New Forum & News Updates

[EU]

Thanks for the News Release...

Is there a purpose for this? Don't you ever get tired of simply being a prick as opposed to logging in and contributing something substantive?

Perhaps a theory. A detail that may have been significant yet overlooked. Something. Anything.

[Chaucer]

EU, you do know that “inconclusive” doesn’t mean “maybe”, right?

[EU]

EU, you do know that “inconclusive” doesn’t mean “maybe”, right?

Not exactly. You have to understand what the FBI is working with. I realize it's sort of counter-intuitive.

Meaning, the FBI DNA results can only read one of two ways: Either "No Match", or "Inconclusive." It cannot read, "Match."

This is because there are multiple donors at the various locations. Therefore, it is possible that one person has DNA similar to "Subject 1" at "Location 1" while having DNA similar to "Subject 2" at "Location 2." In this case it would show that this one person matched Location 1 and Location 2 but not recognize that the match involved two separate subjects.

On the other hand, if the one person does not match one of the locations at all, then this person cannot be DB Cooper. This of course assumes that DB Cooper's DNA is one of the partial profiles in the test.

[georger]

Thanks for the News Release...

Is there a purpose for this? Don't you ever get tired of simply being a prick as opposed to logging in and contributing something substantive?

Perhaps a theory. A detail that may have been significant yet overlooked. Something. Anything.

Huh?  I submitted lunar data just the other day - you evidently missed it? Have you got an opinion on when astronomical twilight was on 11-24-71 20:10?

If I am a PRICK, what are you? 

[georger]

EU, you do know that “inconclusive” doesn’t mean “maybe”, right?

Not exactly. You have to understand what the FBI is working with. I realize it's sort of counter-intuitive.

Meaning, the FBI DNA results can only read one of two ways: Either "No Match", or "Inconclusive." It cannot read, "Match."

This is because there are multiple donors at the various locations. Therefore, it is possible that one person has DNA similar to "Subject 1" at "Location 1" while having DNA similar to "Subject 2" at "Location 2." In this case it would show that this one person matched Location 1 and Location 2 but not recognize that the match involved two separate subjects.

On the other hand, if the one person does not match one of the locations at all, then this person cannot be DB Cooper. This of course assumes that DB Cooper's DNA is one of the partial profiles in the test.

You will simply have to explain what you mean to the unwashed!

By "Subject 2" at "Location 2" I assume you are referring to genetic loci 'locations' in CODIS-13, vs the location Niagara Falls?  Do you really know anything about this subject or are you just blowing more smoke? Is Tom Kaye involved in this quest with you or are you out on your own - relying on what technical background you have? These are fair questions, sir, given your prior performance on TV where your claims flopped dramatically before your eggs were even hatched.

You do realize if the FBI turns its DB Cooper genetic profile over to you - the whole world will wake up and be interested? Maybe you should trim your statements back a tad, to avoid over promising on something that the FBI may not deliver in response to your FOIA filing?   

The last time I checked codis 13 used the following loci LOCATIONS:  The 13 STR loci CSF1PO, FGA, TH01, TPOX, vWA, D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, and D21S11 have been selected as the core loci for use in CODIS 13.

[Robert99]

Thanks for the News Release...

Is there a purpose for this? Don't you ever get tired of simply being a prick as opposed to logging in and contributing something substantive?

Perhaps a theory. A detail that may have been significant yet overlooked. Something. Anything.

Huh?  I submitted lunar data just the other day - you evidently missed it? Have you got an opinion on when astronomical twilight was on 11-24-71 20:10?

If I am a PRICK, what are you?

Georger, lunar data, and Mars data don't have the slightest thing to do with the Cooper hijacking.  And you can also forget about all of the various versions of twilight.

The sun had set about three hours before the airliner took off from SEATAC for the flight to Reno.  It really was a dark, cloudy, rainy, night in the Pacific Northwest.  Celestial twilight was meaningless at that point and astronomical twilight never meant a thing in the first place.

You should seriously consider EU's suggestion that you post something relevant to the Cooper hijacking.

[georger]

Thanks for the News Release...

Is there a purpose for this? Don't you ever get tired of simply being a prick as opposed to logging in and contributing something substantive?

Perhaps a theory. A detail that may have been significant yet overlooked. Something. Anything.

Huh?  I submitted lunar data just the other day - you evidently missed it? Have you got an opinion on when astronomical twilight was on 11-24-71 20:10?

If I am a PRICK, what are you?

Georger, lunar data, and Mars data don't have the slightest thing to do with the Cooper hijacking.  And you can also forget about all of the various versions of twilight.

The sun had set about three hours before the airliner took off from SEATAC for the flight to Reno.  It really was a dark, cloudy, rainy, night in the Pacific Northwest.  Celestial twilight was meaningless at that point and astronomical twilight never meant a thing in the first place.

You should seriously consider EU's suggestion that you post something relevant to the Cooper hijacking.

I just did! You are off topic again, attack dog! .  That topic is back in Tina Bar Money. You are perpetually LOST!

When are YOU going to post something relevant to the DB Cooper case - for a change!

[Chaucer]

EU, you do know that “inconclusive” doesn’t mean “maybe”, right?

Not exactly. You have to understand what the FBI is working with. I realize it's sort of counter-intuitive.

Meaning, the FBI DNA results can only read one of two ways: Either "No Match", or "Inconclusive." It cannot read, "Match."

This is because there are multiple donors at the various locations. Therefore, it is possible that one person has DNA similar to "Subject 1" at "Location 1" while having DNA similar to "Subject 2" at "Location 2." In this case it would show that this one person matched Location 1 and Location 2 but not recognize that the match involved two separate subjects.

On the other hand, if the one person does not match one of the locations at all, then this person cannot be DB Cooper. This of course assumes that DB Cooper's DNA is one of the partial profiles in the test.

Typically, “inconclusive” DNA results are due to either contamination of the sample or a DNA sample that is old or degraded. To conflate the term “inconclusive” with “maybe” or “possibly” is disingenuous. Rather, it simply means they could not get a viable result.

From the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Barnett :

“Where DNA results are deemed inconclusive, the results provide no information whatsoever as to the source of the DNA. Therefore, inconclusive results may not be considered for any identification purpose.”

[EU]

Typically, “inconclusive” DNA results are due to either contamination of the sample or a DNA sample that is old or degraded. To conflate the term “inconclusive” with “maybe” or “possibly” is disingenuous. Rather, it simply means they could not get a viable result.

From the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Barnett :

“Where DNA results are deemed inconclusive, the results provide no information whatsoever as to the source of the DNA. Therefore, inconclusive results may not be considered for any identification purpose.”

Here we go again. Arguing for the sake of arguing. I believe I have been abundantly clear how this works.

The results will either show Sheridan can be eliminated or that he cannot be eliminated.

These same results showed both LD Cooper and Duane Weber could be eliminated.

Think what you will.

[Chaucer]

Typically, “inconclusive” DNA results are due to either contamination of the sample or a DNA sample that is old or degraded. To conflate the term “inconclusive” with “maybe” or “possibly” is disingenuous. Rather, it simply means they could not get a viable result.

From the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Barnett :

“Where DNA results are deemed inconclusive, the results provide no information whatsoever as to the source of the DNA. Therefore, inconclusive results may not be considered for any identification purpose.”

Here we go again. Arguing for the sake of arguing. I believe I have been abundantly clear how this works.

The results will either show Sheridan can be eliminated or that he cannot be eliminated.

These same results showed both LD Cooper and Duane Weber could be eliminated.

Think what you will.

LOL I’m not arguing for the sake of arguing. I’m pointing out a flaw in your argument. Despite what you say, an “inconclusive” results cannot be used to declare Sheridan Peterson as DB Cooper.

[Robert99]

Thanks for the News Release...

Is there a purpose for this? Don't you ever get tired of simply being a prick as opposed to logging in and contributing something substantive?

Perhaps a theory. A detail that may have been significant yet overlooked. Something. Anything.

Huh?  I submitted lunar data just the other day - you evidently missed it? Have you got an opinion on when astronomical twilight was on 11-24-71 20:10?

If I am a PRICK, what are you?

Georger, lunar data, and Mars data don't have the slightest thing to do with the Cooper hijacking.  And you can also forget about all of the various versions of twilight.

The sun had set about three hours before the airliner took off from SEATAC for the flight to Reno.  It really was a dark, cloudy, rainy, night in the Pacific Northwest.  Celestial twilight was meaningless at that point and astronomical twilight never meant a thing in the first place.

You should seriously consider EU's suggestion that you post something relevant to the Cooper hijacking.

I just did! You are off topic again, attack dog! .  That topic is back in Tina Bar Money. You are perpetually LOST!

When are YOU going to post something relevant to the DB Cooper case - for a change!

Georger, the Moon and Mars do not have anything to do with DNA despite what you may have heard in the darkest jungles of Africa or in a voodoo ritual.

[EU]

I do not have a flaw in my argument. If so, where?

As I mentioned previously, I have discussed this with a DNA expert. In fact, she was on the John Wilkes Booth episode of History's Greatest Mysteries and did that DNA comparison.

To repeat, while affixing precise odds is difficult without additional data--which may come with the results--it is likely that well fewer than 1 out of 100 suspects would have an "inconclusive"--otherwise known as "cannot eliminate"--result. Indeed, the number may be 1 in 10,000.

Now you're not going to convict someone in court with 1 in 100 or 1 in 10,000 odds, but the odds still stand that you very likely have your guy.

Of course, I could show that the odds were 1 in 100,000 and you'd still say you're not convinced. Oh well, the results will be the results.

[Chaucer]

EU, you continue to confuse the terms “cannot eliminate” with “inconclusive”.

You’re not the only one who talks with DNA experts. Inconclusive means that the sample was flawed and no identification can be made regardless of what other evidence exists. Period. Full stop. If you continue to confuse this issue, I will continue to correct you.

What you’re suggesting is a scenario in which Peterson stands in a police line up with others and Tina Mucklow is the witness; she tells the cops that she “doesn’t know who Cooper is in the line up because it was so long ago”. You’re saying that because Tina can’t exclude Peterson then that means he is Cooper. That’s daft.

[EU]

Indeed, the witnesses did see a picture of Sheridan early on which led to a full investigation into the man.

But wait...there’s more...

Oh, you’ll have to wait.

[georger]

Thanks for the News Release...

Is there a purpose for this? Don't you ever get tired of simply being a prick as opposed to logging in and contributing something substantive?

Perhaps a theory. A detail that may have been significant yet overlooked. Something. Anything.

Huh?  I submitted lunar data just the other day - you evidently missed it? Have you got an opinion on when astronomical twilight was on 11-24-71 20:10?

If I am a PRICK, what are you?

Georger, lunar data, and Mars data don't have the slightest thing to do with the Cooper hijacking.  And you can also forget about all of the various versions of twilight.

The sun had set about three hours before the airliner took off from SEATAC for the flight to Reno.  It really was a dark, cloudy, rainy, night in the Pacific Northwest.  Celestial twilight was meaningless at that point and astronomical twilight never meant a thing in the first place.

You should seriously consider EU's suggestion that you post something relevant to the Cooper hijacking.

I just did! You are off topic again, attack dog! .  That topic is back in Tina Bar Money. You are perpetually LOST!

When are YOU going to post something relevant to the DB Cooper case - for a change!

Georger, the Moon and Mars do not have anything to do with DNA despite what you may have heard in the darkest jungles of Africa or in a voodoo ritual.

Sorry for you .... you keep repeating gibberish. Maybe its a holdover from your placard confusion ? Good luck.