DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 727]

36 minutes ago, randy233 said:

Dan Cooper is a North American name right? If he was Latin wouldn't he have used a Latin sounding name?

Don't understand your argument.

Not all Latin appearing people have Latin names.. many don't.

Maybe you are thinking "latin appearance" means something more specific.

 

 

[randy233 8]

4 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Don't understand your argument.

Not all Latin appearing people have Latin names.. many don't.

Maybe you are thinking "latin appearance" means something more specific.

 

 

Ah okay, I didn't know that many Latin people don't have Latin names. When i think of "Latin appearance" I think of South-American countries with common surnames like Lopéz or Rodriguez for example.

[olemisscub 521]

5 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Sure, we can infer it... it isn't 100% but it is a strong likelihood.

Cooper was described as dark/olive/swarthy and Latin appearance.. that is caused by the sun, they get dark quickly when exposed to strong sun, that is their genetic trait. The witnesses noticed it so it had to be obvious (other than Mitchell).

Cooper was a Caucasian with a dark olive complexion. That is a reaction to the sun. It is a suntan.

They do go lighter when not exposed and darker in the strong sun.. people are not exposed to strong sun in November in the PNW.

I have pics of Hahneman and he is dark others looks light,, Skip has pics where he looks light. Dark olive complexion is a suntan.

Yakima Indians still have an olive complexion despite centuries of living in the PNW. The plains Indians still have a dark skin tone despite centuries of living in the Dakotas. Italians in Chicago still maintain their skin tone. Would they get darker if they went and hung out in Italy for a summer? Sure. But so would I. 

As I said, increased exposure to sunlight will make anyone's skin tone darker, but we just don't know how dark Cooper was or wasn't to put it anywhere near 100% that he had just been in some tropical environment. Dark is subjective. I'll only go so far as to say that he was ABSOLUTELY olive colored because that specific term is found in three witnesses who interacted with him, Flo, Alice, and Lysne.

I do follow your logic that it may have been on the darker side of olive due to his complexion because so noticeable, but maybe that was just his natural complexion. 

You're not looking at color photos of Hahneman though. Exposure of black and white photos varies greatly. I think you'd need to be really freaking dark for it to always show up in every black and white photo. 

Regardless, we agree on him needing to look darker than the average white man. How he obtained whatever shade of coloring he was is something you can try and infer, and that's fine because educated guesses are really all we have at this point with the limited evidence we have. 

I just wanted to point out that a person BORN with a dark complexion is unlikely to LOSE their coloring just by virtue of living in the PNW or some similar environment over a few months period.

And again, I think we agree he was on the darker shade of olive because it was so noticeable, but the colorized sketches don't particularly look all that dark if we're being honest. 

[FLYJACK 727]

26 minutes ago, randy233 said:

Ah okay, I didn't know that many Latin people don't have Latin names. When i think of "Latin appearance" I think of South-American countries with common surnames like Lopéz or Rodriguez for example.

Yeah, not necessarily. Those are more "native" names or 1st generation.

Cooper was described as White/Caucasian with dark olive complexion.

That could be latin American or Mediterranean decent.. or a mixed race.

Edited February 9 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 727]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Yakima Indians still have an olive complexion despite centuries of living in the PNW. The plains Indians still have a dark skin tone despite centuries of living in the Dakotas. Italians in Chicago still maintain their skin tone. Would they get darker if they went and hung out in Italy for a summer? Sure. But so would I. 

As I said, increased exposure to sunlight will make anyone's skin tone darker, but we just don't know how dark Cooper was or wasn't to put it anywhere near 100% that he had just been in some tropical environment. Dark is subjective. I'll only go so far as to say that he was ABSOLUTELY olive colored because that specific term is found in three witnesses who interacted with him, Flo, Alice, and Lysne.

I do follow your logic that it may have been on the darker side of olive due to his complexion because so noticeable, but maybe that was just his natural complexion. 

You're not looking at color photos of Hahneman though. Exposure of black and white photos varies greatly. I think you'd need to be really freaking dark for it to always show up in every black and white photo. 

Regardless, we agree on him needing to look darker than the average white man. How he obtained whatever shade of coloring he was is something you can try and infer, and that's fine because educated guesses are really all we have at this point with the limited evidence we have. 

I just wanted to point out that a person BORN with a dark complexion is unlikely to LOSE their coloring just by virtue of living in the PNW or some similar environment over a few months period.

And again, I think we agree he was on the darker shade of olive because it was so noticeable, but the colorized sketches don't particularly look all that dark if we're being honest. 

Cooper wasn't a Yakima Indian. Yes, white/caucasians do lose their dark olive complexion if not exposed to strong sun,,, are there exceptions, sure. 

But we get nowhere elevating the exceptions.

Research dark olive complexion, it comes from the sun, it is a tan..

The witnesses are actually seeing Cooper's tan, it is just dark olive and not the reddish bronze for most people.

I guess it depends on what you call dark olive. If people said Cooper was white/caucasian with a (regular) tan we would have no disagreement. No tan in the PNW in November.

It is a tan, my impression is that it was noticeably dark for a white/caucasian. 

The sketch is not dark olive,, that may be because if it was not permanent the sketch would be misleading.. and it is hard to get it accurate.

I believe a white/caucasian with a dark olive complexion is far more likely from a tan than being permanent.

Edited February 9 by FLYJACK

[georger 248]

56 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Cooper wasn't a Yakima Indian. Yes, white/caucasians do lose their dark olive complexion if not exposed to strong sun,,, are there exceptions, sure. 

But we get nowhere elevating the exceptions.

Research dark olive complexion, it comes from the sun, is it a tan..

The witnesses are actually seeing Cooper's tan, it is just dark olive and not the reddish bronze for most people.

I guess it depends on what you call dark olive. If people said Cooper was white/caucasian with a tan we would have no disagreement. No tan in the PNW in November.

It is a tan, my impression is that it was noticeably dark for a white/caucasian. 

The sketch is not dark olive,, that may be because if it was not permanent the sketch would be misleading..

The HIrisPlex-S DNA test system is capable of simultaneously predicting eye, hair and skin color phenotypes from DNA.

What we do know from Cooper's own lips, is that he was a traveler. He had been in the Midwest and Minnesota specifically. He said he wasnt taking the plane to Cuba. At one point he said the plane could not land anywhere in the USA. He specified going to Mexico City! He had social awareness of the world situation at the time. He wanted out of the grasp of law enforcement but then he bails just north of Portland. He is on the run to something ... above all he does not want to be apprehended and linked to a hijacking. The money makes him highly vulnerable ... nothing in his reported grammar suggests a Spanish speaker! Its an interesting combination of traits and history ...

Edited February 9 by georger

[FLYJACK 727]

On 2/4/2025 at 5:25 PM, FLYJACK said:

Back to Cooper...

I have a new working theory about TBAR.. something to think about.

What if the dredge layer below the money identified by Palmer was not the 1974 layer but a pre-NORJAK dredge layer..

Willow Bar dredging frequency was 4x out of 5 years prior to 1972.

I recall reading about TBAR dredge deposits prior to NORJAK..

Not all would be deposited on TBAR,, but if we assume that layer was pre-NORJAK it makes more sense.

The money would have been below the 1974 layer which would have been eroded away in the 6 years to 1980 exposing the money at the surface.. There was no added material after 1974..  that extended time would maximize erosion. If the money was on top of the 1974 dredge why did it take 6 years to expose it,, doesn't really make sense.

If that 1974 dredge was on top of the money it rationalizes the money being covered in 1974 and in place for many years until 6 years of erosion exposed it..

I like it.. it makes more sense.

Willow Bar was dredged at TBAR 1965, 1970 and 1974..

It does make a lot of sense if that the layer identified by Palmer was actually the 1970 dredge layer, not 1974.  It was 2 feet below the money in 1980.  

Scenario 1.. The money arrives on TBAR above the 1970 dredge layer and before (under) the 1974 dredge layer..  from 1974 to 1980 TBAR erodes down through the 1974 dredge layer to the money. Still 2 feet above the 1970 dredge layer.

Scenario 2.. The money arrived after and above the 1974 dredge layer, from 1974 to 1980 TBAR erodes to expose the money two feet above the 1974 dredge layer,,, this doesn't make sense.

IMO, that dredge layer under the money was the 1970 layer. The money arrived before the 1974 layer was put on top and eroded to 1980 exposing the money still two feet above the 1970 dredge layer.

No way you get 6 years of erosion to expose money still 2 feet above the 1974 dredge layer.

Edited February 9 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 727]

The bump/oscillation jump is the most messed up issue in the Vortex.

Cooper jumped at 8:11 almost exactly. I have new data.

FALSE.. Anderson did not say they discussed it for minutes then the bump occurred.

I monitored the gauges and reported to Captain Scott.  We all agreed that the gauges were detecting a disruption of airflow, most likely caused by Cooper testing out the aft stairs.   But we all felt one physically distinguishable "bump" with our ears which came abruptly after we had been monitoring the gauges. We all felt it almost in unison, surprised, "there he goes!"  It was the largest bump by far, an abrupt pressure change.  We all thought he had exited the aircraft at that point, because the gauges never detected any further major airflow disruptions after that ‘thud’. The re-test duplicated the oscillations and the pressure bump exactly. 
 

It was very dark, with virtually no ground reference except when we got in the Portland area.  We bounced around the clouds, with occasional breaks. The 727’s  slipstream initially overcame the aft stairs hydraulic system.  The stairs weren’t opening like Cooper needed. Cooper called me on the interphone while Tina was riding up front with us. Cooper had let Tina come to the front.  He yelled,  "slow it down!."  I stated back to Cooper, "OK."  And we did;  we slowed the plane. The oscillations continued, as I remember, but were smoother and we hadn’t heard anything from Cooper.  Bill called back to him and he finally answered.  He said everything was “OK”. More time passed. And then suddenly came that “bump”. After the final "bump" which we felt with our ears, we all discussed it for awhile, waiting for another bump.  It never repeated, so we assumed that was his exit.  But we discussed this among ourselves before notifying NWA.  The truth is, we just didn't know for sure.  I just don't recall how much time lapsed between feeling the final "bump" and reporting it to NWA via radio.  That’s where the uncertainty has come from.  
But later we all thought that final bump was his exit.  
 

[JAGdb 89]

On 2/9/2025 at 4:13 PM, FLYJACK said:

Willow Bar was dredged at TBAR 1965, 1970 and 1974..

It does make a lot of sense if that the layer identified by Palmer was actually the 1970 dredge layer, not 1974.  It was 2 feet below the money in 1980.  

Scenario 1.. The money arrives on TBAR above the 1970 dredge layer and before (under) the 1974 dredge layer..  from 1974 to 1980 TBAR erodes down through the 1974 dredge layer to the money. Still 2 feet above the 1970 dredge layer.

Scenario 2.. The money arrived after and above the 1974 dredge layer, from 1974 to 1980 TBAR erodes to expose the money two feet above the 1974 dredge layer,,, this doesn't make sense.

IMO, that dredge layer under the money was the 1970 layer. The money arrived before the 1974 layer was put on top and eroded to 1980 exposing the money still two feet above the 1970 dredge layer.

No way you get 6 years of erosion to expose money still 2 feet above the 1974 dredge layer.

Certainly plausible.  In this scenario, the money arrives between the night of the hijacking and before the 74 dredging.

It's been a while since the Tena Bar strata and dredging has been discussed here, I am not on Facebook so I don't know if there have been updated discussions and theories on this topic.   Just to frame this a little, at least for my own sake, we had two somewhat "scientific" analysis done of the Tena Bar strata:

1) Palmer Report

2) Tom Kaye and Citizen Sleuths

Each drew different conclusions.  Not sure if Tom still stands by his "interpretations" where He/CS stated that: 

1) The clay layer was not part of the 74 dredging.

2) The money find location was outside of the 74 dredge spoils area so to speak. 

3) Based on the rubber band condition, the money had arrived "less than a year" of the discovery.

As many of stated in the past, Tena Bar is so difficult to make and draw conclusions.  In my mind, the key is the right scientist to look at and determine the condition of the money, understand what forces were in play and acting on it and how long it took to put it into the state it was found in.  Was the money state based on 8 years of sitting in the sand or just one year ?  

There have been rumors that researchers had buried money and were conducting tests, but nothing has ever come of this.  

[FLYJACK 727]

1 hour ago, JAGdb said:

Certainly plausible.  In this scenario, the money arrives between the night of the hijacking and before the 74 dredging.

It's been a while since the Tena Bar strata and dredging has been discussed here, I am not on Facebook so I don't know if there have been updated discussions and theories on this topic.   Just to frame this a little, at least for my own sake, we had two somewhat "scientific" analysis done of the Tena Bar strata:

1) Palmer Report

2) Tom Kaye and Citizen Sleuths

Each drew different conclusions.  Not sure if Tom still stands by his "interpretations" where He/CS stated that: 

1) The clay layer was not part of the 74 dredging.

2) The money find location was outside of the 74 dredge spoils area so to speak. 

3) Based on the rubber band condition, the money had arrived "less than a year" of the discovery.

As many of stated in the past, Tena Bar is so difficult to make and draw conclusions.  In my mind, the key is the right scientist to look at and determine the condition of the money, understand what forces were in play and acting on it and how long it took to put it into the state it was found in.  Was the money state based on 8 years of sitting in the sand or just one year ?  

There have been rumors that researchers had buried money and were conducting tests, but nothing has ever come of this.  

This is the key,,, how long was the money there. I haven't been able to solve that or find any convincing evidence either way and have different TBAR theories based on the deposit time. I am not committed to an early burial.

But, if the money was deposited early the dredge layer being 1970 instead of 1974 makes more sense.. 

However, the money could have been deposited within a few years.... if the rounded off edges were caused in situ then the money was there longer, but if the rounded off edges were from tumbling along the River bottom then it arrived closer within a few years. 

I have found images of buried money and none has ever looked rounded off like the TBAR packets.

Another wrinkle is the fisherman said the beach was replenished often, that was different from the channel dredging but we have no records..

 

 

 

 

 

[olemisscub 521]

20 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Cooper jumped at 8:11 almost exactly. I have new data.

 

This doesn't prove 8:11. Sure, it says Rat turns his head because of the "pressure bump", but it's still a likely conflation between pressure bump and oscillations IMO. 

You are correct that Anderson doesn't say the oscillations continued for a few minutes. Mistake on my part (see, it's not hard to admit mistakes). Regardless, Anderson clearly indicates that they weren't on the radio talking to anyone when the bump happened and they waited for a while to report it, so we don't know how long the oscillations did or did NOT continue.  20 seconds? 2 minutes? There is no way to know from the evidence currently available. 

Edited February 11 by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 727]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

This doesn't prove 8:11. Sure, it says Rat turns his head because of the "pressure bump", but it's still a likely conflation between pressure bump and oscillations IMO. 

You are correct that Anderson doesn't say the oscillations continued for a few minutes. Mistake on my part (see, it's not hard to admit mistakes). Regardless, Anderson clearly indicates that they weren't on the radio talking to anyone when the bump happened and they waited for a while to report it, so we don't know how long the oscillations did or did NOT continue.  20 seconds? 2 minutes? There is no way to know from the evidence currently available. 

Ryan, 

That is not what I am referring to... re: new data...

For years, I did agree with many that there could be a time delay between oscillations and bump but new data confirmed 8:11.

I am 95% certain Cooper jumped at 8:11..  I am not claiming 100% because I was not on the plane watching him jump.

and DO NOT use Cunningham's altered map times.. they are bogus.

The myth that Anderson claimed a delay has been used to justify the FBI conflating the bump and oscillation.

The way I read the evidence, there were oscillations ongoing, they increased rapidly about 8:10 which drew the attention of the crew to the gauge. That culminated in an abrupt bump felt by the crew. The bump was an extreme oscillation.

So, there is no legitimate argument for a later jump.

The new data indicates that Cooper did not jump after 8:11 and that confirms Soderlind's initial analysis for an 8:11 time.

Edited February 11 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 521]

31 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Ryan, 

That is not what I am referring to... re: new data...

 

No offense meant with this, but it's a bit unfair to use this in a debate or discussion about this topic. We're supposed to just take your word for it? How can I either disprove or trust a claim that can't even be substantiated? It's like this photo of Cooper you say you have. I'm a malleable sort. I'm not dogmatic. I'm able to be convinced of things and will change my mind upon new evidence. I suppose because of my youtube or whatever that I have a greater influence than others in this case, and that is a responsibility I don't take flippantly. I'd like to be stating accurate information. I'm not married to anything in this case. Why would I care if Cooper jumped at 8:13 or 8:11? If there is evidence for 8:11 I'd like to see it. Because right now we don't have the boys contacting NWA again to report the bump until 8:19 at the EARLIEST according to Soderlind's notes (which are plus/minus 3 minutes of his 8:22 timestamp). 8 minutes seems like a long time to wait to report the bump. 

My rationale has always been this:

If they're on the horn reporting the oscillations for the first time at 8:11 and DON'T mention the bump, then it occurred AFTER they got off the horn. 

They start to make their diversion around PDX once they fly over Orchards at 8:14+/-. I'd have to think that if the pressure bump happened while they were in the middle of that maneuver that they'd have remembered that. So it must have happened before they began that maneuver. 

So I'm looking at 8:12 to 8:14.

If you have some sort of proof for 8:11, I'm sure we'd all like to see that. Why would you hoard something like that on a 53 year old cold case?

[FLYJACK 727]

21 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

No offense meant with this, but it's a bit unfair to use this in a debate or discussion about this topic. We're supposed to just take your word for it? How can I either disprove or trust a claim that can't even be substantiated? It's like this photo of Cooper you say you have. I'm a malleable sort. I'm not dogmatic. I'm able to be convinced of things and will change my mind upon new evidence. I suppose because of my youtube or whatever that I have a greater influence than others in this case, and that is a responsibility I don't take flippantly. I'd like to be stating accurate information. I'm not married to anything in this case. Why would I care if Cooper jumped at 8:13 or 8:11? If there is evidence for 8:11 I'd like to see it. Because right now we don't have the boys contacting NWA again to report the bump until 8:19 at the EARLIEST according to Soderlind's notes (which are plus/minus 3 minutes of his 8:22 timestamp). 8 minutes seems like a long time to wait to report the bump. 

My rationale has always been this:

If they're on the horn reporting the oscillations for the first time at 8:11 and DON'T mention the bump, then it occurred AFTER they got off the horn. 

They start to make their diversion around PDX once they fly over Orchards at 8:14+/-. I'd have to think that if the pressure bump happened while they were in the middle of that maneuver that they'd have remembered that. So it must have happened before they began that maneuver. 

So I'm looking at 8:12 to 8:14.

If you have some sort of proof for 8:11, I'm sure we'd all like to see that. Why would you hoard something like that on a 53 year old cold case?

I do have new data but won't share it now,, it is for my own project. I have lots of stuff I am keeping for that..  all that stuff will eventually come out.

But it isn't really needed, it independently confirms Soderlind's 8:11 time.

The bump was an extreme oscillation, not using that term then is irrelevant, it occurred at the end of the rapid increase seen on the gauge.

Even Anderson said it was the biggest bump... wait what.. there was more that one.. Clearly, the crew's usage of the term is imprecise.

The claim that the FBI conflated the bump and oscillation is speculation and imbeds a false premise that they were completely different events separated by significant time. A self licking ice cream cone, if you will.

Soderlind had all the info, times and access to pilots, he came up with 8:11. To claim he was wrong you do need something more than speculation.

The diversion around PDX has no relevance to the jump time..

Rat said the call to Soderlind was in the suburbs of Portland.. minutes after the jump.

So, there is no positive evidence for Orchards even without my new data.

I don't think you are misleading people intentionally on this, I just think you have misunderstood the evidence and presented an opinion as fact.. you kept claiming we now know he jumped at Orchards and the FBI now believes that..  

Cooper jumped at 8:11, almost exactly.

Edited February 11 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 521]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

the FBI now believes that..  

 

Well, technically "they" do. It's what Larry Carr believed and as he was the only NORJAK agent whom ever looked into it in the modern era, then he is able to speak for the FBI on it, since it was his case. That's the way a law enforcement bureaucratic machine operates: A case agent's words represent the Bureau as it relates to that specific issue at the time they say it. I've asked Larry this specifically. He said "yes, feel free to put in your book that the FBI believes this now." It was the same way when I was a prosecutor on a case. If I said something to the media, then they're able to write in an article that "the DA's office believes" or whatever. So it's not some deliberate sleight of hand or falsehood on my part.

And you'll just have to forgive me and the rest of us for continuing to believe that he jumped after 8:11 since you aren't going to share your revelatory information with us. You tend to do this a lot and it's kinda lame, haha. I have information about Hahneman that will shut you all up...but I can't share it because of a project. I have a photograph of Cooper...but I can't share it because of a project. I have information about the jump time...but I can't share it because of a project. Whether you're doing this intentionally or not, it's a very unfair tactic to use in an argument. It's a fallacy actually. It's an Appeal to Secret Knowledge. 

 

Edited February 11 by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 727]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

Well, technically "they" do. It's what Larry Carr believed and as he was the only NORJAK agent whom ever looked into it in the modern era, then he is able to speak for the FBI on it, since it was his case. That's the way a law enforcement bureaucratic machine operates: A case agent's words represent the Bureau as it relates to that specific issue at the time they say it. I've asked Larry this specifically. He said "yes, feel free to put in your book that the FBI believes this now." It was the same way when I was a prosecutor on a case. If I said something to the media, then they're able to write in an article that "the DA's office believes" or whatever. So it's not some deliberate sleight of hand or falsehood on my part.

And you'll just have to forgive me and the rest of us for continuing to believe that he jumped after 8:11 since you aren't going to share your revelatory information with us. You tend to do this a lot and it's kinda lame, haha. I have information about Hahneman that will shut you all up...but I can't share it because of a project. I have a photograph of Cooper...but I can't share it because of a project. I have information about the jump time...but I can't share it because of a project. Whether you're doing this intentionally or not, it's a very unfair tactic to use in an argument. It's a fallacy actually. It's an Appeal to Secret Knowledge. 

 

Larry does not speak for the FBI and has had many things wrong.. his current opinion is not the FBI's.

Your claim was not accurate and misleading to the jury.. nice try though.

You said "the FBI now believes" to give the illusion of credibility to your Orchards opinion, very deceptive.

I don't expect people to just believe my 8:11 claim.. no problem there. Facts don't seem to matter anymore in the Vortex....  I have very good reasons for not sharing it. In fact, I have a lot of stuff I don't share publicly. I have discovered many Cooper things over the years and shared them so I have earned the right to keep some things for another project. Calling that lame is well, itself lame and makes me want to share even less.. that is why I stopped posting. 

Your claim of Orchards or the FBI conflating or a time delay is pure speculation.

Speculation is fine, but you and your crew sell it as fact and reject 8:11 with no or false evidence.

IMO, your argument for a later jump has no merit. Even without my new data the 8:11 time is the most likely jump. I always claimed 8:11-12 time but was open to the possibility of up to 8:15.. my new data confirms 8:11 and removes the possibility of a delay. It was 8:11, a few seconds before or after.. but really close.

You people are smart enough to figure it out on your own, eventually.

The default position with the known evidence should be about 8:11 unless there is significant evidence to the contrary and there isn't any. My new data is just a bonus..

The burden is yours to disprove 8:11.. it is not mine to prove it even though I have.

Edited February 12 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 521]

9 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

my new data confirms 8:11 and removes the possibility of a delay. It was 8:11, a few seconds before or after.. but really close.

 

 

Well actually I have new data that proves it was at 8:14.

[FLYJACK 727]

23 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Well actually I have new data that proves it was at 8:14.

Good for you..  run with that.

[olemisscub 521]

Just now, FLYJACK said:

Good for you..  run with that.

It's better than what you've got. TRUST ME.

[FLYJACK 727]

2 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

It's better than what you've got. TRUST ME.

No, I don't trust you.

[DWeber 2]

4 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Well, technically "they" do. It's what Larry Carr believed and as he was the only NORJAK agent whom ever looked into it in the modern era, then he is able to speak for the FBI on it, since it was his case. That's the way a law enforcement bureaucratic machine operates: A case agent's words represent the Bureau as it relates to that specific issue at the time they say it. I've asked Larry this specifically. He said "yes, feel free to put in your book that the FBI believes this now." It was the same way when I was a prosecutor on a case. If I said something to the media, then they're able to write in an article that "the DA's office believes" or whatever. So it's not some deliberate sleight of hand or falsehood on my part.

And you'll just have to forgive me and the rest of us for continuing to believe that he jumped after 8:11 since you aren't going to share your revelatory information with us. You tend to do this a lot and it's kinda lame, haha. I have information about Hahneman that will shut you all up...but I can't share it because of a project. I have a photograph of Cooper...but I can't share it because of a project. I have information about the jump time...but I can't share it because of a project. Whether you're doing this intentionally or not, it's a very unfair tactic to use in an argument. It's a fallacy actually. It's an Appeal to Secret Knowledge. 

 

Photograph of Cooper? How is this possible? Can’t tell if you are being serious about that one 

[FLYJACK 727]

1 hour ago, DWeber said:

Photograph of Cooper? How is this possible? Can’t tell if you are being serious about that one 

It is Ryan misrepresenting the facts as usual...

I have an unknown image of "Cooper",,, not a photograph taken of Cooper.

Ryan mistakingly thinks he has a right to have all my research...

Edited February 12 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 521]

11 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

It is Ryan misrepresenting the facts as usual...

I have an unknown image of "Cooper",,, not a photograph taken of Cooper.

Ryan mistakingly thinks he has a right to have all my research...

Ahhh yes, an “image” of Cooper is somehow better than the sketch drawn from scratch in front of all three stewardesses just three days later 

No, I don’t think I have a right to your research. I just think you’ve used this “project” as a means to keep yourself free from being challenged and as a means to try to feel superior to others. You accuse me all the time of not wanting a challenge, yet my opinions on this case are available to thousands of people, not just the six people who read this forum. I’m open for criticism anywhere on Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, here, and everywhere else on the Internet. You just hide here and bully people who disagree with you and criticize others by claiming “well they just don’t have what I have.” So which one of us is up for a challenge and which one of us is the intellectual coward?

And yes, yes, go ahead and respond with “I don’t care what the unwashed masses think, this is for me, yada yada”. 

I’m curious how you’re gonna spin it when at some point, probably near the end of the year, we see a document, or several documents, from a vault release indicating that your boy Bill’s photos were shown to the witnesses and they say it’s not him. Surely you know that’s coming? 

[FLYJACK 727]

4 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Ahhh yes, an “image” of Cooper is somehow better than the sketch drawn from scratch in front of all three stewardesses just three days later 

No, I don’t think I have a right to your research. I just think you’ve used this “project” as a means to keep yourself free from being challenged and as a means to try to feel superior to others. You accuse me all the time of not wanting a challenge, yet my opinions on this case are available to thousands of people, not just the six people who read this forum. I’m open for criticism anywhere on Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, here, and everywhere else on the Internet. You just hide here and bully people who disagree with you and criticize others by claiming “well they just don’t have what I have.” So which one of us is up for a challenge and which one of us is the intellectual coward?

And yes, yes, go ahead and respond with “I don’t care what the unwashed masses think, this is for me, yada yada”. 

I’m curious how you’re gonna spin it when at some point, probably near the end of the year, we see a document, or several documents, from a vault release indicating that your boy Bill’s photos were shown to the witnesses and they say it’s not him. Surely you know that’s coming? 

Yes, it is better...  far better. If it was made public the Vortex would explode.

The 8:11 time stands as the default even without my new data, that is independent corroboration. There is no evidence supporting a later jump other than speculation. So, you have the burden of proof backwards. You still use Cunningham's bogus FP times as evidence....  you just aren't serious and always flip the burden of proof.

I never said you don't want a challenge, you like to argue, especially when you are wrong, you just don't get a material challenge elsewhere.

I am working with others on a Cooper project, why would I share it all publicly?

It would 100% end up in your book or other books or films...  no thanks. Do your own homework.

You have lied and misrepresented evidence, used Hahneman to try to discredit me and I just don't respect you. If I did I might share more info, but I don't.

I don't respect your tactics, your judgement and your ability to process evidence.

You have so many important things wrong that I just don't take you seriously.

You claimed the FBI now believes Orchards,, you know Larry's opinion is not speaking for the FBI,, that was intentionally misleading. Nobody challenged you on that but me. You aren't the victim Ryan.

Skip has two prominent facial bumps, a scar, a crooked eyebrow, severe forehead lines and eye wrinkles,, 100% NOT COOPER, you never question it and even claim he is #1 on your matrix. IMO, Skip is the new Duane Webber. A complete waste of time.

Cunningham changed the FP times,, completely bogus, you never question it and even use and disseminate it. Is it in your book? careful...

IMO, your desire to win arguments is greater than your pursuit for the truth. In the adversarial court environment the most skilled advocate wins, neither side is pursuing the truth. That is the wrong mindset to advance this case.

On that note, I am not interested in discussing this distraction any longer.. I am trying to solve this thing.

If you don't like what I say then ignore me.  

I only have one request, have any opinion you want but don't lie and don't misrepresent the evidence.

 

 

[randy233 8]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Yes, it is better...  far better. If it was made public the Vortex would explode.

When is this unknown image of Cooper that you have going to be made public?

Edited February 12 by randy233