FLYJACK

You conflate two different arguments.. sketch B is the best likeness when witnesses were shown A they didn't have B.. Tina said she never saw Cooper's face, you know that but still use her claim. Flo was kooky,, she later said none of the sketches was right. Bill was critical... Gregory was also critical,, None of those comments make A better then B,, witnesses are commenting on a sketch they believe everyone else liked.. They were not comparing A to B..

I have every right, what right do you have to challenge my rights... Sketch B was created using a more comprehensive process. B was not created because of the attribution error of Flo's statement. The FBI stated B was the best likeness... B closely matches Murphy. A was created very fast.... When they liked parts of A they did not have B... Witnesses were aware of A and they created and chose B. Case closed. There is no evidence A is better. none. You don't even have a reasonable argument. I forgot.... that undisclosed image of Cooper I obtained supports B not A... the evidence for B is just overwhelming.

Who is we,,, those aren't my suspects. That tiny nose eliminates them.

Yes, it is a bad sketch... could be the reason this case wasn't solved. The main difference is sketch B is wider with a wider nose, there are some other minor tweaks, but largely the width. Ultimately, the FBI and the witnesses collectively created sketch B as being better using a more comprehensive process. Sketch A was quick and dirty.. If Cooper had that Michael Jackson nose they all would've said so in their initial interviews.. Alice said nose small, that is subjective.. but she was the only one and why I suspect she was being Sketch A's ridiculous nose. The FBI never described Cooper as having a narrow nose.. You have an opinion.. you run with that. This image among other evidence is the death blow for your opinion..

No Ryan, the FBI's claim is not appeal to authority fallacy.... you need to take that College logic course again. In fact, you are using appeal to authority fallacy if you claim what your eye witness will say has any bearing on this case. But, Tina said she never saw his face, Flo was flakey and I think maybe Alice drove that bad sketch A with with the Micheal Jackson nose. It is a bad sketch anybody with a brain can see it,, it is too young, to androgynous, the nose is ridiculous and it doesn't even look human. Some sketches are good and some are bad... that one was bad and we don't really know why.. sometimes I wonder if the stews intentionally created a bad sketch. Generally, evidence closer to the event is more accurate, you are right. Except that isn't universally true. You are using a generalization fallacy.... You assume the processes that created those sketches were equivalent, they were not. My research on eye witness testimony is that they are very poor at details unless it is something very unique.. The FBI updated the identification catalog to block out areas of the image because with the full face shown people would subconsciously recognize something but not know exactly what it was... people recognize something familiar in the image but can't articulate it. Anyway, they changed the images in the catalog to isolate features. Murphy closely matches sketch B which was created much later.. Though still a sketch,, Sketch B is the best likeness.... not A

The FBI did make that attribution error for Flo's comment. But, that error didn't produce sketch B. The error was incidental not causative. These guys blaming the error for the creation of sketch B are just misreading it. The error is irrelevant, there is zero evidence it was causative. Fact is, they wanted to add complexion and age... Fact is, they spent months going back and forth with witnesses not a few hours.

Exactly how I feel having to put up with your lies and personal attacks. You lie about me constantly, every comment you throw in a made up smear ... You have never admitted to your lies and misinformation... Look in a mirror..

A question for parachute guys... Cooper initially asked for 2 parachutes front and back... Then he wanted 4... I ran into this issue with Hahneman.. a parachute with a main and reserve was counted as one parachute... technically 2, but counted as one. I suspect Cooper wanted two sets of main and reserve.. technically 4.. that was he confusion. He didn't change his demand he clarified the terminology. Can a main and reserve be referred to as one parachute.

FBI,, Sketch B is the best likeness.. Catalano's nose is wider than Sketch B.. Murphy was liked and shown to witnesses many months before sketch B was started and matches sketch B extremely well... Sketch A not so much...

The classic claim that keeps getting repeated as fact over and over without any evidence or analysis... People hear it and just repeat it because it sounds good. That is.. Cooper demanded to go to Mex City only to get the plane heading south (a ruse) and chose the longest route to give him the most time after he jumps. Cooper never demanded to fly directly to Mex City, he said no landing in US for fuel or anything else, can land anywhere in Mexico. So, his range demand was actually just Mexico not Mexico City. Cooper must have believed the plane could make it to Mexico when he made the demand. Nobody is going to make a demand that they knew was not achievable and would be rejected. So, the ruse idea makes no sense. Since Cooper's initial demand was airstairs lowered in flight and he gave no directions/instructions, he was going to give that later in the air and that means he could have directed the plane to almost anywhere. When Reno was in play he changed his plan and that caused him jump earlier than he had planned.

Ryan is throwing up a straw-man,, although being wrong is too common for him it isn't the issue. Ryan lies, distorts, smears and just makes up stuff about those who have a different conclusion... to discredit others who turn out to be right. He just claimed I was making up stuff,, he was lying. I was not and I was correct.. He lies to win an argument... Unfortunately people with less case knowledge defer to his opinions,, most are bad. I really don't care if he is wrong or if he admits it or not,,, in fact, I prefer he remains wrong... I just can't strand a liar.

See, that is fascinating about the difference between mains and a bailout rig.. Cooper asked for mains.. He jumps with a bailout rig and that isn't ideal. That indicates Cooper wasn't a very experienced jumper.. some jump experience but no expert like say Braden. For Hayden's rig my point was the counter to Cossey obtaining Hayden's rig,, he didn't and it doesn't make sense that he would procure bailout rigs and fronts that couldn't be used. The guys who got the Hayden's rigs didn't realize they were bailout rigs... and yes it seems unbelievable that Emerick didn't know that one was a dummy reserve.. I bet he knew but assumed it wouldn't be used so it didn't matter, then later later claimed ignorance. Lots of jumpers have said easy jump no problem they'd do it... but would they jump at night in a bailout rig... that is another level... which makes me think Cooper didn't actually realize it was a bailout rig.. an experienced jumper would have rejected them and demanded mains.

Just can't help yourself.. You are a liar,,, it doesn't get lower than that.

Cossey didn't tell them to call Boeing Field... he had nothing to with obtaining Hayden's rigs. He lied to Tosaw in a CYA move. The obvious problem is Hayden's rigs did not have D rings yet they still supplied the fronts.. doesn't make sense. I bet Cossey's rigs had D rings because Emerick was to grab fronts and backs.. My question is really about how distinguishable a main from a bailout rig is without opening it.. for Cooper. Would he know it was bailout rig and not a main. Did Cooper know or should have reasonably known he was jumping with a bailout rig and not a main that he requested.

You are wrong.. like many things in this case. All you have are baseless assumptions... that block your own thinking.

Ryan, full of more lies,,, that is your MO.. smear people who actually know more than you.. disgusting. You accuse of making up stuff which is exactly what you are doing... making up stuff. I am not inventing anything, Emerick explained this in an interview... He was to grab all 4 then was told told to send only the fronts.. Cossey was contacted and told them to get the chute from Issaquah.. Is there any end to you misinformation and false accusations. I think you need a new hobby.. you aren't good at this. "Arrangements for the parachutes were conducted by an official from Northwest Orient, named George Harrison in the official documents. Harrison knew to call Pacific Aviation at the nearby Boeing Field because they sold acrobatic airplanes and according to FAA regulations acrobatic pilots and their passengers had to wear parachutes, so he knew that Pacific Aviation would have a couple available. However, when Harrison called Pacific Aviation he spoke with Barry, a sales manager there, and learned that they had only conical “seat packs’ and not the “back parachutes” demanded by Cooper. Hence, Halstad recommended to Harrison that he contact one of Pacific Aviation’s recent customers, Norman Hayden, who had two back parachutes and was located not too far away in Kent, Washington, about ten miles away." https://themountainnewswa.net/2011/10/25/db-cooper-case-heats-up-again-with-controversy-over-parachutes/

Tosaw book,, Florence.. Cooper was threatening to touch the wire to the battery terminal..

yes, I've heard that before,, I am not referring to that. That is likely revisionism from Cossey. Cossey said he was contacted after the plane landed.. I know he might be lying but we don't know for sure.. The files only have that Cossey in person meeting with the FBI,, that can't be the first contact with him.. they had to have contacted him to set up the meeting at least. This is why you get so many things wrong.. it is legitimate and necessary to use assumptions to build theories that get tested.. but you use assumptions to build conclusions that get expressed as fact.. Cossey told them to get all 4 chutes from Emerick at Issaquah. Emerick was contacted and told they only needed the fronts, they had secured the backs from Hayden.. but Cossey didn't know that until later. He had assumed his back chutes were taken from Issaquah and given to Cooper. Clearly, at some point he learned of his error.. when is the key. When he learned that Hayden's backs were used not his he wove Hayden into his narrative. That is why Cossey's description doesn't match Hayden's or the packing cards, he was describing his chute. So, he never corrected the record and did not supply his records which would expose his error. Cossey lied to Tosaw..

No it isn't, Cossey said he was contacted and he must have been contacted before his in person meeting with the FBI.. Not even close.

Williams and Lysne are just not reliable. They were not aware of the hijacker and said they not sure they could recognize him if seen again. The Cooper case has a small sample size.. these are recall estimates, nobody measured Cooper's height. Four male passengers had Cooper 5'9" - 5'10" seated.. Men are better at sizing up other males that women are. Just because he was seated doesn't mean they were all wrong. The FBI used 5'8" as the lower bound probably because reported heights are not accurate in shoes or boots... self reported heights are almost always low.

Sure, everybody prefer's.. but absence of evidence is NOT evidence.. Many times you claim something ISN'T true or CANNOT be true because it isn't in the files and would be if true.. This is not rational. I notice it is a recurring flaw in your logic.

Cossey said he was contacted,,, he had to have been before his in person meeting with the FBI.. We don't have the exact time/day but it had to have been before that meeting.. Cossey didn't just show up at the FBI office. You always make this error.. you assume that if something is NOT in the FBI files it didn't happen... But Gregory was not the drunk... I believe he was in row 16 aisle seat.. the FBI would have noticed if he was the drunk. It is not deductive reasoning when you have the facts wrongs.

FBI.. 5'8" height is not sufficient to eliminate a suspect. FBI searched Elsinore records from 5'8"

No, Gregory was not the obnoxious drunk... Ryan us using wild speculation and misunderstanding the evidence. Gregory sat in the aisle seat, he said he believed row 18 but it was likely 16 and alone in that row... not 17. but, he never moved up when the passengers were asked. Mitchell said the drunk moved up. Further, the key passengers were interviewed that night, they would have noticed a drunk.. No, Gregory was not the drunk. Ryan doesn't know what he is talking about and misleading everyone again. The evidence shows Gregory was not the drunk...

A single breasted overcoat unbuttoned worn loosely should expose the suit lapel's.. Some overcoats are worn with arms not in sleeves.. just over the shoulders.. Sitting in a plane, how would he have worn it?? loose, over shoulders?? But we don't know enough about that overcoat/topcoat/raincoat,,, did he ever remove it, did he put on the chute with an overcoat on??