SafecrackingPLF

There are a very few on DZ that know my RL name. It's not that it's a huge secret or anything, but who I am shouldn't really matter as much as what I say, IMO. I appreciate your sentiments. There is one fellow on here in particular (you can take a stab at who that might be) that told me (and I could cut n paste the quote if needed) that doing the series would be a waste of time since everything I could possibly discuss had already been discussed here on DZ. That was blatantly false, and I knew it. There is more that I know which I'll discuss a little at the bottom of this post. You did say I'd like to know what these were. I've found some mistakes in the series, but they're minor and would not lead to any different conclusions. Perhaps I've missed something? When you first said that I used stats liberally, I wasn't quite sure what you meant. I knew you would be correct either way... a lot, sure used em a lot. The other way, as you put it, took liberties. That's putting it lightly, and in particular the instance that you noted with Palmer's one year opinion and the timeline. What you'll notice when I take liberties is that it doesn't matter. I'm making a point and using some sort of reference to make the point. The references might be arbitrary or incorrectly applied... for example, I do not know for sure if we ran a hypothetical money find 1,000 times if Palmer's opinion would follow a normal distribution. The beauty as I said is that it doesn't matter, I was trying to illustrate a point which I think was shown very well using the bell curve. SKyjack71 and I have spoken, through PM and what have you, enough since I've been away from this message board for me to understand where she's coming from. It's a touchy thing to have a discussion with someone that may or may not be a witness. It's easy to accidentally tamper and ruin a source of knowledge. I've definitely had to proceed cautiously in that regard, but if you look closely you'll notice that her narrative has changed some in the last 3 years or so. Much of this has to do with my occasional phone discussions. I will tell you that the original narrative that she told me was totally incorrect. When I say narrative, I'm talking about her viewpoints and not events that she claims to recall. TTLOL focused on looking at the evidence for the story it tells (or probable story it tells if you will). Biases and cognitive error have massively distorted public opinion, opinion of those that are interested in the case, and unfortunately investigators in the case. Removing those mistakes is what TTLOL was about. FWIW, similar mistakes are prevalent everywhere and are not only found in the Cooper case. The model (optimal solution as I called it) is one I've been working on for years. No one seemed to be too interested in it, so I worked on it alone. What I can tell you now is that the model is not only to be favored from a mathematical standpoint on the evidence alone, it's actually quite profound in the sense that I've made predictions with it and seemingly verified with Jo on the veracity of them. Those confirmations, if you will, have led to me to become 100% convinced that it not only should be favored, but that it is what happened. If I've somehow misjudged this, I'm not incorrect in saying that the model explains the evidence perfectly where all other theories do not. When I stop and think about this, with some of those predictions, the hair on the back of my neck stands up. It's that strong. I'm hopeful to explain all this down the road at some point, but time is a huge factor. I had a good 10 minutes to waste just now, thus the post... but to put this together will be an undertaking as you say. It has kept me sleepless at times over the last 2 years in particular. The final breakthrough was achieved around a year ago, so I've made pretty much no progress on it since then. I believe that I know about 80-90% of what can be known. There are some people that have far more energy, time, and resources that could potentially fill in some of the remaining holes through a lot of hard work - but I'm not that person. I'm more than happy to discuss things with you, especially since you're mathematically inclined. I'm also willing to discuss with any person of science given that they use the scientific method. I will not discuss anything with self proclaimed logicians that add nothing to the case and ride the coattails of their friends, nor with people off their meds, nor book writers. Use the PM. I'm not here often, but in time, I'll do my best to correspond.

I believe he works for the county - Planning & Zoning, something like that. Safe may have been the one who concocted the fake money find - using modern twenties no less. Was kind of funny. It was covered here - do a search. Logic? No. Just Safe's version of informal logic - he picked the idea up somewhere. His intentions were good but his results were meaningless and full of contradictions. For one thing, Safe had but a few of the real-world logical options covered in the premises he made - but he loves to make videos. Nice young man. It sounded good while it lasted - he had Ckret going ! Well, this should be fun. MeyerLouie, there are unnamed people I mention in that video series. People I call "Cooper Enthusiasts" that have been on this forum for years spinning their wheels. Meet Georger, KING ENTHUSIAST. He likes to throw dung on the wall to see if it sticks. He also likes to make assumptions and incorrect premises and hypotheses. I'll confess, I've done it too when I foolishly thought he was Skip, LOL... but that's how long I've been away from here and really don't follow (what's there to follow?) 1. I do not live in the NW any longer and have never concocted a fake money find. I did happen to view a youtube video where someone was claiming to have found money in a tree - I called BS in a comment that I left. Perhaps this is where this opinion comes from? Yeah, I use a lot of informal logic. I also use knowledge from all sorts of areas. My personal opinion on this case is that there are too many things to hold in the memory for a single person to unscramble unless they know the evidence backwards and forwards. There are also plenty of biases and attribution errors that people make - which adds up to a lot of stupidity. The thought like I like to make videos, not really - but how else do I explain some fairly complicated lines of reasoning? I've been meaning to do another series but simply do not have the time. The next series, if or when I do it, will not take the step back and examine the evidence approach that I used in TTLOL. It boils down to mathematics really. You have a choice. Accept the evidence as it is and then deal with one of 7 potential solutions, or challenge the evidence and deal with the three paradoxes as I called them. One way gets you there fairly quickly (under 10 years). The other gives you something to do day after day with nothing to show for it. The law of parsimony ought to be followed as best as can be for a simple reason... for every less than 1 probability you introduce, you reduce the odds of your scenario. The particular choice I said most closely resembled the evidence not only explains the evidence, but also includes the fewest entities (variables as I call them) - each of which would have less than 1 probability. Mathematically speaking, that's the choice you ought to favor. But I can (but won't for now due to time) go much much further into that choice. There's a reason why I made a blank bet on this forum more than a year ago. No one had the conviction to take me up on it. It's really simple, put up some money that your guy did it. I say he didn't do it. There's only one guy you're not allowed to bet me - and even if I bet against him, they still can't put him on the plane, so it's an easy sure thing. Perhaps that's why people would rather write books about their father, uncles, etc on pure speculation. Where is Marla Cooper? Geez, what a fraud that was (and that was the moment I made the bet) Ckret (or agent L. Carr), FWIW, couldn't follow my train of thought down this path. I tried. I never ever "had him going". That's laughable actually.

I think my head just exploded. Why didn't I think of this?

I know Georger and myself haven't really gotten along in the past, but I want to make it clear that I've come to appreciate him, even though I also recognize that he thinks low of me. That's okay. You make excellent points Georger, keep it up. This will be my last post for a while before I disappear for several months again. When I come back, hopefully I will have something worthwhile for everyone to review. I do have quite a bit going on, but if I can possibly do it, in the next 12 months I will finally lay my cards on the table. To use a poker term, I've been slow playing pretty hard. However, I think I've pretty much gone as far as I can on my own with this. 377, to alleviate your confusion, look to occam's razor I eagerly await to hear of what will be unearthed in the coming months ITT, and if it's less than you like, then perhaps I can give us something to debate and discuss when the time comes. So Happy Holidays and chat it up with you guys in 2012 sometime! (try not to lose your shirt in the market in the meanwhile) Oh... one last thing, I've mentioned to Blevins before that he might want to go learn a little bit about cognition. This same advice goes out to Curtis.... your lack of understanding of the human mind, as an agent, is quite appalling.

377, Yes, it was Snow that discovered the Cooper comics; Carr thought it was compelling and it has become part of the "evidence" ever since. Thank you for pointing that out to the newbies. As for Marla: She's the reason I made a blind bet against every single suspect known and unknown. She, nor anyone else, ever took me up on the free roll. That probably says less about her confidence than it says about mine, though. Come back in 10 years and this case will still not be solved. Come back in 20, 30, 40 and it will be the same. I'm calling this thing officially botched. That's okay though; it has allowed endless speculation and suspects of the month to perpetually keep people in suspense. 10 questions for everyone, eh? Okay. It might take more than 10 questions to figure this out, or else you'd better have some pretty good questions.

Thanks to those of you that attempted to answer my question. I'm not sure there's going to be a precise answer to the question I'm asking, but that's okay. Skyjack71, you mentioned the undisclosed Rose revision. It was during a discussion in the old thread here at DZ, where some Mayfield people were talking about the Rose sketch and then I posted a previously unreleased version (that is not an official version BTW); I will point out that you can pretty much figure out for yourself which of the witnesses he was trying to accommodate. It's really obvious, send me a PM if you're unsure. As far as Braden goes, sounds interesting. I made a blind wager here on DZ back in August that I'm bound by, so if someone decides to put up a friendly wager ($5-$1000) I'll be bound to my prior blind agreement that the FBI will not put any past, present, or future suspects on the plane if tested against current evidence. And I really feel for Quade. The guy has to moderate perhaps the worst cesspool of characters on the net, and he does a bang up job IMO. Having said that, Snow was and is perhaps the biggest contributor of actual thoughtful insights and useful information ITT, ever. I don't participate here, so my opinion shouldn't be worth much, but that's my 2c worth. Oh, 377, I could write a thesis on eye witness accounts. It goes far beyond stress. Non stressed witnesses can actually have their memories tampered with inadvertently via media reports, police questioning, etc. It's a whole study on its own, which is why when the whole Tina discussion came up, I was both laughing and horrified at the same time. But hey, people do and think what they want.

Thanks Jerry. What they're using today isn't what's important for me; I need to figure out what they were using within the first 2 to 4 days. Specifically, what they were showing people in hopes of sparking some sort of lead.

Thought I'd run this by everyone here in case someone actually knows the answer. When were the various sketches of Cooper completed? Specifically I'd like to know when the "Bing Crosby" version was completed and available for use by the FBI, and when Roy Rose got involved. I know the Crosby sketch was completed fairly quickly, but my question involves number of days (and the number in question is very small) Oh, and if you have info on earlier sketches than the Crosby version, that would be awesome too. If anyone can answer, thank you in advance. Glad to see this place cleaned up some; sad to see that more cleaning is needed. Hope all is well with the real troopers ITT.

This circus has me laughing pretty hard. A few opinions: Tina has absolutely zero value to advance any suspect. that means current suspects, past suspects, and future suspects. If Tina has a value, it's in clearing up any missing details - and even that is a stretch to believe that there are details that she could give after this period of time. Blevins, Bruce, and others that have mentioned Tina in the past are completely ignorant of how the human mind works. I've mentioned this once or twice before on this board. Go get yourself a cognitive psychology book and learn what you don't know. Bruce showing up on Tina's doorstep? Completely unacceptable. She is not "a public figure," she's a private citizen that was victimized by Dan Cooper. Pulling this stunt is making her a further victim as she has already stated several times to several people that she does not want to discuss the case. I believe you can still figure out the case even without a plane location or time of jump. It's far easier if you have these, but the discovery of the money itself is enough to lead you to a reasonable conclusion... unless you start doubting all the inferences from that also. Why no takers on my offer for free money? Obviously this new suspect did it.... I will now extend my offer to any future suspect. I might even give you odds. I'm so confident that this case is totally screwed that I'll bet against any suspect you can come up with and I'll bet against them blind. I will not bet against Weber though, but since he can't be pinned to the plane, it's sort of moot anyway.

We already knew it was someone new. It was a thought experiment that you became obsessed with. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't have a reason to do any other thought experiments here. It's not unethical unless I'm from the FBI, but at this stage, they're the ones expressing the most optimism. I'll go ahead and extend the offer to anyone ever affiliated with the FBI, but I want them to give me some odds. I'll gladly bet against the FBI all day long when it comes to Cooper because they've shown me that they'll never figure this out. If you're reading, I will be your counterparty and we can make a deal. I didn't realize Blevins liked to wager. I've read where he was 90% confident that KC was Cooper. If someone here is willing to split the cost to get KC's fingerprints or DNA independently tested against what the FBI has, I probably would be willing to make a wager to make it all worth our time. Blevins and KC should be out the discussion, period, and anything I could do to help expedite this, I'd probably be willing to do. The primary benefit of having Blevins involved is that his PR machine keeps Cooper in the mainstream media - but the benefit is balanced with us having to hear more and more BS that doesn't add up in the slightest. It's a bit irritating to see on TV, and even more unbearable to have to skip his posts on here whenever I make my annual visits. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way around here.

I will take bets against anyone that is willing to put their money on the new suspect. If there's no takers, I might be willing to give odds. I will put up a friendly little wager of up to $1,000 that the FBI will not be able to tie the new suspect to the plane via fingerprints or DNA. All speculation aside. If interested, send a PM and we'll have to do some sort of escrow. Intrade doesn't take wagers on issues that only 20 people in the world care about (sadly, or I'd just go there)

Orange1, I know about object fixation in other fields such as racing, or baseball. There's a reason why it's optimal to look at where you want to go or in the case of baseball, what you want to hit. What does ANY of this have to do with math, statistics, probabilities, or resolving the issues that your opinion on the case produces? Unless you can find a way that a guy with a maximum air time of a minute can object fixate himself 12 miles or more with a wind of maybe 10 knots, then I'm not too sure how this particular thing relates to the case. As far as Survivor goes, the analogy gave me a little mind candy for a good 30 seconds there. Quade would be Jeff Probst. Georger would be Russell. Perhaps Sluggo or Snowmann would be Ozzie. I would be Boston Rob. Not all sure who would else would be who, but entertaining thought none the less. Nice chatting with you all again. Take care of yourselves until next time... and Blevins, good luck on those sales and any other press you give the case. I'm sincere when I say that I'm happy that we've all gotten what we wanted out of the case.

Blevins, The part about Cooper dying was intended for Robert99; my apologies for not making that clear. Also, I was not slamming you for making some money. I specifically said I can't fault you for it. You and me aren't all that different. You got into this Cooper stuff as a writer looking to write and eventually sell a book. I got into this Cooper stuff to learn what I can, process it, and eventually know the truth as close as it can be known. I'm happy that we both got what we wanted.

Well Mr. Blevins, congratulations on finding a way to cash in on this old crime. I certainly can't fault a man for making a buck. 99, And as far as Cooper dying in the crime goes - I wish there were a way to take that bet. You may want to double check your math and re-evaluate your conclusion. Just sayin'

A few factual things of interest: I have not held a job since 2007. 14 months ago, I lost my home to foreclosure. Less than 1 month ago, I bought a new house and paid cash. I kept several stacks of $100 bills in the attic above my bedroom. There was a surge of unsolved bank robberies earlier in the year in my current hometown. An old friend of mine from way back is currently in prison for robbing a bank about a year ago in SW WA. Does any of this mean anything? That whole show made me ROTFLMAO.

I recommend that you do some research in cognitive psychology. You might want to take a closer look at memories in specific. Too much to post, but the cliffs version would read: all witness testimony is subject to huge reliability issues if not accounted for every single step of the way. "every step of the way" has already been violated big time and can never be made whole. Relying on any of the witnesses for a positive ID is laughable at this point, and was laughable by 1975. /cliffs

If it's in a PM, then you can safely assume there's a reason for it, and ignoring this for your own benefit is opening yourself up for litigation.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E02E47169FA9829A Not sure how long I'll leave this up. Most of it will be things you already know, but the ideas towards the end should be somewhat fresh. Take care! SCPLF

Cook proposed this very argument a few years ago and I discussed it here on the forum. I think this fails to account for too many things. I appreciate the kind words, I actually wasn't intending for those videos to be public - at least not yet, but since the cat is out of the bag, I'll leave them public for a while. They're a very small portion of a larger body of work I've already done (Sluggo's link begins at the 10th segment) - and is only a small part of what I will address in subsequent vids. As it is, the content of the four videos have never been discussed here or anywhere else that I'm aware of - at least not the way I present them. They represent some of the newer angles I've taken in looking at this. Up through the last video, I've pointed out 3 separate paradoxes and showed why the conventional way of resolving them will never work - this involved some math and stats. I have not yet discussed how one would actually resolve them. The videos that Sluggo link to only discuss the last (and least significant) paradox. When these are done, I'll let you guys know. Until then, you can send me a PM or whatever and I'll respond (may take me a few weeks, but eventually I will). Take care, and happy to see you all still having fun and enjoying the greatest unsolved mystery of all time!

Unfortunately what they did and what they could have done were two different things. I happen to agree with you regarding marking precisely where fragments were found. It could clear up a lot of confusion and more importantly could reveal some clues as to how this all went down. The 3 month deal on the rubber bands was never a major determinant to me - although I used that number as one of the assumptions. The point is, they can't be out in the elements indefinitely without withering. Even if it took a year to weather, you're looking at one of two possibilities. 1. money arrived at the bar before they weathered, or 2. the money was housed in some manner as to extend the life of the bands. I happen to believe #2. One scenario I didn't write out a chain for was the whole bag housing the money for say 7 or so years before releasing the bills. Such a chain could easily be added to the others. One might be able to argue this was possible [of course without actually running an experiment to prove it's possible], but even so it requires several other variants to also hold true simultaneously, each of which is a huge leap in odds. It's the primary reason I personally don't believe it happened that way, but who am I to say that this wasn't 1 in a trillion where everything went haywire at the same time.

Georger, If you've seen the report, then it takes a lot of uncertainty out of the logic chain and pretty much reinforces it. If I read your argument correctly, your primary issue is that Palmer didn't take a core sample and do chemical analysis to absolutely positively figure out what layer was what. Is your complaint regarding our inability to go back now, look at a varve, and identify the same layers he was looking at? If that's not it, I'm not quite sure I follow what the complaint would be. If someone asks me to get around the race track in under two minutes, I say.. sure, no problem. I use an automatic and go around the track. Then 30 years later some guy gets mad that I didn't use my shifter cart to get around the track in 35 seconds. There was no reason to do so, I was fully capable of the task doing it the way I did. If your argument is that Palmer may have screwed up simple stratigraphy, then sure, that's a valid argument. But there are other factors that can give you an idea if he was accurate or not. If you believe the money arrived at that place shortly after the crime, then you also believe the strata (blue-ish described in your summary) was a pre-71 layer, and etc etc. If your summary of the report isn't just your own making and somewhat accurately reports the findings, then there's a lot in there to suggest that the money did not arrive at that spot anywhere near the crime, but rather quite some time after it. That's the bottom line: when did the money get there?

That post I made about 9 solutions had some assumptions built in. One of them had to do with layers in the sand. At the time, yourself along with others felt that it was highly likely that sand was eroding (and it is) and that it was also likely that the dredge layer itself eroded. I accounted for that in a few of the chains I wrote out. The chains themselves aren't perfect, I put them together strictly as an academic exercise. You can make of it what you will. If the money gets there in 1971/early 72, and the money was found at the surface, any sand including dredge layers deposited from that time to 1980 would have had to erode. The layer that Palmer found in the sand would then have to be a pre-1971 layer and NOT the dredge layer like he thought. I'll let you figure out why that must be true. There's nothing illogical about it. And if you don't know what layer I'm talking about, go look at the picture of him pointing to the layer. If it's a pre-1971 layer, then you must say that this layer (whenever it was formed) was able to remain on the beach without erosion, but that subsequent layers (ie, dredge) were not able to remain but washed away. As to Palmer's report, I can only comment that his findings were reported on in the 80s. It's not as though they didn't exist or that he did not visit the site to give his professional opinion. Where his report went, where it can be found today, well.... your guess is as good as mine. Oh, and 377... thanks for the tips about my technique. I think a little more arch would add some stability, but also keep in mind that they turn DOWN the speed, so I have to flatten out some just to stay from the bottom.... they told me they'll boost the wind when I'm ready. And thanks for the props, I think most novices would reach for the door when trying to exit - and of course we know what that will do, so perhaps that's why they mess that part up?

I concur with 377. I avoid conspiracy theories like the plague. I hate them with a passion - unless there's actually more than just "could" (ie, "must"). Occam's razor could serve pretty much everyone on this thread, but most fall prey to conspiracy level thinking (may not subscribe to an actual conspiracy, but rather a chain of logic so convoluted that it resembles a conspiracy). Here's a parable: a guy sets out to prove his wave theory. But an experiment doesn't hold up the theory. The guy says the experiment was flawed, and says the fact that the experiment didn't hold up proves it. Those types would have run in circles for a hundred years and never would have listened to Einstein's particle hypothesis because their eyes were never opened when the evidence disagreed with them. Regarding the FBI wanting to solve the case: it cannot be solved. Only inductive reasoning could lead you to the most probable events, but when you're begging the question, it's sort of hard to expect to arrive at any sort of logical conclusion. And if the conclusion just so happens to conflict with reality, they will NEVER reach a logical conclusion even if Quade keeps the board up until we all die. This is why I wrote the parable about the guy not willing to listen to any sort of particle hypothesis. It's precisely how I see some key players in this mystery.

Sounds good. I've been slowly tunnel training, although I have a VERY long ways to go (probably about 59 more hours worth)... will get there someday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IBGwGfnnoE Is there any word on Kaye's final write up? I'm hoping to do a series of videos on youtube explaining those "9" solutions - of course there's more depending on variants and depending on what assumptions you want to put into the equation. I want to hear more about this meeting with Snow. You and him are the two main honchos as far as I'm concerned.

I put the linear logic on the pdf attached to the post above. I will add the following observations: Because condition 72 requires some astronomical things, including Palmer messing up some simple stratigraphy, I do not believe condition 72 is possible. If condition 72 does not hold true (and the rubber band analysis does hold true) then it eliminates Solution U (money in the Columbia), Solution V (money in a tributary), and Solution X. That leaves solution T (someone finds and dumps the money), solution Y, and solution Z. That means either someone found and then dumped the money, or Cooper stored money and some event put it into a tributary, or Cooper stored money and *someone* came back for it and put it into the river/tributary. To argue to the contrary means you have to disagree with extreme odds. I know there are a lot of people that don’t care about odds. One of them has been combing the woods of Washougal for 20 years looking for evidence of solution V.