DB Cooper

[CooperNWO305 155]

53 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I think you know deep down that you're suffering from Sunken Cost Fallacy at this point. Hahneman is a really, really poor match for Cooper. You have to cherry pick like crazy to make things fit for him from a physical standpoint. 

Hahneman is a red herring. My opinion is that you bring him up as a weapon against Fly. Discredit Hahneman in the hopes of discrediting all of Fly’s “testimony”. We are all adults, we know that is a lawyer’s trick. We all have our suspects. By definition if you have one or think Cooper is unknown, then you disagree with everyone’s suspect. So let’s say Fly is wrong about Hahneman. Has he really been wrong about much at all else in this case? All he does is call out absolutes and give documentation. Using Hahneman every time is frankly a little underhanded. Why not just focus on the arguments at hand? 

[olemisscub 521]

16 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Hahneman is a red herring. My opinion is that you bring him up as a weapon against Fly. Discredit Hahneman in the hopes of discrediting all of Fly’s “testimony”. We are all adults, we know that is a lawyer’s trick. We all have our suspects. By definition if you have one or think Cooper is unknown, then you disagree with everyone’s suspect. So let’s say Fly is wrong about Hahneman. Has he really been wrong about much at all else in this case? All he does is call out absolutes and give documentation. Using Hahneman every time is frankly a little underhanded. Why not just focus on the arguments at hand? 

No, I appreciate Fly's analysis on many things, but the Hahneman stuff is absurd. I don't bring it up to discredit him. And I don't just randomly bring up Hahneman. If someone brings him up in a livestream or on Reddit or wherever, I'll respond. Sure, I've picked on him a few times in the past, but if he's brought up, I'm going to discuss it. 

[olemisscub 521]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

 

None of these are dispositive as Ryan insinuates... if he wants to reject him that is fine I have zero respect for Ryan's analytical ability but it needs to be clear that he is distorting the evidence he has to fit his own bias..

The only bias in all of this is you having the world's largest case of confirmation bias about your suspect. You're cherry picking like mad. That first description that you're clinging to also says he had good teeth, sharp pointed nose, and an oblong head. Oh, and it says "THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED".

And again, aside from Eric Ulis, you somehow are the only researcher who has ever promoted a suspect who doesn't look a single thing like any sketch of Cooper ever created, yet looks remarkably similar to his own sketch, which was almost certainly drawn by the same artist. 

 

 

 

[georger 248]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

The only bias in all of this is you having the world's largest case of confirmation bias about your suspect. You're cherry picking like mad. That first description that you're clinging to also says he had good teeth, sharp pointed nose, and an oblong head. Oh, and it says "THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED".

And again, aside from Eric Ulis, you somehow are the only researcher who has ever promoted a suspect who doesn't look a single thing like any sketch of Cooper ever created, yet looks remarkably similar to his own sketch, which was almost certainly drawn by the same artist. 

 

Eric was probably right to try and narrow in on a suspect based on rare particles. That assumes Cooper and the particles and some business or environment connect, which may or may not be true. The tie may have even been a plant to  throw investigators off.

That approach by its nature is a last resort! Normally other evidence and other methods would be used People have been chasing their tails with this case since it happened. 

My personal bias is Mr. Cooper was probably some ordinary guy somewhere who decided to act on a grudge or something who was in need of money so he hatched a hijacking plan, and it worked! He was careful to leave little evidence. The FBI botched the evidence it had and so, everyone is here today trying to piece something back together on the faint hope that will work ...  

Edited February 15 by georger

[FLYJACK 727]

3 hours ago, olemisscub said:

I think you know deep down that you're suffering from Sunken Cost Fallacy at this point. Hahneman is a really, really poor match for Cooper. You have to cherry pick like crazy to make things fit for him from a physical standpoint. 

Nope, wrong as usual. 

I am not pushing Hahneman.. you keep bringing him up, lying about him and misleading people.. making me correct the record.

Why do you feel the need to lie and distort the evidence.

His physical description is not dispositive..  that is a fact.

If you think it is you are welcome to it.

 

 

[FLYJACK 727]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

No, I appreciate Fly's analysis on many things, but the Hahneman stuff is absurd. I don't bring it up to discredit him. And I don't just randomly bring up Hahneman. If someone brings him up in a livestream or on Reddit or wherever, I'll respond. Sure, I've picked on him a few times in the past, but if he's brought up, I'm going to discuss it. 

Picked on him...  YOU LIED.. who lies about the evidence.

[olemisscub 521]

21 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Picked on him...  YOU LIED.. who lies about the evidence.

What did I LIE about? If I misstated something, that's an accident, not a LIE. Put out as much content as I do about a variety of things in this case and OTHER cases (copycats) and you're bound to get something wrong. 

Lie is a deliberate distortion. Believe me, I don't need to deliberately distort anything for Hahneman to be a terrible suspect. Literally would have no reason to lie about Hahneman. 

Seriously, how in the world do you expect people to believe that eyewitnesses could have viewed Hahneman and then come up with Comp A? You may think Comp A sucks, but the witnesses didn't think so just three days later. There is no planet, galaxy, universe, or dimension of space-time where people could interact with Hahneman and three days later be in agreement that Comp A was a good representation of Hahneman. Impossible. ESPECIALLY when we know what his own composite sketch looked like. It is intellectually indefensible IMO to suggest that Comp A could be derived from people interacting with Hahneman. 

 

 

Edited February 15 by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 727]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

The only bias in all of this is you having the world's largest case of confirmation bias about your suspect. You're cherry picking like mad. That first description that you're clinging to also says he had good teeth, sharp pointed nose, and an oblong head. Oh, and it says "THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED".

And again, aside from Eric Ulis, you somehow are the only researcher who has ever promoted a suspect who doesn't look a single thing like any sketch of Cooper ever created, yet looks remarkably similar to his own sketch, which was almost certainly drawn by the same artist. 

 

 

 

You are so dishonest..

I am not promoting him.. like you did Vordahl. Learned your lesson on that one.

and I don't cling to the first Cooper description.. more of your hyperbole.

His sketch looks like one pic of him even witnesses did not think the sketch was that good, some were shown and said it didn't match,, get that some witnesses who interacted with Hahneman were shown that sketch and said not him..

and notice the hair is wrong and the nose is way to small... like sketch A

You put way too much faith in the accuracy of witness description.. for Cooper we have a fairly small sample size of witnesses...

Compare both on sunglasses and they are close... I don't know which images you have but some I have are very close. He can look very different in pics.

You will get a big wake up call when I release all the evidence.

 

 

 

[olemisscub 521]

20 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

You put way too much faith in the accuracy of witness description.. for Cooper we have a fairly small sample size of witnesses...

 

It's the small consistent things we have with the witnesses though that make it extremely difficult for me to consider Hahneman from a physical standpoint. Even seeing Cooper for as short a time as some of them did, they remembered his lower lip as being unique. Other than his complexion, his lower lip seems to be his one defining feature. "Middle aged person, dressed in a suit, with dark complexion, and a sort of protruding lower lip". It was obviously memorable. You really can't deny that. We have Tina in 1973 remembering Cooper's lower lip and comparing it to a suspect (I have FOIA'd for this photo). 

 Or his head shape. Cooper is always described consistently as having a long head, with wide forehead and narrowing as it goes down the chin. Bill's head is very symmetrical and more like a square than the inverted triangle look. 

[FLYJACK 727]

15 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

What did I LIE about? If I misstated something, that's an accident, not a LIE. Put out as much content as I do about a variety of things in this case and OTHER cases (copycats) and you're bound to get something wrong. 

Lie is a deliberate distortion. Believe me, I don't need to deliberately distort anything for Hahneman to be a terrible suspect. Literally would have no reason to lie about Hahneman. 

Seriously, how in the world do you expect people to believe that eyewitnesses could have viewed Hahneman and then come up with Comp A? You may think Comp A sucks, but the witnesses didn't think so just three days later. There is no planet, galaxy, universe, or dimension of space-time where people could interact with Hahneman and three days later be in agreement that Comp A was a good representation of Hahneman. Impossible. ESPECIALLY when we know what his own composite sketch looked like. It is intellectually indefensible IMO to suggest that Comp A could be derived from people interacting with Hahneman. 

 

 

You did lie, I already posted your lies... 

You keep saying he is 5'8" repeatedly... he is between 5'9" and 5'10" in shoes.. and many witnesses even had him at 6'... do you get it.. witnesses are not that accurate and you keep misrepresenting his height standing on a plane. That is intentional. I can prove that that your elimination based on height is completely bogus. Witnesses aren't that accurate with height and he is taller than you keep claiming. Fact is, you do not know how tall Cooper was in shoes. You have falsely made Cooper taller and Hahneman shorter to justify eliminating him on height. 

You said he had a "large" growth, FBI file doesn't say "large", turns out it was slight and only one person of about 40 mentioned it. I can't find it in any pics. I don't know if it exists, maybe covered by the sunglasses...

You said he was "missing half his teeth", FBI file doesn't say that. YOU MAD IT UP.

then you said "missing upper and lower teeth", FBI file doesn't say that. YOU MADE IT UP. I have a pic showing his lower teeth and they look normal.

YOU MADE IT UP... that isn't misspeaking. I have explained the teeth and it is not dispositive. You keep repeating lies.. how can you justify that.

If I didn't know the facts your distortions would cause me to reject Hahneman but you lied publicly... misleading everyone. Do you not understand how damaging that is to the case.

 

and something I learned studying witness recall descriptions, they are not as accurate as you'd think,, they tend to get the big stuff right but not so good on the details. Another problem the FBI had was the sketch catalog... it showed the full face and witnesses might recognize something in it but not be able to separate it from the full image.. so, in 1988 the FBI revised the sketch catalog to block out parts of the face so witness had to focus on one item. I have the 1988 FBI catalog and the images shown to witnesses have the characteristics isolated. Some of Hahneman's witnesses said sharp nose.

 

Comp A is garbage. You know full well that having three witnesses together is never done.. they influence each other.. that would get shredded by a competent defence attorney..  Tina never saw his face, Flo said said none of the images were very good...  Put Hahneman in sunglasses then compare him to sketch B, he is a close resemblance.. I have better images than you seem to have of him that are close. I have one split screened with Murphy and it is a near perfect match. As I have said before,, in the images I have Hahneman looks like three completely different people,, witnesses were shown his sketch and said not him...  it was.

The Cooper image I obtained looks close to B and 95% like Hahneman and it is 100% legit. You just don't know what you don't know.

 

Look, if you want to reject Hahneman fine, you made up your mind long ago,, I have no respect for your opinion on anything so I really don't care..  I don't want to defend him.. but you are being dishonest distorting the evidence to fit your own bias.

This is why I avoid discussing Hahneman, I have so much more evidence that it is really unfair to argue and to make it fair I have to publicly disclose all my research and I don't want to do that just to win an argument with people I don't respect. 

 

 

[olemisscub 521]

59 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Compare both on sunglasses and they are close

 

Not trying to be deliberately obtuse, I assure you. I'm just not seeing any similarities aside from the hairline. 

[olemisscub 521]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I have so much more evidence that it is really unfair to argue and to make it fair I have to publicly disclose all my research and I don't want to do that just to win an argument with people I don't respect. 

 

 

And how are you going to spin it when we inevitably get the Vault drop where all the witnesses say it's not him? You'll be Dan Gryder at that point. 

[FLYJACK 727]

Just now, olemisscub said:

Not trying to be deliberately obtuse, I assure you. I'm just not seeing any similarities aside from the hairline. 

That is an old image of Hahneman.. I have better ones. His weight fluctuated greatly.

[olemisscub 521]

4 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

You keep saying he is 5'8" repeatedly... he is between 5'9" and 5'10" in shoes.. and many witnesses even had him at 6'... do you get it.

 

did you ever post MULTIPLE witnesses saying that Hahneman was 6'? No. I literally posted 40 witnesses descriptions of Fisher and you ignored it. You could be totally lying for all we know. 

[FLYJACK 727]

Just now, olemisscub said:

And how are you going to spin it when we inevitably get the Vault drop where all the witnesses say it's not him? You'll be Dan Gryder at that point. 

This has to be the most irresponsible thing you have said...

You are claiming that there will be in the future evidence to eliminate Hahneman that you have no present knowledge of.. 

Then comparing me to Gryder..  cheap shot

So far there is no evidence that eliminates Hahneman, you don't know if it will exist..

You are eliminating him based on something that does not even exist..

Now, how intelligent is that.

[FLYJACK 727]

Just now, olemisscub said:

did you ever post MULTIPLE witnesses saying that Hahneman was 6'? No. I literally posted 40 witnesses descriptions of Fisher and you ignored it. You could be totally lying for all we know. 

No I didn't because I don't have to. If you think I am lying that is your problem,,  Fisher is tall so the height estimate bias is not the same.

[randy233 8]

43 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Not trying to be deliberately obtuse, I assure you. I'm just not seeing any similarities aside from the hairline. 

I don't see it either. His nose is way too big, he is too "fat" and doesn't have a protruding lower lip. Doesn't look like the sketches imo.

Edited February 16 by randy233

[FLYJACK 727]

1 hour ago, randy233 said:

I don't see it either. His nose is way too big, he is too "fat" and doesn't have a protruding lower lip. Doesn't look like the sketches imo.

This is Ryan's tactic, to mislead,,, that is an old image he was fatter and much younger, the image is overexposed making his nose glow, I have better images and he 100% has a protruding lower lip seen in a profile image. His nose is actually a tiny bit smaller than sketch B.. comparing a good image.

Using a single random images is not good research. I have many more images than Ryan does AND AS I SAID HE LOOKS LIKE THREE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE, his appearance changes dramatically. 

My undisclosed Cooper image is a 95% match to Hahneman.

That doesn't make him Cooper but you can't eliminate based on a few poor images. You need to evaluate all of them.

Edited February 16 by FLYJACK

[CooperNWO305 155]

Olemiss: why erode your credibility by doing a video with Nicky on suspects? He changes suspects like the weather. Can’t keep his stories straight. I can’t think of a worse person to do a suspect roulette with. Why not have Pat B or someone else more legit with you? Better yet, put it all on paper side by side and have it reviewed by everyone. I’ve seen some good and bad on there. Hahnemann has been singled out, the info on Smith is not accurate, Hall and Vordhal get special treatment. Reveal the suspect matrix. You do have credibility, and will bounce back, but seems an odd choice. 

[FLYJACK 727]

17 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Olemiss: why erode your credibility by doing a video with Nicky on suspects? He changes suspects like the weather. Can’t keep his stories straight. I can’t think of a worse person to do a suspect roulette with. Why not have Pat B or someone else more legit with you? Better yet, put it all on paper side by side and have it reviewed by everyone. I’ve seen some good and bad on there. Hahnemann has been singled out, the info on Smith is not accurate, Hall and Vordhal get special treatment. Reveal the suspect matrix. You do have credibility, and will bounce back, but seems an odd choice. 

yes, explain your suspect matrix... How does Hall get to #1..  I find that a faulty matrix...

or make your case for Orchards.. it wasn't

or defend Cunningham's altered FP map... it is wrong

or defend the NB6,, it was not likely

suspect roulette was terrible.. not accurate info.

many other guests were good.

Sometimes I think I should do my own videos but I am afraid I'll give away too much.

[FLYJACK 727]

Somebody on Reddit made a great comment...

If Hahneman was Cooper why didn't they figure it out if he went to prison for 12 years for another hijacking.. He cut a deal.

This is where I started,, why was Hahneman eliminated by the FBI.. it took a long time but I eventually figured it out.

And the FBI made an error.. he was prematurely eliminated due to an error in judgement and interpretation of evidence, he wasn't talking and had friends in high places.. he was looked at briefly and dropped as a suspect.

That doesn't make him Cooper but it explains why if he was he was falsely dropped.

The Cooper case is not standard, something extraordinary happened for it to be unsolved.

[olemisscub 521]

7 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Sometimes I think I should do my own videos but I am afraid I'll give away too much.

will you please shut up about "you don't know what I've got." You're like a 12 year old trying to win a debate. Either present the evidence or don't bring it up at all. 

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

This is Ryan's tactic, to mislead,,, that is an old image he was fatter and much younger, the image is overexposed making his nose glow, I have better images and he 100% has a protruding lower lip seen in a profile image. His nose is actually a tiny bit smaller than sketch B.. comparing a good image.

Using a single random images is not good research. I have many more images than Ryan does AND AS I SAID HE LOOKS LIKE THREE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE, his appearance changes dramatically. 

My undisclosed Cooper image is a 95% match to Hahneman.

That doesn't make him Cooper but you can't eliminate based on a few poor images. You need to evaluate all of them.

Yawn. Your dude six months after NORJAK hijacking STILL doesn't look like any sketch or any consistent description EVER GIVEN of Cooper's facial features. Your guy is LITERALLY called "thin lipped" by a Newspaper. One of the witness descriptions in the paper call him having thin lips, because he does! He has objectively thin lips. You're attacking Skip Hall for freaking "severe eye wrinkles" when your guy has a fat nose, a symmetrically square head that isn't oblong at all, and has little bird lips. Plus he was a ranting and rambling fool. The guy apparently told people on the plane his most recent employer. Does any of this sound like D.B. Cooper to ANYONE on earth except someone suffering for history's worst case of Sunken Cost Fallacy. 

Didn't you say his weight fluctuated? Wasn't that an excuse of yours? Well these are all photos of him after being on the run in Honduras for a month. Doubt he was visiting buffets. 

[olemisscub 521]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

His nose is actually a tiny bit smaller than sketch B.. comparing a good image.

 

My dude...throw in the towel. This is embarrassing. 

 

[olemisscub 521]

27 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

yes, explain your suspect matrix... How does Hall get to #1..  I find that a faulty matrix...

 

Well, for one thing, my matrix doesn't value near-sightedness and bird lips. 

And sorry, I can't reveal the matrix...it's uhhh top secret for ummm, a project that I'll be working on for.... infinity...so I can't reveal it. But I'll just say you don't know what's on there because if you did, you'd be singing a different tune. Everyone out there just needs to trust me, all these other posters don't crap because they don't have what I have. Just trust me...and stuff. 

[Nicholas Broughton 69]

1 hour ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Olemiss: why erode your credibility by doing a video with Nicky on suspects? He changes suspects like the weather. Can’t keep his stories straight. I can’t think of a worse person to do a suspect roulette with. Why not have Pat B or someone else more legit with you? Better yet, put it all on paper side by side and have it reviewed by everyone. I’ve seen some good and bad on there. Hahnemann has been singled out, the info on Smith is not accurate, Hall and Vordhal get special treatment. Reveal the suspect matrix. You do have credibility, and will bounce back, but seems an odd choice. 

It’s not like he’s letting me sleep on his couch or something, now that would be an odd choice. You did numerous lives with EU on Facebook and not only let him sleep in your own house multiple times but you gave him a key! You don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to questioning somebodies judgement. I’m still living rent free in your mind like EU was at your condo. 

Edited February 16 by Nicholas Broughton