New Forum & News Updates

[Shutter]

I think it might be that some of them had very little activity as a team, but did enough to have credit given.

[Bruce A. Smith]

As I have said before, Colbert's book reveals a lot of this kind of information. He lists the whole CCT, their vita, and for many of them, which Indian Battles they fought and which portion of the US Cavalry they engaged. It's quite extensive and I haven't read it closely, nor have I really read the now-100+ pieces of evidence...

From what I can ascertain, most of the CCT were one-off players. They had a singular piece of expertise, such as handwriting, and that was their gig. A couple of them were part of a small team, such as the psychologist Mohindi, which we saw on the HC broadcast.

A more curious part of the CCT is the role Jim Forbes played. In the HC docu, he looks like he is a full-partner with Colbert and does most of the talking. But now in the after-time of the docu, Forbes is nowhere to be seen. These days it's all Colbert, taking Airborne Bob to the goal line.

[Check-Six]

As a member of Colbert's 40+ person CCTeam - let me shed a bit of insight (now that the special has aired, and the book published).
I got recruited onto the team by referral - another team member sent a information request to someone I know, who referred it to me. In the process of research, I learned several interesting facts about Colbert's suspect and - boom - I was invited. I'd like to think I was auditioning for a job I didn't even know existed - and it has been a very interesting ride.
I have approached everything with this from a skeptical point-of-view. Having written on Cooper prior to my involvement in this (Link: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login), Colbert always appreciated dissenting opinions and recognized the value of differing views, with a lot of long e-mail threads. While I have reasonable doubts presently (and throughout the project to date) - given the suspect's vast travel experiences, professional network connections, qualifications, criminal past, and so forth - the explanations to questions have also been reasonable.
I have not seen a stronger suspect appear yet.
Does he have the right guy ID'ed? To me, it's not a slamdunk - but I think there is enough to merit a trial, and have additional resources put to it. I just hope the trial wouldn't be in Los Angeles County... ;-)
That's about I am prepared to state on the matter - the work continues to buttress arguments. But that is tough in a 45 year old case.
Warmest Regards, Y'all!

[Shutter]

When the main witness says no, what case do you have?

[MarkBennett]

I agree....The whole case is very similar to the case against Sheridan Peterson -- "he's just the kind of guy who had the skills to do it".  But, there is no evidence at all that ties Rackstraw to the hijacking.

Also, keep in mind he's not a new suspect to the FBI.  They investigated him and ruled him out in the late 1970s.

[Check-Six]

Re: Mucklow - That is definitely a "sticky wicket", and a definite blow. What's done is done. Personally, I still feel there are some issues on that matter, but there is little to gain by belaboring that. She said "no" to him, and our criminal system places a lot of weight  on eyewitness accounts - regardless of the situation. Too much, in my opinion, but that's simply the way it is.

Re: Colbert's suspect - Yes, the suspect proposed was investigated in the late 70s, but was released.  But, then again, it is thought that the FBI didn't have all the evidence that has been uncovered since.

“It is statistically impossible for three master criminals to all be operating within 100 miles, let alone three that look alike, have the same flying skills and their arrivals and departures are synchronized like whack-a-mole,” was the line that has stuck with me through all this...

But that's me.

You can ask your questions, and belittle/begot/besmersh my points, but I will likely not engage further. This forum, while an amazing resource, is beset with too many folks with too many agendas, and I have enough on my metaphoric plate without daily drives to the Duchy of Grand Cooperdom.

Toodles, y'all!

[Shutter]

I'm sorry, but you can't expect to write up something and not be challenged. it's a discussion forum. different people have different views. not everyone will ever agree on something, unless some hard facts are shown. IMO, Rackstraw is not much different than the other suspects.

Just as any other suspect RWR has good points, and bad points. he has been dismissed twice by the FBI, and didn't get past the main witness, and then the age thingy. those are tough facts to get around, and will be subject to debate. it's part of the game with having a suspect. I can't make myself believe he's Cooper. I'm sorry...

Shutter

[Check-Six]

Shutter - I've read too much of the Forum, and seen too much of it devolve into name-calling or just drift off topic. It's not that I am unwilling to discuss, but I think a forum like this is an unsuitable format.

Just my two cents. But I enjoy a good phone call every so often. Feel free to PM me and perhaps I can work a discussion into my schedule.

[Shutter]

Shutter - I've read too much of the Forum, and seen too much of it devolve into name-calling or just drift off topic. It's not that I am unwilling to discuss, but I think a forum like this is an unsuitable format.

Just my two cents. But I enjoy a good phone call every so often. Feel free to PM me and perhaps I can work a discussion into my schedule.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't believe there is a lot of name calling on this forum, plus all of us are busy outside this little world of DB Cooper. after insulting me, and members of this forum, I'm not sure what a phone call would resolve?

[Check-Six]

after insulting me, and members of this forum,

Wow - I'd say you just proven my point, as no insult was intended from my post (nor do I read any), and yet - it is found. Oh the irony...
My apologies if any insult was taken by my comments... Wasn't meant that way at all.
I'm going to shut up now.   

Really... 

[MarkBennett]

“It is statistically impossible for three master criminals to all be operating within 100 miles, let alone three that look alike, have the same flying skills and their arrivals and departures are synchronized like whack-a-mole,” was the line that has stuck with me through all this...

Ok, Check-Six is gone, but we can still discuss Colbert's case.

This quoted statement above stuck with me.  Not just because the "it is statistically impossible" struck me as an informal logical fallacy (appeal to authority?  appeal to probability?), but getting beyond that...

How was Norman DeWinter a master criminal?  Near as I can tell he created a fake identity to get some free lodging and free food probably, but was he trying to scam anyone out of money?  Maybe I'm missing something, but did DeWinter do anything criminal at all?

And did all three look alike?  DeWinter and Rackstraw were in their 20s.  Cooper was allegedly in his 40s.

I guess the reason this statement stuck with me is it is an attempt to  say A=B=C.  Once you get everyone to accept that, all that needs to be done is to identify A, B or C and you've identified all three.

Colbert accepts that premise and I think that's why he is so sure.  I don't accept it. I think it's deceiving.

[Shutter]

after insulting me, and members of this forum,

Wow - I'd say you just proven my point, as no insult was intended from my post (nor do I read any), and yet - it is found. Oh the irony...
My apologies if any insult was taken by my comments... Wasn't meant that way at all.
I'm going to shut up now.   

Really... 

I didn't appreciate some of the comments. perhaps I took them wrong, if I did, then I apologize. I don't like the fact of having to PM, or phone someone about a suspect. I would rather you put the information up for all to see? if you do not wish to do so, I will respect that and move on.

I don't believe anyone has an agenda here other than finding good old DB Cooper. people will often disagree with certain parts of a story. I can't control who will believe it, or not believe it? if the majority of a group states one thing, I can't tell them to go the other way? I don't know what else to tell you....

[Check-Six]

I didn't appreciate some of the comments. perhaps I took them wrong, if I did, then I apologize. I don't like the fact of having to PM, or phone someone about a suspect. I would rather you put the information up for all to see? if you do not wish to do so, I will respect that and move on.

I don't believe anyone has an agenda here other than finding good old DB Cooper. people will often disagree with certain parts of a story. I can't control who will believe it, or not believe it? if the majority of a group states one thing, I can't tell them to go the other way? I don't know what else to tell you....

I probably painted too surreal a picture with my words, and didn't think them through proper. I have tasted too much Kiwi shoe polish in my short life, so that may play a factor.

Perhaps I am - memory wise - mingling too much Mountain News and the old DropZone with the events/topics of this forum.

Regarding information: I feel that is more Tom Colbert's purview. As someone commented earlier about the members of his team, and I happen to be one who lurks the forum, I felt it necessary to "squeak up" like the mouse I am. I think/hope I got the message across.

Thanks for the followup... "we now return to your regularly scheduled programming, already in progress." 

[Shutter]

Regardless of my views, I still welcome evidence surrounding Rackstraw. I just posted the latest from Tom. I'm glad parts of his team is lurking. I figured that out early in the game. they are all welcome.

discussing a suspect is not easy sometimes, but don't let that stop you from providing anything new. I'll even start a thread dedicated to investigating Rackstarw. it's all good.....

I mentioned it several days ago, I'm not proud of the behavior on Bruce's site. I just looked a couple hours ago and noticed he's still poking....yes, that is DZ 101...

[georger]

As a member of Colbert's 40+ person CCTeam - let me shed a bit of insight (now that the special has aired, and the book published).
I got recruited onto the team by referral - another team member sent a information request to someone I know, who referred it to me. In the process of research, I learned several interesting facts about Colbert's suspect and - boom - I was invited. I'd like to think I was auditioning for a job I didn't even know existed - and it has been a very interesting ride.
I have approached everything with this from a skeptical point-of-view. Having written on Cooper prior to my involvement in this (Link: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login), Colbert always appreciated dissenting opinions and recognized the value of differing views, with a lot of long e-mail threads. While I have reasonable doubts presently (and throughout the project to date) - given the suspect's vast travel experiences, professional network connections, qualifications, criminal past, and so forth - the explanations to questions have also been reasonable.
I have not seen a stronger suspect appear yet.
Does he have the right guy ID'ed? To me, it's not a slamdunk - but I think there is enough to merit a trial, and have additional resources put to it. I just hope the trial wouldn't be in Los Angeles County... ;-)
That's about I am prepared to state on the matter - the work continues to buttress arguments. But that is tough in a 45 year old case.
Warmest Regards, Y'all!

Hmmm. You call him a "suspect" but say "enough to merit a trial".

Enough of 'what' to merit a trial? I mean cite one concrete factual thing that links him to doing the Cooper hijacking.  Trials usually require actual evidence vs. subjective belief.