georger 247
snowmman 3
that's good daily data georger.
I'll have to plot it.
One interesting thing it provides: we were musing about the rate of change of water levels...i.e. how much the level might change in just one day...that data has it there.
(edit) I'm thinking that it's not just high water levels, that's interesting, but 'surges'...since that implies sudden dramatic shifts in hydraulic forces? just thinking out loud.
(edit) in looking at daily deltas, it appears that there are some instances where a '0' reading is incorrect, as it implies the day-to-day change is too dramatic.
I'm thinking that maybe a 0 in that set of data should be considered potentially bad data and ignored?
I'll have to plot it.
One interesting thing it provides: we were musing about the rate of change of water levels...i.e. how much the level might change in just one day...that data has it there.
(edit) I'm thinking that it's not just high water levels, that's interesting, but 'surges'...since that implies sudden dramatic shifts in hydraulic forces? just thinking out loud.
(edit) in looking at daily deltas, it appears that there are some instances where a '0' reading is incorrect, as it implies the day-to-day change is too dramatic.
I'm thinking that maybe a 0 in that set of data should be considered potentially bad data and ignored?
georger 247
Quotethat's good daily data georger.
I'll have to plot it.
One interesting thing it provides: we were musing about the rate of change of water levels...i.e. how much the level might change in just one day...that data has it there.
(edit) I'm thinking that it's not just high water levels, that's interesting, but 'surges'...since that implies sudden dramatic shifts in hydraulic forces? just thinking out loud.
(edit) in looking at daily deltas, it appears that there are some instances where a '0' reading is incorrect, as it implies the day-to-day change is too dramatic.
I'm thinking that maybe a 0 in that set of data should be considered potentially bad data and ignored?
REPLY> surges exactly, been thinking the same
line of thought. The whole situation with the Columbia and its tributaries is a series of surges -
yearly cycles. (see attached)
But I think the route by water to T_Bar is fairly specific and the result of a number of forces
working together. Jo has always commented its
open main channel water to the other side straight
across from Tina Bar, and I think she's right on the money, as it were.
snowmman 3
QuoteQuotethat's good daily data georger.
I'll have to plot it.
One interesting thing it provides: we were musing about the rate of change of water levels...i.e. how much the level might change in just one day...that data has it there.
(edit) I'm thinking that it's not just high water levels, that's interesting, but 'surges'...since that implies sudden dramatic shifts in hydraulic forces? just thinking out loud.
(edit) in looking at daily deltas, it appears that there are some instances where a '0' reading is incorrect, as it implies the day-to-day change is too dramatic.
I'm thinking that maybe a 0 in that set of data should be considered potentially bad data and ignored?
REPLY> surges exactly, been thinking the same
line of thought. The whole situation with the Columbia and its tributaries is a series of surges -
yearly cycles. (see attached)
But I think the route by water to T_Bar is fairly specific and the result of a number of forces
working together. Jo has always commented its
open main channel water to the other side straight
across from Tina Bar, and I think she's right on the money, as it were.
One thing to think about in terms of myths.
We've kind of accepted this idea that high water levels could be connected to the money find...really just because H. talked it up way back when.
We know that if it was water transport, we probably needed water levels up to a point to get it on shore where it was found. From the pictures we have of the shoreline slope, the water level needed doesn't seem to be that much...it almost looks like every winter, from the data you have, the water might have been high enough to move money to the level where it was found (have to analyze that thesis more though).
In any case, the notion of "high water levels" being part of a water transport theory, is kind of just a myth at this point...although it might help connect it to other theories, like being on dry land for a while.
But I'm thinking a reasonable theory is money being buried in sand almost immediately in '71, and being moved over time. Maybe arriving at Tena Bar post '74 and being buried there.
Just wanted to say there's nothing I know of that "requires" extremely high water levels so far?
(edit) to be clear though, it might be reasonable to say "surges" are more important, since the money couldn't just be moving every year? So maybe one or two dramatic moves, as opposed to continual movement.
377 22
View from 10,000 ft:
Cooper survived the jump. No missing persons reports that correlate with time, description etc. Unlikely that the disappearance of a likely suspect would fail to generate scrutiny given the publicity levels around the time of the hijacking.
Cooper lost the money during the jump. I think he lost it all, but perhaps just a portion. The Tena Bar money's very existence tells me it was most likely an accidental drop. Why would Cooper throw away currency? How it got to Tena bar is most likely explained by natural means or dredging.
Cooper's real identity is: ??? Dunno... but someday we will know.
I do think he was just a plain old criminal, not a CIA operative, spook, or anyone else under the control of the govt.
Occam's Razor leads me to these conclusions. I am just betting on the least complicated explanations which are almost always the most probable.
I could be wrong about all of the above, but this forum's very roots are based on speculation, so I dont feel out of line in adding my own from time to time.
377
Cooper survived the jump. No missing persons reports that correlate with time, description etc. Unlikely that the disappearance of a likely suspect would fail to generate scrutiny given the publicity levels around the time of the hijacking.
Cooper lost the money during the jump. I think he lost it all, but perhaps just a portion. The Tena Bar money's very existence tells me it was most likely an accidental drop. Why would Cooper throw away currency? How it got to Tena bar is most likely explained by natural means or dredging.
Cooper's real identity is: ??? Dunno... but someday we will know.
I do think he was just a plain old criminal, not a CIA operative, spook, or anyone else under the control of the govt.
Occam's Razor leads me to these conclusions. I am just betting on the least complicated explanations which are almost always the most probable.
I could be wrong about all of the above, but this forum's very roots are based on speculation, so I dont feel out of line in adding my own from time to time.
377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.
georger 247
QuoteView from 10,000 ft:
Cooper survived the jump. No missing persons reports that correlate with time, description etc. Unlikely that the disappearance of a likely suspect would fail to generate scrutiny given the publicity levels around the time of the hijacking.
Cooper lost the money during the jump. I think he lost it all, but perhaps just a portion. The Tena Bar money's very existence tells me it was most likely an accidental drop. Why would Cooper throw away currency? How it got to Tena bar is most likely explained by natural means or dredging.
Cooper's real identity is: ??? Dunno... but someday we will know.
I do think he was just a plain old criminal, not a CIA operative, spook, or anyone else under the control of the govt.
Occam's Razor leads me to these conclusions. I am just betting on the least complicated explanations which are almost always the most probable.
I could be wrong about all of the above, but this forum's very roots are based on speculation, so I dont feel out of line in adding my own from time to time.
377
I think you are right on the money. The missing link
is 'the large package of myths and misscalls' which all began way back when, spurred on by reactive thinking when by all accounts this was an ordinary
event and Cooper was ... about as Ckret says.
Nature with its own complexity does the rest -
Now a rhetorical question:
Is the Cooper portrayed in the trsanscripts the kind
of guy that would wrap a $100 bill around a bottle
of champagne and give it to some woman he had just met moments ago in the lounge of an airport?
Thanks - I think we are on our way -
Georger
georger 247
QuoteView from 10,000 ft:
Cooper survived the jump. No missing persons reports that correlate with time, description etc. Unlikely that the disappearance of a likely suspect would fail to generate scrutiny given the publicity levels around the time of the hijacking.
Cooper lost the money during the jump. I think he lost it all, but perhaps just a portion. The Tena Bar money's very existence tells me it was most likely an accidental drop. Why would Cooper throw away currency? How it got to Tena bar is most likely explained by natural means or dredging.
Cooper's real identity is: ??? Dunno... but someday we will know.
I do think he was just a plain old criminal, not a CIA operative, spook, or anyone else under the control of the govt.
Occam's Razor leads me to these conclusions. I am just betting on the least complicated explanations which are almost always the most probable.
I could be wrong about all of the above, but this forum's very roots are based on speculation, so I dont feel out of line in adding my own from time to time.
377
BTW, I wish we had a view of Portland-Vancouver
from 10k feet ! If you have one share it!
georger 247
QuoteQuoteQuotethat's good daily data georger.
I'll have to plot it.
One interesting thing it provides: we were musing about the rate of change of water levels...i.e. how much the level might change in just one day...that data has it there.
(edit) I'm thinking that it's not just high water levels, that's interesting, but 'surges'...since that implies sudden dramatic shifts in hydraulic forces? just thinking out loud.
(edit) in looking at daily deltas, it appears that there are some instances where a '0' reading is incorrect, as it implies the day-to-day change is too dramatic.
I'm thinking that maybe a 0 in that set of data should be considered potentially bad data and ignored?
REPLY> surges exactly, been thinking the same
line of thought. The whole situation with the Columbia and its tributaries is a series of surges -
yearly cycles. (see attached)
But I think the route by water to T_Bar is fairly specific and the result of a number of forces
working together. Jo has always commented its
open main channel water to the other side straight
across from Tina Bar, and I think she's right on the money, as it were.
One thing to think about in terms of myths.
We've kind of accepted this idea that high water levels could be connected to the money find...really just because H. talked it up way back when.
We know that if it was water transport, we probably needed water levels up to a point to get it on shore where it was found. From the pictures we have of the shoreline slope, the water level needed doesn't seem to be that much...it almost looks like every winter, from the data you have, the water might have been high enough to move money to the level where it was found (have to analyze that thesis more though).
In any case, the notion of "high water levels" being part of a water transport theory, is kind of just a myth at this point...although it might help connect it to other theories, like being on dry land for a while.
But I'm thinking a reasonable theory is money being buried in sand almost immediately in '71, and being moved over time. Maybe arriving at Tena Bar post '74 and being buried there.
Just wanted to say there's nothing I know of that "requires" extremely high water levels so far?
(edit) to be clear though, it might be reasonable to say "surges" are more important, since the money couldn't just be moving every year? So maybe one or two dramatic moves, as opposed to continual movement.
It all comes down to physical evidence and that is
what we are working on -
This is all extremely helpful Snowmman.
Georger
snowmman 3
Quote
This is all extremely helpful Snowmman.
Georger
maybe, But I just brainstorm'ed the real way I'm going to flush out D.B. Just need a little help from a couple million others of like mind. (attached).
BTW, I agree on the 'ordinary" aspect. The lack of wide publication of the successive successful jumps, plus the lack of context in hijack history, which would show that Cooper's progression was almost predictable, rather than extraordinary, makes me think that even though he jumped first, it's not enough to ascribe anything supremely identifiable to Cooper based on that act.
Most every detail of what he did can be shown to have elements in prior hijacks. Ransom, Chute, Bomb. etc.
Now if he had grabbed the controls and flew the plane, that would have been a real first.
georger 247
maybe, But I just brainstorm'ed the real way I'm going to flush out D.B. Just need a little help from a couple million others of like mind. (attached).
reply>
some people wont find that humorous. I do.
reply>
some people wont find that humorous. I do.
Quote***
On the # of posts. If I look at the count, skyjack71 is still outgunning me. More steam!
reply]
Sorry Snowmman I have never looked at the counts and could care less.
Georger: The flood (never-the-less) was not sufficient to flood the Fazio home. which at that time set a few feet above the river level (maybe 8 ft to 9 ft) - this is just me eyeballing it. The only evidence of water levels with any current at all was at the fence and tree line (there were large trees there). This fence and tree line showed evidence of a little erosion from a flood before 2000. These trees where very large - age I would not know, but if I can find the tape - someone in the area should be able to tell us the approximate age of the trees on the fence line at that time 2000.
They edited a lot of that out and I do not know how much of the shore line they showed - but the unedited film should still be available - I am contacting one of the crew who was a private film maker doing this on a commission and due to the interest of the subject he may have kept the original taping.
It was a flood before 2000 and after 1980 that Himmelsbach and Fazio were discussing that created that particular damage. There was rising water and the usual snow melts in that area from 1971 to 1977 - I also posted that information and the source which I consider reliable because it was a State of Wa source. Should you want to dispute that then you will need documentation...I don't mean pictures of other areas.
I do not know how to key the info like you guys do to pull it up. I rely on hard copies and back-up on all documents - there are so many I just have them in categories.Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
QuoteNow a rhetorical question:
Is the Cooper portrayed in the trsanscripts the kind
of guy that would wrap a $100 bill around a bottle
of champagne and give it to some woman he had just met moments ago in the lounge of an airport?
Facts and Myths: I will restate again that I did not meet Duane until after the champagne bottle was sent to my end of the bar. As I refused the money I ask the waiter to tell the gentleman to join me where I was seated...some 20 ft away. It was a large L shaped bar and we were on opposite ends. Until that time I had not paid any attention to him - the waiter told me he was wearing a gray suit.
He did not stand out and was not being bolsterous or loud...but he had obviously been observing me and had asked the bar tender if I was a regular. The bar tender did tell him I WAS NOT a regular, but that it was my birthday, because of a comment I made to him when I placed my order...it was a quiet bar and not one of the airport hangouts - I was not comfortable in places like that...loud - pick-up places such as the Admiral Benbow.
I was not there to be picked up nor was I interested - I just want a couple of hours to myself in nice surroundings...There were at the most a dozen patrons in the bar and the music was soft and soothing. My clothing was as ALWAYS very conservative - never revealing or sexy...I was just an ordinary woman whose 36th was being spent alone - I was a struggling mother with a child and worked 2 jobs to keep food on the table and a roof over our heads. I was actually there remembering better times.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
QuoteJo has always commented its open main channel water to the other side straight
across from Tina Bar, and I think she's right on the money, as it were.
Standing out at the waters edge it was in a curve - to the East there were trees jutting out into the Columbia on what I don't know - I assumed that area sheltered the bar from a lot of turbulence. A comment was made to me by Himmelsbach regarding this but I don't remember what it was. Staight across the river was wide and open - almost barren - the land across the river seemed to be low lands.
To the West or NW I really don't remember what I saw - but the river continued to show a curve.
I am not looking a map - only relaying what I remember seeing that day. I didn't want to muddy this with details and maps which seem to distort what I remember that day in May of 2000.
I will remind you that the Fazio brothers and the fishermen in the area spoke of high water prior to the find - this high water was supposedly a snow melt in the prior wks. I would suppose this to be rising water to maybe the fence line...this would put maybe 2 ft in the area of the find.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
georger 247
Quote
QuoteJo has always commented its open main channel water to the other side straight
across from Tina Bar, and I think she's right on the money, as it were.
Standing out at the waters edge it was in a curve - to the East there were trees jutting out into the Columbia on what I don't know - I assumed that area sheltered the bar from a lot of turbulence. A comment was made to me by Himmelsbach regarding this but I don't remember what it was. Staight across the river was wide and open - almost barren - the land across the river seemed to be low lands.
To the West or NW I really don't remember what I saw - but the river continued to show a curve.
I am not looking a map - only relaying what I remember seeing that day. I didn't want to muddy this with details and maps which seem to distort what I remember that day in May of 2000.
I will remind you that the Fazio brothers and the fishermen in the area spoke of high water prior to the find - this high water was supposedly a snow melt in the prior wks. I would suppose this to be rising water to maybe the fence line...this would put maybe 2 ft in the area of the find.
Reply> good post Jo. Thanks. Yes, it does not take much of a rise to bring water on to Tina Bar in this
old days - the elevation and slope are gradual, as
Sluggo pointed out much earlier in his fine graphics.
So I post a few photos to possibly remind you of the trees. You might see something familiar.
Georger
Georger: Can you find a 2000 aerial we can over-lay on that last pic you posted. I can't see the parking lot and the house - maybe the house was not there in 1974.
Those are my mind-set land marks from 2000. If that last pic had a marker where the house stood in 2000....then I can be very close to telling you exactly the place that Himmelsbach pointed out. The house was about 3/4 a football length from the dig site and to my left from where I was standing about 10 ft from the water.
Football lengths are how I judge distance more than 20 ft. Rather elementary but just the way my farmer bred mind works. The barn yard was 3/4 the size of a football field. Our yard was 1/2 the size of a football field. The entry was the length of 1 1/2 football fields.
I judged the field sizes and the crop sizes the same way. I suppose that comes from having a father who loved Football, although I have not been on a football field in over 45 yrs. Guess I should drive out to the local recreation area and see how a big a football field looks to me now after all of these yrs...and make sure I can still judge things that way.
Those are my mind-set land marks from 2000. If that last pic had a marker where the house stood in 2000....then I can be very close to telling you exactly the place that Himmelsbach pointed out. The house was about 3/4 a football length from the dig site and to my left from where I was standing about 10 ft from the water.
Football lengths are how I judge distance more than 20 ft. Rather elementary but just the way my farmer bred mind works. The barn yard was 3/4 the size of a football field. Our yard was 1/2 the size of a football field. The entry was the length of 1 1/2 football fields.
I judged the field sizes and the crop sizes the same way. I suppose that comes from having a father who loved Football, although I have not been on a football field in over 45 yrs. Guess I should drive out to the local recreation area and see how a big a football field looks to me now after all of these yrs...and make sure I can still judge things that way.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
georger 247
QuoteGeorger: Can you find a 2000 aerial we can over-lay on that last pic you posted. I can't see the parking lot and the house - maybe the house was not there in 1974.
Those are my mind-set land marks from 2000. If that last pic had a marker where the house stood in 2000....then I can be very close to telling you exactly the place that Himmelsbach pointed out. The house was about 3/4 a football length from the dig site and to my left from where I was standing about 10 ft from the water.
Football lengths are how I judge distance more than 20 ft. Rather elementary but just the way my farmer bred mind works. The barn yard was 3/4 the size of a football field. Our yard was 1/2 the size of a football field. The entry was the length of 1 1/2 football fields.
I judged the field sizes and the crop sizes the same way. I suppose that comes from having a father who loved Football, although I have not been on a football field in over 45 yrs. Guess I should drive out to the local recreation area and see how a big a football field looks to me now after all of these yrs...and make sure I can still judge things that way.
Reply> can do. I need a reference point, like the
trees (attached). Tell me how far and which direction from these trees. . . ? Give me as good a directions
as you can using the trees.
USC 69 - WA 0 ! Waoh! Am searching for a repeat on TV as I type . . .
Georger
I know were the house was but I don't see it in the pics.
What yr is the second pic from.
The second pic - looking back to the East...the trees had water up to them and that trough you see East of the Bar - trees on boths sides. Himmelsbach made a remark to me explaining that it was different in 80. This pic you have there must not be in 80.
What I am trying to say is that looking East there is far more sand on the beach than in 2000. With that I am talking about the trough to the East with trees on bothsides. I believe he said those trees where NOT there in 1980 or they were just scrubs. Looking down that way I could see things caught up in the trough area (it looked shallow).
Look at the shore line as a womans rear end and the her waist and the hump of her shoulders.
The lower hump (the toosh was not there in 2000 The prominent area was what is now the shoulder.
Got to be a 2000 pic someplace.
I thought I would be able to see the house better. (the house would have been there in 2000). Wish I could pull the picture out of my mind and put it on paper.
We were West of the trail from the gate and parking area - but i am not seeing that.. When you get to the beach you then walk West a few feet out from the first 2 large trees and then come out far enough you are not under the branches and that is the spot.
I want that house to appear darn it.
I want to see the gate and the path
and I don't see them. Also acrass the river there was NO developement as these pic show..
It appeard to be a grassy area over there. My pill has me seeing triple. Bye.
What yr is the second pic from.
The second pic - looking back to the East...the trees had water up to them and that trough you see East of the Bar - trees on boths sides. Himmelsbach made a remark to me explaining that it was different in 80. This pic you have there must not be in 80.
What I am trying to say is that looking East there is far more sand on the beach than in 2000. With that I am talking about the trough to the East with trees on bothsides. I believe he said those trees where NOT there in 1980 or they were just scrubs. Looking down that way I could see things caught up in the trough area (it looked shallow).
Look at the shore line as a womans rear end and the her waist and the hump of her shoulders.
The lower hump (the toosh was not there in 2000 The prominent area was what is now the shoulder.
Got to be a 2000 pic someplace.
I thought I would be able to see the house better. (the house would have been there in 2000). Wish I could pull the picture out of my mind and put it on paper.
We were West of the trail from the gate and parking area - but i am not seeing that.. When you get to the beach you then walk West a few feet out from the first 2 large trees and then come out far enough you are not under the branches and that is the spot.
I want that house to appear darn it.
I want to see the gate and the path
and I don't see them. Also acrass the river there was NO developement as these pic show..
It appeard to be a grassy area over there. My pill has me seeing triple. Bye.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
georger 247
QuoteI know were the house was but I don't see it in the pics.
What yr is the second pic from.
The second pic - looking back to the East...the trees had water up to them and that trough you see East of the Bar - trees on boths sides. Himmelsbach made a remark to me explaining that it was different in 80. This pic you have there must not be in 80.
What I am trying to say is that looking East there is far more sand on the beach than in 2000. With that I am talking about the trough to the East with trees on bothsides. I believe he said those trees where NOT there in 1980 or they were just scrubs. Looking down that way I could see things caught up in the trough area (it looked shallow).
Look at the shore line as a womans rear end and the her waist and the hump of her shoulders.
The lower hump (the toosh was not there in 2000 The prominent area was what is now the shoulder.
Got to be a 2000 pic someplace.
I thought I would be able to see the house better. (the house would have been there in 2000). Wish I could pull the picture out of my mind and put it on paper.
We were West of the trail from the gate and parking area - but i am not seeing that.. When you get to the beach you then walk West a few feet out from the first 2 large trees and then come out far enough you are not under the branches and that is the spot.
I want that house to appear darn it.
I want to see the gate and the path
and I don't see them. Also acrass the river there was NO developement as these pic show..
It appeard to be a grassy area over there. My pill has me seeing triple. Bye.
Ok Jo. Here are pics in consecutive order: 1970,
1974, and 1979. Maybe this will help. The house
was where?
Georger
This is on the FBI site and it is a farce:
QuoteAnd what of some of the names pegged as Cooper? None have panned out. Duane Weber, who claimed to be Cooper on his deathbed, was ruled out by DNA testing (we lifted a DNA sample from Cooper’s tie in 2001). Kenneth Christiansen, named in a recent magazine article, didn’t match the physical description and was a skilled paratrooper. Richard McCoy, who died in 1974, also didn’t match the description and was at home the day after the hijacking having Thanksgiving dinner with his family in Utah, an unlikely scenario unless he had help
2001 - WHY in the Hell did they wait till March of 2003 to request the DNA of Duane L. Weber (I have a receipt ) and WHY did they then wait until November of 2006 to even start to test samples with the last sample tested 1/31/07 (I have copy of the DNA Sample Processing Record which they ACCIDENTALLLY LEFT in the box) they returned to me in late 2007, prior to Agent Carr making his annoucement late that yr. I was informed only when they were going public.
They also state in that site that Cooper removed his tie - NOT one WITNESS SAW THIS. The FBI found the tie folded in the seat next to where Cooper had been sitting. This statement has been made directly to me and to others.
I question WHY Cooper would so carefully discard the briefcase and other items he touched and leave his tie neatly folded - not just tossed aside in a furry. What did Cooper have in the small paper bag that the FBI never wanted to talk about? Why was there a a MLK connection made in 1971? Was that just a ploy by the supporters of MLK or was it something the FBI had knowledge of?
Wonder if the FBI ever tested the DNA on that tie to various government and political officials?
Why was I told that the tie contained MULTIPLE PARTICIAL DNA by the agent?
The FBI has never qualified the DNA nor do they ever acknowledge that the DNA on the tie is compromised because in 1971 the tie was handled in a manner inconsistent with the handling of DNA evidence.
The FBI has also never made public the missing cigarette butts - that has only been in this forum and because I am the one who continues to harp on it. The fact that the tie and the butts were placed into evidence in Reno - IF the chain of custody of evidence had been complied with - they would know exactly where those butts are.
The tie cannot and does NOT stand without the butts...
Would one of the Attorneys on this forum come forward with how that would be handle if a suspect was on trial for this crime or any other crime for that matter...committed in 1971 with the evidence collected prior to the standards set for DNA evidence and the loss of evidence collected at that same time.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
In that 1979 photo - I am seeing what appears to be a house up toward the road but then there is something else between the house and the tree line (what is that). Was that the foundation of a new house or the actual house.
If the house is the same house that was there in 2000 then in the circle on that map go to the lower right hand quarter closer to the the tree line ...the center they have on the map is off from where we were shown the money find.
I looked back at the house from the river and we were East of the house and NOT in front of it...
Also when I got all miffed about this not being the place Duane took me to - I walked back up to the parking lot and looked back down - I was standing looking down at them - I had a clear view of them and the house was to the West of me at that point - .
There is a path from the parking lot going down to the beach - the house will be on your right or to the West. After you take that path to the beach turn and go about 1/2 way or less onto the beach then walk West - there were 2 large trees - the find site was infront of these trees...we were on the East end of the house and not in front of it.
If the house is the same house that was there in 2000 then in the circle on that map go to the lower right hand quarter closer to the the tree line ...the center they have on the map is off from where we were shown the money find.
I looked back at the house from the river and we were East of the house and NOT in front of it...
Also when I got all miffed about this not being the place Duane took me to - I walked back up to the parking lot and looked back down - I was standing looking down at them - I had a clear view of them and the house was to the West of me at that point - .
There is a path from the parking lot going down to the beach - the house will be on your right or to the West. After you take that path to the beach turn and go about 1/2 way or less onto the beach then walk West - there were 2 large trees - the find site was infront of these trees...we were on the East end of the house and not in front of it.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
georger 247
QuoteThis is on the FBI site and it is a farce:
QuoteAnd what of some of the names pegged as Cooper? None have panned out. Duane Weber, who claimed to be Cooper on his deathbed, was ruled out by DNA testing (we lifted a DNA sample from Cooper’s tie in 2001). Kenneth Christiansen, named in a recent magazine article, didn’t match the physical description and was a skilled paratrooper. Richard McCoy, who died in 1974, also didn’t match the description and was at home the day after the hijacking having Thanksgiving dinner with his family in Utah, an unlikely scenario unless he had help
2001 - WHY in the Hell did they wait till March of 2003 to request the DNA of Duane L. Weber (I have a receipt ) and WHY did they then wait until November of 2006 to even start to test samples with the last sample tested 1/31/07 (I have copy of the DNA Sample Processing Record which they ACCIDENTALLLY LEFT in the box) they returned to me in late 2007, prior to Agent Carr making his annoucement late that yr. I was informed only when they were going public.
They also state in that site that Cooper removed his tie - NOT one WITNESS SAW THIS. The FBI found the tie folded in the seat next to where Cooper had been sitting. This statement has been made directly to me and to others.
I question WHY Cooper would so carefully discard the briefcase and other items he touched and leave his tie neatly folded - not just tossed aside in a furry. What did Cooper have in the small paper bag that the FBI never wanted to talk about? Why was there a a MLK connection made in 1971? Was that just a ploy by the supporters of MLK or was it something the FBI had knowledge of?
Wonder if the FBI ever tested the DNA on that tie to various government and political officials?
Why was I told that the tie contained MULTIPLE PARTICIAL DNA by the agent?
The FBI has never qualified the DNA nor do they ever acknowledge that the DNA on the tie is compromised because in 1971 the tie was handled in a manner inconsistent with the handling of DNA evidence.
The FBI has also never made public the missing cigarette butts - that has only been in this forum and because I am the one who continues to harp on it. The fact that the tie and the butts were placed into evidence in Reno - IF the chain of custody of evidence had been complied with - they would know exactly where those butts are.
The tie cannot and does NOT stand without the butts...
Would one of the Attorneys on this forum come forward with how that would be handle if a suspect was on trial for this crime or any other crime for that matter...committed in 1971 with the evidence collected prior to the standards set for DNA evidence and the loss of evidence collected at that same time.
I thought we were discussing thehouse.
Now its the dna and the butts again. Why do you
feel the FBI "owes you" an explanation on Cooper's
dna results and these other matters? But we have been over this same ground many times.
377 22
Jo wrote:
The loss of evidence by the prosecution can lead to dismissals, but usually not if there is other incontravertable evidence of guilt. The loss of evidence is considered harmless in that context.
Let's turn this around. If Duane were on trial for the hijacking, I am sure he would be aquitted. There is simply no unambiguous probative evidence linking him to the crime. The standard in a criminal case is: "beyond a reasonable doubt." The case against Duane would fall flat on its face under that standard.
377
QuoteWould one of the Attorneys on this forum come forward with how that would be handle if a suspect was on trial for this crime or any other crime for that matter...committed in 1971 with the evidence collected prior to the standards set for DNA evidence and the loss of evidence collected at that same time.
The loss of evidence by the prosecution can lead to dismissals, but usually not if there is other incontravertable evidence of guilt. The loss of evidence is considered harmless in that context.
Let's turn this around. If Duane were on trial for the hijacking, I am sure he would be aquitted. There is simply no unambiguous probative evidence linking him to the crime. The standard in a criminal case is: "beyond a reasonable doubt." The case against Duane would fall flat on its face under that standard.
377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.
Good point, 377. The question, then, is why is Jo so adamant about seeing Duane Weber theoretically convicted? Wouldn't the surviving spouse want her deceased hubby cleared of a federal crime of this nature? If she wants the truth.......then go no further than examing the real Duane Weber. Two-bit criminal with no skydiving experience what-so-ever. Unabashed liar. Wants to go out with a last flickering flame of glory. No concern about post-mortum affects that could drive a widow literally insane.
DB Cooper got away clean. Duane Weber couldn't even escape capture for forging small checks. Big world of difference between Cooper's abilities and the snafus of Duane Weber. Weber was a jailbird, with literally no accomplishments in life. His only accomplishment was that he married Jo.
ps. by the way, 377, I wonder what happened to all of those other DB Cooper wannabees and their surviving widows? Do you think they all ended up like Jo? No. Jo is unique. That's why she allegedly copyrights all of her posts. CKret would agree.........this is not a proud legacy to leave behind.
DB Cooper got away clean. Duane Weber couldn't even escape capture for forging small checks. Big world of difference between Cooper's abilities and the snafus of Duane Weber. Weber was a jailbird, with literally no accomplishments in life. His only accomplishment was that he married Jo.
ps. by the way, 377, I wonder what happened to all of those other DB Cooper wannabees and their surviving widows? Do you think they all ended up like Jo? No. Jo is unique. That's why she allegedly copyrights all of her posts. CKret would agree.........this is not a proud legacy to leave behind.
377 22
BuzzardNest,
When I was working at the Public Defender's office in Oakland CA, I had a seasoned old cop tell me, over donuts no less, that I didnt know criminals at all. He said: "Kid... you just know the dumb ones because you only deal with the ones who get caught."
Duane's proven inability to escape conviction for routine crimes is evidenced in repeated jail and prison stints. Accordingly, he is not my top candidate for having accomplished one of the most innovative whodunnit crimes of the 20th century.
He was an odd fellow and had some unexplained mysterious things in his past, but none of that puts him on the stairs of that NWA 727 looking out into a black cold rainy night and summoning his courage.
His death bed confession proves zero with regard to Cooper. It proves only that he wanted to be remembered as Cooper, not that he was in fact Cooper. I am keeping an open mind though. If Jo or anyone else comes up with probative evidence linking Duane to Cooper I will drop my skeptcism and examine the facts.
Meanwhile, the Cooper hunt goes on even though Jo is 100% sure that the mystery has been solved.
377
When I was working at the Public Defender's office in Oakland CA, I had a seasoned old cop tell me, over donuts no less, that I didnt know criminals at all. He said: "Kid... you just know the dumb ones because you only deal with the ones who get caught."
Duane's proven inability to escape conviction for routine crimes is evidenced in repeated jail and prison stints. Accordingly, he is not my top candidate for having accomplished one of the most innovative whodunnit crimes of the 20th century.
He was an odd fellow and had some unexplained mysterious things in his past, but none of that puts him on the stairs of that NWA 727 looking out into a black cold rainy night and summoning his courage.
His death bed confession proves zero with regard to Cooper. It proves only that he wanted to be remembered as Cooper, not that he was in fact Cooper. I am keeping an open mind though. If Jo or anyone else comes up with probative evidence linking Duane to Cooper I will drop my skeptcism and examine the facts.
Meanwhile, the Cooper hunt goes on even though Jo is 100% sure that the mystery has been solved.
377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.
georger, I replied to your post Sept 11, 2008 with a link to a corps of engineers report that confirmed what you said. I'll repost again:
(edit) to be fair to what Jo's saying though, we don't have any detailed info about the Fazio ranch area though, in 1977?
my 9/11/08 post:
interesting document here:
http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/misc/un24/c-15.pdf
page 9 describes Portland District floods and flood control.
Heavy winter rains in '71 and '72
'72 floods in northwest/west Oregon.
'72 flood prevention effort. Temporary sand plug at the lower end of the Columbia Slough in Portland, to prevent flooding of North Portland neighborhoods.
100,000 cubic yards of sand spread over the railroad embankment west of Delta Park golf course. They say these two things helped prevent flooding.
page 10 Jan '74 had flooding
Nov,Dec '77 had flooding, as you (georger) say.
So: the Columbia may have had high water levels in '72 and '74 also.
Thanks Snow. Here are the water levels at Camas
station Nov '74 through Aug '80. (USGS)
High water levels in the Washougal and Camas get
absorbed by the Columbia - same for tributaries
on the Oregon side. So what may show up as a rather significant event over say 15-20 days in a localised area does not necesssarily translate into a major flood event on the Columbia, or for Tina Bar.
1978-79 was particularly quiet in spite of some contending it was these years when the money got transported by high water to Tina Bar. There was no
high water during these years that I have been able
to document.
I will let the data speak for itself as regards 75/76
vs 77.
Georger