New Forum & News Updates

[377]

377   Just read an article in June 2016 PLAYBOY about DNA and it points out that multiple DNA's on the DB Cooper tie tack would not be usable to ID anyone from their DNA. Also note that the last three PLAYBOY issues are now PC and the girls all wear cloths! Hugh Hefner has lost his mind and I predict the readership will fall badly. He has forgotten what made the mag popular in the first place (MM with no cloths). It is getting harder to be a "nasty old man".

Bob Sailshaw
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Partial DNA can't positively ID anyone but it could rule someone out. Does the author claim that the tie or tie tack contains samples that don't match each other i.e. are multiple people's DNA?

Playboy readership will plummet without provocstive nude photos. I wonder why Hefner thinks otherwise?

Hefner just got sued by one of Cosbys victims. Claim is that Hefner facilitated Cosbys sex with underage girls at the Playboy Mansion.

377

[Parrotheadvol]

  Just read an article in June 2016 PLAYBOY

So, it's true. men do read Playboy for the articles 

It is true. I've only bought one Playboy magazine ever, and that was to read an interview they did with John Mellencamp. That's not to say though, that I didn't check out the rest of the magazine.

[Shutter]

  Just read an article in June 2016 PLAYBOY

So, it's true. men do read Playboy for the articles 

It is true. I've only bought one Playboy magazine ever, and that was to read an interview they did with John Mellencamp. That's not to say though, that I didn't check out the rest of the magazine.

The only time I bought the mag was in the mid 90's. I did the publisher clearing thingy and that was about the best magazine I could find. that was 12 issue's I received....did I buy it once, or 12 times 

[Bruce A. Smith]

...I've only bought one Playboy magazine ever, and that was to read an interview they did with John Mellencamp....

Mellencamp? Please tell us more!

[MarkBennett]

  Just read an article in June 2016 PLAYBOY

So, it's true. men do read Playboy for the articles 

It is true. I've only bought one Playboy magazine ever, and that was to read an interview they did with John Mellencamp. That's not to say though, that I didn't check out the rest of the magazine.

It was also Playboy that did the big interview with John Lennon  in 1980.  That issue hit the newsstands the same week Lennon was shot.

[georger]

The early days at Dropzone were some of the best. People were fresh and had fresh insight. One of the best posts, imo, was that of Winsor in response to the idea suggested by Sluggo and others that the Cooper Hijacking was a well oiled plan, a crafted event from a Master. Winsor replied:

winsor  (D 13715)
Feb 20, 2008, 8:44 AM
Post #212 of 58140 (70540 views)
   
     Re: [Sluggo_Monster] Take This Plane To Mexico [In reply to]    
The idea that Cooper exited anywhere near a planned location does not wash.

For one thing, the routing of an aircraft by ATC is a game of Simon Says. Regardless of what kind of reverse-psychology you think you have dialed in, the likelihood of getting a particular route +/- 5 miles is so low as to be unworthy of consideration.

In the same sense that it is almost impossible for a skilled artist to mimic a child's drawing without it being obvious to the trained eye that it was actually done by a pro, there is a big difference between a seasoned parachutist throwing in enough red herrings to confuse investigators and a clueless neophyte who really has no conception of what is involved. Cooper shows too many signs of being in the latter category.

I have made jumps out of a variety of jets, at altitudes ranging from pattern to Class A, in rain, snow and sleet, and into unlighted dropzones in total darkness carrying heavy loads. I am much better than average at aviation navigation and spotting, with decades of experience in both.

On the basis of the foregoing, when someone proposes a scenario wherein every part of the hijacking was part of a carefully crafted plan, I call bullshit.

If you have things under control, you don't lose money. The money was the whole reason for the exercise, so this is a big red flag that says that it did not go as planned.

All the speculation in this thread that comes from armchair quarterbacks is fine, but has little to do with reality. I keep thinking of Werner Heisenberg's assessment of a student's work: "This isn't right. It isn't even wrong."


Blue skies,

Winsor


(This post was edited by winsor on Feb 20, 2008, 11:24 AM)

I love it! 

[sailshaw]

Georger  Who is Winsor?  Could that be Sheridon Peterson who lived in Winsor California and used that posting name. He says: "I have made jumps out of a variety of jets, at altitudes ranging from pattern to Class A, in rain, snow and sleet, and into unlighted dropzones in total darkness carrying heavy loads. I am much better than average at aviation navigation and spotting, with decades of experience in both."

That could have been actual experience that Sheridan does have and lets you know how easy the Norjak caper was for him. I hate to keep harping about Sheridan but the FLAW I found in his phony alibi to the FBI about delivering one of his two children himself in Nepal at the time of Norjak and then thru persoco.com found that neither of his two children were born in 1971 (Norjak was Nov. 24, 1971). The son was born in 1970 and the daughter in 1972.
Something to remember is public records were not searched by persopo.com in 1971, that handy search tool did not develop until much later. Sheridan probably sent the FBI a doctored copy of one of his children's birth certificates to match the date of Norjak for his alibi. That lie to the FBI is a Federal Crime with jail time. The FBI could offer no jail time in exchange for the rest of the Norjak caper and what happened to the loot.
So why did he lie to the FBI unless he is DB Cooper? I have yet to find any other reason that makes sense. Now will the FBI get going on the final solution and "get their man" as they normally do?

Bob Sailshaw
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[georger]

Georger  Who is Winsor? 
Bob Sailshaw
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

How would I know!

 

[377]

Winsor is a well known skydiver/rigger/engineer. He definitely isn't SP. The Winsor/Windsor match is just coincidental.

377

[georger]

Winsor is a well known skydiver/rigger/engineer. He definitely isn't SP. The Winsor/Windsor match is just coincidental.

377

Good. There it is. Here's another factoid trivia.

It was Brian/Bryan Woodruff at the Ariel Store who worked with Grey Cop at Vancouver, saying that the Ingrams planted the money at Tina Bar as a favor to a drug dealer. According to Grey Cop, Woodruff has the "evidence" at the store!

Weird you want. Weird you get.     

Oh BTW: Mr. Woodruff aka Robert M Blevins, have perma-banned everyone at, or associated with, this forum - from the Ariel Store and Cooper Days at the Ariel Store. Bruce Smith is named. Whoo Pee!   

[Robert99]

The early days at Dropzone were some of the best. People were fresh and had fresh insight. One of the best posts, imo, was that of Winsor in response to the idea suggested by Sluggo and others that the Cooper Hijacking was a well oiled plan, a crafted event from a Master. Winsor replied:

winsor  (D 13715)
Feb 20, 2008, 8:44 AM
Post #212 of 58140 (70540 views)
   
     Re: [Sluggo_Monster] Take This Plane To Mexico [In reply to]    
The idea that Cooper exited anywhere near a planned location does not wash.

For one thing, the routing of an aircraft by ATC is a game of Simon Says. Regardless of what kind of reverse-psychology you think you have dialed in, the likelihood of getting a particular route +/- 5 miles is so low as to be unworthy of consideration.

In the same sense that it is almost impossible for a skilled artist to mimic a child's drawing without it being obvious to the trained eye that it was actually done by a pro, there is a big difference between a seasoned parachutist throwing in enough red herrings to confuse investigators and a clueless neophyte who really has no conception of what is involved. Cooper shows too many signs of being in the latter category.

I have made jumps out of a variety of jets, at altitudes ranging from pattern to Class A, in rain, snow and sleet, and into unlighted dropzones in total darkness carrying heavy loads. I am much better than average at aviation navigation and spotting, with decades of experience in both.

On the basis of the foregoing, when someone proposes a scenario wherein every part of the hijacking was part of a carefully crafted plan, I call bullshit.

If you have things under control, you don't lose money. The money was the whole reason for the exercise, so this is a big red flag that says that it did not go as planned.

All the speculation in this thread that comes from armchair quarterbacks is fine, but has little to do with reality. I keep thinking of Werner Heisenberg's assessment of a student's work: "This isn't right. It isn't even wrong."


Blue skies,

Winsor


(This post was edited by winsor on Feb 20, 2008, 11:24 AM)

I love it! 

Excellent!  I apparently joined DZ about a year to late.  And how is Heisenberg's cat doing these days?

[georger]

The early days at Dropzone were some of the best. People were fresh and had fresh insight. One of the best posts, imo, was that of Winsor in response to the idea suggested by Sluggo and others that the Cooper Hijacking was a well oiled plan, a crafted event from a Master. Winsor replied:

winsor  (D 13715)
Feb 20, 2008, 8:44 AM
Post #212 of 58140 (70540 views)
   
     Re: [Sluggo_Monster] Take This Plane To Mexico [In reply to]    
The idea that Cooper exited anywhere near a planned location does not wash.

For one thing, the routing of an aircraft by ATC is a game of Simon Says. Regardless of what kind of reverse-psychology you think you have dialed in, the likelihood of getting a particular route +/- 5 miles is so low as to be unworthy of consideration.

In the same sense that it is almost impossible for a skilled artist to mimic a child's drawing without it being obvious to the trained eye that it was actually done by a pro, there is a big difference between a seasoned parachutist throwing in enough red herrings to confuse investigators and a clueless neophyte who really has no conception of what is involved. Cooper shows too many signs of being in the latter category.

I have made jumps out of a variety of jets, at altitudes ranging from pattern to Class A, in rain, snow and sleet, and into unlighted dropzones in total darkness carrying heavy loads. I am much better than average at aviation navigation and spotting, with decades of experience in both.

On the basis of the foregoing, when someone proposes a scenario wherein every part of the hijacking was part of a carefully crafted plan, I call bullshit.

If you have things under control, you don't lose money. The money was the whole reason for the exercise, so this is a big red flag that says that it did not go as planned.

All the speculation in this thread that comes from armchair quarterbacks is fine, but has little to do with reality. I keep thinking of Werner Heisenberg's assessment of a student's work: "This isn't right. It isn't even wrong."


Blue skies,

Winsor


(This post was edited by winsor on Feb 20, 2008, 11:24 AM)

I love it! 

Excellent!  I apparently joined DZ about a year to late.  And how is Heisenberg's cat doing these days?

    You know I read that at DZ back in '08 and sat here thinking: 'what could I say, what should I say?'. I decided to stay out of it. 

What does Heisenberg's cat or more correctly 'Schrödinger's cat' have to do with this? The short answer is: Nothing.

Neither quantum physics or The Heisenberg Principle have any application in this matter.  And that fact makes Winsor's remarks even more clarifying. Case closed.

[Robert99]

The early days at Dropzone were some of the best. People were fresh and had fresh insight. One of the best posts, imo, was that of Winsor in response to the idea suggested by Sluggo and others that the Cooper Hijacking was a well oiled plan, a crafted event from a Master. Winsor replied:

winsor  (D 13715)
Feb 20, 2008, 8:44 AM
Post #212 of 58140 (70540 views)
   
     Re: [Sluggo_Monster] Take This Plane To Mexico [In reply to]    
The idea that Cooper exited anywhere near a planned location does not wash.

For one thing, the routing of an aircraft by ATC is a game of Simon Says. Regardless of what kind of reverse-psychology you think you have dialed in, the likelihood of getting a particular route +/- 5 miles is so low as to be unworthy of consideration.

In the same sense that it is almost impossible for a skilled artist to mimic a child's drawing without it being obvious to the trained eye that it was actually done by a pro, there is a big difference between a seasoned parachutist throwing in enough red herrings to confuse investigators and a clueless neophyte who really has no conception of what is involved. Cooper shows too many signs of being in the latter category.

I have made jumps out of a variety of jets, at altitudes ranging from pattern to Class A, in rain, snow and sleet, and into unlighted dropzones in total darkness carrying heavy loads. I am much better than average at aviation navigation and spotting, with decades of experience in both.

On the basis of the foregoing, when someone proposes a scenario wherein every part of the hijacking was part of a carefully crafted plan, I call bullshit.

If you have things under control, you don't lose money. The money was the whole reason for the exercise, so this is a big red flag that says that it did not go as planned.

All the speculation in this thread that comes from armchair quarterbacks is fine, but has little to do with reality. I keep thinking of Werner Heisenberg's assessment of a student's work: "This isn't right. It isn't even wrong."


Blue skies,

Winsor


(This post was edited by winsor on Feb 20, 2008, 11:24 AM)

I love it! 

Excellent!  I apparently joined DZ about a year to late.  And how is Heisenberg's cat doing these days?

    You know I read that at DZ back in '08 and sat here thinking: 'what could I say, what should I say?'. I decided to stay out of it. 

What does Heisenberg's cat or more correctly 'Schrödinger's cat' have to do with this? The short answer is: Nothing.

Neither quantum physics or The Heisenberg Principle have any application in this matter.  Case closed.

Okay, sorry about that.  I'm not a cat lover so I got the owner's name confused.  Are you sure quantum physics is not involved here?

[georger]

The early days at Dropzone were some of the best. People were fresh and had fresh insight. One of the best posts, imo, was that of Winsor in response to the idea suggested by Sluggo and others that the Cooper Hijacking was a well oiled plan, a crafted event from a Master. Winsor replied:

winsor  (D 13715)
Feb 20, 2008, 8:44 AM
Post #212 of 58140 (70540 views)
   
     Re: [Sluggo_Monster] Take This Plane To Mexico [In reply to]    
The idea that Cooper exited anywhere near a planned location does not wash.

For one thing, the routing of an aircraft by ATC is a game of Simon Says. Regardless of what kind of reverse-psychology you think you have dialed in, the likelihood of getting a particular route +/- 5 miles is so low as to be unworthy of consideration.

In the same sense that it is almost impossible for a skilled artist to mimic a child's drawing without it being obvious to the trained eye that it was actually done by a pro, there is a big difference between a seasoned parachutist throwing in enough red herrings to confuse investigators and a clueless neophyte who really has no conception of what is involved. Cooper shows too many signs of being in the latter category.

I have made jumps out of a variety of jets, at altitudes ranging from pattern to Class A, in rain, snow and sleet, and into unlighted dropzones in total darkness carrying heavy loads. I am much better than average at aviation navigation and spotting, with decades of experience in both.

On the basis of the foregoing, when someone proposes a scenario wherein every part of the hijacking was part of a carefully crafted plan, I call bullshit.

If you have things under control, you don't lose money. The money was the whole reason for the exercise, so this is a big red flag that says that it did not go as planned.

All the speculation in this thread that comes from armchair quarterbacks is fine, but has little to do with reality. I keep thinking of Werner Heisenberg's assessment of a student's work: "This isn't right. It isn't even wrong."


Blue skies,

Winsor


(This post was edited by winsor on Feb 20, 2008, 11:24 AM)

I love it! 

Excellent!  I apparently joined DZ about a year to late.  And how is Heisenberg's cat doing these days?

    You know I read that at DZ back in '08 and sat here thinking: 'what could I say, what should I say?'. I decided to stay out of it. 

What does Heisenberg's cat or more correctly 'Schrödinger's cat' have to do with this? The short answer is: Nothing.

Neither quantum physics or The Heisenberg Principle have any application in this matter.  Case closed.

Okay, sorry about that.  I'm not a cat lover so I got the owner's name confused.  Are you sure quantum physics is not involved here?

Only if Cooper was an electron! 

However, similar statistical methods could be used to evaluate the probability of deposition in flow or the probability of jump and landing zone - if enough data were available. Sadly the data is severely lacking for such determinations. That correlation is what interests me and attracts me back to the original NWA poop sheet parameters for their 'probability' search map. That is why Ive always called it a probability map, because that "is" what it is. They said their numbers were processed by a computer, presumably using standard algorithms (formulae) of the day. I dont think they would have mentioned that unless they actually went through that process. That implies they had actual 'data' to work with! They correlated data they had, probably from several sources. That implies a statistical analysis using a computer - which they refer to. That's much more sophisticated than a 'guess'. I posted about this back in 08 at Dropzone but I dont think many people even knew what I was referring to. It would be interesting to process their data using modern statistical methods. But, based on the NWA search chart they produced, I am guessing their original data points had a fairly large uncertainty, ie error factor.

Sluggo wondered if Cooper had keyed on the two large turns in the published flight path, in timing and placing his jump ... knowing he was in V23. See Sluggo's chart attached. Winsor immediately replied saying: "not so fast!" and gave his thoughts on the matter. Sluggo has always been suspicious that Cooper knew what he was doing and had an actual plan. Winsor said, "I dont see evidence of a plan, technically'. Winsor was saying: "I dont see evidence of a technically proficient person's actions in what Cooper actually did". And Winsor is an experienced expert in this matter. Winsor and Guru had very similar observations, if you recall.

But, it always comes back to the data people had to work with at the time. I personally thought Winsor's and Guru's observations were very ... persuasive ....  from a technical behavioral point of view. And if I am correct Winsor's analysis fits with the general level of 'uncertainty' that is in the data used to generate the NWA search map, in the first place.

Cooper was not an electron, is the answer.

              

btw no need to apologise for mixing up Heisenberg vs Schrodinger. It happens all the time even in physics circles. 

[Prospector]

The early days at Dropzone were some of the best. People were fresh and had fresh insight. One of the best posts, imo, was that of Winsor in response to the idea suggested by Sluggo and others that the Cooper Hijacking was a well oiled plan, a crafted event from a Master. Winsor replied:

winsor  (D 13715)
Feb 20, 2008, 8:44 AM
Post #212 of 58140 (70540 views)
   
     Re: [Sluggo_Monster] Take This Plane To Mexico [In reply to]    
The idea that Cooper exited anywhere near a planned location does not wash.

For one thing, the routing of an aircraft by ATC is a game of Simon Says. Regardless of what kind of reverse-psychology you think you have dialed in, the likelihood of getting a particular route +/- 5 miles is so low as to be unworthy of consideration.

In the same sense that it is almost impossible for a skilled artist to mimic a child's drawing without it being obvious to the trained eye that it was actually done by a pro, there is a big difference between a seasoned parachutist throwing in enough red herrings to confuse investigators and a clueless neophyte who really has no conception of what is involved. Cooper shows too many signs of being in the latter category.

I have made jumps out of a variety of jets, at altitudes ranging from pattern to Class A, in rain, snow and sleet, and into unlighted dropzones in total darkness carrying heavy loads. I am much better than average at aviation navigation and spotting, with decades of experience in both.

On the basis of the foregoing, when someone proposes a scenario wherein every part of the hijacking was part of a carefully crafted plan, I call bullshit.

If you have things under control, you don't lose money. The money was the whole reason for the exercise, so this is a big red flag that says that it did not go as planned.

All the speculation in this thread that comes from armchair quarterbacks is fine, but has little to do with reality. I keep thinking of Werner Heisenberg's assessment of a student's work: "This isn't right. It isn't even wrong."


Blue skies,

Winsor


(This post was edited by winsor on Feb 20, 2008, 11:24 AM)

I love it! 

Excellent!  I apparently joined DZ about a year to late.  And how is Heisenberg's cat doing these days?

    You know I read that at DZ back in '08 and sat here thinking: 'what could I say, what should I say?'. I decided to stay out of it. 

What does Heisenberg's cat or more correctly 'Schrödinger's cat' have to do with this? The short answer is: Nothing.

Neither quantum physics or The Heisenberg Principle have any application in this matter.  Case closed.

Okay, sorry about that.  I'm not a cat lover so I got the owner's name confused.  Are you sure quantum physics is not involved here?

Only if Cooper was an electron! 

However, similar statistical methods could be used to evaluate the probability of deposition in flow or the probability of jump and landing zone - if enough data were available. Sadly the data is severely lacking for such determinations. That correlation is what interests me and attracts me back to the original NWA poop sheet parameters for their 'probability' search map. That is why Ive always called it a probability map, because that "is" what it is. They said their numbers were processed by a computer, presumably using standard algorithms (formulae) of the day. I dont think they would have mentioned that unless they actually went through that process. That implies they had actual 'data' to work with! They correlated data they had, probably from several sources. That implies a statistical analysis using a computer - which they refer to. That's much more sophisticated than a 'guess'. I posted about this back in 08 at Dropzone but I dont think many people even knew what I was referring to. It would be interesting to process their data using modern statistical methods. But, based on the NWA search chart they produced, I am guessing their original data points had a fairly large uncertainty, ie error factor.

Sluggo wondered if Cooper had keyed on the two large turns in the published flight path, in timing and placing his jump ... knowing he was in V23. See Sluggo's chart attached. Winsor immediately replied saying: "not so fast!" and gave his thoughts on the matter. Sluggo has always been suspicious that Cooper knew what he was doing and had an actual plan. Winsor said, "I dont see evidence of a plan, technically'. Winsor was saying: "I dont see evidence of a technically proficient person's actions in what Cooper actually did". And Winsor is an experienced expert in this matter. Winsor and Guru had very similar observations, if you recall.

But, it always comes back to the data people had to work with at the time. I personally thought Winsor's and Guru's observations were very ... persuasive ....  from a technical behavioral point of view. And if I am correct Winsor's analysis fits with the general level of 'uncertainty' that is in the data used to generate the NWA search map, in the first place.

Cooper was not an electron, is the answer.

              

btw no need to apologise for mixing up Heisenberg vs Schrodinger. It happens all the time even in physics circles. 

Cooper purportedly:

Confirmed before purchasing the boarding ticket that the aircraft was indeed a 727 on that route and flight;

Said something to the effect of: the Northwest plane just happened to be in ‘the right place at the right time’, or, ‘the flight suited his time, place, and plans’.

Does that not in itself suggest some level of research and planning?  Other indicators exist if one chooses to look.