FLYJACK

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...

No, I don't trust you.

Good for you.. run with that.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.