Author Topic: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case (Read 1832466 times)

FLYJACK · « **Reply #1905 on:** May 15, 2017, 12:37:37 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is your theory, not mine. you don't use time stamps, but want time frames...my conclusions were very close to the original map. some positions had more mileage than others, but it basically jives. my conclusions don't revolve around the placard. my conclusion were whether or not the path can be flown, not where the placard was, or where Cooper bailed.

Your theory is about moving events, or creating them...you ignore basic proof, or evidence....

I'm growing tired of this back and forth. it reminds me of someone. go ahead and present your theory, as they say in the television show "Shark Tank, I'm out"

I did present it, you didn't understand it..

You are really claiming that an LZ N of the original LZ IS impossible based on timestamps. I was trying to get you to rethink that, you got frustrated and refuse.

Is it possible that DBC landed N of the original LZ line.. Yes or No?

FLYJACK,

The answer to your question is no. You cannot determine location without time. You simply don't understand what "time" represents. I suggest that you visit the "Time" entry on Wiki and get some idea of what time is and how it is used. I think you will find that entry quite informative.

Are you claiming that it is impossible that DBC could have landed N of the original LZ?

I do understand time, another strawman, the concept isn't in dispute, the relationship between timestamp process/crew comms/events to precisely derive plane location/event is. Clearly, the plane was at a precise location at x time. Timestamps for crew comms don't tell you precisely when the bump/oscillations actually occurred, they mark the end of that comm process.

What I don't understand is why you can have what I believe is a valid theory that DBC could have jumped over TBAR, 20-25 miles away and I can't have any theory that he could have jumped any distance N of the original LZ.

Seems inconsistent.. N'est-ce pas

Robert99 · « **Reply #1906 on:** May 15, 2017, 12:52:11 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is your theory, not mine. you don't use time stamps, but want time frames...my conclusions were very close to the original map. some positions had more mileage than others, but it basically jives. my conclusions don't revolve around the placard. my conclusion were whether or not the path can be flown, not where the placard was, or where Cooper bailed.

Your theory is about moving events, or creating them...you ignore basic proof, or evidence....

I'm growing tired of this back and forth. it reminds me of someone. go ahead and present your theory, as they say in the television show "Shark Tank, I'm out"

I did present it, you didn't understand it..

You are really claiming that an LZ N of the original LZ IS impossible based on timestamps. I was trying to get you to rethink that, you got frustrated and refuse.

Is it possible that DBC landed N of the original LZ line.. Yes or No?

FLYJACK,

The answer to your question is no. You cannot determine location without time. You simply don't understand what "time" represents. I suggest that you visit the "Time" entry on Wiki and get some idea of what time is and how it is used. I think you will find that entry quite informative.

Are you claiming that it is impossible that DBC could have landed N of the original LZ?

I do understand time, another strawman, the concept isn't in dispute, the relationship between timestamp process/crew comms/events to precisely derive plane location/event is. Clearly, the plane was at a precise location at x time. Timestamps for crew comms don't tell you precisely when the bump/oscillations actually occurred, they mark the end of that comm process.

What I don't understand is why you can have what I believe is a valid theory that DBC could have jumped over TBAR, 20-25 miles away and I can't have any theory that he could have jumped any distance N of the original LZ.

Seems inconsistent.. N'est-ce pas

FLYJACK,

There is NO evidence to support your theory that Cooper jumped in the originally proposed landing zone OR north of that zone. Your theory doesn't fit the facts or make sense in the first place. Even the redacted Seattle ATC transcripts don't support your theory.

FLYJACK · « **Reply #1907 on:** May 15, 2017, 01:02:23 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is your theory, not mine. you don't use time stamps, but want time frames...my conclusions were very close to the original map. some positions had more mileage than others, but it basically jives. my conclusions don't revolve around the placard. my conclusion were whether or not the path can be flown, not where the placard was, or where Cooper bailed.

Your theory is about moving events, or creating them...you ignore basic proof, or evidence....

I'm growing tired of this back and forth. it reminds me of someone. go ahead and present your theory, as they say in the television show "Shark Tank, I'm out"

I did present it, you didn't understand it..

You are really claiming that an LZ N of the original LZ IS impossible based on timestamps. I was trying to get you to rethink that, you got frustrated and refuse.

Is it possible that DBC landed N of the original LZ line.. Yes or No?

FLYJACK,

The answer to your question is no. You cannot determine location without time. You simply don't understand what "time" represents. I suggest that you visit the "Time" entry on Wiki and get some idea of what time is and how it is used. I think you will find that entry quite informative.

Are you claiming that it is impossible that DBC could have landed N of the original LZ?

I do understand time, another strawman, the concept isn't in dispute, the relationship between timestamp process/crew comms/events to precisely derive plane location/event is. Clearly, the plane was at a precise location at x time. Timestamps for crew comms don't tell you precisely when the bump/oscillations actually occurred, they mark the end of that comm process.

What I don't understand is why you can have what I believe is a valid theory that DBC could have jumped over TBAR, 20-25 miles away and I can't have any theory that he could have jumped any distance N of the original LZ.

Seems inconsistent.. N'est-ce pas

FLYJACK,

There is NO evidence to support your theory that Cooper jumped in the originally proposed landing zone OR north of that zone. Your theory doesn't fit the facts or make sense in the first place. Even the redacted Seattle ATC transcripts don't support your theory.

Sure, it makes perfect sense and is perfectly valid..

but you didn't answer my question, seems to be theme around here...

Seriously, are you claiming that is impossible DBC jumped any distance N of the original LZ? (but could have landed 25 miles SW)

Robert99 · « **Reply #1908 on:** May 15, 2017, 01:41:29 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is your theory, not mine. you don't use time stamps, but want time frames...my conclusions were very close to the original map. some positions had more mileage than others, but it basically jives. my conclusions don't revolve around the placard. my conclusion were whether or not the path can be flown, not where the placard was, or where Cooper bailed.

Your theory is about moving events, or creating them...you ignore basic proof, or evidence....

I'm growing tired of this back and forth. it reminds me of someone. go ahead and present your theory, as they say in the television show "Shark Tank, I'm out"

I did present it, you didn't understand it..

You are really claiming that an LZ N of the original LZ IS impossible based on timestamps. I was trying to get you to rethink that, you got frustrated and refuse.

Is it possible that DBC landed N of the original LZ line.. Yes or No?

FLYJACK,

The answer to your question is no. You cannot determine location without time. You simply don't understand what "time" represents. I suggest that you visit the "Time" entry on Wiki and get some idea of what time is and how it is used. I think you will find that entry quite informative.

Are you claiming that it is impossible that DBC could have landed N of the original LZ?

I do understand time, another strawman, the concept isn't in dispute, the relationship between timestamp process/crew comms/events to precisely derive plane location/event is. Clearly, the plane was at a precise location at x time. Timestamps for crew comms don't tell you precisely when the bump/oscillations actually occurred, they mark the end of that comm process.

What I don't understand is why you can have what I believe is a valid theory that DBC could have jumped over TBAR, 20-25 miles away and I can't have any theory that he could have jumped any distance N of the original LZ.

Seems inconsistent.. N'est-ce pas

FLYJACK,

There is NO evidence to support your theory that Cooper jumped in the originally proposed landing zone OR north of that zone. Your theory doesn't fit the facts or make sense in the first place. Even the redacted Seattle ATC transcripts don't support your theory.

Sure, it makes perfect sense and is perfectly valid..

but you didn't answer my question, seems to be theme around here...

Seriously, are you claiming that is impossible DBC jumped any distance N of the original LZ? (but could have landed 25 miles SW)

FLYJACK,

Just which question are you claiming I didn't answer?

To repeat, based on the actual facts known about the Cooper hijacking, it is not possible that he landed in the originally proposed landing zone or north of that landing zone.

And yes, my personal opinion is that Cooper jumped in the Tina Bar area, that he died as a no-pull in the jump, and that the money found at Tina Bar got there by natural means. This has been discussed at length elsewhere.

FLYJACK · « **Reply #1909 on:** May 15, 2017, 01:59:48 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is your theory, not mine. you don't use time stamps, but want time frames...my conclusions were very close to the original map. some positions had more mileage than others, but it basically jives. my conclusions don't revolve around the placard. my conclusion were whether or not the path can be flown, not where the placard was, or where Cooper bailed.

Your theory is about moving events, or creating them...you ignore basic proof, or evidence....

I'm growing tired of this back and forth. it reminds me of someone. go ahead and present your theory, as they say in the television show "Shark Tank, I'm out"

I did present it, you didn't understand it..

You are really claiming that an LZ N of the original LZ IS impossible based on timestamps. I was trying to get you to rethink that, you got frustrated and refuse.

Is it possible that DBC landed N of the original LZ line.. Yes or No?

FLYJACK,

The answer to your question is no. You cannot determine location without time. You simply don't understand what "time" represents. I suggest that you visit the "Time" entry on Wiki and get some idea of what time is and how it is used. I think you will find that entry quite informative.

Are you claiming that it is impossible that DBC could have landed N of the original LZ?

I do understand time, another strawman, the concept isn't in dispute, the relationship between timestamp process/crew comms/events to precisely derive plane location/event is. Clearly, the plane was at a precise location at x time. Timestamps for crew comms don't tell you precisely when the bump/oscillations actually occurred, they mark the end of that comm process.

What I don't understand is why you can have what I believe is a valid theory that DBC could have jumped over TBAR, 20-25 miles away and I can't have any theory that he could have jumped any distance N of the original LZ.

Seems inconsistent.. N'est-ce pas

FLYJACK,

There is NO evidence to support your theory that Cooper jumped in the originally proposed landing zone OR north of that zone. Your theory doesn't fit the facts or make sense in the first place. Even the redacted Seattle ATC transcripts don't support your theory.

Sure, it makes perfect sense and is perfectly valid..

but you didn't answer my question, seems to be theme around here...

Seriously, are you claiming that is impossible DBC jumped any distance N of the original LZ? (but could have landed 25 miles SW)

FLYJACK,

Just which question are you claiming I didn't answer?

To repeat, based on the actual facts known about the Cooper hijacking, it is not possible that he landed in the originally proposed landing zone or north of that landing zone.

And yes, my personal opinion is that Cooper jumped in the Tina Bar area, that he died as a no-pull in the jump, and that the money found at Tina Bar got there by natural means. This has been discussed at length elsewhere.

Based on your interpretation of the information, not based on facts.

Nobody else has made the claim the facts prove DBC did not land any distance N of original LZ, because they don't.

Robert99 · « **Reply #1910 on:** May 15, 2017, 02:18:17 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is your theory, not mine. you don't use time stamps, but want time frames...my conclusions were very close to the original map. some positions had more mileage than others, but it basically jives. my conclusions don't revolve around the placard. my conclusion were whether or not the path can be flown, not where the placard was, or where Cooper bailed.

Your theory is about moving events, or creating them...you ignore basic proof, or evidence....

I'm growing tired of this back and forth. it reminds me of someone. go ahead and present your theory, as they say in the television show "Shark Tank, I'm out"

I did present it, you didn't understand it..

You are really claiming that an LZ N of the original LZ IS impossible based on timestamps. I was trying to get you to rethink that, you got frustrated and refuse.

Is it possible that DBC landed N of the original LZ line.. Yes or No?

FLYJACK,

The answer to your question is no. You cannot determine location without time. You simply don't understand what "time" represents. I suggest that you visit the "Time" entry on Wiki and get some idea of what time is and how it is used. I think you will find that entry quite informative.

Are you claiming that it is impossible that DBC could have landed N of the original LZ?

I do understand time, another strawman, the concept isn't in dispute, the relationship between timestamp process/crew comms/events to precisely derive plane location/event is. Clearly, the plane was at a precise location at x time. Timestamps for crew comms don't tell you precisely when the bump/oscillations actually occurred, they mark the end of that comm process.

What I don't understand is why you can have what I believe is a valid theory that DBC could have jumped over TBAR, 20-25 miles away and I can't have any theory that he could have jumped any distance N of the original LZ.

Seems inconsistent.. N'est-ce pas

FLYJACK,

There is NO evidence to support your theory that Cooper jumped in the originally proposed landing zone OR north of that zone. Your theory doesn't fit the facts or make sense in the first place. Even the redacted Seattle ATC transcripts don't support your theory.

Sure, it makes perfect sense and is perfectly valid..

but you didn't answer my question, seems to be theme around here...

Seriously, are you claiming that is impossible DBC jumped any distance N of the original LZ? (but could have landed 25 miles SW)

FLYJACK,

Just which question are you claiming I didn't answer?

To repeat, based on the actual facts known about the Cooper hijacking, it is not possible that he landed in the originally proposed landing zone or north of that landing zone.

And yes, my personal opinion is that Cooper jumped in the Tina Bar area, that he died as a no-pull in the jump, and that the money found at Tina Bar got there by natural means. This has been discussed at length elsewhere.

Based on your interpretation of the information, not based on facts.

Nobody else has made the claim the facts prove DBC did not land any distance N of original LZ, because they don't.

FLYJACK,

You need a crash course in logic.

JLa · « **Reply #1911 on:** May 15, 2017, 03:41:31 PM »

Quote

Personally, I'm not sure the tie has any weight when it comes to the court room. the tie was found after the fact, and can only be speculation that the tie belonged to Cooper. that would be from a legal standpoint. they might try and rule the tie out. not sure, so we will let 377 give the best answer...

The tie clip might change the view if the DNA can be proven to be Cooper's, I forgot about the clip....

Well that is kind of my point; I think. While I understand that the tie is a large focal point of this case, I am almost wondering if you have to toss it out completely. God knows whose DNA is on that thing! For all we know Duane was able to take a selfie with one of the aliens from Roswell wearing it. So if we are getting all this information from the tie but the information has a higher likelihood of being bad then being good...then that kind of leaves us back at square one again. For instance if someone can give me 5 reasons why the tie is beneficial as evidence, I could probably give them 10 reasons to counter that. Now I am not saying that the items on the tie are bad; I'm just theorizing that they have a higher likelihood of misleading the "current" investigation.

And my other thought/observation is that some of the material on here gets recycled. So I kind of wanted to bring some new ideas and new material with me. I think maybe by putting the "tie" on trial so to speak it opens up to new conversation which leads to new ideas which will hopefully one day lead to the true question of "what else did Duane do with those aliens at Roswell?!"

- Jason

Shutter · « **Reply #1912 on:** May 15, 2017, 03:52:11 PM »

a lot of people think the tie was possibly bought at a second hand store. it's possible, but it's also possible he did own the clothing. 1971, he didn't care, nothing could "tie" him to it....same with the butts. he couldn't look 40 years ahead thinking these items could source him out....

I just watched a You Tube video where the guy claims Cooper was a bank robber, I guess technically he was...

377 · « **Reply #1913 on:** May 15, 2017, 05:31:56 PM »

Shutter wrote: "same with the butts. he couldn't look 40 years ahead thinking these items could source him out..."

Agree. His 1971 worries were fingerprints and human facial recognition. The butts however might have carried prints. Surprised he wasn't thinking about that. I don't smoke. Do smokers touch the part that becomes a butt with their fingers?

Jumped Saturday. Here is a landing video:

377

Shutter · « **Reply #1914 on:** May 15, 2017, 06:03:50 PM »

Quote

Agree. His 1971 worries were fingerprints and human facial recognition. The butts however might have carried prints. Surprised he wasn't thinking about that. I don't smoke. Do smokers touch the part that becomes a butt with their fingers?

I can't find anything supporting fingerprints on butts...lots about DNA...I think the print would be partial and smeared if one could even be lifted?

A poster had a question for you several comments back on this thread....

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #1915 on:** May 15, 2017, 09:16:46 PM »

The tie as evidence

Welcome, Jason. The tie is suspect for many reasons, as you have indicated. As such, it has limited "legal" value, if any. But it does carry significant evidentiary weight: DNA, metal particles, and spores. Also, its trail through the FBI's custody also tells us something about the FBI, particularly how it functioned in 1971. So there are many ancillary benefits to studying the tie.

What is the nature of your concern/interest in the legal standing of the tie?

dice · « **Reply #1916 on:** May 16, 2017, 01:30:27 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

a lot of people think the tie was possibly bought at a second hand store. it's possible, but it's also possible he did own the clothing. 1971, he didn't care, nothing could "tie" him to it....

Fingerprints on the tie could have tied him to the caper, no pun intended.... in 1971, DNA wasn't a concern, but fingerprints were retrievable, so I wonder if he cared about his prints on the tie.

FLYJACK · « **Reply #1917 on:** May 16, 2017, 01:38:12 PM »

They obtained DNA from the tie, I think 14 or so individuals,,,

So, the DNA is useless for a prosecution, however, finding a suspect that matches one of those profiles would be a "public" solve. I doubt there will ever be any prosecution, best we can hope for now is a "public" solve.

377 · « **Reply #1918 on:** May 16, 2017, 04:45:51 PM »

Although a prosecution based solely on tie DNA is definitely not going to succeed, a successful prosecution isn't impossible. If a suspect was found in possession of a bunch of clean Cooper 20s and matched the physical descriptions and didn't have a solid alibi or credible explanation for possession of the loot... I think a conviction could be obtained.

377

MeyerLouie · « **Reply #1919 on:** May 16, 2017, 08:45:03 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Agree. His 1971 worries were fingerprints and human facial recognition. The butts however might have carried prints. Surprised he wasn't thinking about that. I don't smoke. Do smokers touch the part that becomes a butt with their fingers?

377

I smoked. One way to put a cigarette out is grab the butt and push the cigarette into something to snuff out the fire. You have to grab the butt to do that, or at least I did. If a print can be lifted off of something like a garment, I would think it would be possible to lift a print off of a cigarette butt, if it doesn't get all smeared. I would think that smoking a cigarette with one's middle and index fingers -- and not touching the butt, then grabbing the cigarette by the butt to extinguish it just might leave a decent print. I would have to talk to a fingerprint person to verify that.
Meyer

Poll

Do you believe Cooper lived or died. the option are below to cast a vote...

Author Topic: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case (Read 1832466 times)

FLYJACK

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Robert99

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

FLYJACK

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Robert99

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

FLYJACK

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Robert99

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

JLa

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Shutter

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

377

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Shutter

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Bruce A. Smith

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

dice

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

FLYJACK

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

377

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

MeyerLouie

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case