Math of Insects

Anyone know where Newton was November 24, 1971? Did he smoke? Working with apples might explain some of those particles.

Can you explain more about why these particular scans are important?

Right. That’s libel, but accusing an innocent man of terrorism and roping him into every Google search on Cooper forevermore is completely fine. Yep, you’re the victim here. Do you have a gofundme? I’m sure once the news hears about this injustice the donations will start rolling in. Also: you called WJS by his actual name. That poster simply said “a researcher.” The only way that’s libel against you is if you’re that researcher. Was your post an admission that it was you?

There is a lot to unpack here.

The act itself is fundamentally suicidal. There was no reason to think it wouldn't end in death, injury or prison, since the previous versions all had. Success was not the expected outcome. It was a desperate act done by someone for whom the cost of failure was not a deterrent.

I just wanted to announce that from today on I plan to be only marginally and fitfully engaged with the Vortex, in a way that exactly matches how I have always been.

Howlin’ Wolf. The Doors were copycat hijackers.

"I'm a back door man..."

I don't think the 20-year-old issue means anything in isolation, unless there have been significant changes in the science or knowledge-base in those years. Have there? I would expect newer programs to be more efficient in how they approach the data set, but I'm unclear how the underlying field has changed in that time. Does anyone know?

"I can't reveal who Deep Throat is. Let's just say his name is Mark LeFelt." --Bob Woodward

I also wouldn't be surprised if it were true, and also think the sample size is probably too small to get thrilled about. It also wouldn't surprise me if it WEREN'T true; after all, that's a very specific longshot, and I'd personally want to see the writing compared to other LETTERS of the time, related to the skyjacking--maybe the "confession" letters sent to the papers, for example. I also think the most likely option is thatCooper died in the event, and I also would not be surprised at all if Gunther made up every single word of the book, including the letters. However, one way or another, one thing is indisputable: regardless of all of that, "DB Cooper" cannot have been involved in the Gunther book, because there are errors that the actual skyjacker would be the first and best to know better than. So if the book is false (regardless of whether Gunther was duped or crafty), there is no connection to nice old Mr. S, other than a picture that looks like he might have been imagined to look later in life. And if the book is NOT false, the question arises: where is the Smith character in it? Clara = Barb or not, there's just no path that leads to any legitimacy around WJS. (Spoiler alert: he's not.)

200K then was a million and a half dollars. That is moonshot money for someone. And he wouldn't have been able to spend it. (I agree with Larry.)

I think the most that can be said is that his story is different. I don't think we can say if his memory "changed" as time went on, or if had a family or a life and just didn't want to be an eyewitness to a federal crime. For all anyone knew at the time the guy lived and would be coming after anyone who ratted him out. It is sometimes just easier to say you didn't see anything and get on with your life. It could also have gone the other way, of course, where over time there grow to be 200 people on the plane, all of whom sat next to him. Who knows? Is he alive? Someone should ask.

That's exactly what they want you to think.

You are new here, correct? It will be best to focus on the details of the case. The constant critiquing of people and their intentions is not the best element of this board. Hopefully you'll fall out on the side of discussion and analysis, not of internacine sniping. Welcome and good luck going forward.

This may be more true than you intended.

I'm a nobody who knows nothing, but that FB post did not inspire confidence that people's excitement about this is warranted. If money is raised for this, I would consider that unethical. I think some of these elements have nudged toward the fraudulent, to be direct.

Does he tho?

Allow me to answer this with a parable. In the book "Bunk," there is an anecdote that apparently some snake-oil salesmen's pitches were so good that even people who knew the product was bogus, would buy it anyway, because they felt so personally connected by then to the guy doing the pitch. They knew they were handing over money for something literally worthless--often money they could ill-afford to spend--but they became so invested in the pitch that it felt rewarding somehow to help prop it up. Let's leave it at that.

So random bad-ass DB Cooper is sitting around one day and thinks, "You know what I'd like to do is read me some good ole "'Ladies Home Journal.'" Maybe he's in the doctor's office and there's one there. Maybe he's eating donuts and has an urge. Either way, he secures a copy of the woman's magazine. Being an open-minded 50-year-old in 1971, sort of an OG Wokey, he thinks, "I'm curious to know the plight of 'Wives Who Run Away.'" He reads the article entitled this and is ENTRANCED!! CAPTIVATED!! "THIS IS THE GREATEST ARTICLE I'VE EVER READ!" he thinks. "It reminds me of an article I read 10 years ago that made such an impression on me that I've never forgotten the exact spelling and punctuation of the title! Neither war nor work nor wandering nor woman nor wee ones have shaken my completely accurate memory of this article and its title, which I can replicate down to the hyphen, all these years later. But that article was by the World's Greatest Anonymous Magazine author, whose name is known to me, random person in the world, to be Max Gunther. I wonder who wrote this AMAZING ARTICLE ABOUT WIVES WHO LEAVE FROM THIS WOMAN'S MAGAZINE!!" Imagine random bad-ass Cooper's squeals of glee as he discovers that this amazing article was also by his favorite anonymous magazine writer. He thinks, "You know, I was going to keep this skyjacking to myself since it's a very recent crime that will definitely get me thrown into prison for life. But the heck with it. Someone who writes two articles that I like would never turn me in! This is the guy I will tell my story to! He'll understand me and would never betray me." So this is what he does. He writes a letter that reveals that the anonymous magazine writer has CHANGED HIS WHOLE LIFE, and includes, as the longest paragraph of that letter, a correctly-spelled career retrospective of that writer. Because he knows that if you compliment people they never turn you in for federal crimes. For good measure, he also sends the letter to two other people, just because the world is a trustworthy place and they would never betray him either. Nevermind the whole reason he sent it to Gunther is because of these LIFE-CHANGING ARTICLES. The other guys would probably have changed his life too if they'd ever had the chance. The important thing, if you're a wanted criminal, is to trust everyone and tell your story every chance you get. Also, Cooper is shrewd. Somehow he knows to send his other letters only to people Gunther knows, and somehow he also knows that they'll die before anyone ever asks them about the letters. And he knows that after they die, those letters will never be found. Most good reporters, when handed a blockbuster exclusive about a high-profile crime, never tell anyone about it or do anything about it. What's a career when there are turkey sandwiches to eat and crossword puzzles to do. Then years go by and Cooper's story is related to this trustworthy anonymous magazine writer. And wouldn't you know it. Of all the Coopers in all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, this Cooper turns out not just to have lived in all the places the magazine writer lived, but shared multiple biographical details with that magazine writer. It's fate!! Kismet!! A match made in a doctor's office waiting room. Even the typo in the letter matches the author's wife's name. Insane!! Then, after the story is over--a story that bears no mention of any kind of "accomplice" or "two-man operation" or friend or anything--someone finds a picture of a completely different person at the place our Cooper worked, and figures out what must have happened. It was TWO PEOPLE. Obviously! This is not some guy in the world who looks, as an old man, how the sketched Cooper might be imagined to look. This is obviously THE ACTUAL COOPER, which was apparently a different person than the one who wrote the letters or called the author, and even though this new guy's story doesn't match the biography of the version of Cooper in the book--the one that matches the author's own life details--the only logical conclusion is that the new guy is really Cooper and the whole thing was an elaborate ruse to tell...wait a minute. To tell a whole different story than the real one? But wasn't the whole point supposed to be to get the "real" story out there through an anonymous magazine author that the hijacker trusted and connected with? Nevermind, the point is, LOOK AT THAT PICTURE OF THE NICE OLD MAN IN THE SWEATER. If that's not Cooper, I don't know who is. Or the whole thing could have been the exact thing it looks like, which is fiction written by Gunther. But what are the chances of that??

That's sort of like finding out the hot chick you've been texting with is some old fat guy who lives in his mom's basement, and deciding he must be helping his much hotter sister to text you.

A fun bit of fiction, deftly executed, about which it's best not to ask too many questions or it all falls apart.

The problem is that once someone goes to "cover-up," all bets are off. You can decide that anything at all was part of the cover-up, and therefore all alternative options are equally possible. The second problem is how often people go from, "That answer is unreliable, therefore this one is the only other option." Once you're saying the information is flawed, you're announcing that it's also flawed for your own answer. It's a self-sabotaging position. It being flawed in one direction is not proof of some specific other one. The flight path has enough primary sources in support of it, within very small variables, as to need pretty stunning proof to the contrary to be worth discussion. IMVVVHO the wind is the more interesting factor.

I wonder if it’s possible to find out who the contributor was, or at least where it was found.

I remember reading about that, but I thought that in the end it had proven not to be possible that it was Cooper’s. Either the date was wrong, or there turned out not to be a chute there. I can’t remember the details. Do you?