always illusions in mirrors ... that allows the motivated buyer to follow the trail Jo has laid. (Its called horse trading and people used to get hung for this sort of thing!) And to be accurate Jo has specified three separate sites/opportunities where Duane went 'down to the river to pray'.... not just the I5 bridge near Apple Park. But the facts of the money preclude anything like what Jo suggests happening, especially when she said these 'meditations and big tossing at the river;' happened. Keep in mind Jo is not a technical person. She has to wait until technical facts surface and then she bends to accommodate those - as best she understands them! Jo knows nothing about the technical facts of the money (and neither does anyone else except the panel), so Jo is biding her time waiting. If I told her the money was radioactive she would then claim Duane was involved in nuclear materials trading - Jo follows the dog's tail wherever it leads - she's like a memory bank. If the dog goes nowhere, Jo goes nowhere. That is an established fact here at Dropzone. In other words, its all bullshit.

Who knows what any these fools MEAN. There is an endless supply of them. It has come to define the whole media driven Cooper Googleplex. BTW: Archie nows says I am a liar again and says Cooper would only be in his sixties today "so why would he surface to destroy his good life", Archie says. When you add up all the 'pecadilos' of all of the screwballs involved its no wonder why nothing happens. A private company would be bankrupt and collapse in 2 hours following this model! But that isnt going to change because there is nothing to replace it - and if there was any replacement it would be attacked and destroyed in turn, just so 'somebody' could get their night's sleep! Some day very soon, the Cooper saga is going to take on a brand new life - as the investigation that went wrong, rightly or wrongly. That is the next swing the media will take, inevitable. I could see Snowmman playing a large role in that with others in support roles. It could get very messy. But it cant go on forever. Sooner or later the corpse of Cooper will fall apart and rot. There are some powerful forces gathering who claim "not one truth" has been uttered in the whole Cooper case to date. (These same people do not give Jo Weber any credence at all, by the way) So we will have to see what surfaces next. But a vacuum has formed and will sweep something into it. The only questions are when and how long and who, but I think its going to be new voices ? Someone with some real credbility for a change.

Georger: This is exactly what I have said from get go when I didn't even know how far the Washougal was from the money find. BUT] It IS possible for more than 2 1/2 bundles placed in a paper sack thrown into the Columbia Sept of 1979 from the Portand Bridge in Vancouver and West of the PDX to wash to Tena's bar and leave 2 1/2 bundles intact. Nope. Because there was more (perhaps way more) than 2 1/2 bundles at T-Bar to begin with. There wasnt enough money in Duane's sack to account for what was at T-Bar and the sack you describe Duane using wasn't large enough to hold all of the money that probably was at Tina Bar, so you need to now revise your description of Duane sack upwards

Its very clear to me they weren't doing an archaeological dig but an excavation looking for money and Cooper artifacts ... they obviously were in a race for some reason! The issue of fragments goes directly to the question of how much money was at Tina Bar. And by the way: Palmer spells Tina Bar as "Tena Bar" in all his documents. It is obvious the socalled upper active layer varied in thickness in the 'money' trench. Photo-1 supposedly shows the thickness of the post dredge layer at one location in the money trench. Photo-2 shows a different thickness at another location in the same money trench. If fragments were found at 3ft somewhere, in what layer were they found (by who)? Itis impossible for 2 1/2 bundles to have washed all the way from the Washougal to T-Bar and still be in tact as 2 1/2 bundles.

Effectively this states, if you have condition 72, then it means the money was [quickly covered and that layer did not erode and all deposits above that layer did erode]. If all that happened, then it means the layer that Palmer found was a pre 1971 dredge layer and not actually from 1974. If that was the case, then it means the 1974 layer did erode and the pre 1971 layer did not erode (effectively the older dredge layer was still there but the newer one was not). If this was the case, then it means Palmer got it wrong. Inferential chains are good but are no more reliable than the assumptions they rely on, as I have already said above. The rubber bands are telling a story. The fact they were on Ingram's bundles in 1980 requires an inferential chain which involves movement, temeprature, protection, UV exposure or lack of same, protection, and some mechanical-chemistry of the bands themselves. Those facts must be in place for any theory involving the bands to have validity. The band remnants being in place in 1980 says more about movement and protection than it does band chemistry, because by 1980 band chemistry had ceased to a decisive factor. (Originally band degeneration probably took longer than 3 months because of mitigating factors. Lab tests which placed band lifetime at 3 months were very specific and not strictly duplicated in the Cooper situation). By 1980 I think movement and protection are the primary factors. 2 1/2 bundles were still in tact of some 300? original banded bundles? How could 2 1/2 bundles move on their own very far without being dismantled and destroyed at any time between 1971-1980? (Not very far imho). It makes more sense that the 2 1/1 bundles Ingram found were a surviving remnant of some earlier llarger amount of 'confined' bundles, whenever that confined block got to Tina Bar (in a bag or not in a bag). And if fragments were found at 3 feet that confirms the prior existence of a larger block of money, perhaps a good share of the whole ransom moving as a block to Tina Bar ...... with only 2 1/2 bundles left by 1980. It would make sense to try and determine 'surface deposition and erosion' out of Palmer's active upper working layer under different scenarios. If, for example a block of the cash (in bag) goes to T-Bar in 1978-79 can surface erosion alone account for say 100 bundles (or 30 bundles) being reduced to 2 1/2 bundles + fragments by 1980? The answer is: probably not. For one thing 1978 was a dry year with no flooding. More time is required. How about 1975 - 1980? That seems more realistic to me. In addition, rather than looking to the dredging in 1974 as an event which supplied money to Tina Bar, why not look at secondary effects of dredging which might kick money lose from somewhere to travel to Tina Bar soon after the dredging, on their own? There are many scenarios unexamined to date. That's my point and my inferential chain.

Condition 72 means the money arrives at Tina Bar within 3 months of the crime. The rubber band analysis suggests the rubber would have disintegrated if they would have been in the elements longer than 3 months. Condition 72 specifically speaks to the found money arriving at Tina Bar by January or February 1972 (0-3 months). Disintegrated is a relative term and has never been specified. Brittle pieces of the bands were still around the bundles when found. (What was holding the brittle pieces in place and undisturbed?) 3 months under what conditions? It's not 3 months a-priori. UV exposure and Temperature are two factors yet to be specified... Also, I dont find alternatives T and U above specified?

Jo I dont see these wear areas or impressions, as related to paper money. For one thing the area is not consistent with the dimensions of a single bill roughly 3.5x6.5 inches, there is no evidence of pigment from green ink, and there are no cotton fibres. Fragments of paper money are hairy and the paper in paper money does not separate easily - it is almost a woven fabric. In addition the wear areas show definite channels of wear with valleys in between each area - this is not consistent with the cover being in contact with a soft pliable surface but with a hard smooth even surface. I just dont see any evidence of money in these impressions ... [edit] Here are a few more scans which show surface texture on the cover. As you can see most of the foreign material is below or within the surface texture of the cover as opposed to something above it.