Author Topic: Suspects And Confessions (Read 1637984 times)

Shutter · « **Reply #1380 on:** August 31, 2016, 12:25:05 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Meyer Louie and others at the 2011 Symposium directly refute Clyde's theory that the winds were coming from the east through the Gorge and blowing Cooper westward. They say winds from the west, blowing Coop eastward.

Unfortunately, Clyde is a true believer in Wolfie Gossett, despite the fact that Clyde told me that Wolf was the 'biggest bullshit artist I have ever met."

It's possible they might in the area of the gorge, but it's a distance from the the path. it's basically flat lands.

It appears a lot of these guys are characters, Cossey, Teddy, Rackstraw, and Peterson. seems a lot of people are misguided by there humor?

georger · « **Reply #1381 on:** August 31, 2016, 12:51:05 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Meyer Louie and others at the 2011 Symposium directly refute Clyde's theory that the winds were coming from the east through the Gorge and blowing Cooper westward. They say winds from the west, blowing Coop eastward.

Unfortunately, Clyde is a true believer in Wolfie Gossett, despite the fact that Clyde told me that Wolf was the 'biggest bullshit artist I have ever met."

It's possible they might in the area of the gorge, but it's a distance from the the path. it's basically flat lands.

It appears a lot of these guys are characters, Cossey, Teddy, Rackstraw, and Peterson. seems a lot of people are misguided by there humor?

I dont see Cooper as a 'thrill junkie'. In fact I see him as a sedentary type who was forced to work and mix with the world when he might not have wanted to. I see him as a conflicted individual. His skill set might be secondary or even irrelevant to his motivation. I dont see him as out-going in any respect at all, but I think he was a pretty good psychologist who was able to size people up quickly and act on it for his personal self protection, then slump back into a depressive mode until the next call to action came up!

Mack · « **Reply #1382 on:** August 31, 2016, 12:52:40 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Soon, too, I think we will develop a framework for why the crew have such inconsistent memories. That'll require digging more deeply in the protocols of 1971 at the NSA, etc. How did the upper echelon of government view Norjak? What was the best outcome from their point of view? Were their agendas satisfied?

Also, we need to keep the pressure on the FBI. One day they might crack.

Bruce: are you just keeping all options open here or do you really suspect a government plot?

Looking forward to reading about more developments in the coming months.

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #1383 on:** August 31, 2016, 02:24:32 PM »

I like to think that I'm keeping all options open.

Do I think a governmental cover-up is at play? I lean in that direction, but I haven't drunk too much of that Kool-Aid, although I do have a few extra gallons in reserve to serve to 377, Georger, and Robert99, and a few others here....

Win Edson · « **Reply #1384 on:** September 02, 2016, 03:51:24 PM »

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the add Shutter!

I think I'm like most people here who believe that it's highly probable that none of the current list of suspects are Dan Cooper. The only one I'm interested in at the moment is Wolfgang Gossett.

I've seen interviews with his wife and statements from his sons. Have they ever given any information concerning their fathers whereabouts on and around the skyjacking date? And did Gossett have any criminal record?

The fact that Gossett didn't leave the military until 1973 is the main reason I don't think he did it. In my mind, if you skyjack a plane, then you've got plans on either leaving the country, or becoming a recluse somewhere safe. (This is also the issue with the Christianson hypothesis, he went back to work..)

Also, how many people here think that the 'Dan Cooper' alias is related to the french comic book? (Dan and Cooper are very ubiquitous names, so they could have easily been picked at random)

Question for Bruce Smith- Is the second edition of your book available in kindle yet? I just read your article about your experiences in remote viewing and found it fascinating. I know it's a controversial topic, but there is definitely science behind it, and our government wouldn't have dedicated so much time and money to developing it if there wasn't something there.

Thanks in advance,
Win

georger · « **Reply #1385 on:** September 02, 2016, 05:03:02 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the add Shutter!

I think I'm like most people here who believe that it's highly probable that none of the current list of suspects are Dan Cooper. The only one I'm interested in at the moment is Wolfgang Gossett.

I've seen interviews with his wife and statements from his sons. Have they ever given any information concerning their fathers whereabouts on and around the skyjacking date? And did Gossett have any criminal record?

The fact that Gossett didn't leave the military until 1973 is the main reason I don't think he did it. In my mind, if you skyjack a plane, then you've got plans on either leaving the country, or becoming a recluse somewhere safe. (This is also the issue with the Christianson hypothesis, he went back to work..)

Also, how many people here think that the 'Dan Cooper' alias is related to the french comic book? (Dan and Cooper are very ubiquitous names, so they could have easily been picked at random)

Question for Bruce Smith- Is the second edition of your book available in kindle yet? I just read your article about your experiences in remote viewing and found it fascinating. I know it's a controversial topic, but there is definitely science behind it, and our government wouldn't have dedicated so much time and money to developing it if there wasn't something there.

Thanks in advance,
Win

there is definitely science behind it = remote seeing

What science would that be?

377 · « **Reply #1386 on:** September 02, 2016, 05:42:49 PM »

Win Edson wrote: I just read your article about your experiences in remote viewing and found it fascinating. I know it's a controversial topic, but there is definitely science behind it, and our government wouldn't have dedicated so much time and money to developing it if there wasn't something there.

Not one shred of valid experimental evidence exists to support the validity of remote viewing claims. It turned out to be a waste of government money and it could have been easily avoided by a few cheap properly designed and conducted preliminary experiments. I wish remote viewing worked, but it just doesn't. I have no doubt that Bruce is sincere in his beliefs and that he "sees" things in his remote viewing experiences, but they aren't reality.

377

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #1387 on:** September 02, 2016, 07:06:08 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

...Question for Bruce Smith- Is the second edition of your book available in kindle yet? I just read your article about your experiences in remote viewing and found it fascinating. I know it's a controversial topic, but there is definitely science behind it, and our government wouldn't have dedicated so much time and money to developing it if there wasn't something there...

WIN! Where have you been? After YEARS of taking shit about remote viewing, finally a Forum poster steps up and says, "maybe."

Thanks.

Yes, the 2nd Edition is available in Kindle. In fact, it is the only edition available in either hard copy or E-Book. First Edition is gone.

Other thoughts:
1. I'm not a big fan of a comic book connection to DB Cooper.
2. Gossett's story is told in full by John Craig, but finding copies - only digital are available - is tough. I give a link in my book. Wolf was never arrested and convicted as far as I know, but he worked with LE and the FBI extensively after his discharge from the military, and was given a commendation for his help in lost people recovery, using what I believe is remote viewing techniques (!)

Relatedly, Clyde Lewis of Ground Zero Radio describes Wolfie as a gifted psychic, based on his own personal interactions with him. He also calls Wolfie the "biggest bullshit artist I have ever met."

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #1388 on:** September 02, 2016, 07:12:31 PM »

Uh, oh, Win. The Dogma Police are on your scent. Perhaps you can throw them off by referring them to IONS, the Institute of Noetic Sciences, or the PEAR project at Princeton.

The Field, by Lynn McTaggart is a good primer on the science.

Shutter · « **Reply #1389 on:** September 02, 2016, 07:21:53 PM »

Quote

Thanks for the add Shutter!

I seen your response on You Tube, so I looked and found your membership, and approved it (obviously) sorry for the delay. good call in using You Tube

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #1390 on:** September 02, 2016, 09:01:03 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

...there is definitely science behind it = remote seeing...

What science would that be?

The Science of Consciousness, often referenced as the New Physics.

As I've stated in the past, the New Physics is the Old Physics with one added dimension: how does consciousness, thought, attitudes and expectation shape physical reality?

If the Agents of Dogmatic Purity would like to research this subject in a one-stop type of educational shopping, Deepak Chopra has a lot to say on the subject and is generally understandable to the American Mind. He appears to be amenable answering to serious questions from the general public. He lives in So. Cal. Give him a call!

But if you want a more incisive analysis from a common Western Scientist, Nobel Laureate Sir Roger Penrose is very succinct on consciousness, saying that any theory of the physical world that does not include consciousness as a determining factor, "is incomplete."

The following is a brief clip from my upcoming book: The Science of Consciousness - A Introduction to the New Physics:

"... the noted British mathematician and physicist, Sir Roger Penrose, says that science must study consciousness, and he declares:

“A scientific world-view which does not profoundly come to terms with the problem of conscious minds can have no serious pretensions of completeness. Consciousness is part of the universe, so any physical theory which makes no proper place for it falls fundamentally short of providing a genuine description of the world.” (1)

And

“….questions of mind, though they lie very uncomfortably with present-day scientific understanding, should not be regarded as being forever outside the realms of science.” (2)

These quotes are from Sir Roger's book on the subject.

But if you want to be entertained as you get some education - Watch A Movie! This is the best one: "What the Bleep do We Know!? - Further Down the Rabbit Hole."

Save me a seat, and I'll bring the popcorn.

Win Edson · « **Reply #1391 on:** September 03, 2016, 04:15:47 AM »

Thanks for that Bruce, I'll purchase a copy of your book today, really looking forward to it!

As for my statement about remote viewing- in hindsight I didn't pick my words wisely. (I alluded that remote viewing has been proven scientifically, not my intent)

My thinking is based on some of the current theories of quantum physics (by some of the most respected scientists of today) concepts like multiple universes, time travel, and how consciousness affects reality are all being published in scientific journals. My belief is that the world we live in is a lot stranger (and exciting) then we probably can imagine. I recommend a book entitled 'The Holographic Universe' by Michael Talbot. Really gets you thinking.

There's a saying I read once that goes something like, 'A mind is like a parachute, if it's not open, then it's simply not working.' (good analogy for this forum!)

I've got a lot more questions about the case, but they probably should go in the 'clues' thread, so I'll post there when time permits.

Thanks, Win

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #1392 on:** September 03, 2016, 03:50:27 PM »

I wouldn't say that remote viewing has not yet been proven scientifically. A more complete statement would be that certain aspects of remote viewing have been identified scientifically, and some of the underlying processes established sufficiently enough to develop protocols for working programs. Hence, the Stargate program, which reported a 20% success rate.

Nobody I know believes the Stargate program was "decommissioned" because remote viewing doesn't work. The real reason, in the eyes of many participants, such Dr. Hal Putoff, is that the program was too problematic for Bill Clinton to support politically.

This problem of cutting edge science being too hotsy-totsy for the American People to swallow is present in other woo-woo-ish programs, such as antigravity research. Author Nick Cook, the Aviation Editor for Jane's Defence Weekly, has written an excellent book on the subject of antigravity research AND its concomitant political realities. To wit: NASA calls its antigravity research Breakthrough Propulsion Physics, or BPP, and nobody blinks. A little smoke and mirrors can go a long way to keep one's funding stream flowing.

Yes, Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe is wonderful. When I first came to the Ramtha school, my girl friend and I would take turns reading it out loud to the other as we lay in bed.

Win Edson · « **Reply #1393 on:** September 03, 2016, 04:29:14 PM »

The Hunt For Zero Point is a great book, a real pager turner! As Nick Hunt points out, in the 1950s anti-gravity was the next big hurdle science was going to take overcome. But by the late 1960s/70s the word had become taboo, and now it's relegated to fringe science.

Bruce- I've just finished a book entitled 'Defying Gravity: The Parallel Universe of T. Townsend Brown'. Are you familiar with it? (your remote viewing episode with the military top secret man reminded me of one of the (real-life) characters in this book)

To the others- sorry for straying off topic.

A little while back I read here about a theory concerning Sheridan Peterson as a suspect. While he had blue eyes, someone speculated that he could have had colored contacts, and this is why he was wearing the wrap around sunglasses toward the end of the flight. This actually makes a lot of sense to me as I've always been a bit baffled why Cooper starting wearing the sunglasses at the end. Also, was the olive skin a disguise too (like Richard McCoy's disguise attempt) Could Cooper have had blonde hair, and dyed it? Little changes could go a long way...

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #1394 on:** September 03, 2016, 05:39:24 PM »

I haven't read T. Townsend Brown's book, nor do I know a great deal about his work - just a little when I was writing about "lifters," those funny little drone-like gizmos that fly off of some kind of electrostatic propulsive effect.

For those interested, my writing on ag is posted at the MN, and includes the lifter material.

Author Topic: Suspects And Confessions (Read 1637984 times)

Shutter

Re: Suspects And Confessions

georger

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Mack

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Bruce A. Smith

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Win Edson

Re: Suspects And Confessions

georger

Re: Suspects And Confessions

377

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Bruce A. Smith

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Bruce A. Smith

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Shutter

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Bruce A. Smith

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Win Edson

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Bruce A. Smith

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Win Edson

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Bruce A. Smith

Re: Suspects And Confessions