DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 654]

and I just got a response to an FBI FOIA..

It says there is info and it will be released in the Cooper Vault...

but, I don't know what that is,, either Gunther or parachute info.. it doesn't say

[Eight Raleighs 12]

17 hours ago, georger said:

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.

Do you know where there is scientific analysis available regarding whether the titanium-antimony is or is not an alloy? What else might it be?

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, Eight Raleighs said:

Do you know where there is scientific analysis available regarding whether the titanium-antimony is or is not an alloy? What else might it be?

Tom suggested it could be coated.. 

[Eight Raleighs 12]

3 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Tom suggested it could be coated.. 

Got it. So titanium and antimony are both present in the particles, but they are not necessarily an alloy, but rather possibly one metal coated by another.

Do you know where Kaye discusses this?

I apologize for being a pestering newbie here on the topic, but the science is interesting and integral to conjecturing about whether the Rem-Cru lead is likely to be fruitful.

(I do believe that if there is a possibility that the particles are residue of the alloy, then the Rem-Cru lead is a worthwhile pursuit. I probably would not have rushed to push "persons of interest" to the surface as quickly as is happening, but I also understand that this is a bit of a race here.)

[FLYJACK 654]

42 minutes ago, Eight Raleighs said:

Got it. So titanium and antimony are both present in the particles, but they are not necessarily an alloy, but rather possibly one metal coated by another.

Do you know where Kaye discusses this?

I apologize for being a pestering newbie here on the topic, but the science is interesting and integral to conjecturing about whether the Rem-Cru lead is likely to be fruitful.

(I do believe that if there is a possibility that the particles are residue of the alloy, then the Rem-Cru lead is a worthwhile pursuit. I probably would not have rushed to push "persons of interest" to the surface as quickly as is happening, but I also understand that this is a bit of a race here.)

I can't remember, it might have been mentioned on the other Cooper forum or in a personal email.. 

But, Rem Cru is worth pursuing regardless.. I have pursued many leads that haven't panned out based on speculation..

The issue is Eric making claims of fact that are unproven or false.. he has always done this to manufacture a conclusion.

Those particles are not confirmed to be an alloy..

If they are an alloy the ratio is not exclusive to Rem Cru.

and, he still has the date for the tie wrong..

[FLYJACK 654]

Dr Edwards has lost it...

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/23121809-d-b-cooper-and-flight-305-northern-oregon

He is now claiming Rataczak has changed his view and contradicts the FBI narrative.. BS

What Edwards has done is classic confirmation bias..

First, he misquotes Rataczak, he was citing Himmelsbach. Edwards left that part out of the quote. He was making a general statement.

Further, he ignores all the evidence over the years from Rataczak and Soderlind which confirm the FBI jump zone.. The call to Soderlind was in the suburbs of Portland AND Soderlind was listening to the transmissions and took notes.

Edwards has grabbed one general statement out of context to claim his theory which is not supported by any evidence and is actually contradicted by the evidence.

The Vortex has taken another victim... Dr Edwards...

 

 

[Eight Raleighs 12]

18 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I can't remember, it might have been mentioned on the other Cooper forum or in a personal email.. 

But, Rem Cru is worth pursuing regardless.. I have pursued many leads that haven't panned out based on speculation..

The issue is Eric making claims of fact that are unproven or false.. he has always done this to manufacture a conclusion.

Those particles are not confirmed to be an alloy..

If they are an alloy the ratio is not exclusive to Rem Cru.

and, he still has the date for the tie wrong..

There are a couple of things in your post to unpack a bit.

First: I would definitely still like to hear Kaye's analysis regarding the titanium alloy straight from the horse's mouth. I don't doubt you - I'm simply a "trust, but verify" person.

Second, I wish other scientists would provide analysis, other than Tom Kaye. I do not doubt his credentials, and his passion for the case along with his expertise has advanced it leaps and bounds the last few years. I also recognize that Discovery Channel isn't going to keep shelling out big piles of money to satiate the whims of a niche community of obsessives. But I'm a little uncomfortable that one person's unchecked, non-peer reviewed work is elevated to gospel status in the community. Tom Kaye seems to be a fine scientist, but he is not Moses.

Finally, I am interested in your comment that "the ratio [of the purported alloy] is not exclusive to Rem Cru." This is in opposition to what Eric Ulis has stated. Are you aware of other patents for titanium antimony, in this ratio (or thereabouts)? Or are you speculating - as I did yesterday - that other shops were likely "fiddling" with it, but never took the step of patenting their work?

Edited November 18, 2022 by Eight Raleighs

[Math of Insects 96]

Lack of peer review or skeptical analysis is one weakness. IMO the sort of stubborn avoidance of control groups for either of the analyses is also untenable. Together they are grounds for disregarding the results until real review and control are incorporated.

There's a "me or your lying eyes" approach that has kept me a diatoms-and-particles skeptic until real scientific work is done on both. Would it really have been so hard to dip a piece of paper in the actual water we're talking about and see what the diatom profile was? Instead we dropped money in a fishtank? Not a fan.

 

[FLYJACK 654]

3 minutes ago, Eight Raleighs said:

There are a couple of things in your post to unpack a bit.

First: I would definitely still like to hear Kaye's analysis regarding the titanium alloy straight from the horse's mouth. I don't doubt you - I'm simply a "trust, but verify" person.

Second, I wish other scientists would provide analysis, other than Tom Kaye. I do not doubt his credentials, and his passion for the case along with his expertise has advanced it leaps and bounds the last few years. I also recognize that Discovery Channel isn't going to keep shelling out big piles of money to satiate the whims of a niche community of obsessives. But I'm a little uncomfortable that one person's unchecked, non-peer reviewed work is elevated to gospel status in the community. Tom Kaye seems to be a fine scientist, but he is not Moses.

Finally, I am interested in your comment that "the ratio [of the purported alloy] is not exclusive to Rem Cru." This is in opposition to what Eric Ulis has stated. Are you aware of other patents for titanium antimony, in this ratio (or thereabouts)? Or are you speculating - as I did yesterday - that other shops were likely "fiddling" with it, but never took the step of patenting their work?

Kaye did say it, it was months ago and I can't remember the source.. I would have to go search for it.. try searching the other Cooper forum, if it isn't there than it was in an email..

The ratio outlined in the patent is a range, that ratio is not exclusive to the patent. To be clear, a ratio range is outlined in the patent but that does not mean it is exclusive to the patent.  I did find another patent that had the same TiSb ratio.. Sprague Electric.

Eric claimed he looked for other sources and couldn't find any so it was exclusive to Rem Cru.. This is just not logical. Eric has no basis to claim it was exclusive to Rem Cru but he flips it to make others prove it isn't.. This is what he has done for years, he makes unsubstantiated claims then demands you prove it false, that isn't how it works.. It is very very hard to prove a negative.. 

There is no evidence those particles were exclusive to Rem Cru.. none.

[Eight Raleighs 12]

27 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Kaye did say it, it was months ago and I can't remember the source.. I would have to go search for it.. try searching the other Cooper forum, if it isn't there than it was in an email..

The ratio outlined in the patent is a range, that ratio is not exclusive to the patent. To be clear, a ratio range is outlined in the patent but that does not mean it is exclusive to the patent.  I did find another patent that had the same TiSb ratio.. Sprague Electric.

Eric claimed he looked for other sources and couldn't find any so it was exclusive to Rem Cru.. This is just not logical. Eric has no basis to claim it was exclusive to Rem Cru but he flips it to make others prove it isn't.. This is what he has done for years, he makes unsubstantiated claims then demands you prove it false, that isn't how it works.. It is very very hard to prove a negative.. 

There is no evidence those particles were exclusive to Rem Cru.. none.

I wonder if there would be patent denials if other companies were working with titanium-antimony in this ratio? (Since Rem-Cru would have already patented it. I'm a little confused as to how Sprague Electric was able to patent the same alloy.)

I don't know much about the patenting process, but I think one would need to take a deep dive into the mechanics of that process in order to judge the veracity of Ulis's assertion.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Eight Raleighs

[FLYJACK 654]

42 minutes ago, Eight Raleighs said:

I wonder if there would be patent denials if other companies were working with titanium-antimony in this ratio? (Since Rem-Cru would have already patented it. I'm a little confused as to how Sprague Electric was able to patent the same alloy.)

I don't know much about the patenting process, but I think one would need to take a deep dive into the mechanics of that process in order to judge the veracity of Ulis's assertion.

I am not a patent expert but I don't think you can patent a ratio range.. you patent the process/use. Also, the other trace elements found were not in the patent ratio..

IMO, those particles have nothing to do with the patent and may have nothing to do with Rem Cru.

The particle TiSb ratio is within the range in the patent but it is not complete and not exclusive.

It is like finding fried chicken on a tie and claiming it was worn by Colonel Sanders.

 

Eric will push this and his suspect regardless and it will go nowhere and fizzle out..

Edited November 18, 2022 by FLYJACK

[Eight Raleighs 12]

13 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I am not a patent expert but I don't think you can patent a ratio.. you patent the process/use. Also, the other trace elements found were not in the patent ratio..

To be fair, Ulis has posted paperwork signed by Petersen on behalf of Rem-Cru that indicates he worked with ytrium and a couple of the other elements. I don't expect you to change your mind; just passing along information you may have missed. Whether that matters? I don't know enough about the industry at that (or any) time to even venture a guess. I suppose it incrementally/fractionally increases Peterson's viability as a suspect, i.e. moreseo than if it were not substantiated that he were exposed to some of the other elements.

[FLYJACK 654]

1 minute ago, Eight Raleighs said:

To be fair, Ulis has posted paperwork signed by Petersen on behalf of Rem-Cru that indicates he worked with ytrium and a couple of the other elements. I don't expect you to change your mind; just passing along information you may have missed. Whether that matters? I don't know enough about the industry at that (or any) time to even venture a guess. I suppose it incrementally/fractionally increases Peterson's viability as a suspect, i.e. moreseo than if it were not substantiated that he were exposed to some of the other elements.

No, it doesn't mean anything, those elements were used in many environments.

Did you know that Yttrium was used in the manufacturing process of polyester..

[Eight Raleighs 12]

3 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

No, it doesn't mean anything, those elements were used in many environments.

Did you know that Yttrium was used in the manufacturing process of polyester..

I agree that it likely means very little, if anything.

And to take it a step further, I am personally not at all convinced that the tie originally belonged to Cooper.

Nonetheless, I think it's a reasonable line of inquiry, but Ulis (and others) should guard against becoming zealots about their theories and suspects.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Eight Raleighs

[georger 197]

18 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

No, it doesn't mean anything, those elements were used in many environments.

Did you know that Yttrium was used in the manufacturing process of polyester..

Tom had a materials destruction expert working with him - is Dick still on board?  Tom would try to determine if the Ti particle is an alloy, or not. I would listen to Tom over Ulis on this.  If Tom has doubts, then there are doubts. Tom has a community of people he can draw on for advice. Ulis doesnt even know the questions to ask! Ulis is an amateur. Tom is a professional.

Edited November 18, 2022 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

1 minute ago, Eight Raleighs said:

I agree that it likely means very little, if anything.

And to take it a step further, I am personally not at all convinced that the tie originally belonged to Cooper.

Nonetheless, I think it's a reasonable line of inquiry, but Ulis (and others) should guard against becoming zealots about their theories and suspects.

Yes, the tie was certainly left by Cooper but was he the person wearing it when those particles were deposited? Who knows..

The tie was sold between about spring 64 and spring 65,, it had significant dust in the knot when it was found on the plane suggesting it was stored/sitting for some time..  so, there were years to accumulate particles which may have come from the production/dye/fire retardants, from different environmental exposures, possibly even from the plane or post hijacking..

 

[Math of Insects 96]

3 hours ago, georger said:

Tom had a materials destruction expert working with him - is Dick still on board?  Tom would try to determine if the Ti particle is an alloy, or not. I would listen to Tom over Ulis on this.  If Tom has doubts, then there are doubts. Tom has a community of people he can draw on for advice. Ulis doesnt even know the questions to ask! Ulis is an amateur. Tom is a professional.

Without Ullis, how else would we know that Cooper was actually a blue-eyed, blond-haired, light-skinned, huge-eared, pointy-chinned, finger-missing grandpa from Pittsburgh? Sneaky of that guy to change literally every aspect of his appearance, right down to face shape and a missing digit, to pull off this caper. That crafty criminal!
 

[Eight Raleighs 12]

It is somewhat surprising that the media were so willing to run with it. I respect Ulis more than most of this group, I imagine, but this is essentially a self-taught hobbyist naming a long-deceased metallurgist as a suspect in the crime of the century, and the mainstream media (which I also respect more than most probably do) just took it at face value and ran with it. The Oregonian treated it like a scoop, getting "the drop" the day before Ulis's press conference. No one challenged him on his underlying conclusions regarding Rem-Cru and the science.

Again, to reiterate: I think that Rem-Cru is a worthwhile lead and that Petersen is even a worthwhile "person of interest." 

The cat should have stayed in the bag longer, though, or, once, out, scrutinized more closely.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Eight Raleighs

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, Eight Raleighs said:

It is somewhat surprising that the media were so willing to run with it. I respect Ulis more than most of this group, I imagine, but this is essentially a self-taught hobbyist naming a long-deceased metallurgist as a suspect in the crime of the century, and the mainstream media (which I also respect more than most probably do) just took it at face value and ran with it. The Oregonian treated it like a scoop, getting "the drop" the day before Ulis's press conference. No one challenged him on his underlying conclusions regarding Rem-Cru and the science.

Again, to reiterate: I think that Rem-Cru is a worthwhile lead and that Petersen is even a worthwhile "person of interest." 

The cat should have stayed in the bag longer, though, or, once, out, scrutinized more closely.

Looking into Rem Cru is not a problem.. I have gone down so many crazy rabbit holes that didn't pan out I can't even remember..

But this suspect is not Cooper..  he doesn't match Cooper's description or profile, he doesn't have the protruding lower lip, there is really nothing there other than he worked with some exotic metals that might match a few particles on the tie. I also have some evidence not released publicly that he does not match...

The media is a sucker for a good narrative and Ulis is a great salesman..

Look at all the press he got for Sheridan for years and a History Channel program all bogus.. all nonsense..

[Math of Insects 96]

Well, to be fair it's a very niche topic and no one really knows any better. I remember years ago seeing some news show apologize for the "life hack" guy they had had on a week or two before. Apparently nothing he said was legit; he was either in over his head or a straight up hoaxer. But who would know any different? Some guy says he's an expert and here's the best way to cut a bagel, you go "OK," and maybe you try it or maybe you don't.

It's like that with this case. How many people actually know any better? Maybe 15 in the country--none of whom are the targets of that press conference? All Ullis has to do is throw out terms like "evidence" and "patent" and "particles" and "electron microscope," plus call himself...what was it? Historical researcher or something?...and people just sort of take it as so until proven otherwise.

Petersen, however, is not unlikely to be the "proof otherwise." I'm not sure a worse suspect has ever been seriously proposed from inside the house. I get the outsiders trying for G. Gordon Liddy or Henry Kissinger or whoever; might as well see if that spaghetti sticks to the wall. But for someone who theoretically "knows better" to try and sell Petersen as a viable option...self-destruction, I think. 

[FLYJACK 654]

Teletype was edited to exclude non Flight 305 traffic.

[georger 197]

2 hours ago, Math of Insects said:

Well, to be fair it's a very niche topic and no one really knows any better. I remember years ago seeing some news show apologize for the "life hack" guy they had had on a week or two before. Apparently nothing he said was legit; he was either in over his head or a straight up hoaxer. But who would know any different? Some guy says he's an expert and here's the best way to cut a bagel, you go "OK," and maybe you try it or maybe you don't.

It's like that with this case. How many people actually know any better? Maybe 15 in the country--none of whom are the targets of that press conference? All Ullis has to do is throw out terms like "evidence" and "patent" and "particles" and "electron microscope," plus call himself...what was it? Historical researcher or something?...and people just sort of take it as so until proven otherwise.

Petersen, however, is not unlikely to be the "proof otherwise." I'm not sure a worse suspect has ever been seriously proposed from inside the house. I get the outsiders trying for G. Gordon Liddy or Henry Kissinger or whoever; might as well see if that spaghetti sticks to the wall. But for someone who theoretically "knows better" to try and sell Petersen as a viable option...self-destruction, I think. 

You left out 'Barb Dayton' ! 

[georger 197]

9 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Yes, the tie was certainly left by Cooper but was he the person wearing it when those particles were deposited? Who knows..

The tie was sold between about spring 64 and spring 65,, it had significant dust in the knot when it was found on the plane suggesting it was stored/sitting for some time..  so, there were years to accumulate particles which may have come from the production/dye/fire retardants, from different environmental exposures, possibly even from the plane or post hijacking..

 

Good points!  !!!   How did I miss this So, can any of the particles be dated ?  Due to their nature, magnetic, or radio active properties, or date of manufacture ?  That would be interesting...    the tie was manufactured in the early sixties (63?), and sold 64-65 I think FJ said.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. What can we do with this?

Could the magnetic properties of these particles point us to where the tie was made, sold, or possessed by Cooper ?

Edited November 19, 2022 by georger

[JAGdb 71]

It seems that most of the media  picking up on it are local or regional affiliates that are hungry for a "soft" story with the anniversary approaching, not to mention Coopercon.  These aren't really investigative reporters so to speak.  EU being the face of Coopercon who has some TV notoriety dove tails nicely into the need for the local media to put out an annual story from a somewhat "vetted" figure.  They need a story, EU/Coopercon needs the press and it is what it is I guess...that's just my two cents as to why they run with it without much scrutiny.

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.

Maybe some more information will come out at Coopercon ?  Tom is there and perhaps "the" main headliner, (I have read reports that Larry Carr will not be in attendance).  While I am not holding my breath for any videos to be made public, hopefully anything new and interesting will start trickling out... 

Edited November 19, 2022 by JAGdb

[ParrotheadVol 70]

15 hours ago, Eight Raleighs said:

I respect Ulis more than most of this group, I imagine,

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!

Edited November 19, 2022 by ParrotheadVol