mrshutter45 21
"That is what I am asking you. How did you do it?"
Is this what you are looking for???
Note was sent to the LA Times on Dec 14 1971...supposedly from D.B. Cooper.
I believe below is the decoded message. IT does NOT work with random numbers.
It is done in patterns - like smilies w/eyes he uses 7 as the turn around number because it was the month his life would forever be changed - he became an outcast from his family and unemployable - he had no choice but to become a career criminal...
7698QA2753 (the code provided to the paper from Cooper).
I am repeating this because I got the last 2 number turned around when I typed it into the thread a long time ago.
Army 35608905
Navy 283-56-96
Example use the Navy number
283-56-96 versus -
7698QA2753
July was the 7th month and the day the he was dismissed as an undesirable. Why 7 is the turn around number.
96 last 2 #'s in Navy #'s
Use 7 and reverse 96 to 69
gives you 7 69.
Use the same on the last two number of the code - 53 becomes 35 after the turn around number.
giving you 7 53
now you have 7 69 and 7 53
Q is Question - A is Answer.
The 8 and the 2 reversed are the 1st 2 number of his Navy number
This equates to 769 8 QA 2 753.
The same system works on his Army number.
35608905
7698QA2753
3560 - 8905
Reverse 35 to get 53
Reverse 89 to get 98
so now you have
xx98QAxx 53
July is 7th month
7x98QAx753 versu
left
x6xxQA2xx
2 is the first number of the Navy
6 is the last number of the Navy
reverse their order
7698QA2753
Is this what you are looking for???
Note was sent to the LA Times on Dec 14 1971...supposedly from D.B. Cooper.
I believe below is the decoded message. IT does NOT work with random numbers.
It is done in patterns - like smilies w/eyes he uses 7 as the turn around number because it was the month his life would forever be changed - he became an outcast from his family and unemployable - he had no choice but to become a career criminal...
7698QA2753 (the code provided to the paper from Cooper).
I am repeating this because I got the last 2 number turned around when I typed it into the thread a long time ago.
Army 35608905
Navy 283-56-96
Example use the Navy number
283-56-96 versus -
7698QA2753
July was the 7th month and the day the he was dismissed as an undesirable. Why 7 is the turn around number.
96 last 2 #'s in Navy #'s
Use 7 and reverse 96 to 69
gives you 7 69.
Use the same on the last two number of the code - 53 becomes 35 after the turn around number.
giving you 7 53
now you have 7 69 and 7 53
Q is Question - A is Answer.
The 8 and the 2 reversed are the 1st 2 number of his Navy number
This equates to 769 8 QA 2 753.
The same system works on his Army number.
35608905
7698QA2753
3560 - 8905
Reverse 35 to get 53
Reverse 89 to get 98
so now you have
xx98QAxx 53
July is 7th month
7x98QAx753 versu
left
x6xxQA2xx
2 is the first number of the Navy
6 is the last number of the Navy
reverse their order
7698QA2753
"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI
Quote
Blevins, I never cease to be amazed at how you can ignore information that contradicts your version of events. You are right up there with Jo Weber on this point.
Well, NO one is up here with Jo Weber. This has been a very very strange day - the things I learned today define logic.
1.
Since 1996 I have repeated over and over my story about Duane's nightmare of 1978 about leaving his prints on the plane - and his blood curdling scream.
"I left my prints aft stairs" and then "I'm Going to DIE!" as he reached up into the air awakening from a nighmare with a blood curdling scream.
His explanation was the aft stairs was from jail - I didn't know any better - but, was shocked by the jail - thing. He quickly said it was the stairs in a jail - and told me he had spent a short time in a jail - made like it was a minor time and just getting into trouble with a couple of guys. I was given the impression it was from when he was a young man.
Then I put it out of my mind. I had NO reason to mistrust him.
This was told to the FBI and Himmelsbach in 1996 by me.
Then yrs later suddenly Cook has Gossett is talking to a Judge about leaving prints on a plane. Note that Cook contacted me prior to 2004 and that is when I received my first and only written communication (letter) from him (in later yrs we exchange emails).This written communication was to extract Tina's location from me....and when he called me he claimed I promised him Tina's location in exchange for the pic of his subject. That pic was NOT a pic of any subject and this was yrs before he got a phone call from Gossett's son on a radio station. 2.
Today I experienced yet another hijacking.
Has anyone ever heard anything regarding a relationship between Max Gunther and KC?
Well, I have communications between Max and myself - dating from 1996 - but, I recently heard that it is claimed KC was in touch with Max. I asked it they had any proof of this - of course, Not!
Just more of Jo's story hijacked, except JO has the proof of her contacts and conversations with Max. Frankly I believe Galen Cook is behind this yet KC is Blevins' subject.
WHY would they stoop to using my stories for their subjects? This becomes weirder and weirder as time goes on. Why would an attorney and a writer stoop this low! If they are writing a book can they not be ORIGINAL?. Why hijack research and material from a woman who has been talking about this since 1996.
Cook had to be handed a clue about Tina on a silver platter. Me telling him what STATE to look for the divorce papers - after YOU guys claimed to have talked to Tina's ex. When the supposed interview with Tina's
ex was put on the thread I laughed till I couldn't breath...it was not too long after that when Sluggo took exit of the thread on a regular basis.
An ANGEL provided me with Tina's location and phone number before 2004. I did NOT want to intrude in on her life and felt she had been harmed enough. Several month later I would pick up the phone and call her. I left a message and then she would later call me back. One of 4 messages I have left with Tina since 2004.
Those of you who follow this thread know I warned her about Cook finding her (I felt responsible) and that I put the co-pilot in-touch with her by leaving her a message with his contact number and his secret message to her. All I did was leave messages - the only time she contacted me was in respones to the 1st call and I respected her privacy.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
I can actually hear an echo in this thread tonight! If I participate in one more weird communication before I go to bed - I will have a heart attack.
If you do not get the CODE maybe it is because I am not explaining it correctly, but it is a code for his Navy and Army number -with the 7 as the turn around number. Remember I knew nothing about his ARMY record until Weber's past was revealed to me by the brother...that is when I got the army number. Hell the FBI had it wrong - remember they claimed it belonged to WAVY GREENE!
Am I stupid or crazy or off my rocker? I am NOT connecting dots that do not connect like some who post to this thread.
I may be an old lady, but I was not old when I started - 17yrs ago. I am NOT going down without an explanation from the FBI that makes sense and the FBI proves or explains why I am mistaken or how they have made their mistakes regarding the past of Weber. Weber could NOT be in 2 places at one time.
How has the FBI explained the mistakes the Agent of record made as late as 2000. They either can't or won't.
We ask ourselves WHY America has endangered relationships with other nations.
This thread is an excellent example of WHY. We do not work together and the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Some things cannot be weighed and then judged on a computer - it takes objective human intervention. A computer has NO human objectivtiy.
If you do not get the CODE maybe it is because I am not explaining it correctly, but it is a code for his Navy and Army number -with the 7 as the turn around number. Remember I knew nothing about his ARMY record until Weber's past was revealed to me by the brother...that is when I got the army number. Hell the FBI had it wrong - remember they claimed it belonged to WAVY GREENE!
Am I stupid or crazy or off my rocker? I am NOT connecting dots that do not connect like some who post to this thread.
I may be an old lady, but I was not old when I started - 17yrs ago. I am NOT going down without an explanation from the FBI that makes sense and the FBI proves or explains why I am mistaken or how they have made their mistakes regarding the past of Weber. Weber could NOT be in 2 places at one time.
How has the FBI explained the mistakes the Agent of record made as late as 2000. They either can't or won't.
We ask ourselves WHY America has endangered relationships with other nations.
This thread is an excellent example of WHY. We do not work together and the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Some things cannot be weighed and then judged on a computer - it takes objective human intervention. A computer has NO human objectivtiy.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
georger 197
QuoteQuoteQuoteJo,
To change the subject a bit:
Speaking of Duane, I just visited YouTube and watched, for a second time, the series by SafecrackingPLF: DB Cooper: Through the Lense of Logic (TTLOL), where he uses statistical principles (quite liberally I might add) and Occam's Razor to develop his 3 paradoxes, 7 possible solutions, and his choice for solution to the DBC case: Cooper survives, places the money somewhere, then 7+ years later puts the money in the river. SafecrackingPLF goes through the list of possible suspects (there are so many), and then he says that of all the suspects, Duane Weber is the one suspect who best fits his solution requirements.
I'm sure you have heard of or seen the SafecrackingPLF series, and SafecrackingPLF says he used to visit the DZ.
Toward the end of each episode of the series, he appears with Mr. H, so I'm guessing he's FBI. Do you know the true identity of SafecrackingPFL? He looks familiar, but I may be wrong. I know Occam's Razor has been discussed here, before my time, but I would like to get your take, and who this guy is.
MeyerLouie
I believe he works for the county - Planning &
Zoning, something like that. Safe may have been
the one who concocted the fake money find - using
modern twenties no less. Was kind of funny. It was
covered here - do a search.
Logic? No. Just Safe's version of informal logic - he
picked the idea up somewhere. His intentions were
good but his results were meaningless and full of
contradictions. For one thing, Safe had but a few of
the real-world logical options covered in the
premises he made - but he loves to make videos.
Nice young man. It sounded good while it lasted -
he had Ckret going !
Well, this should be fun.
MeyerLouie, there are unnamed people I mention in that video series. People I call "Cooper Enthusiasts" that have been on this forum for years spinning their wheels. Meet Georger, KING ENTHUSIAST.
He likes to throw dung on the wall to see if it sticks. He also likes to make assumptions and incorrect premises and hypotheses. I'll confess, I've done it too when I foolishly thought he was Skip, LOL... but that's how long I've been away from here and really don't follow (what's there to follow?)
1. I do not live in the NW any longer and have never concocted a fake money find. I did happen to view a youtube video where someone was claiming to have found money in a tree - I called BS in a comment that I left. Perhaps this is where this opinion comes from?
Yeah, I use a lot of informal logic. I also use knowledge from all sorts of areas. My personal opinion on this case is that there are too many things to hold in the memory for a single person to unscramble unless they know the evidence backwards and forwards. There are also plenty of biases and attribution errors that people make - which adds up to a lot of stupidity.
The thought like I like to make videos, not really - but how else do I explain some fairly complicated lines of reasoning?
I've been meaning to do another series but simply do not have the time. The next series, if or when I do it, will not take the step back and examine the evidence approach that I used in TTLOL.
It boils down to mathematics really.
You have a choice. Accept the evidence as it is and then deal with one of 7 potential solutions, or challenge the evidence and deal with the three paradoxes as I called them.
One way gets you there fairly quickly (under 10 years). The other gives you something to do day after day with nothing to show for it.
The law of parsimony ought to be followed as best as can be for a simple reason... for every less than 1 probability you introduce, you reduce the odds of your scenario.
The particular choice I said most closely resembled the evidence not only explains the evidence, but also includes the fewest entities (variables as I call them) - each of which would have less than 1 probability. Mathematically speaking, that's the choice you ought to favor.
But I can (but won't for now due to time) go much much further into that choice.
There's a reason why I made a blank bet on this forum more than a year ago. No one had the conviction to take me up on it. It's really simple, put up some money that your guy did it. I say he didn't do it. There's only one guy you're not allowed to bet me - and even if I bet against him, they still can't put him on the plane, so it's an easy sure thing. Perhaps that's why people would rather write books about their father, uncles, etc on pure speculation. Where is Marla Cooper? Geez, what a fraud that was (and that was the moment I made the bet)
Ckret (or agent L. Carr), FWIW, couldn't follow my train of thought down this path. I tried. I never ever "had him going". That's laughable actually.
Well that was cruel, so well let me throw this out and
see if it sticks to the wall
Did anyone understand a single thing he might have
said, or may be saying, or may say in the future ?
Mathematics? Or Marvel Safe-logic Comics ?
These geniuses with their supposed special tricks
and NEW methods are really beginning to get under
my skin: Safecracking, this is RobertMBlevins.
RobertMBlevins, let me introduce SafecrackingPLF.
Get a trailer and discuss transfinite modulus as it
applies to the Cooper Maldum Fornax!
Rumpelstiltskin, this is Dropzone. An online Casino
for Cooperites. Place your bets -
The odds are - logical metaphors overlayed on the
issues or variables involved in the Cooper case,
cannot reveal or supply anything new or unique,
which 'common ordinary English' cannot.
Does that make sense? Is my sentence above
comprehensible?
In other words, putting a sheep skin on a goat -
the object still behaves like a goat, because IT IS
a goat! Is that a probabilistically true-proposition?
I suppose it depends on the sex of the goat!
But, the application of supposed formalisms (logic?)
Safe devises to the Cooper case, as he sees it, does
not guarantee any special outcome, which could not
have been arrived at by the use of common ordinary
language (English) and fingers and toes ... in the
first place.
If that is not true, I would like to see an example of
it -
If that is what SafecrackingPLF means by "throwing
dung against the wall", then so be it.
Im dissappointed in the young Arstotle who has not
resolved the flight path or the money at Tena Bar
by his logical cabalism, et cetera ...
Maybe SafecrackingPLF can remind us, or illustrate
for us, something (anything!) he discovered in the
Cooper case using his "logical method", which had
not been known before ... or still isn't known or
realised ?
A=B iff C/NXy^2 [RSVP] + RB/NOP [x] ...
= [the Tena Bar money came from Pluto] ?
.thumb.JPG.e3961c3b7e4427878bb877a252be4a17.JPG)
QuoteQuoteJo,
To change the subject a bit:
Speaking of Duane, I just visited YouTube and watched, for a second time, the series by SafecrackingPLF: DB Cooper: Through the Lense of Logic (TTLOL), where he uses statistical principles (quite liberally I might add) and Occam's Razor to develop his 3 paradoxes, 7 possible solutions, and his choice for solution to the DBC case: Cooper survives, places the money somewhere, then 7+ years later puts the money in the river. SafecrackingPLF goes through the list of possible suspects (there are so many), and then he says that of all the suspects, Duane Weber is the one suspect who best fits his solution requirements.
I'm sure you have heard of or seen the SafecrackingPLF series, and SafecrackingPLF says he used to visit the DZ.
Toward the end of each episode of the series, he appears with Mr. H, so I'm guessing he's FBI. Do you know the true identity of SafecrackingPFL? He looks familiar, but I may be wrong. I know Occam's Razor has been discussed here, before my time, but I would like to get your take, and who this guy is.
MeyerLouie
I believe he works for the county - Planning &
Zoning, something like that. Safe may have been
the one who concocted the fake money find - using
modern twenties no less. Was kind of funny. It was
covered here - do a search.
Logic? No. Just Safe's version of informal logic - he
picked the idea up somewhere. His intentions were
good but his results were meaningless and full of
contradictions. For one thing, Safe had but a few of
the real-world logical options covered in the
premises he made - but he loves to make videos.
Nice young man. It sounded good while it lasted -
he had Ckret going !
Thanks Georger for the information...I know, I need to do a search, I won't ask folks here to cover ground that's already been covered. Safe's series was certainly an interesting read, I was definitely entertained. He did know a lot about the case. True, there were contradictions. I take an interest in statistical applications -- I teach an Intro to Stats course at a community college. Safe certainly took some liberties, but he certainly understands the empirical rule and the basic notions of linear regression. You have to applaud the guy for taking it on -- all those videos must have been a major undertaking. MeyerLouie
QuoteQuoteQuoteJo,
To change the subject a bit:
Speaking of Duane, I just visited YouTube and watched, for a second time, the series by SafecrackingPLF: DB Cooper: Through the Lense of Logic (TTLOL), where he uses statistical principles (quite liberally I might add) and Occam's Razor to develop his 3 paradoxes, 7 possible solutions, and his choice for solution to the DBC case: Cooper survives, places the money somewhere, then 7+ years later puts the money in the river. SafecrackingPLF goes through the list of possible suspects (there are so many), and then he says that of all the suspects, Duane Weber is the one suspect who best fits his solution requirements.
I'm sure you have heard of or seen the SafecrackingPLF series, and SafecrackingPLF says he used to visit the DZ.
Toward the end of each episode of the series, he appears with Mr. H, so I'm guessing he's FBI. Do you know the true identity of SafecrackingPFL? He looks familiar, but I may be wrong. I know Occam's Razor has been discussed here, before my time, but I would like to get your take, and who this guy is.
MeyerLouie
I believe he works for the county - Planning &
Zoning, something like that. Safe may have been
the one who concocted the fake money find - using
modern twenties no less. Was kind of funny. It was
covered here - do a search.
Logic? No. Just Safe's version of informal logic - he
picked the idea up somewhere. His intentions were
good but his results were meaningless and full of
contradictions. For one thing, Safe had but a few of
the real-world logical options covered in the
premises he made - but he loves to make videos.
Nice young man. It sounded good while it lasted -
he had Ckret going !
Well, this should be fun.
MeyerLouie, there are unnamed people I mention in that video series. People I call "Cooper Enthusiasts" that have been on this forum for years spinning their wheels. Meet Georger, KING ENTHUSIAST.
He likes to throw dung on the wall to see if it sticks. He also likes to make assumptions and incorrect premises and hypotheses. I'll confess, I've done it too when I foolishly thought he was Skip, LOL... but that's how long I've been away from here and really don't follow (what's there to follow?)
1. I do not live in the NW any longer and have never concocted a fake money find. I did happen to view a youtube video where someone was claiming to have found money in a tree - I called BS in a comment that I left. Perhaps this is where this opinion comes from?
Yeah, I use a lot of informal logic. I also use knowledge from all sorts of areas. My personal opinion on this case is that there are too many things to hold in the memory for a single person to unscramble unless they know the evidence backwards and forwards. There are also plenty of biases and attribution errors that people make - which adds up to a lot of stupidity.
The thought like I like to make videos, not really - but how else do I explain some fairly complicated lines of reasoning?
I've been meaning to do another series but simply do not have the time. The next series, if or when I do it, will not take the step back and examine the evidence approach that I used in TTLOL.
It boils down to mathematics really.
You have a choice. Accept the evidence as it is and then deal with one of 7 potential solutions, or challenge the evidence and deal with the three paradoxes as I called them.
One way gets you there fairly quickly (under 10 years). The other gives you something to do day after day with nothing to show for it.
The law of parsimony ought to be followed as best as can be for a simple reason... for every less than 1 probability you introduce, you reduce the odds of your scenario.
The particular choice I said most closely resembled the evidence not only explains the evidence, but also includes the fewest entities (variables as I call them) - each of which would have less than 1 probability. Mathematically speaking, that's the choice you ought to favor.
But I can (but won't for now due to time) go much much further into that choice.
There's a reason why I made a blank bet on this forum more than a year ago. No one had the conviction to take me up on it. It's really simple, put up some money that your guy did it. I say he didn't do it. There's only one guy you're not allowed to bet me - and even if I bet against him, they still can't put him on the plane, so it's an easy sure thing. Perhaps that's why people would rather write books about their father, uncles, etc on pure speculation. Where is Marla Cooper? Geez, what a fraud that was (and that was the moment I made the bet)
Ckret (or agent L. Carr), FWIW, couldn't follow my train of thought down this path. I tried. I never ever "had him going". That's laughable actually.
Nice to hear from you, SafecrackingPLF. I understand about the anonymity issue, I just thought since some folks on the DZ know each other by their real names, someone might know your real name. Not necessary to know.
Your TTLOL series must have been a major undertaking, I applaud your efforts. I enjoyed the series, twice. I am always intrigued by how folks apply statistical logic and mathematics -- it's what I do, I'm a college math teacher.
No one's perfect; granted, you took some liberties, but you took on something that very few folks would even dare.
I was definitely intrigued by your application of the the normal curve/empirical rule to the timeframe for the Tena Bar money find the year before discovery(your discovery and money axioms), and the third paradox about the Tena Bar money: the money must have traveled in the money bag v. the money couldn't have traveled in the money bag. That's the one that's got me thinking.
If you create something new in the future, I'll check it out for sure. Best wishes.
MeyerLouie
Safe Crack states:
Quote
It boils down to mathematics really.
You have a choice. Accept the evidence as it is and then deal with one of 7 potential solutions, or challenge the evidence and deal with the three paradoxes as I called them.
I did NOT have a problem following Safecrack and I am just a dumb stupid old woman. When one is born and raised on a farm - you have to use common sense and approach situations logically - something that seems to be lacking in the newer generations. SafeCrack states:
QuoteOne way gets you there fairly quickly (under 10 years). The other gives you something to do day after day with nothing to show for it.
The law of parsimony ought to be followed as best as can be for a simple reason... for every less than 1 probability you introduce, you reduce the odds of your scenario.
I did NOT know what parsimony meant, but I got the reasoning behind what he was saying.
SafeCrack states:
QuoteMathematically speaking, that's the choice you ought to favor.
MeyerLouie stated:
QuoteI am always intrigued by how folks apply statistical logic and mathematics -- it's what I do, I'm a college math teacher.
No one's perfect; granted, you took some liberties, but you took on something that very few folks would even dare.
I was definitely intrigued by your application of the the normal curve/empirical rule to the timeframe for the Tena Bar money find the year before discovery(your discovery and money axioms), and the third paradox about the Tena Bar money: the money must have traveled in the money bag v. the money couldn't have traveled in the money bag. That's the one that's got me thinking.
If you create something new in the future, I'll check it out for sure.
Georger lets his emotions get in his way. I believe Georger knows a lot about the case - but, for some reason he lets too much bias and the opinion of others stand in his way. So do I.
SafeCrack approaches the case like it a mathematical problem and sets out to provide some probable answers. The rest of us (for the most part)are too emotional or trying to make a case for a specific subject or just simply do not have the mental abilities to do what Safecrack does.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
georger 197
Your TTLOL series must have been a major I am always intrigued by how folks apply statistical logic and mathematics -- it's what I do, I'm a college math teacher.
No one's perfect; granted, you took some liberties, but you took on something that very few folks would even dare.
No one's perfect; granted, you took some liberties, but you took on something that very few folks would even dare.
My objection to Safe's socalled 'statistical logic'
is that it is neither statistical or logic/logical! In fact,
it is anything but logical and there is literally nothing
in his cocktail of truths to be statistical with, that any
level.
You can see this by simply watching any of his
videos and noticing how quickly he becomes bogged
down in his own polemics, because he makes a lot
of assumptions that are simply false, or incomplete,
unknown, or unknowable.
Here are but two examples in an endless list of such
suppositions Safe makes, which he calls 'premises'!
(1) "Nothing was found within 1 square foot of the Ingram find, and nowhere else".
True?
(2) "The Tena Bar money involves money that was either in a bag, or not in a bag".
True? Are these the only options?
I could list another twenty examples of similar
suppositions Safe makes; on which he then claims
to perform a logical matching and reduction.
He even goes so far as to attach probabilities to the
suppositions he choses. Well if the actual number of
known options available at some point in his logic
are say 4-6, and Safe has only chosen 2, how
accurate can his estimates of probabilities of 1 and
2 be, if 3,4,5, and 6 are excluded?
The other (better) alternativbe is to look for actual
forensic evidence. If you want to know if a money
bag was ever on Tena Bar, look for money bag
fibres vs. performing mix n match voodoo with
concepts?
Maybe the Ingram money arrived at Tena Bar in a
brief case! That is one option based on evidence.
Safecracking does not include that option in his list
of assumptions, at all.
In one video Safe states 'the Cooper flight was the
most-watched flight .. ever', or something akin to
that. Having blithly stated that Safe goes on to draw
a number of very firm 'logical' conclusions, then
weighs those options, assigns probabilities to each
... while his original premise may be false or just
incomplete and insufficient!
And Safe repeats this drumbeat of imprecision over
the whole course of his videos.
I just think he should spend more time on forensics
and actual evidence gathering and less time on
making videos, as a promotional affair for a resume
in his job search!
Farflung 0
Wild ass assumptions and colossal leaps of logic are nothing new regarding the Cooper tale. The ‘Lens of Logic’ video supplies a premise that the money bag will burst open after hitting the ground in freefall. Really? As if guided by some bizarre and freaky compulsion, I decided to glance briefly at a…… case study. Why are case studies constantly victims of neglect on this thread? Anyway, Martin McNally jumped with over half a million in cash and was separated from his money sack. Therefore it burst open just like Cooper’s; right? Or was his bag discovered, in one piece, by a farmer some days later? Hmmm, it’s a hassle to look that up so I’m just going to make a broad sweeping conclusion based upon my bias.
Hey! You know Cooper was probably in the military because he selected a ‘military’ chute! Damn right Sheriff. You know he was in the military because he asked for the money to be delivered in a knapsack, because that’s what military personnel use to carry things…. Knapsacks. Never A-3s or duffel bags, but knapsacks and camouflage lederhosen. It is all based upon logic because I put that word in the title.
OK people, let’s polka!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQRzTtkIP64
When I go a hijacking, along the airline’s track.
And as I jump, I love this thing;
My knapsack on my back.
Hey! You know Cooper was probably in the military because he selected a ‘military’ chute! Damn right Sheriff. You know he was in the military because he asked for the money to be delivered in a knapsack, because that’s what military personnel use to carry things…. Knapsacks. Never A-3s or duffel bags, but knapsacks and camouflage lederhosen. It is all based upon logic because I put that word in the title.
OK people, let’s polka!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQRzTtkIP64
When I go a hijacking, along the airline’s track.
And as I jump, I love this thing;
My knapsack on my back.
Quote
Blevins, I never cease to be amazed at how you can ignore information that contradicts your version of events. You are right up there with Jo Weber on this point.
Robert99
YOUR opinion BASED on WHAT you know or are willing to admit!
Should anyone accept opinions - C0MING from an individual who accepts or THINKS Wikipedia is actual research and is authenticated. GIMME A BREAK!
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
Well, this should be fun.
MeyerLouie, there are unnamed people I mention in that video series. People I call "Cooper Enthusiasts" that have been on this forum for years spinning their wheels. Meet Georger, KING ENTHUSIAST.
He likes to throw dung on the wall to see if it sticks. He also likes to make assumptions and incorrect premises and hypotheses. I'll confess, I've done it too when I foolishly thought he was Skip, LOL... but that's how long I've been away from here and really don't follow (what's there to follow?)
1. I do not live in the NW any longer and have never concocted a fake money find. I did happen to view a youtube video where someone was claiming to have found money in a tree - I called BS in a comment that I left. Perhaps this is where this opinion comes from?
Yeah, I use a lot of informal logic. I also use knowledge from all sorts of areas. My personal opinion on this case is that there are too many things to hold in the memory for a single person to unscramble unless they know the evidence backwards and forwards. There are also plenty of biases and attribution errors that people make - which adds up to a lot of stupidity.
The thought like I like to make videos, not really - but how else do I explain some fairly complicated lines of reasoning?
I've been meaning to do another series but simply do not have the time. The next series, if or when I do it, will not take the step back and examine the evidence approach that I used in TTLOL.
It boils down to mathematics really.
You have a choice. Accept the evidence as it is and then deal with one of 7 potential solutions, or challenge the evidence and deal with the three paradoxes as I called them.
One way gets you there fairly quickly (under 10 years). The other gives you something to do day after day with nothing to show for it.
The law of parsimony ought to be followed as best as can be for a simple reason... for every less than 1 probability you introduce, you reduce the odds of your scenario.
The particular choice I said most closely resembled the evidence not only explains the evidence, but also includes the fewest entities (variables as I call them) - each of which would have less than 1 probability. Mathematically speaking, that's the choice you ought to favor.
But I can (but won't for now due to time) go much much further into that choice.
There's a reason why I made a blank bet on this forum more than a year ago. No one had the conviction to take me up on it. It's really simple, put up some money that your guy did it. I say he didn't do it. There's only one guy you're not allowed to bet me - and even if I bet against him, they still can't put him on the plane, so it's an easy sure thing. Perhaps that's why people would rather write books about their father, uncles, etc on pure speculation. Where is Marla Cooper? Geez, what a fraud that was (and that was the moment I made the bet)
Ckret (or agent L. Carr), FWIW, couldn't follow my train of thought down this path. I tried. I never ever "had him going". That's laughable actually.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites