Author Topic: Book Discussion About DB Cooper  (Read 337755 times)

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9300
  • Thanked: 1024 times
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #195 on: July 18, 2016, 02:52:19 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have to find it, but the house is hardly 1000 S/F. she posted a picture of it. the house was an old lumber shack. one room. it was very similar to a picture I posted prior to her picture. I fear another Blevins type of a problem with Marla in the picture. she is welcome to come here, but I don't see any good from it. LD is another suspect considered to be a non credible lead....

something 12 feet wide by 70 feet long isn't even enough for 1000 S/F......144 x 840 inches divided by 144 = 840 S/F
those shacks were built for men working, and sleeping...they were smaller than 1000 S/F. they were brought in by railroad
lifted off, and placed in area's where they were working.

That could be right. Marla said "no more than 1000 sq ft".


The point above goes against Marla's claim. it would be somewhere around 400 S/F based on the photo I see. dramatic changes need to apply for additional rooms. originally, they had not insulation, drywall, bathrooms, nothing. just a basic wood structure frame. so, a lot of work would be required to bring it up to any living standards as these were only meant for temporary quarters when built. some can still be found as sheds, or single car garages etc. based on the photo, it appears to be pretty run down, and in disrepair. that's typical of people with little money. I'm sure they did what they could to survive.

More photo's need to be provided showing either a side view, or interior of the home. they typically used a wood burning stove to heat the home, and with additional rooms? not very comfortable IMO.

I'll stick with the FBI on most of these suspects.
 

Offline Bruce A. Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4365
  • Thanked: 465 times
    • The Mountain News
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #196 on: July 18, 2016, 05:17:25 PM »
I would love to see the whole unadulterated Marla interview with Fuentes and Jensen - just to hear what ol Twisty Butt had to say. The editing of her interview was a lot like Chop Suey.
 

Offline 377

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Thanked: 443 times
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #197 on: July 18, 2016, 07:34:14 PM »
It's occurred to me that perhaps Marla wasn't quite as wacky as the HC interview made her appear. It was obviously not continuous speech but spliced together segments.

She looked different than she did in Portland. Still quite attractive but somehow different? Nose job? Anyone else notice?

377

 

Offline Bruce A. Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4365
  • Thanked: 465 times
    • The Mountain News
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #198 on: July 19, 2016, 01:24:11 AM »
I didn't even recognize her when she first appeared on screen. It was only when the graphic name identification appeared on the TV that I knew who is it was. I was watching it again, today, and I still can't figure out what is different. Lost weight? Her body posture was very different, too.
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #199 on: July 19, 2016, 02:17:17 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's occurred to me that perhaps Marla wasn't quite as wacky as the HC interview made her appear. It was obviously not continuous speech but spliced together segments.

She looked different than she did in Portland. Still quite attractive but somehow different? Nose job? Anyone else notice?

377

She looks older and more defensive. Flighty and rambling in her thoughts. The conspiracy stuff classified her story. Its probably the last time Marla will get serious air time. She's done.     
 

Offline Bruce A. Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4365
  • Thanked: 465 times
    • The Mountain News
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #200 on: July 25, 2016, 11:49:47 PM »
3rd Edition Update

Here's the new opener for those who have the 2nd Edition and want to keep it current.

DB Cooper and the FBI - A Case Study of America's Only Unsolved Skyjacking


On July 8, 2016 the FBI closed the DB Cooper case, the only unsolved skyjacking in the history of the United States. In fact, the DB Cooper hijacking is the only unsolved skyjacking in all of humanity, and DB Cooper is known world-wide. The FBI threw in the towel in typical federal fashion—they didn't tell the public until the following week, when it was more convenient and best served their public image.

I received the FBI's announcement from Ayn Dietrich-Williams, the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Bureau's Seattle Division. In part, it read:

   â€śThe mystery surrounding the hijacking of a Northwest Orient Airlines flight in November 1971 by a still-unknown individual resulted in significant international attention and a decades-long manhunt. Although the FBI appreciated the immense number of tips provided by members of    the public, none to date have resulted in a definitive identification of the hijacker...
   
   â€ś...the FBI will no longer actively investigate this case...it is administratively closed.”


I received my copy of the announcement via email on the evening of Monday July 11, 2016, during the latter part of the History Channel's four-hour retrospective documentary on DB Cooper. In fact, the announcement was exquisitely timed: the news arrived just as the last part of the broadcast played upon the TV screen, showing Curtis Eng, the case agent for the Cooper case, boxing-up all the evidence and shipping it to FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. Clearly, the FBI wanted to piggy-back its Cooper closure onto the History Channel's dramatic event.

The FBI says that they closed the case because they ran out of credible leads, meaning that they depleted their list of suspects. They didn't close the DB Cooper case because they ran out of evidence. In fact, not only have they given the collected evidence a less-than-robust examination, they have lost all the good stuff. To wit: they lost the cigarette butts that DB Cooper left on abroad the aircraft, and that would be the ideal source of Cooper's DNA via testing the dried saliva.

Worse, none of the 66 sets of fingerprints the FBI retrieved from the cabin area has revealed any useful data. Really? Over 600 fingerprints and not one is usable? In the age of facial recognition software, touch DNA, and hi-tech gizmos displayed on every TV cop show, the so-called stymied FBI investigation is hard to swallow.

This kind of Keystone Cops approach to the evidence dates back to the night of the skyjacking when the retrieval team in Reno, Nevada, where the plane stopped for refueling, the FBI failed to collect any of the in-flight magazines that Cooper reportedly fingered during the hours the aircraft circled Seattle before landing at SEA-TAC airport. Surely these glossy magazines could have provided some viable clues.

Nevertheless, the FBI says they worked diligently before they decided to quit:

   â€śFollowing one of the longest and most exhaustive investigations in our history, on July 8, 2016, the FBI redirected resources allocated to the “DB Cooper” case, in order to focus on other investigative priorities. During the course of the 45-year NORJAK investigation, the FBI exhaustively reviewed all credible leads, coordinated between multiple field offices to conduct searches, collected all available evidence, and interviewed all identified witnesses...
   
But if the work was so exhausting and the FBI had so many other responsibility, why did they wait for the History Channel to deliver the news? Subsequent emails from Dietrich-Williams told me that the FBI was planning on using the History Channel documentary to showcase the end of the Cooper investigation as early as February, 2016.

   â€śHistory Channel asked us (to participate in their documentary) in the summer of 2015 and we declined. But then in January, we received the results of FBI Laboratory testing of items related to a person considered a possible match to the hijacker. The results came back and did not    resolve this case. Those items were related to the only new individual to come to our attention in the last five or so years. There are no additional leads to pursue, neither for that individual nor any others. For each of the other individuals we've considered, investigative results have either not supported continued consideration of them as a match to the 1971 hijacker or not resolved the case. Starting in February, the FBI began the process of transferring evidence and files to FBIHQ for archiving.”    

The above also tells us that the FBI had a suspect they considered so tantalizing that they spent five years investigating him, only to conclude in January 2016 he wasn't DB Cooper. But, why not tell us who this super-suspect was, especially since the case is officially closed. I suppose the feds want to protect the privacy of the individual, which is fair, but couldn't they at least tell the world some of the key elements of the investigation that made this guy so attractive?

There is also an over-riding feeling that the History Channel exhausted the public's ability to care about DB Cooper. Perhaps the FBI figured the public would collectively throw up their hands and say: Well, if Hollywood can't solve the DB Cooper case, and the FBI can't either, I guess it's too tough.

   â€ś...the FBI agreed to participate with the History Channel, in particular, because its longer-than-average feature covered a variety of experiences, views, and theories related to the 1971 hijacking. The FBI felt this approach might provide context for our decision to reallocate resources. Lastly, that comprehensive approach made us feel we could do "one and done" so we can all move on to higher priority matters.”


Part of the exhaustion was due, in part, to the History Channel spending half its broadcast on a Cooper suspect named Robert W. Rackstraw, who was on nobody's radar screen except for a group of well-connected TV journalists, spearheaded by Thomas J Colbert and Jim Forbes, and fortified by forty retired FBI agents who formed a “Cold Case Team.” Colbert and Company apparently convinced the History Channel to produce their four-hour epic, but, HC's own production efforts delivered convincing arguments that Rackstraw was not DB Cooper. It effect, the HC took the air out of the Colbert and Company, although the Rackstraw story is a compelling tale and will be summarized in a latter chapter. Nevertheless, I agree with the History Channel that Rackstraw is not DB Cooper.

But, something critical was missing from the History Channel documentary, and it's exactly the same thing that is missing from the FBI's Cooper investigation, and that's a passionate attention to the physical evidence.

Besides the screw-ups on the fingerprints and DNA, the FBI has yet to determine how the only other pieces of physical evidence came into being: namely the three bundles of ransom money that were found on a Columbia River beach eight years after the skyjacking. To this day, no one knows how the money got there, or when.

Compounding the intrigue, the bundles were later discovered to be lying atop a shard field forty-feet wide and three-feet deep that contained thousands of pieces of money, some as large as a business card, but most were itsy-bitsy fragments, perhaps about the size of a dime or an M&M. So, if we understood how these pieces of money arrived at the beach, known to the locals as Tina Bar, we'd know more about the fate of DB Cooper.

Remember, nothing has ever been found of the case – no body, clothes, parachutes, briefcase or bomb, and only the Tina Bar money from the $200,000 Cooper received.

To understand these dynamics, and to be truly able to evaluate the FBI's decision to close the case, we need to know what happened back on November 24, 1971 when DB Cooper jumped out of his airplane, and what has transpired since then.

Hence, we need a case study.

« Last Edit: July 25, 2016, 11:52:41 PM by Bruce A. Smith »
 

Offline Bruce A. Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4365
  • Thanked: 465 times
    • The Mountain News
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #201 on: August 07, 2016, 09:47:54 PM »
3rd Edition Update:

Rackstraw as Cooper, the chapter, 8. 6. 16


Chapter 3?

July 10, 2016 – The Day Cooper World Stood Still


Cooper World flipped upside-down on July 10, 2016. First, we learned that the FBI was closing Norjak. Secondly, we learned about a super-dooper suspect by the name of Robert Wesley Rackstraw (RWR) that no one had ever heard about, and all of this was co-joined by the History Channel's four-hour, two-part documentary on DB Cooper, which aired that night and the following evening.

We'll talk about the closing of the case in the next chapter, but first we need to understand the drama that brought Rackstraw to the forefront. The History Channel documentary featured Rackstraw and the man who had spent five years investigating him, Thomas J. Colbert. Colbert is a Hollywood TV producer and documentarian, and for his research Colbert magnetized forty associates, which included a dozen retired FBI agents; another two dozen retired law enforcement officials, detectives and private investigators; and a seasoned LA investigative journalist named Jim Forbes. Together they formed what Colbert has termed his “Cold Case Team” (CCT).

In 2012, Colbert heard about Rackstraw-as-Cooper from one of his investigative contacts in Las Vegas, a videographer named Rich Kashanski. Colbert partnered with Forbes and hit the streets, hard. Quickly they learned that Rackstraw, a roguish soldier who fought in Vietnam, had the “skill sets” needed to do Norjak. Colbert and Forbes went to the FBI with their information, but the feds were unimpressed. But Colbert knew he had a good story—perhaps the breakthrough to the DB Cooper case—and pitched the story to the History Channel, who bought it.

In turn, the History Channel hired an independent production company, LMNO, to do the actual filming and script development. LMNO then hired a few freelance producers to lead their team. One of these individuals, Ted Skillman, contacted me. Beginning in the spring of 2015, I spent several hours on the phone with Ted, tutoring him on the intricacies of Norjak. As a result, LMNO filmed me and this book as part of the History Channel's four-hour retrospective on DB Cooper.

A major part of this documentary was the Rackstraw story as presented by Colbert and Company. Nevertheless, LMNO hired two other individuals to lead their storytelling on screen, fellows they called “interlocutors” who would function as tour guides to the DB Cooper story. One, Tom Fuentes, is the former Associate Director of the FBI for International Operations, and the second is a young journalist named Bill Jensen.

I did not know of LMNO's specifics until just hours before I was to appear on camera. An associate producer, Allison Berg, phoned me to say that her film crew was coming with a former FBI official, Mr. Fuentes. I was shocked. A FBI guy is going to interview me? I should be interviewing him!

Nevertheless, I did as I was asked and sat before the cameras as Fuentes and Jensen asked me questions about Norjak.

As events would demonstrate, the History Channel documentary had former FBI agents interviewing other FBI agents about the DB Cooper case—but only about the suspects—and no one asked about the evidence, or lack thereof. In essence, the History Channel show was a huge soap opera, starring Rackstraw, Tom Colbert, and his Cold Case Team.

Further, the FBI declined LMNO's initial invitation to be part of the documentary, but in January 2016 they reversed their decision. In fact, by early 2016 they had decided to close Norjak and deemed the History Channel as the ideal means of informing the American public. Hence, the last ten minutes of the broadcast shows Curtis Eng and other FBI officials boxing-up the evidence, and waving it “goodbye” as it shipped to FBI HQ in Washington, D.C. As a result, we had FBI agents swirling around the entire documentary almost as if they were chasing each other's tail, and in the next chapter we'll examine their stated reasons for the closure and its merits.

But in the meantime, could Robert W Rackstraw, who is still alive, actually be DB Cooper? The short answer is “No.” But the more complete answer is a bit more complicated, and needs to be told because the drama swirling on the screen colors related events, particularly the closing of the case and the focus of the documentary.

In the History Channel broadcast, Rackstraw-as-Cooper is denied, with Fuentes and Jensen clearly stating that they do not believe RWR is DB Cooper. Additionally, Curtis Eng appears unconvinced of Rackstraw-as-Cooper as well, and the broadcast has 15 minutes of memorable coverage of Tina Mucklow examining pictures of Rackstraw and listening to video tapes of him speaking, after which she concludes, “No, that's not him.”

Adding to the dismissal of Rackstraw-as-Cooper, passenger Bill Mitchell was unable to identify DB Cooper in a “six-pack” of photos of skyjacking suspects. Oddly, Mitchell incorrectly identified Rackstraw as Richard McCoy, and Colbert's CCT say this happened because Mitchell had an unconscious association of his skyjacker, DB Cooper, to a known skyjacker, Richard McCoy.

But at the show's conclusion, even Jim Forbes declares that he no longer believes that Robert W. Rackstraw is DB Cooper.

Colbert appears absolutely deflated in these scenes, and in an email to me he described his experience as a “deer in the headlight” moment. Nevertheless, to this day Colbert still believes that Rackstraw is DB Cooper.

Colbert believes passionately, though, and in addition to the two hours of Rackstraw-as-Cooper material shown on the History Channel, Colbert has written a hefty book on RWR, co-authored with Tom Szollosi. It's juicy and gripping, clearly portraying Rackstraw as a bad dude who never followed the rules.

But Rackstraw adds to the intrigue because he also told lots of people that he was DB Cooper, including TV producers from KNBC in Los Angeles. However, it is now clear that this admission was most likely a gambit designed to distract the world from his on-going trial for the murder of his stepfather, Philip Rackstraw, of which Robert was eventually acquitted.

Colbert and Szollosi show that Rackstraw was probably guilty, and report that his acquittal was the result of mismanagement and malfeasance on the part of the Calaveras County, California prosecutors and Sheriff's Department who lost or mishandled vital evidence.

In fact, one of Rackstraw's supporters and friend, Hollywood producer Vivian Jones, told Colbert, “We all knew he (RWR) killed him.”

Rackstraw's aunt, Betty, was more blunt: “He (RWR) killed my brother.”

Without question, Rackstraw has been a bad egg. He was busted from his rank as lieutenant and discharged from the Army for lying about his non-existent college degree, and in the late 1970s he was arrested and convicted on bank fraud, forgery, and illegal possession of explosives. Colbert and Szollosi also show that Rackstraw was allegedly involved in blowing up a military armory and stealing the weapons and explosives, possibly selling them to terrorist organizations. Added to that are the alleged robberies of guns stores, the theft of at least one airplane, and the bamboozling of a helicopter from the Calaveras County Sheriff's Department, which helps explain why they let Rackstraw off the hook for the death of his stepfather. Rackstraw even reportedly alluded FBI capture on some of these charges by faking a plane crash into Monterrey Bay and flying to a deserted airstrip in Southern California.

But the most compelling of Rackstraw's abilities was his skill as a jungle warrior. In Vietnam Rackstraw was a helicopter pilot and mechanic, but he also volunteered for many rescue missions and hazardous covert operations. Reportedly, Rackstraw even sought out rogue CIA operatives to launch private guerrilla-like raids on the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. In addition, he had advanced explosive and airborne training.

These “skill sets” put Rackstraw on the top of the pile of suspects for DB Cooper, and in fact, the FBI considered him a prime suspect in the late 1970s, but ultimately dismissed him for reasons that are unclear.

Age is one possibility. Rackstraw was 27 years old in 1971.

Another concern is the lack of tangible evidence. No money, parachute or gear has ever been found in Rackstraw's possession, nor have his fingerprints or DNA been linked to the skyjacking. In fact, the one-hundred pieces of evidence that Colbert and Company says that they have amassed on Rackstraw-as-Cooper is all circumstantial.

Most problematic is the money find at Tina Bar. Colbert and Company say that Brian Ingram's father, Harold Dwayne Ingram, planted the money for Rackstraw at the behest of a Portland gangster named Dick Briggs. They claim Briggs was acting on the command of Rackstraw, who was attempting to prove to the feds that DB Cooper was dead. Remember, if Rackstraw was Cooper as the FBI then suspected—and Cooper was dead because of the money washing up on the beach—then RWR was dead, too, so the feds could stop looking for him.

Also consider that the money was found in February 1980, just after Rackstraw's acquittal for the murder of his stepfather and his bogus disappearance into the waters of the Pacific Ocean, but before his arrest on the bank fraud charges, which he apparently was still trying to beat.

As for the money find, Harold Dwayne Ingram is certainly a strange dude, and his multiple interviews in the History Channel documentary show him to be a guy who has tremendous difficulty telling the truth, or at least the same story twice in a row.

But a plant?

That hypothesis is totally bogus because we know conclusively that Brian's three bundles were found directly above a three-foot deep scatter-field of thousands of money shards, based upon the statements from PIO Dorwin Schreuder and the KATU TV film clips.

When I asked Colbert how he explains this inconsistency, he simply dismissed it with the comment: “I'll let you guys (at the DB Cooper Forum) play in the sand.”

One thing that Colbert and Szollosi make crystal clear is that Rackstraw is a con man. He duped his multiple wives into signing away assets and homes in shaky business deals, and he never paid child support to his first wife for their three kids, at least with a check that never bounced. Most tellingly, that woman calls Rackstraw “Bullshit Bob.”

In addition, in late 1971, RWR was able to impersonate a European “Baron” named Norman de Winter, and bilk dozens of folks in the town of Astoria, Oregon before he disappeared, only to re-appear in Corvallis, Oregon a few days before DB Cooper stole Flight 305.

But proving that Rackstraw was de Winter doesn't make him DB Cooper.

Nevertheless, Colbert states that Rackstraw-as-de Winter had a small plane at his disposal, and feels Rackstraw could have flown into PDX in this plane, or possibly an abandoned airstrip in Woodland—which is ten miles west of Ariel—and used it later as his means of escape from LZ-A. But how the plane got from PDX to the landing strip in Woodland is not explained. When queried in August 2016, Colbert vacillated on the fly-in to PDX and told me his best estimate is that Rackstraw flew to Woodland directly, parked the plane, and then got a ride to PDX.

But this suggests a second party helped with the transport back to the airport. Adding to this conundrum is the truth of the “small plane scenario” rumors that Ariel and Amboy residents love to tell researchers, and seems to be the basis of Colbert's speculation. Although none of these tales have been corroborated they abound in Cooper lore, and the secret airstrips could be in Ariel, Woodland, or just in the imagination of LZ-A residents.

Also troubling is how Rackstraw-as-de Winter could wake up on some frat boy's couch in Corvallis on November 23, the day before the skyjacking, after a weekend of partying and slumming in a stranger's home. RWR then would have to fly into PDX or LZ-A, pick up a black suit, overcoat, a brief case and bomb, and get to the Northwest ticket counter by 2 pm on the next day, November 24. Yes, perhaps it was all prepared days or weeks in advance and stored aboard the aircraft, but the timing is too suspect to accept easily.

Rackstraw's candidacy as DB Cooper is intriguing, but I don't think Robert W. Rackstraw is the Norjak skyjacker. But Tom Colbert and Company certainly make a compelling and dramatic case for RWR. In addition, the intricacies of the drama may lead us to better understand the mysteries of Norjak, in particular the workings of the FBI. After all, why did the feds close the DB Cooper case in the middle of the History Channel broadcast?

It's classic Cooper, and will be discussed next.









« Last Edit: August 07, 2016, 09:48:24 PM by Bruce A. Smith »
 

Offline MarkBennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #202 on: August 07, 2016, 10:00:47 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
3rd Edition Update:


Most problematic is the money find at Tina Bar. Colbert and Company say that Brian Ingram's father, Harold Dwayne Ingram, planted the money for Rackstraw at the behest of a Portland gangster named Dick Briggs.

Bruce, I didn't get that was Colbert's conclusion.  The way I read it, Colbert asserts that Harold was told where to find the money, not where to plant it.
 

Offline brbducksfan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #203 on: August 07, 2016, 10:15:51 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
3rd Edition Update:


Most problematic is the money find at Tina Bar. Colbert and Company say that Brian Ingram's father, Harold Dwayne Ingram, planted the money for Rackstraw at the behest of a Portland gangster named Dick Briggs.

Bruce, I didn't get that was Colbert's conclusion.  The way I read it, Colbert asserts that Harold was told where to find the money, not where to plant it.

FWIW Bruce I agree with Mark's characterization as well.
 

Offline Bruce A. Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4365
  • Thanked: 465 times
    • The Mountain News
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #204 on: August 08, 2016, 12:24:57 AM »
Thanks, guys. I'll check it out.
 

Offline Bruce A. Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4365
  • Thanked: 465 times
    • The Mountain News
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #205 on: August 09, 2016, 01:04:53 PM »
BTW, Duckie, what does FWIW mean?

I don't text, and don't have a smart phone so I only know a few acronyms. I do know:

1. WTF (I even knew this before the movie came out: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot)
2. LOL (just learned it)
3. BTW, of course.
4. SOL (But I never use this term, as I don't believe in luck, just applied consciousness)
5. FUBAR (I'm a Vietnam-era War Protester)
6. SNAFU (see above)
7. TY

That's about it.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2016, 01:08:41 PM by Bruce A. Smith »
 

Offline 377

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Thanked: 443 times
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #206 on: August 09, 2016, 01:28:55 PM »
FWIW=for what it's worth

Or, in JT's lexicon: flowing waters implicate Washougal.  ;)

377
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #207 on: August 09, 2016, 03:27:44 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
FWIW=for what it's worth

Or, in JT's lexicon: flowing waters implicate Washougal.  ;)

377

flowing waters implicate the Pacific Ocean! FWIW! Flowing water implicates the MOON! Maybe JT launched ping pong balls on the Moon and they showed up at TBar 14 hours later.  O0 :))
 

Offline andrade1812

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • My Website
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #208 on: September 05, 2016, 11:46:18 PM »
New Book!

Hope everyone had a great Labor Day. I just wanted to officially announce to the forum that I published the Kindle version of my book "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login" and it's all your fault.

I look forward to the endless mockery to follow for admitting to being one of the scurrilous "book writers."

Thanks to all of you, without this forum the book would never have gotten done. Because of this, any forum member who is willing to admit to being a cheapskate can PM and I'll be happy to send a free pdf version. I'm working on a print version right now, it might take a month or so to index and line-edit.

 
The following users thanked this post: Shutter

georger

  • Guest
Re: Book Discussion About DB Cooper
« Reply #209 on: September 06, 2016, 12:53:21 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
New Book!

Hope everyone had a great Labor Day. I just wanted to officially announce to the forum that I published the Kindle version of my book "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login" and it's all your fault.

I look forward to the endless mockery to follow for admitting to being one of the scurrilous "book writers."

Thanks to all of you, without this forum the book would never have gotten done. Because of this, any forum member who is willing to admit to being a cheapskate can PM and I'll be happy to send a free pdf version. I'm working on a print version right now, it might take a month or so to index and line-edit.

Could you outline your book, its contents, and its basic suppositions.