New_Earth_Mud

That will never happen... pilots wont go for it and really when you think of it ... it wouldnt help anything in this case. Would you agree to have a camera watching you work? Sure, why not. I have cameras in my work place. My management has the right to access my computer at any time and see exactly what I see, hears what I hear. This isnt a big issue. The union would bargain for cameras to be used in the same sense the voice recorder's are used - incidents. Every word they say is recorded and there are processes for when they can speak and what they can say and Im sure pilots violate that from time to time but airlines arent pulling the voice recorders to use to discipline them. If they valued cameras, it would not be a big issue to get them. I think it would help. For one it fills in blanks. It gives you the opportunity to see the faces and expressions of the pilots. It can show what a pilot was physically doing and not just what the data recorder recorded he was doing. It can show medical issues, sleeping, distractions etc. I think it's valuable. Having access to your comp aint really the same thing IMO. You would be ok with them putting a camera on your desk pointed right at you so they can watch you any time they want? Record you and watch it whenever they want? And like i said a cockpit is a pretty small area... they could just cover it up if they wanted.... put a hat over it and its useless. Thats not even close to what I wrote though is it? I dont do a job that requires a camera on me at my desk. But one aspect of my job requires handling of large amounts of money and in that room there is a camera on me. And it is monitored by security. I dont believe airlines can pull the voice recorders and listen to them anytime they want to to discipline the pilots. This would be the same thing. Cameras there for the safety of the crew and passengers to be reviewed in the event of an incident. And if it was set up the same as the flight recorders, it couldnt even be used to review something that happened mid-flight since it only records the final 30 minutes. it's designed to help investigators when there is a major crash. Ask investigators if they'd love to be able to plug in to a lap top and immediately hear AND see what happened during the final moments of the plane. It's a no brainer, really. Well i asked if you would be ok with a camera focused on you all day at work and then you answered me about them having acsess to your comp and being able to see what you see. Im not arguing it with you im just saying what im hearing on CNN and pilots seem to say no. And like i said they could just cover it up. How do you stop that? You also mentioned airlines being able to see it at any time. Im saying that's an easy solution since they cant access the voice recorder at any time as is. Have the camera feeding the recorder. Last 30-120 minutes of action and thats it. Im sure there is some way in the security industry to make a camera resistant to being covered. I guess. I just really dont see how it helps anything. Having a camera is not going to stop anything from happening or detour anyone from crashing a plane if thats what they are set out to do. If they are going to spend billions on something it should be on something better then that. IMO. My question would be this... If this plane had a camera.... what would you learn from watching? They already know what the guy did, they dont know why he did it and he didnt talk. So what would a camera tell anyone? By that logic though, why do we have voice and data recorders? They dont stop anyone from crashing a plane if they really want to. But they do help tell us what happened and why. A camera wouldnt just be valuable in cases of pilot action. In cases of malfunction it can still show what the pilots were doing, how they reacted non-verbally to the situation and each other, body language, facial expressions. This isnt a matter of "we never needed it before", its that technology didnt catch up. Now there is no excuse. Voice and data show and tell everything already. Dont need to see the expression on his face when hes flipping a switch i wouldnt think. But eh maybe your right i dont know..... I still say if a camera was there it could just be covered up.

That will never happen... pilots wont go for it and really when you think of it ... it wouldnt help anything in this case. Would you agree to have a camera watching you work? Sure, why not. I have cameras in my work place. My management has the right to access my computer at any time and see exactly what I see, hears what I hear. This isnt a big issue. The union would bargain for cameras to be used in the same sense the voice recorder's are used - incidents. Every word they say is recorded and there are processes for when they can speak and what they can say and Im sure pilots violate that from time to time but airlines arent pulling the voice recorders to use to discipline them. If they valued cameras, it would not be a big issue to get them. I think it would help. For one it fills in blanks. It gives you the opportunity to see the faces and expressions of the pilots. It can show what a pilot was physically doing and not just what the data recorder recorded he was doing. It can show medical issues, sleeping, distractions etc. I think it's valuable. Having access to your comp aint really the same thing IMO. You would be ok with them putting a camera on your desk pointed right at you so they can watch you any time they want? Record you and watch it whenever they want? And like i said a cockpit is a pretty small area... they could just cover it up if they wanted.... put a hat over it and its useless. Thats not even close to what I wrote though is it? I dont do a job that requires a camera on me at my desk. But one aspect of my job requires handling of large amounts of money and in that room there is a camera on me. And it is monitored by security. I dont believe airlines can pull the voice recorders and listen to them anytime they want to to discipline the pilots. This would be the same thing. Cameras there for the safety of the crew and passengers to be reviewed in the event of an incident. And if it was set up the same as the flight recorders, it couldnt even be used to review something that happened mid-flight since it only records the final 30 minutes. it's designed to help investigators when there is a major crash. Ask investigators if they'd love to be able to plug in to a lap top and immediately hear AND see what happened during the final moments of the plane. It's a no brainer, really. Well i asked if you would be ok with a camera focused on you all day at work and then you answered me about them having acsess to your comp and being able to see what you see. Im not arguing it with you im just saying what im hearing on CNN and pilots seem to say no. And like i said they could just cover it up. How do you stop that? You also mentioned airlines being able to see it at any time. Im saying that's an easy solution since they cant access the voice recorder at any time as is. Have the camera feeding the recorder. Last 30-120 minutes of action and thats it. Im sure there is some way in the security industry to make a camera resistant to being covered. I guess. I just really dont see how it helps anything. Having a camera is not going to stop anything from happening or detour anyone from crashing a plane if thats what they are set out to do. If they are going to spend billions on something it should be on something better then that. IMO. My question would be this... If this plane had a camera.... what would you learn from watching? They already know what the guy did, they dont know why he did it and he didnt talk. So what would a camera tell anyone?

That will never happen... pilots wont go for it and really when you think of it ... it wouldnt help anything in this case. Would you agree to have a camera watching you work? Sure, why not. I have cameras in my work place. My management has the right to access my computer at any time and see exactly what I see, hears what I hear. This isnt a big issue. The union would bargain for cameras to be used in the same sense the voice recorder's are used - incidents. Every word they say is recorded and there are processes for when they can speak and what they can say and Im sure pilots violate that from time to time but airlines arent pulling the voice recorders to use to discipline them. If they valued cameras, it would not be a big issue to get them. I think it would help. For one it fills in blanks. It gives you the opportunity to see the faces and expressions of the pilots. It can show what a pilot was physically doing and not just what the data recorder recorded he was doing. It can show medical issues, sleeping, distractions etc. I think it's valuable. Having access to your comp aint really the same thing IMO. You would be ok with them putting a camera on your desk pointed right at you so they can watch you any time they want? Record you and watch it whenever they want? And like i said a cockpit is a pretty small area... they could just cover it up if they wanted.... put a hat over it and its useless. Thats not even close to what I wrote though is it? I dont do a job that requires a camera on me at my desk. But one aspect of my job requires handling of large amounts of money and in that room there is a camera on me. And it is monitored by security. I dont believe airlines can pull the voice recorders and listen to them anytime they want to to discipline the pilots. This would be the same thing. Cameras there for the safety of the crew and passengers to be reviewed in the event of an incident. And if it was set up the same as the flight recorders, it couldnt even be used to review something that happened mid-flight since it only records the final 30 minutes. it's designed to help investigators when there is a major crash. Ask investigators if they'd love to be able to plug in to a lap top and immediately hear AND see what happened during the final moments of the plane. It's a no brainer, really. Well i asked if you would be ok with a camera focused on you all day at work and then you answered me about them having acsess to your comp and being able to see what you see. Im not arguing it with you im just saying what im hearing on CNN and pilots seem to say no. And like i said they could just cover it up. How do you stop that?

That will never happen... pilots wont go for it and really when you think of it ... it wouldnt help anything in this case. Would you agree to have a camera watching you work? Sure, why not. I have cameras in my work place. My management has the right to access my computer at any time and see exactly what I see, hears what I hear. This isnt a big issue. The union would bargain for cameras to be used in the same sense the voice recorder's are used - incidents. Every word they say is recorded and there are processes for when they can speak and what they can say and Im sure pilots violate that from time to time but airlines arent pulling the voice recorders to use to discipline them. If they valued cameras, it would not be a big issue to get them. I think it would help. For one it fills in blanks. It gives you the opportunity to see the faces and expressions of the pilots. It can show what a pilot was physically doing and not just what the data recorder recorded he was doing. It can show medical issues, sleeping, distractions etc. I think it's valuable. Having access to your comp aint really the same thing IMO. You would be ok with them putting a camera on your desk pointed right at you so they can watch you any time they want? Record you and watch it whenever they want? And like i said a cockpit is a pretty small area... they could just cover it up if they wanted.... put a hat over it and its useless.

Every pilot they have had on CNN has said no. Im just going off that. IMO banks and retail arnt focused on the workers as much as for a robbery and this seems to be what pilots are saying. I dont think any of us work with a camera focused right on you. Another thing is a cockpit is more closed in then say a bank or in retail or say even an office.... they could just cover it up id think.

That will never happen... pilots wont go for it and really when you think of it ... it wouldnt help anything in this case. Would you agree to have a camera watching you work?

Copp just signed a 3 year 2 way ELC Good news. The Winnipeg Jets are pleased to announce they have agreed to terms with forward Andrew Copp on a three-year, two-way, entry level contract with an average annual value of $958,300. Copp will now report directly to the Winnipeg Jets. Copp, 20, recently completed his junior season with the University of Michigan Wolverines. The Ann Arbor, MI native has ended his college career with 81 points (40G, 41A) in 107 games over three seasons with the Wolverines. Copp was named Michigan’s team captain for the 2014-15 season. For his performance leading the Wolverines this season, he was recognized by the NCAA and earned All-Big Ten second team honours. He previously led the University of Michigan in goals (15) during his sophomore year in 2013-14. That same season, he represented the USA at the 2014 World Junior Chamipionships where he recorded five assists in five games. Copp was drafted by the Winnipeg Jets in the fourth round, 104th overall, in the 2013 NHL Draft. Andrew Copp Centre Born Jul 8 1994 -- Ann Arbor, MI Height 6.02 -- Weight 210 -- Shoots L Selected by Winnipeg Jets round 4 #104 overall 2013 NHL Entry Draft

Could be pissed at the airline... Or at Lufthansa

Near the end they can here passengers screaming

Lots more info coming out now. This is getting crazy.

Id have to do a bit of searching for the exact facts but in a nut shell and from my memory.... There was blood samples taken off the wall on 2 different days or times. The first set of samples had none of OJs at all.... but the next set it was all OJs and none of the others. The first sets also had mixed blood samples of Ron and Nicoles blood yet all the samples of OJs none were mixed with any other blood. The chances of that happening is very very odd and like 1 in a billion without some tampering id think.

Im in to this kinda stuff as well. I followed the OJ case more. As for the Ramsay case IMO the mother did it. In regards to OJ Simpson, the best book I read was called Run of His Life by Jeff Toobin (CNN Legal Analyst). Really goes through it step by step. In hindsight it's almost impossible to believe he got away with it especially when the defence was basically "there is so much evidence against OJ that it *had* to be a set up". OJ would have easily been compelled to confess too, I have little doubt. It was the lawyers that pumped up his confidence. If you watch the verdict, when they say not guilty, one of OJ's lawyers, Robert Kardashion is shocked. I pretty much watched that whole trial... i had a bad back injury and was layed up. LOL I watched that lawyer and commented on it right away... he was super shocked. I actually dont think he did it... he had it done for sure but i doubt he did it himself. Ive never read that book but ill pick it up and check it out. There were so many screwed up things with that case and it showed what big money lawyers can do. One thing that has always stood out for me was the blood on the wall. The first set of samples were taken and none was OJs.... then the next set of samples they took it was all OJs.

Im in to this kinda stuff as well. I followed the OJ case more. As for the Ramsay case IMO the mother did it. The worst thing about the JonBenet case is, unless you really do your own digging, the misinformation that the DA's office released in their zealous efforts to protect the Ramsey's would make you think they were innocent. People can get facts wrong in the heat of the moment. But innocent people dont keep telling lies. They told too many lies. They stonewalled detectives too many times. There was simply no motive or opportunity for an intruder to have committed the murder. The detectives theory was that Patsy flew into a rage over JonBenet's bedwetting. Bed wetting can be a sign of abuse and there was signs or prior vaginal trauma. However the detectives believe it wasnt sexual abuse but more corporal punishing when cleaning her up from the repeated bed wetting. The night in question, they believe Patsy likely never went to bed as she claimed as she answered the door to the police in the morning wearing the same clothes and with perfect hair and make-up. At some point, Jonbenet wet the bed. Patsy changed her (the top Patsy originally claimed JonBenet went to bed in was found balled up in the upstairs bathroom though Patsy later changed her story). In a fit of rage, Patsy smacked the child's head against something, maybe the tub, causing a massive head injury. They believe Patsy might have thought she was already dead and carried her down to the "wine cellar" which was a difficult to locate storage room in the sprawling basement which had a large door that was sealed with a latch at the top. She then realised Jonbenet was still barely alive and grabbed a paint brush from her art kit which was nearby (and noone else would have known about) and fashioned a garotte and strangled the girl. She cleaned the body, wrapped her, left her "favourite nightgown" (which by Patsy's own account she had not been wearing) near the body and set about staging it. The tape over her mouth was added after death. The ropes around her wrists were so loose that a conscious child could have removed them. She then closed and latched the door (why would an intruder do this). She took her own note pad from a drawer and a sharpie from a can in the kitchen (why would a kidnapper not bring his own, how would he know where to find these items) and fashioned a ransom note that has to be read to be believed (called the War & Peace of ransom notes), asking for $118,000 which was a tiny sum for the Ramsey's who were worth hundreds of millions. It was also the exact sum of a recent John Ramsey bonus (how would an intruder know this). It included strange instructions. Patsy then placed the note (the second or third note she started) on the back stairs that she routinely used (how would an intruder know this) and pretended to find it and screamed. John, who was now awake and in the third floor bathroom claims he ran down as she ran up and they met on the second floor where she gave him the note. When no finger prints were found on the note, they changed their story that he ran down to the first floor where the note was layed out. The only fingerprints found on the note pad were Patsy's and handwriting experts determined Patsy was most likely the author. Disregarding the notes orders to not call police or alert anyone or JonBenet would be "beheaded", John told Patsy to call 911. One might ignore the order to call the police but the Ramsey's called several friends to come over too. Friends they later pointed the finger at as potential "intruders". The cops did a terrible job at this point. The home was so sprawling that when a cop did a search of the basement, he saw the wine cellar, he opened it but it was pitch black so he closed it again without looking. When he returned upstairs, Patsy was "eyeballing" him. One cop was left at the home with several guests. She lost sight of John who "disappeared" for several minutes and later admitted he had gone to the basement but "found nothing". The cop later foolishly suggested John and his friend search the house for clues. John bee-lined down to the basement and to the wine cellar where he opened it and immediately reacted to the body even though his friend claimed it was pitch black and nothing could be seen. John carried JonBenet upstairs, oddly holding her up in out-stretched hands (she was stiff). Both parents were allowed to lay with, cover, carress the body. John had been over-heard calling his pilot and ordering their plane on stand-by. By the next day, Ramsey's had lawyers and PI's calling potential witnesses but never cooperated with the police. The detectives believe John was not a party to the murder but would have known Patsy wrote the note and likely found JonBenet when he mysteriously wandered off earlier in the morning. When police didnt find the body, he made sure he did. Another interesting lie is that they always claimed the brother slept through the entire thing but enhancements of the 911 recording indicate Burke was with his parents at the time of the call and asked "what did you find". Another interesting fact is, according to the Ramsey's Intruder Theory, JonBenet was abducted and killed over night, the morning of December 26th but when they erected her headstone they had the day of death engraved as December 25th, which would be correct according to the police theory. Very, very interesting case since due to crime scene issues, what little DNA was there cannot be trusted. But the mountain of circumstantial evidence pointed squarely at Patsy. She died a few years later of cancer. No death bed confession it seems. Thsnks dude thats really interesting.

Im in to this kinda stuff as well. I followed the OJ case more. As for the Ramsay case IMO the mother did it.

Where does this 8 or 9 mil come from? Whos going to pay Buff that?

Hold my hand? WTF? You just said that Buff is a luxury and not necessary. Is that not correct? Im not dismissing your opinion... I asked you a question about it. Is that not correct? If i was dismissing it then i wouldnt ask you to clarify it now would i? Lol Ouch

Hold my hand? WTF? You just said that Buff is a luxury and not necessary. Is that not correct? Im not dismissing your opinion... I asked you a question about it. Is that not correct? If i was dismissing it then i wouldnt ask you to clarify it now would i?

LOL What do you mean hes a luxury? free or habitual indulgence in or enjoyment of comforts and pleasures in addition to those necessary for a reasonable standard of well-being: a life of luxury on the French Riviera. So your saying hes not necessary? LOL

I think the word you are trying to use is versatile.... He has the intangibles such as Frolik which makes him a solid asset to have. Huh?

Buff is an elite hockey player without any doubt. Is he an elite D man? Probably not but hes above average. Is he an elite forward? Probably not but hes above average. Can he play forward or D without missing a beat? Id say yes. IMO hes an elite hockey player.

LOL What do you mean hes a luxury?

Whats a significant amount tho? 2mil? 5mil? Over how many years? We are aways from this anyway... We have no idea if a team will throw huge cash at Buff. Would you say hes crazy if he just wanted a 3 year deal for say 20mil so hes set and his familys set and he can retire and they can all live in a log cabin on some lake so he can relax and fish for the rest of his days? Its fun to guesss but we really have no idea.

Great point. Terrible ooint. Hey Buff do you want a 7 year deal for $56 million or a three year deal for $18? If you don't take the lesser deal it's because you hate winnipeg. There's something to be said for being close to home and liking where you are but this is his last chance to cash in and make generational money. He might put a value on liking where he plays bits flat out stupid if that value is more than a few bucks. I'm sorry, was that the point that was made? No, the point was, at least for me, was wondering how much Dustin likes playing here (without your type of judgement), nothing more nothing less. Also, suggesting Dustin is stupid if he gives up significant money to play in an environment he likes fascinates me. You casting judgment on things like this doesn't sound very open minded. Historically, some professional athletes, in a variety of sports, have factored in other things than money when making key decisions about their future. I agree... im pretty sure non of us know what Buffs thinking. He sure dont seem like the kind of guy thats going to put money above all else.

I think what your saying is correct ... but this team does not move forward like they have without players like Buff and Ladd on it. And you have seemed to completely forgot about Wheeler. You are right tho when and if this team wins a Cup it will be the Troubas and Scheifs Lowys, Myers that will lead it but right now they arnt ready. Without Ladd Buff Little Stuart you are pretty much the Oilers.... bunch of talent but cant get it together because they dont have that leadership. The team will continue to build thu draft and develop but my guess is we will also always have vet leaders on it.

This is my take on the 4 guys... And i really dont think Buff or Ladd are going to ask for stupid money to stay. Buff i figure stays because hes not a flashy type guy... He dont needs the lights of a big market or warm weather and houses on the beach and hes a quiet type big leader in the room and he likes to work and teach younger players. He likes it here and respects the Team... Throwing Kanes track suit in the shower or whatever shows that IMO. I heard the comments from Ladd about wanting to win now and dont care about the draft and develop thing... I dont read to much into that. Hes the leader and needs to comment like one and thats what he did. Speaking of being the leader and captain.... Ladd likes the role to much to really want to go... Hes not going to go to a team and become their captain... IMO he will take a lil less money to keep that role on a young up n coming team that he can lead. Stafford i think resigns with us. If Staff thought he was brought in as a rent a player them i think hed bolt but i think Maurice has let him know he is in the teams plans and has a role on this team now and in the future. IMO he sees he has a good fit with Wheels and Schief and will want to continue with that and see where that line can go. Fro.... Hes a bit more iffy IMO. Hes said he wants to stay and likes his role with the team and likes Maurice.He doesnt come across as a me me me type so i think he may stick around for 3.5 i think he knows hes not going to get much more then that and if hes comphy with his role here i think he stays. From what ive seen of this team is the guys have character. none of them seem to have the all about me attitude and thats what im basing my opinion on.