mark 107
Recommended Posts
georger 244
QuoteQuote
Like someone else said, Jamie, get us a Cooper $20 out of that briefcase
I'd like to at least get access to the damn briefcase, which itself may be evidence.
what is the deal here anyway?
I have to get a $20 out of a briefcase that may or may not still be where I last saw it, or not be taken seriously, while none else have any proof to back up their claims?
this is said including those who claim he died in the jump.
not a damn one of you have produced any $20's or any other evidence.
so far the FBI are the only ones who have.
alot of plausible theories out there, just no solid evidence.
$20's found on a shore do not equate a man dying in a river, or forest, or surviving for that matter either.
all it means is some norjack ransom $20's wound up on that shore.
If you find some twenties in that case here is a
website where you can check the serial numbers.
Good luck.
http://www.check-six.com/lib/DBCooperLoot.htm
If you find a Cooper $twenty$ contact me
immediately and share the loot! You and I
and several FBI agents will all go out to dinner
and throw a BIG party! Never mind that we might
all wind up spending $twenty$ years in the BIG HOUSE!
georger 244
QuoteI'm reading back through the old and current thread, heaven forbid, to check but seems like I remember in earlier discussions of the money find, especially involving posts by Ckret, the money was found in bundles wrapped with rubber band - money only crumbled after handling and bands deteriorated -- which led to fragments or shards in the general area where found (inches under the sand). Nothing about balls of mush or other unidentifiable stuff. The bills were id'd initially for serial numbers by the FBI, then additional serial numbers were id'd by the auction house -(might be hazy on detail here).
Basically - over time and many posts the story about the money find went from relatively straight-forward of a few bundles to substantial changes in the details - such as the substance of the find, area of the find, etc. etc..
Please correct me if i'm wrong on the original find, but if i'm generally accurate -- Does anyone recall how the changes came to be - was there an additional report found other than the one Ckret initially posted about? I just can't remember and I haven't found it yet and hoping someone will spare me the arduous task of continuing to look. thanks
After Ckret's post a science panel was formed that
did more research, doing some lab analysis of the money, interviewing lots of people including retired agents, people who worked at the excavation site, doing research with the USGS and people who worked with Palmer, etc etc. That, in a nutshell, is how Ckret's post has developed ... to date.
georger 244
In case there is any doubt I agreeQuoteQuoteThe 0.0043 dimension has five significant digits based on the two leading zeros to the right of the decimal point being significant as well as the "trailing zero" to the left of the decimal point being significant since there are significant numbers to the right of the decimal point.
Really? 0.0043 inches is approximately 0.00038 feet (or 0.000000068 miles). The number of significant digits is a measure of accuracy. Using your bizarre definition of significant digits, you are saying if you measure in feet (or miles) instead of inches, you can increase your accuracy.
Your calculator can display 8 or 10 or 12 digits, but that doesn't make your calculations any more accurate.
This goes to the issue of exit point, winds aloft, and landing area calculations, too. The results of any calculations cannot be more accurate than the starting points of those calculations.
Mark
with your position. "False accuracy", as we call it here, often appears in sales people going out to express in long decimal runs, something a lab cannot deliver, or Nature deliver either. Standards
matter.
That can prove very irksome and qiestions the
integrity of the whole enterprise ... maybe you can
find a nice website that speaks to the issue in a
simple (compelling) manner. False accuracy takes
many forms. I agree with you, completely. Its
common sense.
"Al, You state that "Milk cans float when submerged." Please elaborate. No satire intended."
Milk cans are designed with a taper fit on the lid. The lid wraps around the top of the can. A very unusual design. Keeps contaminates out of the can. If you submerge a milk can, or if you bury it, then flood the area, it will hold air and act as a float of sorts, a bouyant vessel. If, on the other hand, you tip it over, the contents with come falling out immediately as it applies force to the tapered lid which just kinda sits there. If a milk can were to pop up from a buried location (you can calculate the bouyant force of a 5 gallon can and it is tremendous) and into a water depth so as to float the can (perhaps 12" or more), it would float until finding a shallower bottom (the sand bar or before) at which time it would begin to ground, eventually to the point of a horizontal position where the lid would fall off and expose the contents. Subsequent waters would wash it clean as bundles of paper money do apparently float.
Hence, my recommendation, "If you want to find the money, look for a milk can!" I would suggest 100 feet off the shore, at the flood plain line, and most likely at an outside bend in the river.
Milk cans are designed with a taper fit on the lid. The lid wraps around the top of the can. A very unusual design. Keeps contaminates out of the can. If you submerge a milk can, or if you bury it, then flood the area, it will hold air and act as a float of sorts, a bouyant vessel. If, on the other hand, you tip it over, the contents with come falling out immediately as it applies force to the tapered lid which just kinda sits there. If a milk can were to pop up from a buried location (you can calculate the bouyant force of a 5 gallon can and it is tremendous) and into a water depth so as to float the can (perhaps 12" or more), it would float until finding a shallower bottom (the sand bar or before) at which time it would begin to ground, eventually to the point of a horizontal position where the lid would fall off and expose the contents. Subsequent waters would wash it clean as bundles of paper money do apparently float.
Hence, my recommendation, "If you want to find the money, look for a milk can!" I would suggest 100 feet off the shore, at the flood plain line, and most likely at an outside bend in the river.
Guru312 0
Quote... I haven't found it yet and hoping someone will spare me the arduous task of continuing to look....
You are kidding, right?
In the event that you are serious, my professional consulting services are available: I'll gladly do custom searches for you at my normal, on-line consulting rate of $100/hr.
Or, you could go here until you come to your senses: Disney.com
Guru312
I am not DB Cooper
I am not DB Cooper
QuoteQuote... I haven't found it yet and hoping someone will spare me the arduous task of continuing to look....
You are kidding, right?
In the event that you are serious, my professional consulting services are available: I'll gladly do custom searches for you at my normal, on-line consulting rate of $100/hr.
Or, you could go here until you come to your senses: Disney.com
I was under the impression that the rules prohibit advertising here.
Guru312 0
QuoteI was under the impression that the rules prohibit advertising here.
I'm not selling satire, I'm giving it away.
Guru312
I am not DB Cooper
I am not DB Cooper
QuoteQuoteI was under the impression that the rules prohibit advertising here.
I'm not selling satire, I'm giving it away.
oh I get it, trolling!
I think Georger answered the question best:
"After Ckret's post a science panel was formed that
did more research, doing some lab analysis of the money, interviewing lots of people including retired agents, people who worked at the excavation site, doing research with the USGS and people who worked with Palmer, etc etc. That, in a nutshell, is how Ckret's post has developed ... to date."
Amazon 7
QuoteJo, maybe it's about time you back off the attacks of others.
Before ya know it, the only person that's not going to be banned in this forum is the ghost of DB Cooper himself.
Hey now ... I have not named names at all about who I believe is currently being dated by Sasquatch there just north of Washougal WA. I am sure the big fella is very snugly and his "friend" is very appreciative of the big hairy fella... its been very chilly up here recently
Guru312 0
QuoteI was under the impression that the rules prohibit advertising here.
Here's a freebie search for anyone interested:
Satire is a literary technique that attacks foolishness by making fun of it. Most good satires work through a "fiction" that is clearly transparent....
www.pearsoned.ca/text/flachmann4/gloss_iframe.html
Guru312
I am not DB Cooper
I am not DB Cooper
QuoteQuoteI was under the impression that the rules prohibit advertising here.
Here's a freebie search for anyone interested:
Satire is a literary technique that attacks foolishness by making fun of it. Most good satires work through a "fiction" that is clearly transparent....
www.pearsoned.ca/text/flachmann4/gloss_iframe.html
wow now you've really added to the knowledge base and potential solution to the DB Cooper case haven't you.
thats what we need, satire and personal attacks against people with valid questions.
quade 4
This coming from the guy that wants other people to do his searches for him.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
I have NO idea what is going on.
Someone TELL me what is happening - is the FBI actually talking to the writers and the media? Sluggo - call me! Does someone know something I need to know?
Has a FEW more weeks already got here? I just don't get the suspense issue here - someone tell me and get it over with.
The suspense is killing me...oh, now I get it - that is the issue....oops!
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
smokin99 0
QuoteAfter Ckret's post a science panel was formed that did more research, doing some lab analysis of the money, interviewing lots of people including retired agents, people who worked at the excavation site, doing research with the USGS and people who worked with Palmer, etc etc.
Thanks. I remember reading about the science panel and all of those posts that enhanced the info on the 1980 money find with 2009-10 analysis and 2009-2010 interviews with eyewitnesses involved with the 1980 find.
I guess what I'm getting at is that the original report of the money find is unchanged and no further reports were found from that time period. Is that correct?
QuoteThat, in a nutshell, is how Ckret's post has developed ... to date.
lol...I love it when you guys get so cryptic. Makes me think this caper might be solved yet!...
So does anyone know if there is a copy of the full science panel report to date.....Anything more since Tom Kaye was on the natl geo special? Are do we mere mortals have to wait until DB's bones are found or he's in handcuffs to see it? Just joking...though seriously sometimes i think with all the posts that have been written and time spent, and I, for one, certainly appreciate all the effort expended so hope no one is offended by humor, Murphy's Law says that some little kid out hiking one day is gonna find a bone that's been carried by a scavenger to a completely off target location. Money finds, Hewlett-Packard 5710-A dual-column gas chromatograph with flame analyzation detectors, calculators, flight paths, probabilities and slide rules be damned.....but I hope not.
Mona Lisa: If you will look in the manual, you will see that this particular model faucet requires a range of 10-16 foot pounds of torque. I routinely twist the maximum allowable torquage.
Vinny: How can you be sure you used 16 foot pounds of torque?
Mona Lisa: Because I used a Craftsman model 1019 Laboratory edition, signature series torque wrench. The kind used by Cal Tech High Energy physicists, and NASA engineers.
Vinny: In that case, how can you be sure that's accurate?
Mona Lisa: Because a split second before the torque wrench was applied to the faucet handle, it had been calibrated by top members of the state and federal Departments of Weights and Measures, to be dead-on balls accurate. Here's the certificate of validation.
Vinny: "Dead-on balls accurate"?
Mona Lisa: It's an industry term.
Vinny: I guess the f-ing thing is broken.
but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill
377 22
QuoteThis coming from the guy that wants other people to do his searches for him.
I want Snowmman to do everyones' searches for them. That's essentially what he did here, dug deeper on what we searched for and richly supplemented it... in addition to performing his own original research.
One reason I don't want to listen to Occam about Cooper's drowning is that I don't want anyone to have come to that gruesome end after pulling off such an amazing caper.
Can you imagine the agony? You actually get the cash, you make a successful exit, are floating down under a good canopy with all the money still attached to you and then splash... shocking cold, complete disorientation and a quick realization that after beating all those odds, your luck has run out and you will be dead in a few minutes.
So I ignore Occam and continue to look for less probable but more emotionally palatable explanations for how stacks of hot twenties ended up on Tena Bar.
377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.
Robert99 50
QuoteQuoteThe 0.0043 dimension has five significant digits based on the two leading zeros to the right of the decimal point being significant as well as the "trailing zero" to the left of the decimal point being significant since there are significant numbers to the right of the decimal point.
Really? 0.0043 inches is approximately 0.00038 feet (or 0.000000068 miles). The number of significant digits is a measure of accuracy. Using your bizarre definition of significant digits, you are saying if you measure in feet (or miles) instead of inches, you can increase your accuracy.
Your calculator can display 8 or 10 or 12 digits, but that doesn't make your calculations any more accurate.
This goes to the issue of exit point, winds aloft, and landing area calculations, too. The results of any calculations cannot be more accurate than the starting points of those calculations.
Mark
Mark, Let's say that 0.0043 has only two significant digits - which is correct. The other two numbers have three significant digits each. There is no information as to any of these numbers having a trailing significant digit other than the ones shown.
But you claimed that there was only one significant digit. How did you arrive at that number? Were YOU using a bizarre definition of significant digits?
Changing the units does not change the accuracy.
Would you amplify your last sentence? If you disagree with something I have written along that line, please cite chapter and verse. My ability to read minds, and my capability with ESP, has declined remarkably in my old age.
Robert Nicholson
377 22
I like false accuracy, at least where it doesnt matter much. I have a really cheap digital micrometer. I love to see it read out a dimension to 6 digits, especially since it cost in the very low 2 digits ($16). I think, "what a bargain, so much precision for such a small sum."
Of course its repeatability measuring the same piece is poor, the least significant digits appearing more like a random number generator than an accurate measuring device, but hey, I don't really need the accuracy for seeing if I have reached minimum thickness on my brake rotors.
I can see where meteorolgy is relevant to DBC, but metrology is a stretch. 
377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.
Really? 0.0043 inches is approximately 0.00038 feet (or 0.000000068 miles). The number of significant digits is a measure of accuracy. Using your bizarre definition of significant digits, you are saying if you measure in feet (or miles) instead of inches, you can increase your accuracy.
Your calculator can display 8 or 10 or 12 digits, but that doesn't make your calculations any more accurate.
This goes to the issue of exit point, winds aloft, and landing area calculations, too. The results of any calculations cannot be more accurate than the starting points of those calculations.
Mark
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites