DB Cooper

[olemisscub 463]

Speaking of Coffelt, here is a photo of him. Photos of him are pretty hard to find. For some reason you often see Coffelt being mistakenly listed as being the guy with the glasses, who is actually Canadian Jim MacDonald, a pilot who went missing in Dec 71.

 

[FLYJACK 654]

7 hours ago, georger said:

Edward's latest - important must read. Addresses a few 'missing or redacted' crucial lines as per WSHM and explains why they might be missing, or never existed!

November 13, 2022

D. B. Cooper and Flight 305: the "shrimp boats"

 

Chaucer and Roberts both still fail to recognize that Rataczak said the call to Soderlind was in the suburbs of Portland..  that call was minutes after Cooper jumped and Soderlind was listening and taking notes which confirms the 8:10-12 estimated jump time..

Rataczak said he made the "mark your shrimp boat" transmission right away, the call to Soderlind was delayed.. the radio gap was before 8:13 so the transmission must have been prior. That indicates the jump zone timing was accurate..

Cooper did not jump over the Columbia River or south of it.

The attempt to move the jump zone South to fit TBAR has no merit, no facts or evidence..

Logic and reason only work when you get the facts right.

[georger 194]

4 hours ago, JAGdb said:

I believe suspect Jack Bryant Coffelt lived in Hawaii at the end of his life and I think died there circa 1975 time frame.  I think I remember the 302s discussing that and maybe even talking to his widow out there, but my memory is pretty fuzzy at the moment.

Thanks.  Interesting.

[CooperNWO305 146]

Any mention of D rings in the 302s? Tosaw says Cooper mentioned those. He also says Cooper handled two bourbon bottles. I can picture the bourbon coming in mini bottles. 

[georger 194]

32 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Chaucer and Roberts both still fail to recognize that Rataczak said the call to Soderlind was in the suburbs of Portland..  that call was minutes after Cooper jumped and Soderlind was listening and taking notes which confirms the 8:10-12 estimated jump time..

Rataczak said he made the "mark your shrimp boat" transmission right away, the call to Soderlind was delayed.. the radio gap was before 8:13 so the transmission must have been prior. That indicates the jump zone timing was accurate..

Cooper did not jump over the Columbia River or south of it.

The attempt to move the jump zone South to fit TBAR has no merit, no facts or evidence..

Logic and reason only work when you get the facts right.

Im not sure R99 wants the facts. Chaucer has corrected R99 over at DBCForum telling 99 not to put words in his mouth. R99 has always insisted that the Seattle to Portland part of the ATC Transcript 'should look like' the later southern part of the Transcript. That the two clusters of comms should be nearly identical. But why? R99 refuses to concede the two parts of the transcript might be different if the 'communications' were different!  If I read Edwards correctly, that is precisely what Edwards is saying - 

Likewise, WSHM never explained or elaborated 'what' lines of communication were 'missing or redacted' and why. WSHM never charged the FBI with redacting the ATC Transcript - only R99 has done that. Edwards is simply saying the socalled missing or redacted lines... never existed in the first place, to be missing or redacted! We've known all along that R99's allegations could be false. Edwards is saying that is the case.       

Edited November 14, 2022 by georger

[olemisscub 463]

40 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Any mention of D rings in the 302s? Tosaw says Cooper mentioned those. He also says Cooper handled two bourbon bottles. I can picture the bourbon coming in mini bottles. 

Only mentioned when describing the parachute rig.

 

[Robert99 37]

2 hours ago, georger said:

Im not sure R99 wants the facts. Chaucer has corrected R99 over at DBCForum telling 99 not to put words in his mouth. R99 has always insisted that the Seattle to Portland part of the ATC Transcript 'should look like' the later southern part of the Transcript. That the two clusters of comms should be nearly identical. But why? R99 refuses to concede the two parts of the transcript might be different if the 'communications' were different!  If I read Edwards correctly, that is precisely what Edwards is saying - 

Likewise, WSHM never explained or elaborated 'what' lines of communication were 'missing or redacted' and why. WSHM never charged the FBI with redacting the ATC Transcript - only R99 has done that. Edwards is simply saying the socalled missing or redacted lines... never existed in the first place, to be missing or redacted! We've known all along that R99's allegations could be false. Edwards is saying that is the case.       

Georger, this is just more of your dis-information.  You do not want facts.

NO ONE, repeat NO ONE, has ever said that the WSHM claimed that the FBI redacted the ATC transcripts.  The WSHM has done an analysis of the ARINC teletype transcripts and concluded that some of them are missing.

I will take full credit for pointing out that there are 19 redacted areas in the Seattle ATC radio transcripts.  All of those transcripts were recorded and are apparently being held by the FAA in concert with the FBI.  The FBI would be the one to do the redacting to prevent the public release of that information for investigative reasons.

And I have also pointed out repeatedly that the Oakland ATC radio transcripts are classic examples of how air traffic control worked in the 1971 time frame.

[georger 194]

12 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Georger, this is just more of your dis-information.  You do not want facts.

NO ONE, repeat NO ONE, has ever said that the WSHM claimed that the FBI redacted the ATC transcripts.  The WSHM has done an analysis of the ARINC teletype transcripts and concluded that some of them are missing.

I will take full credit for pointing out that there are 19 redacted areas in the Seattle ATC radio transcripts.  All of those transcripts were recorded and are apparently being held by the FAA in concert with the FBI.  The FBI would be the one to do the redacting to prevent the public release of that information for investigative reasons.

And I have also pointed out repeatedly that the Oakland ATC radio transcripts are classic examples of how air traffic control worked in the 1971 time frame.

R99 this is absurd. Go back and read the WSHM report again - 50 times! Good luck.

Edited November 15, 2022 by georger

[georger 194]

Its interesting to note that while WSHM states there were missing or redacted portions of their borrowed ARINC and ATC text, WSHM to my knowledge never stated 'who' made their determination, or the criteria WSHM examiner(s) used to make their determination? It still hangs over their work, like some anonymous child!

I mean, this soap opera has gone round and round and around ten thousand times with no progress being made in years!  Who advised WSHM in this critical matter? Whomever it was the person or persons remain unnamed and obscure for some reason.

Edited November 15, 2022 by georger

[georger 194]

Slow day - playing catch up - talked to a few old friends today hashing over old Cooper news - laughing about it and asking 'what's next' ?  More laughing, waiting on CooperCon22.

Still waiting on Darren Shaffer's proposed interview of: Dorwin Schreuder ? 

To a man, everyone likes Dr Edwards work, very much. Kudos to Dr Edwards, from everyone I talked to today ....

Edited November 15, 2022 by georger

[georger 194]

The latest Ulis suspect 98% certain - revealed just in time for CooperCon:   https://www.oregonlive.com/history/2022/11/new-db-cooper-suspect-revealed-through-lab-analysis-of-skyjackers-tie-just-in-time-for-coopercon.html

"Ulis admits he likes to be before the camera".  Says he is now going to try and track down "the rest of the cash".

See also:

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by georger

[georger 194]

The lab analysis found a variety of metals on the tie – most notably a unique and rare titanium alloy that Ulis’ research indicates was produced by only one company: Crucible Steel – formerly Rem-Cru Titanium.

Ulis contacted the company, now known as Crucible Industries, tracked down former employees still alive who worked there in the 1960s and ‘70s, and traveled to Pittsburgh, where Crucible Steel was located. This led Ulis to the man he now believes was probably D.B. Cooper, the late Vince Petersen – yes, the same last name, with the exception of one letter, as his previous favorite suspect.  (Oregonian)

Does Rem-Cru Titanium account for 'all' of the other rare particles found on the tie, or just one Ti-alloy particle found in the collection of particles present on the tie.?  Would the new suspect's son agree to having dna work done, with the FBI's cooperation ?  Why did Ulis go public with this prior to nailing down all of the details involved, for all concerned?   

Edited November 16, 2022 by georger

[Math of Insects 95]

1 hour ago, georger said:

The lab analysis found a variety of metals on the tie – most notably a unique and rare titanium alloy that Ulis’ research indicates was produced by only one company: Crucible Steel – formerly Rem-Cru Titanium.

Ulis contacted the company, now known as Crucible Industries, tracked down former employees still alive who worked there in the 1960s and ‘70s, and traveled to Pittsburgh, where Crucible Steel was located. This led Ulis to the man he now believes was probably D.B. Cooper, the late Vince Petersen – yes, the same last name, with the exception of one letter, as his previous favorite suspect.  (Oregonian)

Does Rem-Cru Titanium account for 'all' of the other rare particles found on the tie, or just one Ti-alloy particle found in the collection of particles present on the tie.?  Would the new suspect's son agree to having dna work done, with the FBI's cooperation ?  Why did Ulis go public with this prior to nailing down all of the details involved, for all concerned?   

It would be hard find more ways someone did not fit the Cooper profile, than the number of ways this guy does not. IMO his family is due an apology.

I have a host of issues with the use of that single particle (or any of the tie particles) as gospel, but regardless, of all the places they might lead if you decide to presume they are meaningful, this is the most far-fetched.

And your question is important: Can the rest of the particles be explained by the same environment(s) that suggest the first one? If not, it's hard to make the argument that that one's "real" while the others are meaningless. Any new suspect that follows that same single particle, will have to reckon with that question in a meaningful way.

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, georger said:

The lab analysis found a variety of metals on the tie – most notably a unique and rare titanium alloy that Ulis’ research indicates was produced by only one company: Crucible Steel – formerly Rem-Cru Titanium.

Ulis contacted the company, now known as Crucible Industries, tracked down former employees still alive who worked there in the 1960s and ‘70s, and traveled to Pittsburgh, where Crucible Steel was located. This led Ulis to the man he now believes was probably D.B. Cooper, the late Vince Petersen – yes, the same last name, with the exception of one letter, as his previous favorite suspect.  (Oregonian)

Does Rem-Cru Titanium account for 'all' of the other rare particles found on the tie, or just one Ti-alloy particle found in the collection of particles present on the tie.?  Would the new suspect's son agree to having dna work done, with the FBI's cooperation ?  Why did Ulis go public with this prior to nailing down all of the details involved, for all concerned?   

It is just Ulis's MO elevating an assumption to a fact and then claiming a conclusion.. he did with Sheridan Peterson and the media didn't learn.

The claim that those tie particles only came from Rem Cru is complete BS.

 

[georger 194]

5 hours ago, Math of Insects said:

It would be hard find more ways someone did not fit the Cooper profile, than the number of ways this guy does not. IMO his family is due an apology.

I have a host of issues with the use of that single particle (or any of the tie particles) as gospel, but regardless, of all the places they might lead if you decide to presume they are meaningful, this is the most far-fetched.

And your question is important: Can the rest of the particles be explained by the same environment(s) that suggest the first one? If not, it's hard to make the argument that that one's "real" while the others are meaningless. Any new suspect that follows that same single particle, will have to reckon with that question in a meaningful way.

I have similar concerns - is Tom Kaye part of this?  Thanks!

Thanks also FJ.   

Edited November 17, 2022 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

51 minutes ago, georger said:

I have similar concerns - is Tom Kaye part of this?  Thanks!

Thanks also FJ.   

Last I heard Tom rejected it..  he is not even convinced the titanium antimony particles are an alloy.

Edited November 17, 2022 by FLYJACK

[georger 194]

5 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Last I heard Tom rejected it..  he is not even convinced the titanium antimony particles are an alloy.

good grief!  

[Eight Raleighs 12]

I am curious to know where and when Tom Kaye stated that he rejected the Rem-Cru connection on the basis that he is "not . . . convinced the titanium antimony particles are an alloy." I think that Eric Ulis is doing good work trying to pursue a lead, but I'm interested to hear from some scientific experts - not just Kaye, but others.

Thank you.

[FLYJACK 654]

3 hours ago, Eight Raleighs said:

I am curious to know where and when Tom Kaye stated that he rejected the Rem-Cru connection on the basis that he is "not . . . convinced the titanium antimony particles are an alloy." I think that Eric Ulis is doing good work trying to pursue a lead, but I'm interested to hear from some scientific experts - not just Kaye, but others.

Thank you.

Nothing wrong with pursuing a lead but Eric is manufacturing a fact which he is known to do..

Tom didn't reject Rem Cru, he rejected Eric's claim that it was 100% an alloy and it 100% came from Rem Cru...

Tom said the particles may not even be an alloy... if so Eric's argument dies.

In addition, if it is an alloy the ratios on the patent are a range that is not exclusive and there are other sources... 

Eric has assumed the particles are an alloy and assumed they only came from Rem Cru... the first is unproven and the second is false.

 

Bottom line, those particles may or may not be an alloy and the ratios are not exclusive to Rem Cru.. 

Classic Ulis, he elevates assumptions to facts and makes false or unproven claims with a confidence that people just accept... 

Is Rem Cru a possibility for those particles, sure, but it isn't 100% as Eric claims, it is probably less than 1%..

Remember, Eric was 98% sure Sheridan Peterson was Cooper for years when all the other top tier Cooper sleuths had rejected Peterson.

Edited November 17, 2022 by FLYJACK

[Eight Raleighs 12]

1 minute ago, FLYJACK said:

Nothing wrong with pursuing a lead but Eric is manufacturing a fact which he is known to do..

Tom didn't reject Rem Cru, he rejected Eric's claim that it was 100% an alloy and it 100% came from Rem Cru...

The particles may not even be an alloy...

I am curious about where Kaye said this. Is there a YouTube video or web post? The science can get confusing (for me).

[Eight Raleighs 12]

36 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Nothing wrong with pursuing a lead but Eric is manufacturing a fact which he is known to do..

Tom didn't reject Rem Cru, he rejected Eric's claim that it was 100% an alloy and it 100% came from Rem Cru...

Tom said the particles may not even be an alloy... if so Eric's argument dies.

In addition, if it is an alloy the ratios on the patent are a range that is not exclusive and there are other sources... 

Eric has assumed the particles are an alloy and assumed they only came from Rem Cru... the first is unproven and the second is false.

 

Bottom line, those particles may or may not be an alloy and the ratios are not exclusive to Rem Cru.. 

I have wondered whether there were labs working in these ratios that simply did not pursue or obtain a patent. But I don't know enough about the industry to understand the odds of that; in other words, I don't know enough about the industry to know whether there were shops where people were fiddling with combinations of metals, but would not have patented those combinations. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Eight Raleighs
missing word

[Eight Raleighs 12]

48 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Nothing wrong with pursuing a lead but Eric is manufacturing a fact which he is known to do..

Tom didn't reject Rem Cru, he rejected Eric's claim that it was 100% an alloy and it 100% came from Rem Cru...

Tom said the particles may not even be an alloy... if so Eric's argument dies.

In addition, if it is an alloy the ratios on the patent are a range that is not exclusive and there are other sources... 

Eric has assumed the particles are an alloy and assumed they only came from Rem Cru... the first is unproven and the second is false.

 

Bottom line, those particles may or may not be an alloy and the ratios are not exclusive to Rem Cru.. 

Classic Ulis, he elevates assumptions to facts and makes false or unproven claims with a confidence that people just accept... 

Is Rem Cru a possibility for those particles, sure, but it isn't 100% as Eric claims, it is probably less than 1%..

Remember, Eric was 98% sure Sheridan Peterson was Cooper for years when all the other top tier Cooper sleuths had rejected Peterson.

It appears to me that Ulis is doing honest work here and trying to advance the case, to the best of his ability and knowledge, and with the assistance of others who share his interest. I understand that this is a vocation for him, as well, but that would not make him the first person to turn an avocation into a vocation. You could look at it this way, as well, though: Much like there was a cost to the Republicans' successful overturn of Roe v. Wade, in that the party can no longer dangle it as a carrot to garner votes, there would be a cost to Ulis solving the Cooper case, in that there would be no more Cooper case. So it's difficult for me to say the Rem-Cru lead is just a grift on his part. It seems what would really be in his self-interest would be to continue to drag this out.

I digress.

Ultimately, I am far less interested in his or anyone else's motives (read: not interested at all, really), than I am about the hard science. I wish more scientists would weigh in and, of course, show their work for us, as well. Whether it's Ulis or people on this forum, there are a lot of conclusory statements being tossed around.

[georger 194]

5 hours ago, Eight Raleighs said:

I am curious to know where and when Tom Kaye stated that he rejected the Rem-Cru connection on the basis that he is "not . . . convinced the titanium antimony particles are an alloy." I think that Eric Ulis is doing good work trying to pursue a lead, but I'm interested to hear from some scientific experts - not just Kaye, but others.

Thank you.

Ulis is not a materials expert. He doesnt have a lab. Has Tom consulted Dick Stone?

Has Ulis tested clothing from his suspect that shows the same suite of particles Tom found on the tie?  Is the whole suite of particles present at Rem Cru . . . 

Has the FBI tested the suspect's dna?  Has anyone seen the suspect's medical records ... etc ?

! Why did Ulis announce this before doing all of the testing necessary and working with the suspect's family ? There are protocols to be followed in these matters ...

Edited November 17, 2022 by georger

[georger 194]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Nothing wrong with pursuing a lead but Eric is manufacturing a fact which he is known to do..

Tom didn't reject Rem Cru, he rejected Eric's claim that it was 100% an alloy and it 100% came from Rem Cru...

Tom said the particles may not even be an alloy... if so Eric's argument dies.

In addition, if it is an alloy the ratios on the patent are a range that is not exclusive and there are other sources... 

Eric has assumed the particles are an alloy and assumed they only came from Rem Cru... the first is unproven and the second is false.

 

Bottom line, those particles may or may not be an alloy and the ratios are not exclusive to Rem Cru.. 

Classic Ulis, he elevates assumptions to facts and makes false or unproven claims with a confidence that people just accept... 

Is Rem Cru a possibility for those particles, sure, but it isn't 100% as Eric claims, it is probably less than 1%..

Remember, Eric was 98% sure Sheridan Peterson was Cooper for years when all the other top tier Cooper sleuths had rejected Peterson.

It sounds like EU wants his particle to be an alloy because his identified company worked with alloys ?

Eric calls Cooper  press conferences, the way six year olds make pancakes!  

Everything EU does is always crude and haphazard, if not crazy.  Thats just a fact.

Edited November 17, 2022 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

3 hours ago, Eight Raleighs said:

It appears to me that Ulis is doing honest work here and trying to advance the case, to the best of his ability and knowledge, and with the assistance of others who share his interest. I understand that this is a vocation for him, as well, but that would not make him the first person to turn an avocation into a vocation. You could look at it this way, as well, though: Much like there was a cost to the Republicans' successful overturn of Roe v. Wade, in that the party can no longer dangle it as a carrot to garner votes, there would be a cost to Ulis solving the Cooper case, in that there would be no more Cooper case. So it's difficult for me to say the Rem-Cru lead is just a grift on his part. It seems what would really be in his self-interest would be to continue to drag this out.

I digress.

Ultimately, I am far less interested in his or anyone else's motives (read: not interested at all, really), than I am about the hard science. I wish more scientists would weigh in and, of course, show their work for us, as well. Whether it's Ulis or people on this forum, there are a lot of conclusory statements being tossed around.

Ulis wants to be the one to solve the Cooper case, that in itself is not a problem as many of us sleuths want to be the one to solve it.. the problem with Ulis is that he has a track record of elevating conjecture and assumptions to fact then making unsubstantiated conclusions..

Researching Rem Cru is not a problem, making unproven or false claims as fact is.

Eric has always done this whether intentional or not.

The result is Ulis getting lots of media attention with bogus information and that undermines the credibility of Cooper case overall..

Most people who do not have a higher level knowledge of the case and of Ulis will get sucked into his narratives because he says them with confidence and in the media. His track record is a disaster.