DB Cooper

[CooperNWO305 153]

4 hours ago, olemisscub said:

This is LITERALLY what mine is. Just a series of things that I think make sense.  You can get plus or minus points or just a neutral. For example, I don't know if Cooper was actually a pilot or not, so I wouldn't dock a point for not being a pilot, but it doesn't hurt to be a pilot, so I'll give you a point for pilot training. 

Smoker?

Drinker?

Aviation Background?

727 knowledge?

Parachute training?

Olive/Dark complexion?

Neutral Accent?

Age 40-50?

Pilot?

Opportunity?

Familiar with PNW?

Would know McChord?

Any reason for odd chemicals to be on your clothing?

Demolition training?

Height 5'10 to 6'?

 

That's literally it. About as basic as it gets. Claiming to have a 200 item matrix is preposterous on a topic where none of us really know shit. How could there even be 200 things on a matrix for this topic?? He's lying and will continue to hide behind the lie to try and provide the illusion of superiority. 

Anyways, when I plug the named suspects into those, the top 5 are Hall, Braden, Leigh Seller, Langseth, and Rackstraw (gross). Braden only lost to Hall because he lost a point for falling out of the FBI's official height range (spare me your bottom range stuff, Fly, no need to repeat it), he had neutral points for complexion, and neutral points for not having a realistic explanation for chemicals on his clothing. So it's hardly some sort of bias for Hall when he happens to check every box. It just is what it is. 

And Dave, please note that only ONE of us between Flyjack and myself is actually willing to open himself up for criticism when it comes to this sort of stuff. Flyjack is being intellectually cowardly by goading someone into showing THEIR matrix while at the same time hiding behind excuses for not revealing HIS matrix. So I'll post my matrix and open myself up to HIS criticism, because I'm a grownup, but he won't dare do it because he's actually afraid of criticism. And again, who tries to win arguments by saying "well, you don't know what I know!" That's what a fifth grader would say to try and win an argument. 

How about:

My father would never do that? He worked two jobs. Who would cook Thanksgiving dinner? I waited for headlights every night?

[olemisscub 516]

2 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

How about:

My father would never do that? He worked two jobs. Who would cook Thanksgiving dinner? I waited for headlights every night?

That wouldn't help a suspect if a family member said that. Cooper was a dickhead. The man HIJACKED a plane and threatened to murder people for personal profit. Sure, in very rare circumstances you have individuals doing criminal acts where their families would be shocked by it, but that's an extremely rare exception for a crime of this magnitude. He's not shoplifting a screwdriver at Home Depot, he's threatening people's lives. Cooper was either mentally unbalanced and hid it well, an asshole, or both. 

[FLYJACK 721]

18 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

That wouldn't help a suspect if a family member said that. Cooper was a dickhead. The man HIJACKED a plane and threatened to murder people for personal profit. Sure, in very rare circumstances you have individuals doing criminal acts where their families would be shocked by it, but that's an extremely rare exception for a crime of this magnitude. He's not shoplifting a screwdriver at Home Depot, he's threatening people's lives. Cooper was either mentally unbalanced and hid it well, an asshole, or both. 

both..

[olemisscub 516]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

It has become clear you are a rank amateur at this.

 

I repeat: your suspect is WILLIAM FREDERICK HAHNEMAN. You have devoted an enormous amount of time investing in one of the most obviously terrible suspects ever in the Vortex. You are the rank amateur here. 

If you gathered the top 100 people who studied this case and asked them if he's a good suspect, you're the only who would say yes. He's a joke to literally everyone else. When you're the ONLY person who thinks something, it's not because you're the smartest guy in the room, it's because you're wrong. This is like Ulis and his WFP nonsense. No one believes it and it's not because you guys are right. 

And yes, yes: "If WE only knew what YOU know, everyone would believe." Sure, and if my aunt had wheels she'd be a bicycle. 

You say you can't eliminate him...what would POSSIBLY cause you to eliminate him at this point? I bet you could find a photo from November 24th 1971 where he had a unicorn's horn sticking out of his head and you'd make up an excuse or claim that you had access to a document where Tina said the hijacker had a unicorn's horn coming from his head. You have a pathological issue where you can't be wrong. Everyone on this forum knows it. You literally cannot admit to being wrong when plain English demonstrable evidence to the contrary is shoved right in your face. And when you have no way to spin out of admitting you were mistaken, you run away for weeks or months at a time out of shame, instead of just acting like a normal person and going "oh, I'll be damned, guess I was wrong." You've literally NEVER done that. 

Case in point, you thinking that for some reason they would communicate to the outside world that the hijacker had 1 inch high hair. R99 immediately pointed out that this was saying "about 6'1 inches high". Did you post something to just laugh it off like a normal person? No, you never responded to it and didn't post again for damn near a month. It would have been the easiest thing to do in that situation to just laugh it off because everyone has brain farts sometimes, but you're not capable of that. So if you act that way over a single post, there is ZERO chance you will ever move on from Hahneman whom you've invested years of your life into. 

 

 

[FLYJACK 721]

28 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I repeat: your suspect is WILLIAM FREDERICK HAHNEMAN. You have devoted an enormous amount of time investing in one of the most obviously terrible suspects ever in the Vortex. You are the rank amateur here. 

If you gathered the top 100 people who studied this case and asked them if he's a good suspect, you're the only who would say yes. He's a joke to literally everyone else. When you're the ONLY person who thinks something, it's not because you're the smartest guy in the room, it's because you're wrong. This is like Ulis and his WFP nonsense. No one believes it and it's not because you guys are right. 

And yes, yes: "If WE only knew what YOU know, everyone would believe." Sure, and if my aunt had wheels she'd be a bicycle. 

You say you can't eliminate him...what would POSSIBLY cause you to eliminate him at this point? I bet you could find a photo from November 24th 1971 where he had a unicorn's horn sticking out of his head and you'd make up an excuse or claim that you had access to a document where Tina said the hijacker had a unicorn's horn coming from his head. You have a pathological issue where you can't be wrong. Everyone on this forum knows it. You literally cannot admit to being wrong when plain English demonstrable evidence to the contrary is shoved right in your face. And when you have no way to spin out of admitting you were mistaken, you run away for weeks or months at a time out of shame, instead of just acting like a normal person and going "oh, I'll be damned, guess I was wrong." You've literally NEVER done that. 

Case in point, you thinking that for some reason they would communicate to the outside world that the hijacker had 1 inch high hair. R99 immediately pointed out that this was saying "about 6'1 inches high". Did you post something to just laugh it off like a normal person? No, you never responded to it and didn't post again for damn near a month. It would have been the easiest thing to do in that situation to just laugh it off because everyone has brain farts sometimes, but you're not capable of that. So if you act that way over a single post, there is ZERO chance you will ever move on from Hahneman whom you've invested years of your life into. 

 

 

That was a joke..  amateur..

Your comment is not serious and full of lies.

Does it make you feel better.. because it looks desperate and childish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[olemisscub 516]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

That was a joke..  amateur..

Your comment is not serious and full of lies.

Does it make you feel better.. because it looks desperate and childish.

 

A joke? Literally NO ONE here will believe that. You don't make jokes. You're the least affable person in the history of the Vortex. You are devoid of humor on this website. If it was a joke you'd have said that at the time instead of not even responding and exiling yourself for three weeks. 

Again, debate tactics of an eight year old. Children get called out and embarrassed for saying something stupid and instead of being mature enough to laugh it off or admit to being wrong, they claim they were just joking as a way to save face. 

 

[FLYJACK 721]

2 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

A joke? Literally NO ONE here will believe that. You don't make jokes. You're the least affable person in the history of the Vortex. You are devoid of humor on this website. If it was a joke you'd have said that at the time instead of not even responding and exiling yourself for three weeks. 

Again, debate tactics of an eight year old. Children get called out and embarrassed for saying something stupid and instead of being mature enough to laugh it off or admit to being wrong, they claim they were just joking as a way to save face. 

 

It was a joke.. I actually have a wicked dry sense of humour that not everybody gets.. that got me in trouble in the early days. I have never left for anything forum related, I have left many times but for personal stuff.... there were some sudden deaths in the family that caused me to leave. You have many times falsely attributed motive, claiming knowledge you don't actually possess. As a lawyer you should know better.

There is no debate here. You don't know that Hahneman is not Cooper. You have got things wrong before, what if your opinion is wrong, does the world stop for you. 

I have gone through this kind of thing in this case many times,, I would research something against the group or conventional thinking get ridiculed and trashed even threatened and most of the time I would end up being correct usually accepted years later. Not always, sometimes things don't pan out.. we all go down rabbit holes sometimes. You learned your lesson with Vordahl, a disaster,, Does Nicky still push him.. or is that thing finally done. I rejected him early because there was no connection to the case, the tie particles, RemCru and the patent was misunderstood.. I was correct. I didn't trash you guys, I knew it would eventually run its course like most suspects do. They all hit a wall...

Everyone prematurely eliminated Hahneman based on assumptions, misleading and minimal info, even the FBI did. He was labelled a copycat and everyone ignored him.. 

I haven't seen anything that eliminates him.. He is an excellent suspect based on MY research and your opinion or anyone else's is irrelevant. I am not pushing him on anybody. I am responding to what I know to be false information or irrational claims.

 

You used these to discredit him, they do not at all.

The B&H ciggs he demanded.. as if smokers only smoke one brand. We don't even know if Cooper only smoked Raleigh's. A hijacker would demand a premium brand.

He talked more on a roughly 15 hour hijacking vs Cooper's 5. He also lied alot.

He used the back stairs for passengers not the front, an improvement over Cooper so the crew couldn't escape.

He mentioned his last employer,, he lied.

He wore glasses, they were bifocals and he soon put on dark prescription sunglasses. Alice thought Cooper had prescription glasses that would mean Cooper also wore glasses. A potential clue everyone but me has missed.

The missing teeth. it was not easily noticed, they were two upper side teeth reported by one person. I found a pic of his front upper teeth and they look fine. Those teeth are the ones removed for braces,, very common and very hard to notice.. Also, when those teeth are removed the front upper teeth move back slightly with the upper lip making the lower lip appear to protrude. You posted a grab from the FBI file and mocked Hahneman as a suspect with it,, turns out it wasn't what you thought because you rushed to judgement to support your preconception. I spent six years digging into it and discovered that it was NOT dispositive at all. So, when you lied and told the world he was missing half his teeth and then he was missing upper and lower teeth I was forced to correct the record.. you were spreading misinformation, not opinion but FALSIFIED evidence that you already had and you still take no responsibility for it and have not corrected your error.

He put on gloves.. he was obfuscating his prints, like Cooper probably did but not using gloves, Cooper may have used glue, abrasion or chemicals.. 

Thin lower lip. Murphy has an almost identical thin lower lip.. the first Cooper report was "thin lips" that was the argument you used for sketch A, the earlier the report the more reliable you claimed, not now. He has the right shaped mouth, thin upper and protruding lower.

Told crew identity in baggage,, he lied.

Asked for newspapers...  so what, it was a 15 hour deal and he was delaying for a night jump.

A fat nose, not really about the same as Murphy's, it looks fatter in bad overexposed pics like the passport photo. Perhaps a wider base but narrower bridge. I have a really good pic and his nose is not fat. But he does look very different in different pics.

A bulbous nose, it isn't, that is from the AI image based on a really bad photo. 

He used a gun, Yes and he claimed to have bomb in his briefcase, he threatened to shoot it.. there was no bomb. He tried to obtain a gun in the fall of 71, if he was Cooper and he did get a gun maybe that gun would have been used for NORJAK.. the gun he used for his hijacking he obtained just before. 

The passengers were notified of the hijacking, that created a different dynamic.. yes, hard to not notify passengers when you use a gun. The crew asked Cooper about notifying the passengers he did not demand it, Cooper was passive in that transaction and it is much easier without a gun.

Height, you keep making him shorter than he was in shoes.. he was between 5'9" and 5'10" in shoes and he slouched like Cooper...  his weight and build matches Cooper which indicates Cooper was at the lower end of the range, not 6'.. the FBI said in the FBI files to NOT eliminate suspects down to 5'8" based on height.. Ryan seems to know something the FBI didn't but won't even acknowledge this fact..

You claim these things to discredit him even mocking,, none of these is negative and some are a plus.. it is an irrational position to use these things to discredit.. which is why I suspect something else is going on.

 

You are desperately trying to convince everyone Hahneman is the worst suspect in world with no evidence for it,, an absurd claim,, knowing what I know it is insane.. something is up... I can sense it. Do you have an undisclosed suspect that resembles sketch A, are you supporting your buddies? There is something, your claims are so irrational there must be some explanation..

 

You have some bizarre fixation about sketch A.. 

Your defence of Skip Hall is irrational.. Those forehead and eye lines are severe, he has 3 noticeable bumps on his face,,, no connection to the case.

Your non criticism and passive defence of Cunningham's altered FP is irrational. It is wrong and the Vortex has accepted bogus evidence and you enabled it. 

You lied about Hahneman evidence, spread false information to damage him and me and you've made incomprehensible claims and arguments to discredit him..  

Orchards, you claimed it was settled and falsely claimed the FBI now believes Cooper landed in Orchards.. I know the evidence well and there is nothing to support Orchards, it is speculation.

 

That is why I don't respect your analytical ability... and you keep calling me a liar because I won't give you my research... that game doesn't work with me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[randy233 8]

8 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

The B&H ciggs he demanded.. as if smokers only smoke one brand. We don't even know if Cooper only smoked Raleigh's. A hijacker would demand a premium brand.

From Google AI:

"Brand loyalty among smokers is considered extremely high, with studies consistently showing that smokers tend to be very faithful to their preferred cigarette brand, often sticking to it for long periods and rarely switching to another, making it one of the most loyal consumer groups across all product categories."

I totally agree with this. I have been a smoker for more than 30 years and have been smoking the same brand for at least 25 years now. The only time I have ever smoked another brand was when somebody offered me one of their cigarettes.

Young people might experiment with different tobacco flavors but older men will most likely stick to the brand they know and like, especially in stressful situations.

Edited Monday at 01:10 PM by randy233

[FLYJACK 721]

4 hours ago, randy233 said:

From Google AI:

"Brand loyalty among smokers is considered extremely high, with studies consistently showing that smokers tend to be very faithful to their preferred cigarette brand, often sticking to it for long periods and rarely switching to another, making it one of the most loyal consumer groups across all product categories."

I totally agree with this. I have been a smoker for more than 30 years and have been smoking the same brand for at least 25 years now. The only time I have ever smoked another brand was when somebody offered me one of their cigarettes.

Young people might experiment with different tobacco flavors but older men will most likely stick to the brand they know and like, especially in stressful situations.

Brand loyalty is high but people often have several brands they are loyal to.

In the context of this case..

We don't know that Cooper's regular brand was Raleigh or his only brand, he could have switched for the hijacking..

I have confirmed Hahneman smoked at least 3 different brands.

A hijacker getting 2000 free smokes is going to order a premium brand,,, it says nothing about their regular brand...  many brands are virtually identical and differ with the marketing. Another variable is availability..

The point is, the argument that Cooper smoked Raleighs and Hahneman demanded B&H is somehow negative is absurd and poor reasoning.

Edited Monday at 03:14 PM by FLYJACK

[CooperNWO305 153]

10 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

It was a joke.. I actually have a wicked dry sense of humour that not everybody gets.. that got me in trouble in the early days. I have never left for anything forum related, I have left many times but for personal stuff.... there were some sudden deaths in the family that caused me to leave. You have many times falsely attributed motive, claiming knowledge you don't actually possess. As a lawyer you should know better.

There is no debate here. You don't know that Hahneman is not Cooper. You have got things wrong before, what if your opinion is wrong, does the world stop for you. 

I have gone through this kind of thing in this case many times,, I would research something against the group or conventional thinking get ridiculed and trashed even threatened and most of the time I would end up being correct usually accepted years later. Not always, sometimes things don't pan out.. we all go down rabbit holes sometimes. You learned your lesson with Vordahl, a disaster,, Does Nicky still push him.. or is that thing finally done. I rejected him early because there was no connection to the case, the tie particles, RemCru and the patent was misunderstood.. I was correct. I didn't trash you guys, I knew it would eventually run its course like most suspects do. They all hit a wall...

Everyone prematurely eliminated Hahneman based on assumptions, misleading and minimal info, even the FBI did. He was labelled a copycat and everyone ignored him.. 

I haven't seen anything that eliminates him.. He is an excellent suspect based on MY research and your opinion or anyone else's is irrelevant. I am not pushing him on anybody. I am responding to what I know to be false information or irrational claims.

 

You used these to discredit him, they do not at all.

The B&H ciggs he demanded.. as if smokers only smoke one brand. We don't even know if Cooper only smoked Raleigh's. A hijacker would demand a premium brand.

He talked more on a roughly 15 hour hijacking vs Cooper's 5. He also lied alot.

He used the back stairs for passengers not the front, an improvement over Cooper so the crew couldn't escape.

He mentioned his last employer,, he lied.

He wore glasses, they were bifocals and he soon put on dark prescription sunglasses. Alice thought Cooper had prescription glasses that would mean Cooper also wore glasses. A potential clue everyone but me has missed.

The missing teeth. it was not easily noticed, they were two upper side teeth reported by one person. I found a pic of his front upper teeth and they look fine. Those teeth are the ones removed for braces,, very common and very hard to notice.. Also, when those teeth are removed the front upper teeth move back slightly with the upper lip making the lower lip appear to protrude. You posted a grab from the FBI file and mocked Hahneman as a suspect with it,, turns out it wasn't what you thought because you rushed to judgement to support your preconception. I spent six years digging into it and discovered that it was NOT dispositive at all. So, when you lied and told the world he was missing half his teeth and then he was missing upper and lower teeth I was forced to correct the record.. you were spreading misinformation, not opinion but FALSIFIED evidence that you already had and you still take no responsibility for it and have not corrected your error.

He put on gloves.. he was obfuscating his prints, like Cooper probably did but not using gloves, Cooper may have used glue, abrasion or chemicals.. 

Thin lower lip. Murphy has an almost identical thin lower lip.. the first Cooper report was "thin lips" that was the argument you used for sketch A, the earlier the report the more reliable you claimed, not now. He has the right shaped mouth, thin upper and protruding lower.

Told crew identity in baggage,, he lied.

Asked for newspapers...  so what, it was a 15 hour deal and he was delaying for a night jump.

A fat nose, not really about the same as Murphy's, it looks fatter in bad overexposed pics like the passport photo. Perhaps a wider base but narrower bridge. I have a really good pic and his nose is not fat. But he does look very different in different pics.

A bulbous nose, it isn't, that is from the AI image based on a really bad photo. 

He used a gun, Yes and he claimed to have bomb in his briefcase, he threatened to shoot it.. there was no bomb. He tried to obtain a gun in the fall of 71, if he was Cooper and he did get a gun maybe that gun would have been used for NORJAK.. the gun he used for his hijacking he obtained just before. 

The passengers were notified of the hijacking, that created a different dynamic.. yes, hard to not notify passengers when you use a gun. The crew asked Cooper about notifying the passengers he did not demand it, Cooper was passive in that transaction and it is much easier without a gun.

Height, you keep making him shorter than he was in shoes.. he was between 5'9" and 5'10" in shoes and he slouched like Cooper...  his weight and build matches Cooper which indicates Cooper was at the lower end of the range, not 6'.. the FBI said in the FBI files to NOT eliminate suspects down to 5'8" based on height.. Ryan seems to know something the FBI didn't but won't even acknowledge this fact..

You claim these things to discredit him even mocking,, none of these is negative and some are a plus.. it is an irrational position to use these things to discredit.. which is why I suspect something else is going on.

 

You are desperately trying to convince everyone Hahneman is the worst suspect in world with no evidence for it,, an absurd claim,, knowing what I know it is insane.. something is up... I can sense it. Do you have an undisclosed suspect that resembles sketch A, are you supporting your buddies? There is something, your claims are so irrational there must be some explanation..

 

You have some bizarre fixation about sketch A.. 

Your defence of Skip Hall is irrational.. Those forehead and eye lines are severe, he has 3 noticeable bumps on his face,,, no connection to the case.

Your non criticism and passive defence of Cunningham's altered FP is irrational. It is wrong and the Vortex has accepted bogus evidence and you enabled it. 

You lied about Hahneman evidence, spread false information to damage him and me and you've made incomprehensible claims and arguments to discredit him..  

Orchards, you claimed it was settled and falsely claimed the FBI now believes Cooper landed in Orchards.. I know the evidence well and there is nothing to support Orchards, it is speculation.

 

That is why I don't respect your analytical ability... and you keep calling me a liar because I won't give you my research... that game doesn't work with me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flyjack is not lying. I’ve seen many of the things he chooses not to share. He has no obligation to share, especially with a group as nasty as the Vortex can be. Whether his information would compel the FBI to act or make the public revaluate, is unknown at this point. I can attest for his sense of humor. I also know many people like him who are content doing things on their own and for the fun of it. I personally don’t share much of my information anymore. Someday I will. Mine is a different situation than Fly’s, but he is legit. 
 

It seems like Ryan is questioning Hahneman, which is ok. It seem that Fly is saying Ryan has been dishonest in some way or at a minimum has not told the full story. There are some arguments about debate style too. 

[olemisscub 516]

28 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

I can attest for his sense of humor. I also know many people like him who are content doing things on their own and for the fun of it.

So you think that was a joke...a guy who has never made a joke on this forum makes a "joke" and when he's called out on it he doesn't immediately mention that it was a joke, he'd rather everyone think he was an idiot and then runs off for almost a month. C'mon, be honest. You can't possibly think that was a joke based off his reaction to that. 

[olemisscub 516]

11 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Do you have an undisclosed suspect that resembles sketch A, are you supporting your buddies? There is something, your claims are so irrational there must be some explanation..

 

You have some bizarre fixation about sketch A..

 

You're projecting. You know that your research is agenda driven for the purpose of confirming your Hahneman stuff, so you assume everyone else must be using the same approach. It's the same reason your "joke" about the 1 inch high hair wasn't a joke. You were trying to come up with a way to make Hahneman seem taller to fit better with the height description. 

I don't have a "bizarre fixation" about Comp A. I don't need to have a suspect to use simple logic. When all of our main witnesses have little problem with it just three days later, then why SHOULD I have a problem with it? I wasn't there. I never saw Cooper. They did. Besides, I still maintain that Cooper was probably somewhere in the middle of Bing and Cary since the main witnesses seemed to like both. Claiming I have a bizarre fixation on it is totally false. 

If someone asked you to describe someone you had light interaction with three days ago or someone you had light interaction with 9 months ago, your recall three days later will be better than 9 months later. It's really not complicated. 

[FLYJACK 721]

22 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

So you think that was a joke...a guy who has never made a joke on this forum makes a "joke" and when he's called out on it he doesn't immediately mention that it was a joke, he'd rather everyone think he was an idiot and then runs off for almost a month. C'mon, be honest. You can't possibly think that was a joke based off his reaction to that. 

You are making it up Ryan, you keep lying about me and if you keep doing it you will regret it.. Clearly, you need to lie because you have no arguments.

I am not talking about trash talk, you are a Professional and it is beneath you.

Georger accused me of getting run off DZ,,  my father had suddenly died and I dropped out for while... you accuse me of running away, my step brother suddenly died in an accident. 

So, you are a liar,, you are making up stuff to try to discredit me because you are incapable of formulating a rational argument. You are trying to smear with complete fabrications.

You are acting like a child not a professional lawyer..

Edited Monday at 04:21 PM by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 721]

41 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

You're projecting. You know that your research is agenda driven for the purpose of confirming your Hahneman stuff, so you assume everyone else must be using the same approach. It's the same reason your "joke" about the 1 inch high hair wasn't a joke. You were trying to come up with a way to make Hahneman seem taller to fit better with the height description. 

I don't have a "bizarre fixation" about Comp A. I don't need to have a suspect to use simple logic. When all of our main witnesses have little problem with it just three days later, then why SHOULD I have a problem with it? I wasn't there. I never saw Cooper. They did. Besides, I still maintain that Cooper was probably somewhere in the middle of Bing and Cary since the main witnesses seemed to like both. Claiming I have a bizarre fixation on it is totally false. 

If someone asked you to describe someone you had light interaction with three days ago or someone you had light interaction with 9 months ago, your recall three days later will be better than 9 months later. It's really not complicated. 

Bla, Bla Bla,,

Same made up nonsense... heard it all before.

You do have a strange fixation..  it is irrational.

You cherry pick the low level arguments for sketch A and COMPLETELY ignore the important ones. You don't even acknowledge anything that contradicts A.. You clearly have a bias.

Ultimately, sketch A is your opinion and you can have it.. but, your reasoning is incomplete and flawed.

Same with Skip, Orchards, Cooper's height, Cunningham's map, Cossey's NB6... low level thinking. This case is saturated with that.

You stick with sketch A and all these other things... you will get nowhere and mislead many people.. All I ask is for you to stop lying about me and be accurate with the case evidence. Is that too much.

 

Edited Monday at 04:44 PM by FLYJACK

[CooperNWO305 153]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

So you think that was a joke...a guy who has never made a joke on this forum makes a "joke" and when he's called out on it he doesn't immediately mention that it was a joke, he'd rather everyone think he was an idiot and then runs off for almost a month. C'mon, be honest. You can't possibly think that was a joke based off his reaction to that. 

I actually didn’t read the whole response. If he says it’s a joke then I believe him. My point is that he does have a sense of humor. Dry but still a good sense of humor. 

[FLYJACK 721]

On 4/7/2023 at 2:45 PM, olemisscub said:

Kinda like Hahneman missing multiple visible teeth on both sides of his mouth? That’s an absolute kill shot. That should be unrecoverable for a suspect. 
 

This fact should completely expunge Hahneman from contention as Cooper the same as it would any other suspect, but alas you’re going to shrug that off the same way you shrug off every single criticism of Hahneman thrown in your direction: it’s explained in your file. Is that right? 

This is the typical analysis by Ryan... completely wrong and disastrous for this case.

He jumps to conclusions, makes assumptions then attacks me from a position of ignorance.. then I have to respond to his misinformation.

The FBI file said missing several upper side teeth.. It took me years to get to the bottom of it and it turns out it is not dispositive at all.

Notice he attacks me personally,, and he actually doesn't know the facts.

He was missing two upper bicuspids, (down the side), one person out of 50 noticed it and it is common for people with braces, it was unbelievable that the person even noticed it. I have an image of his front upper teeth and they look normal..

Ryan recently lied and said he was missing half his teeth.. then upper and lower, both false. Why, to discredit me and support his own bias. 

This is why I have no respect for Ryan's analysis he has run this playbook many times,, it is amateur research and bad for the case.

Ryan is not a serious person. He won't change.

 

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 06:16 PM by FLYJACK

[CooperNWO305 153]

7 hours ago, randy233 said:

From Google AI:

"Brand loyalty among smokers is considered extremely high, with studies consistently showing that smokers tend to be very faithful to their preferred cigarette brand, often sticking to it for long periods and rarely switching to another, making it one of the most loyal consumer groups across all product categories."

I totally agree with this. I have been a smoker for more than 30 years and have been smoking the same brand for at least 25 years now. The only time I have ever smoked another brand was when somebody offered me one of their cigarettes.

Young people might experiment with different tobacco flavors but older men will most likely stick to the brand they know and like, especially in stressful situations.

I can’t keep track of all the posts. What is the meaning here? What is the takeaway for the case?

[FLYJACK 721]

1 minute ago, CooperNWO305 said:

I can’t keep track of all the posts. What is the meaning here? What is the takeaway for the case?

I think Randy233 is claiming he wasn't Cooper because he smokes one brand.

[randy233 8]

5 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I think Randy233 is claiming he wasn't Cooper because he smokes one brand.

Well... it is not the main reason. Ryan already explained in detail why Hahneman wasn't Cooper. 

[CooperNWO305 153]

5 minutes ago, randy233 said:

Well... it is not the main reason. Ryan already explained in detail why Hahneman wasn't Cooper. 

What’s the reason? You’re likely one of the shills with a fake account. But go ahead and explain. 

[randy233 8]

1 minute ago, CooperNWO305 said:

You’re likely one of the shills with a fake account.

Because I don't think he is Cooper I am now a fake account and a shill? Wow.

[CooperNWO305 153]

1 minute ago, randy233 said:

Because I don't think he is Cooper I am now a fake account and a shill? Wow.

No. This is not about Hahneman. What is the point of your cigarette statement? Ryan and Fly have been having issues for years. Ryan zeroes in on Hahneman when he’s really just a red herring. None of us agree on suspects. I want to hear about the cigarettes. What is the point?

And yes you seem like a shill. I’ve watched this case long enough and have seen enough patterns. 
 

Fly has solid research. He and I have different suspects and we both have different versions of Clara. But we don’t argue. Using Hahneman every time to fight Fly is not a good approach in my mind. I’ve told Ryan this before. He’s had suspects too. Fly’s issue is that Hahneman is being misrepresented. At least give the facts. We are not here to argue suspects all day long. 

[randy233 8]

3 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

And yes you seem like a shill. I’ve watched this case long enough and have seen enough patterns. 

I think you are just paranoid.

[CooperNWO305 153]

Just now, randy233 said:

I think you are just paranoid.

Ah the gaslighting. You and Cunningham would get along well. 

[FLYJACK 721]

20 minutes ago, randy233 said:

Well... it is not the main reason. Ryan already explained in detail why Hahneman wasn't Cooper. 

Ryan doesn't know what he is talking about....  go ahead explain Ryan's argument,, it is a blend of opinion, ignorance and misinformation.

Not that you should agree that he was Cooper.. but Ryan's argument doesn't eliminate him