DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 697]

42 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

This is a literal invention of your mind. Like, you are just making up shit. 

 

Not sure why you care so much about the sketches because Hahneman looks nothing like either of them. 

Too late..

Not making up anything... You need to lie and discredit me to distract from your weak argument. Really,,

Hayden never met Cossey, he bought his chutes from a surplus store.

Cossey's NB6 claim is unsubstantiated. That is a fact.

 

You keep claiming I have some bias for sketch B. NO, I am looking at the evidence. Now you claim Hahneman doesn't look like B inferring no reason for a bias.. So, which is it? Am I wrong because of a bias or not.. 

or just throw anything at me that might stick.

Does the FBI have a bias claiming sketch B is the best likeness..

You want it both ways..  Regardless... You are still wrong and often really bad at assessing evidence and forming arguments. 

You can't explain why the witnesses liked suspects that resembled B not A.. Just ignore anything that doesn't fit your speculation. Or, you seem to think having witnesses interviewed together is more valid than separately,, ridiculous.

Look at the bright side,, you can still spew this nonsense on FB and in vids. Nobody will challenge you there...

 

 

[olemisscub 510]

7 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Too late..

Not making up anything... You need to lie and discredit me to distract from your weak argument. Really,,

 

Dude I don't give a shit about discrediting you. You're an excellent researcher and your opinions stand on their own merit. Same as mine. I don't have to "discredit you." What lie am I telling? You take such offense to anyone questioning your thought process that if you lived 200 years ago you'd have been killed in a duel by age 15. 

Edited Wednesday at 02:38 AM by olemisscub

[olemisscub 510]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

You keep claiming I have some bias for sketch B. NO, I am looking at the evidence. Now you claim Hahneman doesn't look like B inferring no reason for a bias.. So, which is it? Am I wrong because of a bias or not.. 

 

You're just wrong, generally. You have a bias AND you are wrong simultaneously.

Nearly every opinion you have about Cooper's look is based on your belief that the 5'8 man with the large growth on his nose and missing half his teeth who requested 3,000 Benson and Hedges cigarettes was DB freaking Cooper. 

And you do have a bias toward Comp B. I think in your mind if you squint hard enough you can make Bill look like Comp B. If you REALLY squint...and then go crosseyed...then maybe he can look like Comp B. But I think you believe it. 

[olemisscub 510]

5 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Hayden never met Cossey, he bought his chutes from a surplus store.

 

lol, so I guess he sent a taxi to go to PICK UP his chutes as well?

[olemisscub 510]

9 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Look at the bright side,, you can still spew this nonsense on FB and in vids. Nobody will challenge you there...

 

 

I love challenges and can admit when I'm wrong, which you have literally never done. Like, ever. 

[FLYJACK 697]

14 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Dude I don't give a shit about discrediting you. You're an excellent researcher and your opinions stand on their own merit. Same as mine. I don't have to "discredit you." What lie am I telling? You take such offense to anyone questioning your thought process that if you lived 200 years ago you'd have been killed in a duel by age 15. 

You just said that I am making up "stuff" that is not only a lie, it is an act of desperation

[FLYJACK 697]

36 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

You're just wrong, generally. You have a bias AND you are wrong simultaneously.

Nearly every opinion you have about Cooper's look is based on your belief that the 5'8 man with the large growth on his nose and missing half his teeth who requested 3,000 Benson and Hedges cigarettes was DB freaking Cooper. 

And you do have a bias toward Comp B. I think in your mind if you squint hard enough you can make Bill look like Comp B. If you REALLY squint...and then go crosseyed...then maybe he can look like Comp B. But I think you believe it. 

Now, you are making up stuff..  and are spewing false information.. no, I am not going to correct it for you. Clearly, you have a bias against Hahneman or is it me,, that is fine. I am not selling him..

Interesting, you never attack Limbach who IS trying to sell Skip, obviously not Cooper.

Amazing, you lie and accuse me of making up stuff then you make up stuff... such an amateur.

I am in agreement with the FBI on sketch B,, 

Anybody who disagrees with you, it is because of a bias... No, it is because of the evidence.

Edited Wednesday at 03:17 AM by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 697]

23 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

lol, so I guess he sent a taxi to go to PICK UP his chutes as well?

What are you even talking about... 

[FLYJACK 697]

49 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I love challenges and can admit when I'm wrong, which you have literally never done. Like, ever. 

What about airstairs lowered in flight being Cooper's initial demand.. I think almost everyone still has that wrong and it IS a big deal.

Ignoring contrary evidence isn't really a good way to check your own work..

A big part of it is that I am not interested in giving you my research... I actually prefer you remain wrong... 

I post to create a record for others. You are a Vortex influencer and are misleading the people in two ways,, pushing some bad ideas and selectively ignoring other's bad ideas.

Edited Wednesday at 03:29 AM by FLYJACK

[dudeman17 339]

12 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

1985 Issaquah jump training video..

Instructor/pilot is wearing a back chute only at about 11:00

Yes. Kind of an interesting rig that instructor has on though. By 1985 pretty much all experienced jumper sport rigs were piggyback rigs, that is main and reserve both on the back and no front reserve. Most instructors would just go ahead and wear that. But some of them were still a bit bulky, so in a small plane like that...  That rig he has on is a single canopy back container, but on most bailout rigs the ripcord handle is on the left side, which I don't see. What I do see is a soft pud handle on the right side, consistent with a cutaway handle on a piggyback sport rig, used to release the main before deploying the reserve in the event of a malfunction. At first glance it looked like maybe a base rig, which uses the cutaway handle and 3-ring attachments to attach the canopy to the harness. But I don't see the 3-rings on his shoulders, nor a pilot chute pouch on the bottom of the container. It does look like a ripcord housing going down from that handle to the bottom of the container. So it looks like a bailout rig with a unique ripcord setup.

Edited Wednesday at 07:48 AM by dudeman17

[JAGdb 87]

Related to the discussion with Larry Carr on the topic of the case 302s, how many files there are and not having the luxury that is there today of digitizing and creating a searchable data base etc.  Didn't the FBI have some other type of "State of the Case/Investigation" document that had a summary of where things stood regarding key pieces of evidence, or that was used to state key findings or key conclusions at a given moment in time ?  Things like:

- Parachute summary

- Lead suspects

- Jump time

- and so on

It seems as though that when a new agent took the case, it was up to them to go and read through the thousands of 302s rather than have some type of summary that the previous agent could hand off so the new agent wouldn't have to start from scratch again.  

 

[FLYJACK 697]

1 hour ago, JAGdb said:

Related to the discussion with Larry Carr on the topic of the case 302s, how many files there are and not having the luxury that is there today of digitizing and creating a searchable data base etc.  Didn't the FBI have some other type of "State of the Case/Investigation" document that had a summary of where things stood regarding key pieces of evidence, or that was used to state key findings or key conclusions at a given moment in time ?  Things like:

- Parachute summary

- Lead suspects

- Jump time

- and so on

It seems as though that when a new agent took the case, it was up to them to go and read through the thousands of 302s rather than have some type of summary that the previous agent could hand off so the new agent wouldn't have to start from scratch again.  

 

They did have lengthy summaries, those are in the files.. but they tend to be general and lack the details. They even have errors.

Today we have OCR scanning and searchable files, we can see things in the details the FBI would have a hard time finding.

 

[FLYJACK 697]

6 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

Yes. Kind of an interesting rig that instructor has on though. By 1985 pretty much all experienced jumper sport rigs were piggyback rigs, that is main and reserve both on the back and no front reserve. Most instructors would just go ahead and wear that. But some of them were still a bit bulky, so in a small plane like that...  That rig he has on is a single canopy back container, but on most bailout rigs the ripcord handle is on the left side, which I don't see. What I do see is a soft pud handle on the right side, consistent with a cutaway handle on a piggyback sport rig, used to release the main before deploying the reserve in the event of a malfunction. At first glance it looked like maybe a base rig, which uses the cutaway handle and 3-ring attachments to attach the canopy to the harness. But I don't see the 3-rings on his shoulders, nor a pilot chute pouch on the bottom of the container. It does look like a ripcord housing going down from that handle to the bottom of the container. So it looks like a bailout rig with a unique ripcord setup.

I can imagine pilot/instructor Cossey with his NB6 modified handle in 1971...

and why would he sell it through a surplus store,, he wouldn't sell a modified emergency bailout one that is a harder pull...  makes no sense.

[dudeman17 339]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I can imagine pilot/instructor Cossey with his NB6 modified handle in 1971...

and why would he sell it through a surplus store,, he wouldn't sell a modified emergency bailout one that is a harder pull...  makes no sense.

I dunno...  If he's familiar with that store because they arrange repacks through him, it might make sense for him to sell a bailout rig through them because he knows that pilots go there for them. And I think that 'harder pull' business is just more Cossey balderdash. Ripcords are exceedingly simple devices. You put the rig on, familiarize yourself where the handle is, and if you need it, you grab the damn thing and pull it. Nothing hard about it at all.

[FLYJACK 697]

57 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

I dunno...  If he's familiar with that store because they arrange repacks through him, it might make sense for him to sell a bailout rig through them because he knows that pilots go there for them. And I think that 'harder pull' business is just more Cossey balderdash. Ripcords are exceedingly simple devices. You put the rig on, familiarize yourself where the handle is, and if you need it, you grab the damn thing and pull it. Nothing hard about it at all.

It is possible he sold rigs through a surplus store, Cossey and Hayden never met but the story he told Carr was that he moved the handle up a bit,, that matches other reports that he didn't want students grabbing the handle. It may be more Cossey BS..  but how can anything he claims be accepted without corroboration..  Ryan wants it both ways by selectively accepting Cossey's claims...

With conflicting evidence and no corroboration Cossey's NB6 claim can't be accepted.

 

It is very unlikely Cooper used an NB6.. not entirely sure what he used but it was likely similar to the P2-B24 era.. probably the Olive Drab military version.

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:11 PM by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 697]

NB6 was originally Sage Green and 26' conical..

Cooper's missing chute was 24' according to the packing card..

Olive Drab container similar to the P2-B24 according to Hayden.

One of the finest emergency chutes available,,,,  no reason for Hayden to buy an old pre WW2 rig and an NB6 the finest rig available.. to meet regulations and never be used.

[dudeman17 339]

I'm not in a position to question either your or Ryan's research of the particulars. I just like to toss in general info about parachutes and their use.

Cossey moving a ripcord handle to make it less accessible to a student is reasonable, but he would not put it out of comfortable reach to the user. If he thought that he had, he could always move it back before selling it. All a user would have to do is put it on and familiarize themself with it.

Hayden wouldn't necessarily need his two rigs to be a matched set. He likely had one that he preferred and that he himself always wore. His second one was likely for when he took a passenger up for a ride. 'Meeting regulations' means he's required to wear it during certain types of flight. 'Never intending to use it' means he would never intend to actually bail out, he would prefer to work out his problems in-cockpit. I know both Bruce and Blevins interviewed Hayden, and Bruce has pictures of him with the returned rig on. Did Hayden ever say anything of that nature, whether that older one was the one he liked to wear or not?

Is it established that Hayden was indeed an aerobatic enthusiast? R99 asked about his airplane, and it was identified as a WWII trainer. I'm not  a hundred percent on this, but I think that an old military trainer restored for civilian use might likely be classified as experimental, and that in itself might require him to wear a rig, even if he's just cruising in it. It would certainly be capable of aerobatic maneuvers, but I think a lot of pilots just cruise them. Kind of like someone restoring an old classic muscle car.

 

[FLYJACK 697]

9 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

I'm not in a position to question either your or Ryan's research of the particulars. I just like to toss in general info about parachutes and their use.

Cossey moving a ripcord handle to make it less accessible to a student is reasonable, but he would not put it out of comfortable reach to the user. If he thought that he had, he could always move it back before selling it. All a user would have to do is put it on and familiarize themself with it.

Hayden wouldn't necessarily need his two rigs to be a matched set. He likely had one that he preferred and that he himself always wore. His second one was likely for when he took a passenger up for a ride. 'Meeting regulations' means he's required to wear it during certain types of flight. 'Never intending to use it' means he would never intend to actually bail out, he would prefer to work out his problems in-cockpit. I know both Bruce and Blevins interviewed Hayden, and Bruce has pictures of him with the returned rig on. Did Hayden ever say anything of that nature, whether that older one was the one he liked to wear or not?

Is it established that Hayden was indeed an aerobatic enthusiast? R99 asked about his airplane, and it was identified as a WWII trainer. I'm not  a hundred percent on this, but I think that an old military trainer restored for civilian use might likely be classified as experimental, and that in itself might require him to wear a rig, even if he's just cruising in it. It would certainly be capable of aerobatic maneuvers, but I think a lot of pilots just cruise them. Kind of like someone restoring an old classic muscle car.

 

It is reasonable for Cossey to move the handle up a bit for his rig, not necessarily to the other side..

It is not reasonable to sell a modified rig.

But Cossey said the chute Cooper used was his modified rig with a harder pull and harder to find handle.

Hayden said the chutes were the same and he would never bailout.

Ryan said Hayden preferred and wore the tan P2,, I haven't seen that, only that he asked the FBI for the return of the chute left behind because of the unique harness.

When you put together all the pieces of info,,, it becomes clear that Cossey's NB6 claim is unsubstantiated, contradicted and the packing records obfuscated by him. Unless there is corroboration there is no reason to believe Cooper used Cossey's NB6. The default position should be to question and reject Cossey's claim.

BTW,, did Hayden know which rig Cooper used, he knew one was left and requested its return but did he know which one was left??

When you read this he is not defining the chute left behind,, the NB6 had a different harness from the P2.. Hayden doesn't define the chute left behind and how would he know.. Reading this, it makes sense if both rigs had the Pioneer harness aka rigs are the same therefore Hayden doesn't need to know which one was left behind..

If they had a different harness Hayden had to know which one was left behind to make this request.. This is Dec 1/71.  On the other hand, if they had the same harness (not the NB6) then this request could be made without knowing which rig was left behind.

 

Edited 23 hours ago by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 697]

On 1/14/2025 at 6:34 PM, olemisscub said:

You're just wrong, generally. You have a bias AND you are wrong simultaneously.

Nearly every opinion you have about Cooper's look is based on your belief that the 5'8 man with the large growth on his nose and missing half his teeth who requested 3,000 Benson and Hedges cigarettes was DB freaking Cooper. 

No, I am not wrong. You are. The FBI said sketch B is best and witnesses liked suspects that are closer to B.. My position is the same as the FBI,, yet you claim I am biased.

 

This is where I really dislike the "Vortex" discourse and constantly question participating in this nonsense.

I am just trying to solve this thing and getting attacked with this crazy stuff is such a distraction. 

Ryan is distorting and actually lying to manipulate people to confirm his opinion, I will detail below.. This is how he operates and influences, through misrepresentations.

He has rejected Hahneman and that is perfectly fine I prefer it, I don't want to be selling a suspect...  but what is not acceptable is for Ryan to lie and distort the evidence to influence others while trying to discredit me.

It may not be intentional, perhaps he is just post rationalizing to reinforce his opinion. A subconscious bias...

and Ryan actually thinks he can peer review my research,,  absurd.

 

Height. This goes for any suspect 5' 8" or up.. 

Ryan has decided Cooper can't be under 5'10" and is 6'.. He repeats this as fact incessantly. .. this is not fact, this is conjecture. Rookie error..

Rule #1 NEVER RULE OUT BASED ON CONJECTURE. Common mistake.

Ryan initially repeated over and over that Hahneman was 5' 7", I corrected him and he moved it to 5' 8" but it is still deceptive. Gov docs report both 5' 8" and 5' 9", those are self reported that means without shoes, He is between 5' 8" and 5' 9" without shoes and between 5' 9" and 5' 10" in shoes.. So, standing in a plane he was 5' 9" to 5' 10" but Ryan misleads always claiming 5' 8". (I am 5' 8 3/4". and always used 5' 8" height for gov ID, but I am exactly 5' 10" in shoes.) Then on the other side Ryan repeatedly claims as fact that Cooper was 6'..  He has made suspects shorter and Cooper tallest to achieve the greatest disparity, Ryan sing's "nobody would get the height off by 4 inches", but it isn't a fact and not accurate, it is a straw-man, intentional deception to dismiss shorter suspects.. Ryan leaves out the facts. Gregory had Cooper at 5' 9" 165 lbs.. Mitchell had Cooper at 5' 9-10"...  Cooper was seated but men are better at assessing other men than women are. The original Cooper description included 5' 9" from Gregory and Mitchell but was amended to reflect Tina's 5' 10" to 6' with the belief she saw him standing,, it isn't a fact that Gregory and Mitchell were wrong, it is an assumption that Tina was more accurate. The guys may have been correct. IMO, Cooper was close to 5' 10".. Hahneman was close to 5' 10" in shoes. Braden was probably closer to 5' 10" in shoes... but not too short to eliminate based on height.

Cooper's weight was initially 150-175, med to stocky build, that isn't a 6' person. If Cooper was wearing something under his clothes his weight would be overstated. 

Remember, Ryan always claims early reports are more accurate,, except when it doesn't fit his narrative.

and for Hahneman's hijacking there are many estimates of his height from 5' 10"- 6'... (same as Cooper) He was between 5' 9"-10". The irony is that if Hahneman was only 5' 8" he was described by many as 5' 10" - 6' and that still undermines Ryan's bogus argument. The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for elimination because reported height is not accurate (in shoes) and witness recall is not accurate, it is an estimate. Hahneman at 5' 9"-10" in shoes does not eliminate him or any other shorter suspect.. PERIOD,, The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for suspects even going lower for really compelling suspects but Ryan knows something the FBI didn't... 

 

Growth

Ryan is lying about the growth to exaggerate and distort, the report never said "large", Ryan is adding words to manipulate perception... it was in fact a very small "slight" growth or bump reported by only one person out of 40. I have lots of pics and can't find it...  No, not enough to eliminate.

 

Teeth,, this is classic Ryan.. hilarious inversion of reality. When people jumped on this and mocked it, I just had to laugh.

The teeth,, Ryan is outright lying here. There was no report he was missing half his teeth,, see his pattern, Ryan exaggerates and misrepresents evidence to gain influence. It said missing several.. not half. Several is NOT half in the real world only in Ryan's world of spin.. Turns out this report came from one person who apparently was very experienced with teeth. He was missing two upper bicuspids, the side ones in front of the molars, this is a very common thing for people who get braces and need to straighten their teeth. Removal of the upper bicuspids often causes the upper front teeth to recess.. That causes the upper lip to recede slightly making the lower lip protrude. Hahneman's lower lip does protrude slightly in pics. Ryan thinks this eliminates him, it is actually consistent with Cooper. The irony is that Ryan uses this to discredit me and Hahneman when it does the opposite..  yes, this is bizarro world and I really don't want to participate in it.

 

Cigarettes

Hahneman was going to Honduras, Benson and Hedges is a premium brand and they didn't have Raleigh cigarettes or use coupons there. So, there is no point to Ryan's comment.. He seems to think it means something. It doesn't.

 

Do these make him Cooper... NO WAY.. it doesn't. Ryan distorts these things then uses them to discredit myself and Hahneman, it does not. He has rejected Hahneman and that is great for him.. but dude you better stop lying. You have no cred with me at all, you have so many things wrong and I really have a thing against liars.

 

This is really serious, Ryan gives his friends a pass when they present clearly bogus evidence and terrible suspects while attacking me with lies and distortions..

It is an inversion of reason.. a bizarro world.. get me out..

Nobody on FB or watching Ryan's vids will actually get the facts, they will be fed lies and distortions supporting his opinion...  the Gryder effect... they will all be misled and falsely believe that he has discredited myself and Hahneman...

So, I am reluctantly forced correct the record, nobody will care, few will see it and nothing will change..  and I have again wasted my time because Ryan is dishonest.. 

He won't change, he won't admit he lied, he will just ignore the facts in this post and repeat his lies on FB where he has little resistance and a soft compliant pillowy environment.

This stuff does not advance the case,, 

 

I should stop posting altogether. There is really no upside for me here.

 

 

 

 

 

[CooperNWO305 149]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

No, I am not wrong. You are. The FBI said sketch B is best and witnesses liked suspects that are closer to B.. My position is the same as the FBI,, yet you claim I am biased.

 

This is where I really dislike the "Vortex" discourse and constantly question participating in this nonsense.

I am just trying to solve this thing and getting attacked with this crazy stuff is such a distraction. 

Ryan is distorting and actually lying to manipulate people to confirm his opinion, I will detail below.. This is how he operates and influences, through misrepresentations.

He has rejected Hahneman and that is perfectly fine I prefer it, I don't want to be selling a suspect...  but what is not acceptable is for Ryan to lie and distort the evidence to influence others while trying to discredit me.

It may not be intentional, perhaps he is just post rationalizing to reinforce his opinion. A subconscious bias...

and Ryan actually thinks he can peer review my research,,  absurd.

 

Height. This goes for any suspect 5' 8" or up.. 

Ryan has decided Cooper can't be under 5'10" and is 6'.. He repeats this as fact incessantly. .. this is not fact, this is conjecture. Rookie error..

Rule #1 NEVER RULE OUT BASED ON CONJECTURE. Common mistake.

Ryan initially repeated over and over that Hahneman was 5' 7", I corrected him and he moved it to 5' 8" but it is still deceptive. Gov docs report both 5' 8" and 5' 9", those are self reported that means without shoes, He is between 5' 8" and 5' 9" without shoes and between 5' 9" and 5' 10" in shoes.. So, standing in a plane he was 5' 9" to 5' 10" but Ryan misleads always claiming 5' 8". (I am 5' 8 3/4". and always used 5' 8" height for gov ID, but I am exactly 5' 10" in shoes.) Then on the other side Ryan repeatedly claims as fact that Cooper was 6'..  He has made suspects shorter and Cooper tallest to achieve the greatest disparity, Ryan sing's "nobody would get the height off by 4 inches", but it isn't a fact and not accurate, it is a straw-man, intentional deception to dismiss shorter suspects.. Ryan leaves out the facts. Gregory had Cooper at 5' 9" 165 lbs.. Mitchell had Cooper at 5' 9-10"...  Cooper was seated but men are better at assessing other men than women are. The original Cooper description included 5' 9" from Gregory and Mitchell but was amended to reflect Tina's 5' 10" to 6' with the belief she saw him standing,, it isn't a fact that Gregory and Mitchell were wrong, it is an assumption that Tina was more accurate. The guys may have been correct. IMO, Cooper was close to 5' 10".. Hahneman was close to 5' 10" in shoes. Braden was probably closer to 5' 10" in shoes... but not too short to eliminate based on height.

Cooper's weight was initially 150-175, med to stocky build, that isn't a 6' person. If Cooper was wearing something under his clothes his weight would be overstated. 

Remember, Ryan always claims early reports are more accurate,, except when it doesn't fit his narrative.

and for Hahneman's hijacking there are many estimates of his height from 5' 10"- 6'... (same as Cooper) He was between 5' 9"-10". The irony is that if Hahneman was only 5' 8" he was described by many as 5' 10" - 6' and that still undermines Ryan's bogus argument. The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for elimination because reported height is not accurate (in shoes) and witness recall is not accurate, it is an estimate. Hahneman at 5' 9"-10" in shoes does not eliminate him or any other shorter suspect.. PERIOD,, The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for suspects even going lower for really compelling suspects but Ryan knows something the FBI didn't... 

 

Growth

Ryan is lying about the growth to exaggerate and distort, the report never said "large", Ryan is adding words to manipulate perception... it was in fact a very small "slight" growth or bump reported by only one person out of 40. I have lots of pics and can't find it...  No, not enough to eliminate.

 

Teeth,, this is classic Ryan.. hilarious inversion of reality. When people jumped on this and mocked it, I just had to laugh.

The teeth,, Ryan is outright lying here. There was no report he was missing half his teeth,, see his pattern, Ryan exaggerates and misrepresents evidence to gain influence. It said missing several.. not half. Several is NOT half in the real world only in Ryan's world of spin.. Turns out this report came from one person who apparently was very experienced with teeth. He was missing two upper bicuspids, the side ones in front of the molars, this is a very common thing for people who get braces and need to straighten their teeth. Removal of the upper bicuspids often causes the upper front teeth to recess.. That causes the upper lip to recede slightly making the lower lip protrude. Hahneman's lower lip does protrude slightly in pics. Ryan thinks this eliminates him, it is actually consistent with Cooper. The irony is that Ryan uses this to discredit me and Hahneman when it does the opposite..  yes, this is bizarro world and I really don't want to participate in it.

 

Cigarettes

Hahneman was going to Honduras, Benson and Hedges is a premium brand and they didn't have Raleigh cigarettes or use coupons there. So, there is no point to Ryan's comment.. He seems to think it means something. It doesn't.

 

Do these make him Cooper... NO WAY.. it doesn't. Ryan distorts these things then uses them to discredit myself and Hahneman, it does not. He has rejected Hahneman and that is great for him.. but dude you better stop lying. You have no cred with me at all, you have so many things wrong and I really have a thing against liars.

 

This is really serious, Ryan gives his friends a pass when they present clearly bogus evidence and terrible suspects while attacking me with lies and distortions..

It is an inversion of reason.. a bizarro world.. get me out..

Nobody on FB or watching Ryan's vids will actually get the facts, they will be fed lies and distortions supporting his opinion...  the Gryder effect... they will all be misled and falsely believe that he has discredited myself and Hahneman...

So, I am reluctantly forced correct the record, nobody will care, few will see it and nothing will change..  and I have again wasted my time because Ryan is dishonest.. 

He won't change, he won't admit he lied, he will just ignore the facts in this post and repeat his lies on FB where he has little resistance and a soft compliant pillowy environment.

This stuff does not advance the case,, 

 

I should stop posting altogether. There is really no upside for me here.

 

 

 

 

 

Are Flyjack, myself, and the FBI the only ones who think that the information points more closely to B than A? Or are we the only ones willing to disagree with people on this issue?

[georger 243]

10 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

No, I am not wrong. You are. The FBI said sketch B is best and witnesses liked suspects that are closer to B.. My position is the same as the FBI,, yet you claim I am biased.

 

This is where I really dislike the "Vortex" discourse and constantly question participating in this nonsense.

I am just trying to solve this thing and getting attacked with this crazy stuff is such a distraction. 

Ryan is distorting and actually lying to manipulate people to confirm his opinion, I will detail below.. This is how he operates and influences, through misrepresentations.

He has rejected Hahneman and that is perfectly fine I prefer it, I don't want to be selling a suspect...  but what is not acceptable is for Ryan to lie and distort the evidence to influence others while trying to discredit me.

It may not be intentional, perhaps he is just post rationalizing to reinforce his opinion. A subconscious bias...

and Ryan actually thinks he can peer review my research,,  absurd.

 

Height. This goes for any suspect 5' 8" or up.. 

Ryan has decided Cooper can't be under 5'10" and is 6'.. He repeats this as fact incessantly. .. this is not fact, this is conjecture. Rookie error..

Rule #1 NEVER RULE OUT BASED ON CONJECTURE. Common mistake.

Ryan initially repeated over and over that Hahneman was 5' 7", I corrected him and he moved it to 5' 8" but it is still deceptive. Gov docs report both 5' 8" and 5' 9", those are self reported that means without shoes, He is between 5' 8" and 5' 9" without shoes and between 5' 9" and 5' 10" in shoes.. So, standing in a plane he was 5' 9" to 5' 10" but Ryan misleads always claiming 5' 8". (I am 5' 8 3/4". and always used 5' 8" height for gov ID, but I am exactly 5' 10" in shoes.) Then on the other side Ryan repeatedly claims as fact that Cooper was 6'..  He has made suspects shorter and Cooper tallest to achieve the greatest disparity, Ryan sing's "nobody would get the height off by 4 inches", but it isn't a fact and not accurate, it is a straw-man, intentional deception to dismiss shorter suspects.. Ryan leaves out the facts. Gregory had Cooper at 5' 9" 165 lbs.. Mitchell had Cooper at 5' 9-10"...  Cooper was seated but men are better at assessing other men than women are. The original Cooper description included 5' 9" from Gregory and Mitchell but was amended to reflect Tina's 5' 10" to 6' with the belief she saw him standing,, it isn't a fact that Gregory and Mitchell were wrong, it is an assumption that Tina was more accurate. The guys may have been correct. IMO, Cooper was close to 5' 10".. Hahneman was close to 5' 10" in shoes. Braden was probably closer to 5' 10" in shoes... but not too short to eliminate based on height.

Cooper's weight was initially 150-175, med to stocky build, that isn't a 6' person. If Cooper was wearing something under his clothes his weight would be overstated. 

Remember, Ryan always claims early reports are more accurate,, except when it doesn't fit his narrative.

and for Hahneman's hijacking there are many estimates of his height from 5' 10"- 6'... (same as Cooper) He was between 5' 9"-10". The irony is that if Hahneman was only 5' 8" he was described by many as 5' 10" - 6' and that still undermines Ryan's bogus argument. The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for elimination because reported height is not accurate (in shoes) and witness recall is not accurate, it is an estimate. Hahneman at 5' 9"-10" in shoes does not eliminate him or any other shorter suspect.. PERIOD,, The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for suspects even going lower for really compelling suspects but Ryan knows something the FBI didn't... 

 

Growth

Ryan is lying about the growth to exaggerate and distort, the report never said "large", Ryan is adding words to manipulate perception... it was in fact a very small "slight" growth or bump reported by only one person out of 40. I have lots of pics and can't find it...  No, not enough to eliminate.

 

Teeth,, this is classic Ryan.. hilarious inversion of reality. When people jumped on this and mocked it, I just had to laugh.

The teeth,, Ryan is outright lying here. There was no report he was missing half his teeth,, see his pattern, Ryan exaggerates and misrepresents evidence to gain influence. It said missing several.. not half. Several is NOT half in the real world only in Ryan's world of spin.. Turns out this report came from one person who apparently was very experienced with teeth. He was missing two upper bicuspids, the side ones in front of the molars, this is a very common thing for people who get braces and need to straighten their teeth. Removal of the upper bicuspids often causes the upper front teeth to recess.. That causes the upper lip to recede slightly making the lower lip protrude. Hahneman's lower lip does protrude slightly in pics. Ryan thinks this eliminates him, it is actually consistent with Cooper. The irony is that Ryan uses this to discredit me and Hahneman when it does the opposite..  yes, this is bizarro world and I really don't want to participate in it.

 

Cigarettes

Hahneman was going to Honduras, Benson and Hedges is a premium brand and they didn't have Raleigh cigarettes or use coupons there. So, there is no point to Ryan's comment.. He seems to think it means something. It doesn't.

 

Do these make him Cooper... NO WAY.. it doesn't. Ryan distorts these things then uses them to discredit myself and Hahneman, it does not. He has rejected Hahneman and that is great for him.. but dude you better stop lying. You have no cred with me at all, you have so many things wrong and I really have a thing against liars.

 

This is really serious, Ryan gives his friends a pass when they present clearly bogus evidence and terrible suspects while attacking me with lies and distortions..

It is an inversion of reason.. a bizarro world.. get me out..

Nobody on FB or watching Ryan's vids will actually get the facts, they will be fed lies and distortions supporting his opinion...  the Gryder effect... they will all be misled and falsely believe that he has discredited myself and Hahneman...

So, I am reluctantly forced correct the record, nobody will care, few will see it and nothing will change..  and I have again wasted my time because Ryan is dishonest.. 

He won't change, he won't admit he lied, he will just ignore the facts in this post and repeat his lies on FB where he has little resistance and a soft compliant pillowy environment.

This stuff does not advance the case,, 

 

I should stop posting altogether. There is really no upside for me here.

 

 

 

 

 

Take a break but dont quit!  I see two forceful serious people at work.... disagreement is inevitable.

Edited 9 hours ago by georger

[JAGdb 87]

7 hours ago, georger said:

Take a break but dont quit!  I see two forceful serious people at work.... disagreement is inevitable.

I consider myself nothing more than a vortex tailgater, I am not even inside the stadium in the upper deck when it comes to any of this so I hope I am not overstepping...

Both of you guys are tremendous researchers and investigators, period.  

Fly, your case knowledge, relentless research abilities and unique insights are an asset to the vortex...it really challenges people to think outside the box and that is critical. You are an extremely tough debater, are you a lawyer also lol !   Regarding the picture you have, my only ask is... is the picture from 11/24/71 ? 

Similarly, Ryan's legal background, organization/leadership/research skills and sharing of content have raised the level of the vortex "experience" to new levels.  I don't have a personal relationship with anyone, but I have always found Ryan to be a gentlemen.

You guys have epic debates that would make the Vortex forefathers proud ! My two cents are to continue, but agree to disagree BEFORE it gets too hot or personal.  Just keep it above the belt and walk away before it goes too far....

With respect to the sketches, I lean toward sketch B/Grant...

- Sketch A seems too plastic, one dimensional (lacks depth), younger and not life like, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have anything to offer.  It shows more of a slender/longer face and the thin nose.

- Sketch B is more life like, has the olive skin and carries an appearance of appropriate age. It does look a little more, for lack of a better word, threatening where as Bing looks a little more harmless....not sure how to account for this, was Cooper's overall countenance/aura a threatening one ?

Because these are frontal images, I don't really see a protruding lip, perhaps a little in sketch B because it has more depth and dimension.  

When it comes to Flo's Dracula sketch, that one looks like Scarecrow sprinkled some of his hallucinogenic dust on her prior to the drawing.....I have no idea where to go with that one.

Another part that I struggle with, witnesses seem to have indicated that Cooper was generally not good looking. But where does he fall on the ugly scale and which sketch captures this?  We use Bing Crosby and Carrie Grant as names for the sketches, but both of the actors were fairly handsome men....On a scale of 1 to 10, where did Cooper fall ?  I am guessing a 5 ?

I do think there is some validity to information gathered closer to the event being more accurate.  In this case, sketch B was done in 1972 which isn't that long after the event so maybe this isn't quite as an issue as it might have been if it was done say in 1975 or something.

Well, enough overstepping for me, have a great day.