Robert99

Then why do you include it?

Well put ML. Blevins post was the same as about a jillion other posts he has made to this thread. Robert99 I'm not sure what 'case' MeyerLouie refers to by quoting my post. That was MY case for what has been going on here, not his. Unless he agrees with it, then I can understand his comment. Otherwise, no. And contrary to your opinion, Robert99, that post was more comprehensive on the subject and not like a 'zillion' others. The truth is...MeyerLouie had nothing to say about it because he probably had no legitimate response. ML rested his case because your post was exactly like your previous posts that he had discussed. Even if you and Jo Weber can't believe it, repeating the same thing doesn't make either of your candidates more believable as Cooper. Robert99

Well put ML. Blevins post was the same as about a jillion other posts he has made to this thread. Robert99

Be careful here Georger, you may be closer to stepping on some toes than you imagine. Basically, a Jewish Russian is working on this possibility. Robet99 My CB handle was 'Viking' and I once dated a Jewish girl. Does that count?

Be careful here Georger, you may be closer to stepping on some toes than you imagine. Basically, a Jewish Russian is working on this possibility. Robet99

YOU TOOK A LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT I SPECIFICALLY STATED THE TERMS UNDER WHICH IT WAS POSTED AND THEN YOU SCRAMBLED IT WITH CRAP. WHAT DOCUMENT DID YOU POST THAT I MADE ALTERATIONS TO WITHIN THE SPECIFIC DOCUMENT? NO MORE FILES WILL BE POSTED IN THIS FORUM FOR SOMEONE LIKE YOU TO TWIST AND DISTORT. THAT IS THE LOWEST FORM OF BEING A DISPICABLE PERSON...THERE IS NO WAY TO DESCRIBE YOU. YOU ARE THE KIND OF PERSON WHO TURNS MY STOMACH. NO ONE IS THIS THREAD CAN HOLD A CANDLE TO THE WAY YOU TWIST A POST. AS for Blevins as much as I might not like all he does - He NEVER TWISTS THINGS I PUT ON THE THREAD - YOU JUST GET DOWN RIGHT NASTY WITH YOUR ALTERATIONS. Jo, As I have repeatedly pointed out, you need to read the posts you are replying to. I replied to Blevins reply to your original post. It was RobertMBlevins who inserted remarks in your post. And you, in turn, inserted remarks in my reply to Blevins post. Then you continued your usual nonsense by accusing me of twisting and misquoting your words. I did not quote or twist any part of your post. Except of course, including a complete and accurate copy of your post. Robert99

8-4-51 San Quentin 8-20-53 B H C 29B or CHC (Could be a unit assignment in the prison.) 10 1 1953 San Quentin (Probably a file update saying he's still incarcerated there) 10 3 53 EFF (effective) (Again, probably an administrative update.) 10-6-53 San Quentin 11-4-53 PAR FR SQ That is paroled from San Quentin. 3-16-54 SQPV WN F@CIM (Hard to figure, but 'SQPV' may mean 'San Quentin' and 'parole violation'. 'CIM' is probably 'California Institution for Men.') The below information was obtain by Doug Pasternac and any use of this information will have to credit him with the information obtained within. 3-18-54 Soledad (father was sick) or he was sick - we do not know. Robert: This could also mean a transfer stop on his way to San Quentin for a parole violation. He may have been initially imprisoned in the CIM for the violation, moved to Soledad shortly, and then on to his original prison: San Quentin) 3-19-54 SanQuentin (Update, Weber in Quentin) 7-22-55 Folsom (Transfer to Folsom from SQ by Feds) 3-18-57 PAR fr FOL (Paroled) 5-59 Reins.& Discharge. (Off parole, discharged from Fed supervision) The below information was obtain by Doug Pasternac and any use of this information will have to credit him with the information obtained within 2-59:SQ:TFA.2yrs.Ea.2 (Could refer to the time Weber was given on a parole violation) cus.CC.&2yrs.CS.GT'd (Custody granted for parole violation, Close Supervision granted for two years) This is a guess. 21mos.Parole TGT Family (Might be time until Weber is eligible for parole. 'Target family'. In the Federal system they have rules about eventually being incarcerarted 500 miles from where you state your home is. This rule is flexible for shorter-term prisoners, more valid for those doing life. Prisoner is asked to name a place.) in Ohio Subject to hold (Parole will be granted to Ohio, subject to any other warrants outstanding) SC:Condition of Parole (There are supervisory conditions for parole, i.e. in those days sometimes they just handed you some money, new clothes, and opened the gate. In Weber's case, there were conditions for parole) TGT FAmily in Ohio Removed (Either the family or the prisoner had their hometown 'target family' removed from possible parole location.) 6/54 PVSQ: Rev/denied.PL (Weber was seen by the parole board and denied parole on his previous violation) Mar56 Calendar (Weber added to parole board calendar for March 1956) 3-56 FOL:TRA (Sounds like a transfer) 4&4 yrs. CC& 31/2yrs (Might be an entry on his sentence.) CS:Second TFA 5 yrs.cc (Could mean a warning about what will happen to Weber on any additional violations) W/P? TM.GPTD 2yrs. OP: (Could be a reference to a parole date later, set by the parole board for his supposed March hearing) Subj to hold. (Standard entry. Means parole will be granted, subject to a warrant search) Some of the above are educated guesses, or by searching out terms. Some is guesswork. Accuracy NOT guaranteed. Blevins, I think someone with law enforcement experience in prisons, paroles, etc., needs to take a look at this if they can figure out what Jo Weber though she was writing. That is, correct all her spelling mistakes and such. Maybe 377 can point to a dictionary of such terms. Also, aren't San Quentin and Folsom both California prisons as opposed to Federal prisons? In fact, was Weber ever in a Federal prison? ROBERT and OTHERS PLEASE DO NOT INSERT YOUR QUIPS WITHING THE FILE - WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU GO BACK AND REMOVE YOUR REMARKS PLACE WITHIN THE POST I MADE. THAT MAKE IS LOOK LIKE IT WAS PART OF THE RECORD I WAS PUTTING ON THE THREAD. THEREFORE EVERY TIME U DO THIS I WILL HAVE TO REPOST THE ORIGINAL POST AGAIN. THE SPELLING WAS TAKEN FROM THE FILE - IN SOME PLACES YOU CANNOT READ CERTAIN LETTERS AND NOTE WAS MADE OF THIS. Robert99 Jo, I would also appreciate it if you would remove your remarks and quips from my reply to your and Blevins remarks. Robert99

Jo, Any airline ticket paperwork that Duane had in 1971 would be the same size as the ticket that the FBI recovered from NWA. Your "little blue ticket maybe 2in by 1in" may have been a parking ticket but, if so, it would have a date and time stamped on it. But it didn't have anything to do with a parachute. Robert99 Robert99 DO U ACTUALLY comprehend anything U read. Hope U did NOT pilot any plane I ever rode in. I know what an airline ticket used to look like - I didn't reference size of it. I hate the NEW system - u just print it. The blue /grey ticket - I explained what I thought it was - didn't need a comment from U. You make posts referencing my post - and your comments are those of a 7 yr old student who likes to irritate the teacher by mimicking her with what she just wrote on the board. Why even make a post to explain what someone just posted that was obvious. Having some OLD age problems? We all have them sometime in our 70's and 80's, but your episodes seem to be more frequent recently. U can always tell when I have my medication in me and trying to post! In fact it is sometimes embarassing to read what I wrote the night before with medication in me. I am now learning DON'T take the meds and then try to post! But sometimes I can't sleep and will look at the thread and be incinerated by something someone posted and start trying to make a reply. Well, U have seen and TRIED to read some of the results of doing that. Jo, I think your last paragraph explains all your other comments above. Stop threatening to go public and actually do it if you want to. Let us know the date to be looking for you on TV. I usually go to sleep during the evening news, but if you can specify a date and time, I'll make ever effort to reschedule my nap. In any event, it looks like the Jo/Duane Weber jig has run out of gas and is ready to go down in flames. Sleep tight. Robert99

8-4-51 San Quentin 8-20-53 B H C 29B or CHC (Could be a unit assignment in the prison.) 10 1 1953 San Quentin (Probably a file update saying he's still incarcerated there) 10 3 53 EFF (effective) (Again, probably an administrative update.) 10-6-53 San Quentin 11-4-53 PAR FR SQ That is paroled from San Quentin. 3-16-54 SQPV WN F@CIM (Hard to figure, but 'SQPV' may mean 'San Quentin' and 'parole violation'. 'CIM' is probably 'California Institution for Men.') The below information was obtain by Doug Pasternac and any use of this information will have to credit him with the information obtained within. 3-18-54 Soledad (father was sick) or he was sick - we do not know. Robert: This could also mean a transfer stop on his way to San Quentin for a parole violation. He may have been initially imprisoned in the CIM for the violation, moved to Soledad shortly, and then on to his original prison: San Quentin) 3-19-54 SanQuentin (Update, Weber in Quentin) 7-22-55 Folsom (Transfer to Folsom from SQ by Feds) 3-18-57 PAR fr FOL (Paroled) 5-59 Reins.& Discharge. (Off parole, discharged from Fed supervision) The below information was obtain by Doug Pasternac and any use of this information will have to credit him with the information obtained within 2-59:SQ:TFA.2yrs.Ea.2 (Could refer to the time Weber was given on a parole violation) cus.CC.&2yrs.CS.GT'd (Custody granted for parole violation, Close Supervision granted for two years) This is a guess. 21mos.Parole TGT Family (Might be time until Weber is eligible for parole. 'Target family'. In the Federal system they have rules about eventually being incarcerarted 500 miles from where you state your home is. This rule is flexible for shorter-term prisoners, more valid for those doing life. Prisoner is asked to name a place.) in Ohio Subject to hold (Parole will be granted to Ohio, subject to any other warrants outstanding) SC:Condition of Parole (There are supervisory conditions for parole, i.e. in those days sometimes they just handed you some money, new clothes, and opened the gate. In Weber's case, there were conditions for parole) TGT FAmily in Ohio Removed (Either the family or the prisoner had their hometown 'target family' removed from possible parole location.) 6/54 PVSQ: Rev/denied.PL (Weber was seen by the parole board and denied parole on his previous violation) Mar56 Calendar (Weber added to parole board calendar for March 1956) 3-56 FOL:TRA (Sounds like a transfer) 4&4 yrs. CC& 31/2yrs (Might be an entry on his sentence.) CS:Second TFA 5 yrs.cc (Could mean a warning about what will happen to Weber on any additional violations) W/P? TM.GPTD 2yrs. OP: (Could be a reference to a parole date later, set by the parole board for his supposed March hearing) Subj to hold. (Standard entry. Means parole will be granted, subject to a warrant search) Some of the above are educated guesses, or by searching out terms. Some is guesswork. Accuracy NOT guaranteed. Blevins, I think someone with law enforcement experience in prisons, paroles, etc., needs to take a look at this if they can figure out what Jo Weber though she was writing. That is, correct all her spelling mistakes and such. Maybe 377 can point to a dictionary of such terms. Also, aren't San Quentin and Folsom both California prisons as opposed to Federal prisons? In fact, was Weber ever in a Federal prison? Robert99

Jo, Any airline ticket paperwork that Duane had in 1971 would be the same size as the ticket that the FBI recovered from NWA. Your "little blue ticket maybe 2in by 1in" may have been a parking ticket but, if so, it would have a date and time stamped on it. But it didn't have anything to do with a parachute. Robert99

Blevins, Just last week, you said you said you agreed with Tom Kaye's conclusion that if the money went into the river, ANY river, it would sink to the bottom and probably never be seen again. But you really don't believe Tom Kaye's conclusions do you? Otherwise, you would not continue to claim that the money came down the Columbia from Portland, which is about 10 miles away, as a possibility. Eliminate the river wash down theory, and you only have the flight path being wrong or that the money was a "plant". You seem to be the leading advocate for the "plant" theory. You also seem to be the leading advocate for "The OFFICAL flight path map is correct". To be wrong on all three of your above claims really requires some effort on your part. Robert99

For a no pull situation from 10,000 ASL, and with the winds aloft that existed in the Portland area for the night of the hijacking, and assuming the airliner was in stable flight when he separated, DBC would travel not more than about 2500 feet down the airliner track and not more than about 1000 feet perpendicular to the airliner track. He would be on the ground in about 40 seconds for a stable head down position for the fall. If tumbling, which is more likely, he would be on the ground in not more than 60 seconds. From the above, and assuming he had the money bag tied to him all the way down, Cooper could have been over or on the west side of the Columbia River in the Tena Bar area when he separated from the airliner. Robert99

Blevins, If the money didn't separate from the aircraft AFTER the stairs were opened, then please explain to the rest of us bozos how it separated from the aircraft BEFORE the stairs were opened. Or did it separate from the aircraft at all? Also, glad that you got a laugh out of the take off time question, but that time would be very useful in determining the flight path. Robert99

I prefer a more optimistic interpretation. No crater. DBC lands alive and escapes. A cratered jumper would probably have been found by now. Georger made a convincing presentation about how unlikely a river landing would have been. Unfortunately my Cooper twenty has no clues as to vertical speed at the time of landing. It just stares at me and says nothing. Maybe Bruce could conjur up its past but I can't. 377 Hey, you are a member of the ACLU and a criminal defense lawyer, YOU get PAID to be optimistic. Robert99

Blevins, A couple of questions. First, where is your "proof" that the airliner even took off from Seattle? The source please and how about a take off time? Second, what are you doing to "discover the truth"? Can you give an example? Robert99

"SSE as it passed over the Merwin Lake area" you need to look at the flight path again! Rataczak stated he knows when Cooper jumped. we have a time frame and a questionable path. they base it on the time frames of the path and when the pilot reported the pressure bump. they think they have the area where he jumped, only if the path is correct. if the path is incorrect, then when he jumped doesn't matter does it? your map is a very bad example....sorry. Shutter is absolutely right. Blevins, V-23 airway from the Seattle VORTAC to the Malay Intersection (formerly named the Mayfield Intersection) is on a True Course of 197.09 degrees and covers a distance of 63.50 Nautical Miles. From the Malay Intersection to the Battleground VORTAC (formerly named the Portland VORTAC) V-23 is on a True Course of 170.07 degrees and covers a distance of 41.11 Nautical Miles. At the Battleground VORTAC, V-23 turns to a True Course of 195.58 degrees enroute to the Eugene VORTAC which is 101.24 Nautical Miles away. Basically, the airliner flew right down the Willamette Valley until it was just north of the Red Bluff, CA VORTAC and it then turned and flew direct to the Reno area. If the airliner passed west of Portland, and Rataczak has stated that he is the only one who knows which side of Portland it was on when it went by, then it is entirely possible that the airliner passed directly over Tena Bar or even along the WEST shore of the Columbia River. Basically, the money find indicates that it was in the bag and tied to Cooper on ground contact (cratered would be a better word). Robert99

Well...hmm. Lot of suppositions there. I suppose any of them are possible. I would like to address one of them. One possible motivation for a plant is to make the FBI think you died in the jump. This would be a cheap price to pay if it worked. The alternative is forty years in prison. Also...remember he did offer Tina some of the ransom. Tena Bar Money: Don't think about it too many hours in a row. It'll give you a headache for sure.

Jo, Please list YOUR qualifications for EVALUATING Tom Kaye's experiments and conclusions. Also, please list YOUR qualifications for IGNORING Tom Kaye's experiments and conclusions. And that is exactly what you are doing. Robert99

Yes. There are two problems though. First, the flight path. You are saying the hijacker jumped near Tena Bar, when the 'official' (whatever that means) version says probably not. If you believe the current 'official' flight path, then this leaves natural forces being involved somehow. You see how this can go around in circles sometimes? There is also the lack of other evidence. No body, no money bag, no briefcase, no parachutes. Just a big zero. Maybe a plant, maybe the money landed nearby. Without additional evidence it is really hard to say. If someday someone locates just ONE more piece of verifiable evidence from the hijacking, this will answer a WHOLE lot of questions, especially depending on where they find it. Lacking that, or a breakthrough on the flight path that discounts the official version, I just don't see how a conclusion can be drawn on the money. Even establishing a slightly different flight path might not be conclusive unless another piece of evidence is located. You could say the money was still a plant, and the hijacker walked out with everything else. But if they ever find one other thing somewhere that can be definitively linked to Cooper, it might answer all the really important questions. Hopefully, this will happen someday. BLEVINS, YOU ARE DISMISSING THE MONEY FIND INFORMATION BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT INTO YOUR OVERALL SCHEME OF THINGS! The money location and the placard are the only two physical "facts" about the plane's location between Seattle and Portland. Yet you basically dismiss their importance because they don't fit into your scheme of how things had to happen. Normally, investigators let the evidence speak to them. You are telling the evidence that it is not believable because you have other ideas. Robert99

Blevins writes: On the subject of the money, the only way I could believe that three or more bundles happened to be in the same spot is if ALL of the money were there at some point. In other words, if Cooper's money ended up close by in total...and that the remainder somehow washed INTO the Columbia later. But there is no evidence of that to date. No parachutes, no body, no briefcase, nothing. Robert99 replies: Blevins, You have made an overly complicated statement above. Maybe ALL the money was there or very close by at some point. But what is your basis for saying that the rest of the money had to wash INTO the Columbia later? May it had already washed into the Columbia or maybe it is still nearby. The money that was found is evidence that at least some of the money was there. That money speaks for itself. Blevins writes: On the reverse, it's just common sense to me. If the money was in the Columbia first, then I just don't believe the chances that three or more bundles would somehow 'come in from the river' and end up buried in the same spot. As I said, maybe one packet here, another a few feet away, another over there, etc. This is more likely. Robert99 replies: You apparently still don't understand what Tom Kaye was saying. Basically, he was saying that if the money was ever in the Columbia, it is very improbable that it would come out. Blevins writes: There is also the problem of the flight path, which yes...is in dispute. There have been hints that perhaps Cooper landed west of the alleged drop zone. But again...no proof that this actually happened. You can go round and round with this stuff until your head spins. I still believe that it is an important clue that MORE than one bundle of the cash (yes, more than one. There are references to 'rubber bands' in the plural) somehow ended up together. Robert99 writes: The fact that three bundles of money were found close together just might be an indication that the rest of the money was, or is, close by. There could be a repeatability factor here. Blevins writes: The idea that these bundles somehow stayed together from 9,600 feet up until their arrival at Tena Bar is extremely tough to explain. In my opinion, the only way this could have happened is if the ENTIRE money bag landed close by where the bundles were found...and the remainder was washed away. Or...it was a plant. I just don't see any other explanation for this phenomenon that does not require the bundles to be attached to each other by little strings. And I am not the only one who thinks this. Bob Fuhrman (sic) agreed with this idea. Not that either of us are right, but he did think it made sense. Robert99 writes: Have you considered the possibility that you are right and that the money stayed together during the free fall because it WAS in the money bag? Forget about the string. Robert99

Blevins, What does the above have to do with the accuracy of the results presented on the CZ site? Or anything else for that matter? Robert99

Kaye has also been quoted as saying he believes the money arrived at Tena Bar by what he calls 'non-natural means'. In other words, he rules out dredging or washdown. This really leaves only two possibilities. One, that the bills were purposely placed where they were eventually found. Two, that the bills washed up there somehow a short time after the hijacking. The problem I have with the 'washed up from the nearby river' theory is this: How exactly did three bundles of the money end up in the exact same spot with nothing else found? I would tend to believe this theory more if the bundles were found scattered over a wider area, or if one bundle or less was discovered...OR a majority of the money. But three or more in a single spot, as a result of washing up or something, is very difficult to reconcile. I know some of you have heard this before, but I discussed this issue with former FBI agent Bob Furhman (sic) up at the sports bar next door to Third Place Books in Seattle, when Geoff Gray was doing his book tour. And I took a lot of flak for speculating here on this site that maybe the money WAS a plant, after all. Furhman said that my theory actually made sense, and when I asked him if anyone at the FBI thought of this when the money was discovered, he said no. Think about it for a moment. Let's suppose that the hijacker plunged to his death in the Columbia, and that the money bag somehow washed loose or whatever. Then explain how MORE than one bundle of the cash ends up in the EXACT SAME SPOT with nothing else around. The chances of three unattached bundles (no strings holding them together) ending up in a single spot are remote indeed. One bundle, sure. MOST of the money, or a great deal of it, sure. One here, one over there, okay. Three together (approximately) is tougher to explain. I say approximately because people have said the bundles came in different sizes. Okay...maybe four, maybe five, but the total was about $5,800 which means more than ONE, and that makes it tricky to explain how they ended up in the same spot due to washing up solely by river current. They would have to stay together somehow for this little water trip and that is TOUGH to explain. One packet here, one packet a foot away, one packet over there. Fine. But sticking together and ending up in the same spot? Explain that. With no other money found in the area, or any other evidence of the hijacker, it is very difficult to do. Blevins, You do understand that Tom concluded the money would sink when it became saturated with water and would sink to the bottom of the river. If the money sank to the bottom of the Columbia River near Tena Bar it is highly unlikely that it would ever return to the surface. You do understand that there is a shipping channel, reportedly 40 feet deep, in the Columbia downstream from Portland. Also, would you do this thread and the human race a great service by teaching Jo Weber what the purpose of words are in the human language. But that may be a Mission Impossible. Robert99

Jo, As I have pointed out to you several times, you can read Tom Kaye's conclusions on his web site. But, of course, you will NEVER accept Tom's conclusions for reasons already discussed. Robert99

Robert - WHAT DO YOU seem NOT able to GRASP about KAYE's statement and WHY do you twist it to FIT Your AGENDA? My uneducated and knowing nothing about water and money does NOT translate Kaye statement as you have twisted it into YOUR opinion and REPEATED it to suit your needs - not a scientific one at that. A born and raise farm girl out of KY read Kayes statement much different than U do. Maybe we could GET Kaye to come here and CLARIFY if YOUR grasp is what he was saying. I think NOT. ANYONE INTERESTED IN WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE SHOULD READ MY POST #42120 Jo Weber's response is typical of her replies. There is no need to waste further time trying to explain something to her that does not agree with the results of her 17 year fruitless search to prove that Duane Weber was Cooper. He wasn't! Robert99

Jo, I made every effort to quote Tom Kaye's conclusions accurately. And you seem to forget that I stated I feel Tom did his homework and that his conclusions are valid. I also pointed out that the statements I made about the "torque" on the money and the money being washed from the Fazio property into the Columbia are my responsibility and not Tom's. You can read Tom's complete analysis on his web site as I pointed out. If you see a disagreement between Tom's analysis of the money and my statements regarding his conclusions, please point them out. Basically, Tom's conclusion that the money was at Tena Bar within about one year of the hijacking (which would mean it was probably there before the end of 1972) pulls the rug out from under one of your pet theories. Regardless of what Duane may have buried at Tena Bar or what may have been in the paper sack he threw into the Columbia, it was seven years to late to be money from the Cooper hijacking. If you have an opportunity to "go public", take it. As Mrshutter has pointed out this evening, fairy tales can have a very short life span. Robert99