Math of Insects

I thought "agree to disagree" was the more gracious way to phrase that same sentiment, but they amount to the same in the end.

A boilerplate description of a suspect is used thousands of times. One of those times, a stray fact is included in it, that never appears before or after. One conclusion might be that that single instance was a simple error. How could so many different typists over so many years continue to miss the exact same fairly important item? Another conclusion might be that that single instance is somehow the only time someone mistakenly told the truth and revealed the contents of a double-super-secret document that has been intentionally hidden from everyone involved for 50 years. You appear to be on Team Cover-up. I am not sure why, but if that feels right to you, you're certainly welcome to that position. For me, it would be a bit like you one day misspelling your screen name as "Flojack." It's been correct thousands of times; I can safely assume the one variation is a simple mistake. For someone else, they might think, "AHA!! I knew his name was really Flo!! Finally he slipped up!!" I am very solidly on Team "mistake." In my experience, in general the world continues to work as the world works, with or without our overlays. There is nothing mysterious about this, unless you prefer to see mystery.

11/22/86 https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/11/22/Folk-hero-to-some-sleazy-rotten-crook-to-others/7021533019600/

I'm not missing that. Perhaps we are using "conflation" differently? This just seems like one thing happened, then years later, after the first thing happened, another thing happened. It is hard to imagine a clearer example of something "linear." The only real question is that single addition to the boilerplate in this instance. One suggestion was a simple typist's error--a brain-fart carried over from the top of the page. That's very possible. I have another possibility as well: The foul-talking "Dan Cooper" from Him's book had cigarette stains on his fingers. This boilerplate at the bottom of the page is for "Dan Cooper" the hijacker. I wonder if on this particular day, this typist went looking in the files for the boilerplate on "Dan Cooper," and just grabbed the info from the foul-talker instead of the hijacker, by mistake. This would be a "conflation" that needs no time travel, and seems completely within the realm. Nothing about it seems terribly significant. There are lots of little elements that might pop up and repeat over time. Do you mind if I ask what your interest is in the stained fingers?

Forgive me, but I can't figure out why any "conflation" would be necessary to explain this very straightforward fact. What am I missing? Himmelsbach has it in his book and in his head. Years later, after the book exists, and after Himmelsbach has repeated the data point and believes it to be true, a suspect is suggested who has that as one of their traits. That seems completely normal. Each suspect has lots of traits, some of which directly correspond to the boilerplate, some of which don't. It's not weird at all that two suspects might share a trait, particularly this many years apart and this many suspects later, and expecially given that now the stains are "out there" as a thing. If anything, the odd part is that that particular trait showed up that one and only time in the boilerplate, as @olemisscub says. The rest is entirely linear and utterly explainable. What am I missing?

This is a bit of a far-fetched way to describe this. If Himmeslbach thought Tina had said "cigarette stains," then the description of Dan Cooper would have made the purple prose on his ghostwriter's neck stand up, and a later suspect with cigarette-stained fingers would also have raised an eyebrow. Even if Himmy was wrong about where that description came from, him THINKING it was correct would have been enough to make it meaningful if someone else had the same trait. No conflation is necessary for any of this to be true. If the fault is the ghostwriter's, Himmelsbach would still have gone forward thinking that part came from Tina, and a later suspect with that trait would still have meant something. There's no double-secret time-traveling conflation needed for this make sense.

I don't understand this as an interpretation. Maybe Tina said it to Himmelsbach. Maybe he remembered it incorrectly coming from her. Either way, it would make any suspect who had that trait, much more credible in his eyes, and would be worth mentioning--no matter when that suspect arose or who it was. He would also have said it to others, making someone who matched that trait worth a look by them too. Even if it turned out not to be a reliable data point for any reason, it would still have existed as one for a time, and doesn't seem the slightest bit contrived to me.

Himmelsbach's book was written by Thomas K. Worcester. It would have come after a series of interviews or conversations between the two men, along with Worcester reading through and summarizing a bunch of data/files/notes that Himmelsbach might have had, but that Himmy himself might never have read again after seeing them in real time. It's not at all impossible that Worcester just conflated those two reports and Himmy never noticed, or hadn't even reread the files that led to them himself and just believed Worcester's summary of it. The latter case would also account for Himmy later saying the same thing himself--he would just have assumed that Worcester's recounting of the facts from the files was correct, particularly since he did hear that description from somewhere.

I do not believe DB Cooper followed the minutiae of some second-tier magazine-writer's career, to the extent of being able cite and accurately spell/recall the correct title of a single article from a decade before, and making a point to read "a woman's magazine" just to see what other pearls of wisdom that obscure writer was laying down. I also don't believe a hoaxer did that. Pre-internet, this was quite the homework assignment. The Reader's Guide to Periodic Literature would most certainly not have helped with the latter, and perhaps not even the former. That middle paragraph fluffing up Gunther is not credible to me, even as someone trying to curry favor. I personally think it was either a wholecloth fabrication by him from the beginning, or someone(s) very close to him taking the p*ss at his expense. The eventual book is 100% fiction and completely dismissable as anything but opportunistic entertainment, IMO.

Yes, I know. Everyone knows.* *Except the guy who runs the FB group, who was pushing the idea that they are the same thing as rubber bands and always have been and always will be, and when someone says "bank straps," they are really saying "rubber bands."

I THINK YOU MEAN BANK STRAPS??!!? Sorry, running joke from the FB site. My material is out of date because I was expelled before the new season started.

I can see how that sounded contentious, but I'd curious to hear your take on that discrepancy. It's a good question! Why would so many people get his height wrong on one flight but right on the other?

I think he was just saying that the conclusions we are drawing from that (presumably accurate) observational evidence might be an overreach, since that same evidence was noted in a different case, with a very different conclusion. Not calling the observations themselves into question.

Rem-Cru had an employee-assistance program in the 1960s where they would financially support any technicians and scientists who wanted to learn explosives, skydiving, or air piracy.

Right, but there's a lot of territory between, "That was 50 years ago" and "therefore nothing can be checked." Start with any item from any airplane today. If you don't find the particles, go backward. If you do, stop this silly line of inquiry. Go swab an antique parachute pack. Or hell, even a current one. This would at least address the goose chase around labs in PA. If you DON'T find a similar profile, keep looking. If you do...bail. We all know where those particles are the most likely to have come from. Start at most likely and work backward, not vice versa.

This has been my precise gripe against the direction the tie particle analysis has sent the case. There is a very simple explanation for why the particles keep leaning toward aircraft-related substances. You have to rule that out first before running off to Pennsylvania. And yet there was not a single control item tested from an single aircraft. Hold a shirt under the ventilation system and test that. Hold an object near an open rear door sending all those particles through the air and test that. Rub the old skydiving rig against a piece of clothing and test that--those things were in all sorts of environments. Anything.

I think you missed one suspect.

When it's DB Cooper: "If he died out there, why hasn't anyone found a body or any remnants?" When it's whole species of large hominids that exist in at least sufficient numbers and proportions to avoid extinction: "No skeletons? No remnants? No problem!"

I'm not sure if you're being serious, but I have my own opinions about both the soundness and the helpfulness of the scientific work that's been done so far. An objective outside voice would be more than welcome, IMO, and would keep so many wild geese from being chased.

Ironic, since is there anything more metal than hijacking a plane just because you can?

Spring diatoms can add up to 6" in height.

Well, your particular suspect is within my “either died during this one or was caught or killed doing a next one” parameter. I’m not here as the voice of “died that night,” just of “did not live in silent obscurity for another 50 years, secretly laughing at all the fools who couldn’t find him.” What I do NOT think happened is that Cooper—who likely lost the money, or at the very least could not spend it—just went back to PTA meetings and catch with the kids. Your suspect or one like him would also explain the lack of a missing person and the lack of future engagement with/from Cooper, presuming he got caught or killed the next time.

I think this is the crux of it. As you have more of a stake in it, the signs seem to point toward survival. But that's a complicated issue with some layers to cut through. I've actually gone the other way, FWIW. I'm certainly not about to plant a flag on any certainty in this case. But each time I challenge my own preconceptions--which I want to be true--I land out with the "least challengeable" being the most direct (meaning, the entire endeavor ending where the trail runs dry). I keep trying to find ways not to land out there, so to speak, and can't make anything else require fewer hoops or assumptions.

You have read me wrong, and this second attempt to have a conversation with you will most decidedly be my last. This aggressive and personal tone is a detriment to the board, IMO.

No analogy is exact; there is a lot of real estate between "not exact" and "poor." In fact, though, there was plenty of chatter after the fact that a pilot or pilots were trying to evade notice. There were a host of conspiracy theories suggesting that the plane had landed secretly on a distant island. We can choose to support those theories by noticing the elements that would feed them--"planes never crash, just look at the statistics." Or we can look at the abstract facts and draw the more likely conclusion--"this one most certainly crashed." You've chosen the "obvious" conclusion in regards to Flt 370, but perhaps the less obvious one with Cooper. From the outside--without a stake in the outcome--these two situations are far more closely related than it might seem from "within." I'm not sure where you got the idea I was saying "no body means he died." I've certainly never said such a thing. I said that absent any additional ongoing indication that he lived, we'd have to assume the last place he was, is the last place he was.