FLYJACK

Somebody on Reddit made a great comment... If Hahneman was Cooper why didn't they figure it out if he went to prison for 12 years for another hijacking.. He cut a deal. This is where I started,, why was Hahneman eliminated by the FBI.. it took a long time but I eventually figured it out. And the FBI made an error.. he was prematurely eliminated due to an error in judgement and interpretation of evidence, he wasn't talking and had friends in high places.. he was looked at briefly and dropped as a suspect. That doesn't make him Cooper but it explains why if he was he was falsely dropped. The Cooper case is not standard, something extraordinary happened for it to be unsolved.

yes, explain your suspect matrix... How does Hall get to #1.. I find that a faulty matrix... or make your case for Orchards.. it wasn't or defend Cunningham's altered FP map... it is wrong or defend the NB6,, it was not likely suspect roulette was terrible.. not accurate info. many other guests were good. Sometimes I think I should do my own videos but I am afraid I'll give away too much.

This is Ryan's tactic, to mislead,,, that is an old image he was fatter and much younger, the image is overexposed making his nose glow, I have better images and he 100% has a protruding lower lip seen in a profile image. His nose is actually a tiny bit smaller than sketch B.. comparing a good image. Using a single random images is not good research. I have many more images than Ryan does AND AS I SAID HE LOOKS LIKE THREE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE, his appearance changes dramatically. My undisclosed Cooper image is a 95% match to Hahneman. That doesn't make him Cooper but you can't eliminate based on a few poor images. You need to evaluate all of them.

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

This has to be the most irresponsible thing you have said... You are claiming that there will be in the future evidence to eliminate Hahneman that you have no present knowledge of.. Then comparing me to Gryder.. cheap shot So far there is no evidence that eliminates Hahneman, you don't know if it will exist.. You are eliminating him based on something that does not even exist.. Now, how intelligent is that.

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

You did lie, I already posted your lies... You keep saying he is 5'8" repeatedly... he is between 5'9" and 5'10" in shoes.. and many witnesses even had him at 6'... do you get it.. witnesses are not that accurate and you keep misrepresenting his height standing on a plane. That is intentional. I can prove that that your elimination based on height is completely bogus. Witnesses aren't that accurate with height and he is taller than you keep claiming. Fact is, you do not know how tall Cooper was in shoes. You have falsely made Cooper taller and Hahneman shorter to justify eliminating him on height. You said he had a "large" growth, FBI file doesn't say "large", turns out it was slight and only one person of about 40 mentioned it. I can't find it in any pics. I don't know if it exists, maybe covered by the sunglasses... You said he was "missing half his teeth", FBI file doesn't say that. YOU MAD IT UP. then you said "missing upper and lower teeth", FBI file doesn't say that. YOU MADE IT UP. I have a pic showing his lower teeth and they look normal. YOU MADE IT UP... that isn't misspeaking. I have explained the teeth and it is not dispositive. You keep repeating lies.. how can you justify that. If I didn't know the facts your distortions would cause me to reject Hahneman but you lied publicly... misleading everyone. Do you not understand how damaging that is to the case. and something I learned studying witness recall descriptions, they are not as accurate as you'd think,, they tend to get the big stuff right but not so good on the details. Another problem the FBI had was the sketch catalog... it showed the full face and witnesses might recognize something in it but not be able to separate it from the full image.. so, in 1988 the FBI revised the sketch catalog to block out parts of the face so witness had to focus on one item. I have the 1988 FBI catalog and the images shown to witnesses have the characteristics isolated. Some of Hahneman's witnesses said sharp nose. Comp A is garbage. You know full well that having three witnesses together is never done.. they influence each other.. that would get shredded by a competent defence attorney.. Tina never saw his face, Flo said said none of the images were very good... Put Hahneman in sunglasses then compare him to sketch B, he is a close resemblance.. I have better images than you seem to have of him that are close. I have one split screened with Murphy and it is a near perfect match. As I have said before,, in the images I have Hahneman looks like three completely different people,, witnesses were shown his sketch and said not him... it was. The Cooper image I obtained looks close to B and 95% like Hahneman and it is 100% legit. You just don't know what you don't know. Look, if you want to reject Hahneman fine, you made up your mind long ago,, I have no respect for your opinion on anything so I really don't care.. I don't want to defend him.. but you are being dishonest distorting the evidence to fit your own bias. This is why I avoid discussing Hahneman, I have so much more evidence that it is really unfair to argue and to make it fair I have to publicly disclose all my research and I don't want to do that just to win an argument with people I don't respect.

You are so dishonest.. I am not promoting him.. like you did Vordahl. Learned your lesson on that one. and I don't cling to the first Cooper description.. more of your hyperbole. His sketch looks like one pic of him even witnesses did not think the sketch was that good, some were shown and said it didn't match,, get that some witnesses who interacted with Hahneman were shown that sketch and said not him.. and notice the hair is wrong and the nose is way to small... like sketch A You put way too much faith in the accuracy of witness description.. for Cooper we have a fairly small sample size of witnesses... Compare both on sunglasses and they are close... I don't know which images you have but some I have are very close. He can look very different in pics. You will get a big wake up call when I release all the evidence.

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

Nope, wrong as usual. I am not pushing Hahneman.. you keep bringing him up, lying about him and misleading people.. making me correct the record. Why do you feel the need to lie and distort the evidence. His physical description is not dispositive.. that is a fact. If you think it is you are welcome to it.

This is Ryan's juvenile analysis of Hahneman... something I'd expect from Blevins. "It’s really very bad IMO. His head is not the right shape, has tiny thin bird lips, bit of a bulbous shaped nose, was missing some teeth, made no effort to keep the passengers in the dark, had them exit the plane out the aft stairs, used a pistol, talked a lot, gave away personal details, wore glasses, 5’8, acted bizarrely, claimed he had an army waiting for him in Honduras, oddly asked for his $303,000 in $500’s and $1000’s, which took many hours to procure, and on and on." This is juvenile, it contains inaccuracies, contextual distortions, irrelevancies and excludes 95% of the info on him. Ryan has cherry picked a few things and misrepresented them.. I suggest that people just keep an open mind and DO NOT accept anything that comes from Ryan. He does not have all the info, misrepresents and distorts a few things to support HIS opinion. He really does not know what he is taking about. Ryan is probably the smartest guy in the Vortex but he is just as susceptible to confirmation bias as anyone. He is twisting the little evidence he knows to fit his opinion.. He is not a rational actor. Ryan is misrepresenting Hahneman's evidence to justify his own bias. Nobody should accept Hahneman as Cooper based on public info but I would highly recommend keeping an open mind and do not incorporate anything Ryan claims. He misrepresents the little evidence he has. I really don't want to discuss Hahneman or debate this publicly because this is not the right time, place or format... it is a very big and complex topic. It needs to be presented properly with all the evidence to back it up.. this is what I am working on.. Ryan's little misinformation discrediting campaign is an amateur sideshow that only serves his own bias. not the Vortex. Things he has wrong. lied about or distorted. His head was described mostly as oval and even triangular. Some witnesses shown his sketch said it was not him.. He looks completely different in different pics. Ryan is relying on one poor AI enhanced image. He has thinner lips, thinner upper and a lower protruding, the first Cooper description said thin lips. Both have a "sort of" protruding lower lip. His nose isn't really bulbous, Ryan is using an AI altered image from a poor original... I hate that AI crap Ryan uses, it distorts evidence.. like Cunningham's FP time adjustments. Amateur. Ryan has distorted Cooper into his own image. Teeth, he was missing two upper bicuspids, noticed by one witness, those are the ones in front of the molar's removed to straighten teeth. Very very hard to see. Ryan has lied about the teeth many times. The FBI files say missing several upper sides,,, Ryan lied and said he was missing half his teeth, later upper and lower.. both false. Ryan has all the FBI files and still misrepresents them publicly,,, Ryan uses exaggerations and hyperbolic language to discredit Hahneman. Why does Ryan need to lie about the evidence.. answer.. he has to support his own bias. Ryan is dishonest with himself.. He used a gun AND claimed a briefcase bomb and threatened to shoot the bomb in the briefcase. The bomb turned out to be fake. You can't keep the passengers in the dark when you use a gun, DUH. He tried to obtain a gun in 1971 but couldn't. He obtained it weeks before his hijacking. Cooper was asked by the crew if he wanted to let the passenger's know... Cooper was passive in that event. It was not something he initiated or demanded. Passengers exiting out the back stairs is an improvement. For Cooper the crew could have run off the plane using front stairs. Personal details he discussed were half truth's, many were lies mixed with some facts. His hijacking was much much longer than Cooper's. He started in regular glasses and changed to sunglasses. He wore prescription sunglasses. Alice said Cooper's sunglasses looked prescription. Ryan leaves that out. He was not 5' 8" in shoes, Ryan persists in making him shorter to fit his bias. He was between 5'9" and 5'10" in shoes,, many witnesses estimated his height up to 6'... Even the FBI states that a Cooper suspect as low as 5'8" can't be eliminated on that basis.. Ryan has made up his own arbitrary height threshold. Ryan does not know Cooper's height and apparently he doesn't know Hahneman's height in shoes either. Hahneman's ave height was 5'9.5"... Cooper was 5'10.5" with a much smaller sample size. That isn't dispositive. The reason he asked for large denominations was to delay so he could jump at night. Cooper planned a night jump. BONUS.. It was reported in newspapers that Hahneman put a noose around the Captains neck.. this is false, he did not. Many use this false report to distort Hahneman's behaviour. Ryan will never accept the facts as they are, he has proven that he will continue to spread false information to fit his own bias. By trashing Hahneman publicly, Ryan is trying to convince himself he is right on Hahneman.. None of these are dispositive as Ryan insinuates... if he wants to reject him that is fine I have zero respect for Ryan's analytical ability but it needs to be clear that he is distorting the evidence he has to fit his own bias.. and he doesn't know what he doesn't know. I have a-lot of evidence Ryan does not have and while I can't put a anyone on the plane, there is nothing that eliminates him so far. I have even discovered a big FBI error. IMO, Ryan being a prominent Vortex influencer is a complete disaster... his bias is undermining the investigative stage of the case, just ignore his analysis on many things.. He just isn't very good at processing information, as smart as he is his personal bias gets in the way. Unfortunately due to his over-exposure people elevate his opinions to fact... that is a big mistake. I am at the stage where if Ryan has an opinion, assume the opposite until independently proven otherwise. He is that unreliable especially on the big stuff.

Popping a cork,,,, the gauges immediately showed the change n pressure.

The "civilian" parachute myth that never really was.... The tan chute container left and returned to Hayden was a circa 1939-1944 P2-B-24, it was a civilian chute as in sold to the public, Some military did use it. The other missing chute was likely NOT an NB6 but an Olive Drab military version similar to the Hayden's tan one. There were many slight variations and model numbers. So, that tan chute in the Museum now was a civilian chute while the one Cooper used was a military version. The harness was changed.

Another Cossey lie about the chutes... to Tosaw. Cossey claims he got back the chute left in the plane and was paid $50 for the back chute Cooper used.. They were Hayden's, he got back the one left behind and was paid.

The recorded times ranged from 8:10 to 8:13... from different sources and recording methods. It was determined to be 8:11.

The TBAR bundle was 3 packets.. the banks typically have them in 5's. There are reports of the number of packets in a bundle being randomized... If so, the TBAR bundle may have been given to Cooper as a group of 3 packets. "It's all from one bundle" "There is certain information only known to us and the hijacker" "he stuffed it in a bag tied to his waist and parachuted out the back door"

The sketch is a likeness,, and the evidence is clear sketch B is the best likeness. I don't know how anyone unbiased can process the evidence and claim A is better,,, The FBI claimed B was the best likeness The undisclosed Cooper image I have looks close to B Sketch B process was more comprehensive Sketch A doesn't even look human It is never a good idea to have several witnesses grouped together giving evidence. Murphy was liked very much by the witnesses well before sketch B was created and he matches B extremely well, not A Look how close B matches Murphy... almost perfect.

A reminder for Skip Hall... Look, several bumps on his face near mouth plus a scar on cheek plus wrong hair plus severe forehead wrinkles plus severe eye wrinkles = NOT COOPER and this is Ryan's #1 suspect on his matrix.... something wrong with your matrix.

TBH. DZ isn't really a place for newbies.. not that they aren't welcome. The people here have a very high case knowledge level and since the learning curve is massive there isn't anything new a newbie can bring to the case. We have thought it or heard it all before. It is hard for a newbie to get into or grasp the discussions. IMO, I have said it before but the problem is people even Cooper veterans use speculation to reject suspects or theories. This case is still in the investigative phase and you can't do that. You use facts and evidence to reject or eliminate. If you use conjecture you may be blocking a legitimate line of enquiry.. My problem with Ryan and others that have done this is that they misrepresent the facts or elevate an opinion to fact then use that to reject a line of inquiry.. A strawman. It is irrational and counterproductive. This case is unique in that it wasn't solved, something or some error caused it to remain unsolved, using assumptions, opinions or conjecture to reject what may be true does not advance this case it stifles it. Your bias should be open until the facts/evidence prove otherwise. The other fallacy is that we all are processing the same information, we aren't and that causes conflict.

Your opinion of Hahneman is irrelevant. Your judgement is terrible. You don't have all the images or evidence I have. His look changes, his hair style and weight, for the collection pics I have he looks like three completely different people. Believe it or not his sketch was shown to witnesses and some said it was not him.. So far, there is nothing that eliminates him. I have even discovered a big error that the FBI made. As for skip, he has a scar in that video and two noticeable bumps on his face close to his mouth, I posted this earlier. His forehead and eye wrinkles are obvious and severe and no witness ever mentioned that. He is not Cooper based on the obvious evidence. You keep defending him to defend Limbach, it is clear he can't be Cooper with those extreme facial features alone plus zero connection to the case. Skip is a joke. As for your matrix,, Skip who is clearly not Cooper is #1, don't you think that proves your matrix is flawed.. perhaps having severe forehead and eye lines should be a big negative.. it makes your matrix worthless to have somebody #1 who clearly is not Cooper.. just sayin. Maybe, you should do a vid explaining your matrix.. to make it clear to people, maybe you can improve it. I did a matrix with close to 200 points.. and it does get tricky because you don't have all the info you need for each suspect.. For example what does he drink? If that is known for one but not known for another it becomes a bias. You don't know Cooper's height.. You keep using your own opinion to eliminate people under 5' 10". Hahneman was between 5' 9" and 5' 10" in shoes.. The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for Cooper suspects even going lower for strong suspects. You once again claim to know more than the FBI. Many witnesses pegged Hahneman at 5' 10", 5' 11" and and many at 6 feet.. the initial Cooper description was from 5' 9", it was updated to 5' 10" due to reflect Tina. There is no evidence other than in your own mind that Cooper could not be between 5' 9" and 5' 10".. and must be over 5' 10". This is a provably absurd position you have. And using your opinion to eliminate is a rookie move. Use facts. It isn't just you many do this.. You have posted lies and misrepresentations of the evidence regarding Hahneman so the bias is with you. You clearly have a bias against Hahneman, you make him shorter than he was, you ridicule his glasses, you lied repeatedly about the FBI file evidence. You distort reality to fit your own bias and support an irrational opinion. The fact is I have been researching Hahneman for a long time and it goes very very slow.. it is not finished. I have not found anything that eliminates him, but also can't put him on the plane though I am trying to obtain the evidence that could put a suspect on the plane (any suspect). So, I am not finished. If solid evidence pops up that eliminates him then so be it but I am not going to use speculation to eliminate a legit suspect. That is the mistake you and most people have made. Do you ever wonder why I stopped talking about my Hahneman research years ago... Think about it.

It is an undisclosed image of Cooper. I have made that clear. YES, it is big and would go right in your book. Why you have this persistent need to misrepresent facts in abundantly clear.

That is a good point, Ryan belittles the DZ but Cunningham's fake map times, the Barb/Clara nonsense, Hall, Vordahl, sketch A, Orchards, Cunningham's silly sunglasses would never get traction if presented and vetted here.. They get oxygen on FB where a small group drives the narrative. The entire RemCru metallurgy Ti patent thing was bogus... many here rightly dismissed it. FB is a social group, it has its place but it is a net negative for the advancement of the case. A petri dish of bad ideas, bad logic, bad suspects and bad analysis. Many who know too little influenced by a few who think they know it all. What could go wrong.

Not sure, but I assume when I finish my research which about 95% done but as everybody knows that can move really slow in this case. Some things have taken years to resolve. I have shared it with some privately,, not Ryan, it would go right into his book.

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.

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...