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.

This is the first I've head of this, but you've been in the Vortex since the beginning so can you put more context behind this... Was it a cursory evaluation or something more in-depth? My bias says the evidence of this would be so obscure and finessed to as to be presently indeterminate given the decomposed state of the bills and sample size. However, Tom has displayed in the past a slide on the bills orientation /misalignment within the packets. Is the alignment a sign or impact or settlement?

I don't make the headings for the DZ you should take it up with them, but I did attribute those words to me.. "Remember when I said:" you should know how to follow the link.

Remember when I said:

To place an LZ in Lake Oswego you have to do more than work up distance alone, Edwards needs to overcome the comment - the lights of Portland were on the horizon. That comment as a visual reference needs to be discredited or reinterpreted to even consider an LZ in that area.

Diatomological mapping -similar but not exact.

A Florida person.. that would be something Jo, Larry and Cooper all being from Florida. It would be hilarious to see Coops trending as yet another - "Florida Man" headline... I don't think Coops had much understanding on the area of operation for Sky Marshals. IMO he was just using the though of a Sky Marshal as something to attribute his further request and reinforce his position to Tina and the crew in a light manner. The bringing up of a SM was just and external decoy of his request. There is a casualness and softness to his lead to his words - If that's a sky marshal, I don't want any more of that. (If those were his words) - the more important question to Tina would have been to ask - are there any sky marshals on the flight. Only Tina knows what the wording was, any follow on discussion about SMs and his level of concern-tone. Yes, V-23 was Sluggo's pet theory..

ah - your playing in your post... ok I'll just get back to my work..

I can't come to the semiotics of that relay being standard. This has to be a one off, an off the cuff. I'd even say if that was not a fabricated relay then whoever originated it had a laps in their critical thinking, was not in their right mind - intoxicated. For the structure of that messaging to be any part standard it implies something else... that I'll not easily accept as truth without seeing proofs. I looked through the thread and did not come across any of Sluggo's remarks on the matter other than his pondering out loud of - What must have been going through those boys minds after hearing that. If Sluggo spoke to this individual at the FAA and posted it maybe he did so somewhere else. Of all the people involved the FAA psy was the highest authority the pilots had to answer to even superseding Nypro. The FAA psy could have had the biggest sway in the outcome of the event if they would have pressed the crew or directed them to action. Rata's integrity and unwillingness to abandon Tina may have what undermined taking any action. In my mind the FAA psy may have held enough power to ground the crew after the fact and even strip them of their flying privileges. I think on the whole pilots and psy don't mix well. I did find a post by Snowman that was interesting, _____________________________________________________________ https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/56036-db-cooper/?do=findComment&comment=3083617 Also: A great document for FAA history is the FAA Historical Chronology 1926-1996. http://www.faa.gov/about/media/b-chron.pdf It has good data on what type of hijacking occured when. (download it (big) and search using "hijacking" in adobe reader) Interestingly it perpetuates the myth that Cooper was the first in a series of extortion hijacks (he wasn't) (page 162). One interesting thing I found had to do with various agreements over time, as to who has jurisdiction depending on where the plane is during a hijacking (ground, air etc). It varies between pilot, FAA and FBI. During the time of the Cooper hijack, the existing agreement was that FBI had jurisdication while the plane was on the ground, with pilot at all other times, although FAA recommendations to him took precedence. This changed in '74, to give the FAA jurisdiction from the time the doors closed, to the first door open for disembarking. They did agree that all parties would work together. An agreement in Dec. '71 gave the pilot the responsibility for signaling whether the plane should be disabled or stormed. So Cooper's hijack was during a period where they had not yet fully settled on procedural details of handling a hijack. (page 152) ___________________________________________________________________

I'll give a look back through the thread, My overall take on the FAA statement was that it was out of line and and way out there. Possibly this communication alone sabotaged the crew's assistance in ever checking in on Cooper or their willingness to interfere in the slightest. Maybe that statement was the bee in Rata's bonnet. If Wayne received - I gave the standard response as an explanation then it may just have been a dismissal or evasion of Wayne's question. However, I can't see this being truly a "standard response" given to any crew under the duress of a hijacking. That implies something much darker and I'd prefer to recognize these comments as a one off.

Georger, Psychoanalysis is by far my favorite area, and it’s hard to resist not socializing on PA in the Vortex. Yes I have read the FAA stuff, I have consumed most all of the available records and am only about a day behind on my 302's. To keep it on the case and non-social: My question is do you know of anyone ever tracking down the FAA Chief Psychiatrist to verify the validity of his words? Was the FAA Chief Psychiatrist words ever placed in circulation publicly and defended as accurate?