Cola

The format and channel depends on what your aim is,– play, collaboration, promotion, story telling, community, anonymity, novel discovery...? JMHO- Yes mixed bag- I think younger people have a clear preference for media formats in distribution systems that are not institutionally packaged. YouTube, podcast, FB, Twitter, tictok influencers, Wikipedia. Why- These channels are built for attention and have more utility than conventional media. You can get your mass media soundbites in these channels but with overlays of niche or mimicked opinion that feels customized or is slanted to your taste. Can't argue that these channels do a great job of pushing dopamine content to consumers that is relevant to their interest. These channels further offer consumers breadth and the ability to seek and find niche content - novel content. Socially most everyone values novel information as a form of status. The soundbites and distribution of institutional media just don’t offer much in the way of sustained novelty. The status of knowing what the media masses are currently being made aware of wears off quickly. Consumers that want sustained status need to develop or seek and obtain novel information and opinions prior to it becoming mainstream. The status of having novel opinions and interpretations diminish with distribution: think: discoverer - early adopter - bulk informed - aware masses. On the DZ charging a fee -I'm not into captive environments. Forums do not do well when they put up fee walls IMO. I think the value of the DZ thread would diminish immediately after a fee wall went up and it became a captive environment. If the DZ did a goFundme I'd put money towards that, but a fee would be go against our interest by erecting a barrier to future growth and participation on the thread. JMHO I'm still trying to keep to my resolution of limiting post in here till the end of the year so PM me if you have more specific or obscure questions.

I'd be more interested in the opinions of an archivist. I agree, I think the mass-market DB consumer has little care for the DZ. That might not be a bad thing. What I know is the arc of a story has not change since we sat around a fire and passed our stories to one another. What has change are the recording and distribution systems of story, but we could always sit around an utter things to one another. Your guess is as good as mine, You thinking of buying the DZ - G ? If a church ceased to exist would the teachings still live on in the followers. The Vortex has absorbed what the DZ has yielded. Few care about the DZ, our bickering or obsession over minutia, but Cooper and the mystery overall cover many narrative elements that audiences thirst for.

Yvonne Martinez, I'd like to hear your story and the insights you have. It seems like you reached a few road blocks in getting out your story so if you are out there, I'd encourage you to reach out to Darren Schaefer of the Cooper Vortex Podcast. Darren has always held out an explicit offer to receive Cooper in whatever form Cooper may show up as.

I do enjoy a response video, they make such good Coopertainment. Kudos on the numbers Ryan - That's quite an accomplishment in a day! The whole world dose not know this G, we do, but the they, the they are still pulled into this.

Bill Mitchell's ticket.. Anyone at CooperCon this year, if you have a chance could you upload a clear flat front shot of Bill's Ticket to the DZ for posterity. Also, I'd like to compare it to Coopers ticket.

302- part 18-DB pg 5477 part 66 - DB Pg 28201 302-Part 24- DB pg -4111 part-66-DB pg-28123 The ticket did not come under the control of the Portland office even though it was known by 7pm passenger Dan Cooper was the hijacker.

Thanks G... in light of the physical evidence of the Ticket leaving Portland and the agency not having control of the Ticket for more than a week, is what is being claimed in Part 66 as the response by the Portland field office on the night of the event puffery? In all fairness, all of us are guilty a time or two or more of some puffery to cove an occupational oversight, this is purely conjecture and 100% Monday morning quarterback thinking on my part.

The initial justification was a combination of things, presumed 8:11 jump time, radar at 8:11, recording of the sound of the pressure bump, comments of - lights of Portland on the horizon, last point of contact at 8:05, estimate of oscillations a few minutes after last contact, wind direction and speed, estimates of canopy drift within pull ranges. I think the search was based on sound judgment at the time. Part of this is also show: this event captivated an audience and the response is to signal an overwhelming effort to help reinforce a low perception of success and reinforce deterrence. Deterrence is the primary objective of law. Investigation is secondary - the reactive element of the law when deterrence has failed. Prosecution/sentencing are tertiary and used to restore deterrence by reinforcing consequences and signaling a low probability of success to would be criminals. The search whether sound or not was necessary.

302- part 18-DB pg 5477 part 66 - DB Pg 28201 302-Part 24- DB pg -4111 part-66-DB pg-28123 The ticket did not come under the control of the Portland office even though it was known by 7pm passenger Dan Cooper was the hijacker.

Looked back through 302 notes and the 302's a bit, the tie was originally looked at for bodily fluids and I did not come across anything mentioning an evaluation of the ransom for bodily fluids when found, just fingerprints. So my vague recall can be scratched out. The four Cups were from Part 41 - pdf pg 27, the DB pg is - 11395

Unknown, but highly likley. Ref 302 pg DB-Cooper-11395 I'll take a glance for serology later.

Cringe – G, My 5 year old imagination understood what you were alluding too and the potential outcome on the ransom. Yes, if that was indeed the fate of Cooper then contamination of the ransom by bodily fluids clearly fits under the bell curve of possibilities. In no way did I think you were making this up. I had no awareness of this till you brought it up and genuinely wanted to know how deep Tom and Alan had gone into this. I have not committed to memory how the 302's described looking into the ransom for Bodily fluids, but I'm fairly sure I read the Agency had looked at the ransom for that. I'll give the 302's a glance latter this week, unless your have a ref handy.

You have his number, but my best guess is that in his not addressing it, he has addressed it. If there was some solid science to this then he would have told us and this would be our known already.

Robert – I appreciate your honesty, and I respect deeply that you are open enough to say this. I have come to this moment of letting go of my own candidate once, so we share in the blessing of having earned a cynicism towards all candidates.

Speaking of sticking to facts, it is a matter of fact. Kenny Christiansen was not Cooper.