47 47
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, ParrotheadVol said:

He certainly has his share of detractors. Personally, I respect anyone that rolls up their sleeves and tries to solve this thing. That's not me. I a fan of the case and nothing more. For that reason I think it would be somewhat hypocritical for me to pass judgement on those who are trying. Admittedly, Eric puts a lot of things out there, theories and such, that I absolutely do not agree with. I'm not impressed with his latest suspect at all. But unless someone just goes way beyond logic and reason (Blevins, Colbert, Weber), I try not to be too judgmental. Oddly enough, those are usually the ones that get very defensive when people don't agree with them.

I'm ready to move on though, so someone needs to hurry and solve this thing!

Don't move on Parrot, even though you are a Cowboys fan and a mortal enemy in that sense (see you Thanksgiving night !), your presence would be missed ! :-)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JAGdb said:

Regarding the alloy or no alloy and what Tom Kay has said.  I think pretty much everyone respects the overall work that Tom has done, he's doing this all pro bono.  He is prudent and keeps his cards VERY close to his chest, only shares public information when he has something backed with data, he doesn't really share publicly what he is or isn't working on regarding this case.  But some people have communication channels to him and have asked him to comment and clarify from time to time.  I did a cursory search on the dbcooperforum and couldn't find any comment from Tom on this topic.  

If Tom has made statements that he isn't convinced that the TiSb particle is an alloy, I wonder why it is that he has not been able to draw a definitive conclusion on this question--as Georger mentioned, he has a community that he can draw on.   I would think that the right scientist could determine in relative short order if this is an alloy or not, but perhaps it is more complicated than I am giving it credit for.

I am a different kind of JAG: “just a guy.” But I have had serious reservations about the diatoms paper and the tie particle analysis, to the extent I have wondered if they may potentially have impeded rather than advanced the case.

You touch on one of them here: it would seem relatively easy to find knowledgeable folks to weigh in on these issues. Gathering data is fine and necessary, but it’s the interpretation that really matters. So where are the knowledgeable critiques or analyses of these data?

It is not cheap to pay for publication in Nature’s public access section. Plus that avenue is usually pursued by people who feel their work is crucial NOW instead of at the end of what can often be a two-year publication delay. Who footed this bill? why the rush? Why not take a fraction of that money to have a couple of chemists/biologists/forensic scientists offer actionable feedback on the process and results? Or better yet, why not go through the “front door” and let the work be fully vetted and truly peer-reviewed? (The process on pay to play is technically peer reviewed, but not in the same manner.)

The lack of control groups in both cases raises all sorts of questions and red flags as well. The only real control for the tie was a “Boeing employee.” This is not acceptable. It reflects a foregone conclusion that is not yet earned. How about testing something else from that plane—the parachute straps perhaps? Or the same tie from the same era? Or other items in that evidence locker? Or, if you want to go the RemCru route, the tie of anyone else in that lab?

I don’t mean to impugn the person doing the work. I just think that as is, it is incomplete in ways that make me wonder if it helps or hinders, and that if there is confidence in the work, its defenders should want it to be skeptically challenged and refined into unassailability.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

I am a different kind of JAG: “just a guy.” But I have had serious reservations about the diatoms paper and the tie particle analysis, to the extent I have wondered if they may potentially have impeded rather than advanced the case.

You touch on one of them here: it would seem relatively easy to find knowledgeable folks to weigh in on these issues. Gathering data is fine and necessary, but it’s the interpretation that really matters. So where are the knowledgeable critiques or analyses of these data?

It is not cheap to pay for publication in Nature’s public access section. Plus that avenue is usually pursued by people who feel their work is crucial NOW instead of at the end of what can often be a two-year publication delay. Who footed this bill? why the rush? Why not take a fraction of that money to have a couple of chemists/biologists/forensic scientists offer actionable feedback on the process and results? Or better yet, why not go through the “front door” and let the work be fully vetted and truly peer-reviewed? (The process on pay to play is technically peer reviewed, but not in the same manner.)

The lack of control groups in both cases raises all sorts of questions and red flags as well. The only real control for the tie was a “Boeing employee.” This is not acceptable. It reflects a foregone conclusion that is not yet earned. How about testing something else from that plane—the parachute straps perhaps? Or the same tie from the same era? Or other items in that evidence locker? Or, if you want to go the RemCru route, the tie of anyone else in that lab?

I don’t mean to impugn the person doing the work. I just think that as is, it is incomplete in ways that make me wonder if it helps or hinders, and that if there is confidence in the work, its defenders should want it to be skeptically challenged and refined into unassailability.

 

I sent a similar era same material, Dacron Polyester Pennys clip on tie to Tom for control testing...  but his machine has been broken.. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JAGdb said:

Don't move on Parrot, even though you are a Cowboys fan and a mortal enemy in that sense (see you Thanksgiving night !), your presence would be missed ! :-)

 

Oh, I'm not moving on until we have our answer, but I am ready for that to happen. I love a good mystery, and this has been a damn good mystery. But ultimately, I want the conclusion.

Sorry to hear that we are football enemies. But there's always room over here on the bandwagon if you ever want to follow the words of the great Jim Morrison and break on through to the other side!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Math of Insects said:

I am a different kind of JAG: “just a guy.” But I have had serious reservations about the diatoms paper and the tie particle analysis, to the extent I have wondered if they may potentially have impeded rather than advanced the case.

You touch on one of them here: it would seem relatively easy to find knowledgeable folks to weigh in on these issues. Gathering data is fine and necessary, but it’s the interpretation that really matters. So where are the knowledgeable critiques or analyses of these data?

It is not cheap to pay for publication in Nature’s public access section. Plus that avenue is usually pursued by people who feel their work is crucial NOW instead of at the end of what can often be a two-year publication delay. Who footed this bill? why the rush? Why not take a fraction of that money to have a couple of chemists/biologists/forensic scientists offer actionable feedback on the process and results? Or better yet, why not go through the “front door” and let the work be fully vetted and truly peer-reviewed? (The process on pay to play is technically peer reviewed, but not in the same manner.)

The lack of control groups in both cases raises all sorts of questions and red flags as well. The only real control for the tie was a “Boeing employee.” This is not acceptable. It reflects a foregone conclusion that is not yet earned. How about testing something else from that plane—the parachute straps perhaps? Or the same tie from the same era? Or other items in that evidence locker? Or, if you want to go the RemCru route, the tie of anyone else in that lab?

I don’t mean to impugn the person doing the work. I just think that as is, it is incomplete in ways that make me wonder if it helps or hinders, and that if there is confidence in the work, its defenders should want it to be skeptically challenged and refined into unassailability.

 

You raise important questions.  I cannot speak for Tom. Tom's websites are publicly available: https://www.tomkaye.com/   Only Tom can speak to how his work is being funded, etc.

A number of FBI 302s  released to date, document lab working being done in the Cooper case.  Detailed Lab work reports are apparently not going to be released. Snippets of reports concerning lab work must be assembled in order to gain a better picture of what certain areas of Lab analysis is saying. We seem to be missing comprehensive Lab reports, if they exist at all ? Maybe Tom or Larry Carr can address that.

Tom has the unenviable task of trying to explain his work and forensic matters to a public audience. I dont envy anyone put in that role! That role has become untenable at times in what has been termed: The Cooper Vortex! Accuracy and science is sometimes sacrificed in that process, inevitably. Facts and opinions and conjectures all get mixed in this vortex. No single person can even hope to manage all of that, much less Tom Kaye, SA Larry Carr, or anyone else! In that context, specific scientific issues usually rise back to the surface as unanswered, and I think that is where we are today ... so be patient!

Nothing is free in this world. Is a thing an alloy or not? There are standard tests that should be conducted to answer that question to a reasonable level of certainty, acceptable to a critical audience. I dont know what tests have even been run ... since Eric Ulis says its an alloy, ask Eric Ulis to produce his Lab tests for public scrutiny ?

I mean it's one thing to run a CooperCon because of public interest; it's another thing to do actual science.

Edited by georger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2022 at 10:29 AM, FLYJACK said:

Ulis, NickyB, olemisscub and likely others are chasing the sketchy REMCRU lead..

No, those particles are NOT limited to REMCRU.

They are tracking associated titanium alloy inventors... maybe the same person or multiple people... I don't do facebook..

One is Milton B Vordahl... 

This is like finding KFC chicken on a tie and claiming it was worn by Colonel Sanders... possible but extremely unlikely.

Old news... his hair is parted on the wrong side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

lol try again. 
 

 

D7D87909-F9E2-4103-A9FE-89DFADC2E2E9.png

171F717F-D4B1-4E61-8B34-576D50F95EDC.jpeg

DD55E49A-1013-4792-8459-DA1F32C27759.gif

It is.

What evidence is there for him being Cooper..

He vaguely resembles the sketch like 100,000 guys

and he worked with Titanium.. you better have a helluva lot more than that.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that Vordahl was quite the outspoken individual... lots of newspaper clippings with his opinions in them from a simple Google search alone. Not really the sort of person I'd expect to slip through the cracks. He was quite a bit on the older side for Cooper, too... 57 in 1971?

And he's not the best match for Composite B I've ever seen, but he does look somewhat compelling when placed next to it... regardless, I am curious to know more details about the case being made for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in no way, shape or form a lawyer, but the link below sounds like Remcru had a law suit against one of Vordahl's Titanium alloy patents ? This type of stuff is probably somewhat common.

https://casetext.com/case/rem-cru-titanium-v-watson-2

This is a civil action brought by the plaintiff, Rem-Cru Titanium, Inc., under Title 35, Section 145 of the United States Code, to authorize the defendant, Commissioner of Patents, to issue to the plaintiff Letters Patent containing Claims 16 to 33, inclusive, of application Serial No. 229,143, entitled "Processing of Alloys", filed by Milton B. Vordahl on May 31, 1951.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I'll give you guys one thing, he looks closer than Ulis's suspect..

but he is not Cooper,, wonder how I knew about him 3 weeks ago??

We don't need any of more these weak suspects..

Weak lol?

If only he had been a 5’9 Honduran living in Pennsylvania, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Weak lol?

If only he had been a 5’9 Honduran living in Pennsylvania, right?

I am not the one publicly pushing a terrible suspect at a conference.

I don't even talk about Hahneman.. you keep bringing him up, not me.

Your suspect is weak.

These terrible suspects just diminish the credibility of the case.. turning Cooper into a farce.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

47 47