olemisscub

Precisely. Flyjack could have been the Michael Jordan of some sport or competition if he focused his pathological competitiveness on something else besides Cooper.

I've never called anyone a POI. They're suspects as far as I'm concerned. And there's no "real evidence" for ANYONE in this case. If there were, they'd probably be Cooper.

Yes, and what was the point of it? You were trying to find something else about Hall. You were going to claim that his hair was too thin to be Cooper. But then I PROVED that his hair was thin by choice in that photo. Now you're crying about it.

Nope. You proved nothing of the sort. You provided more webpages of just people in the modern era referencing it. I wanted contemporary sources.

I don't have a responsibility to do anything regarding this goofy notion of yours.

Yep. Not enough to eliminate him. The fact that this is all you have on Hall shows his strength as a suspect. Dave is bitching about people not attacking Skip. Well...what is there really to attack him on? I think his nose is somewhat too large for my liking and he doesn't look homely. Sure, when he raises his eyebrows he has forehead wrinkles. They are much less apparent when he's not. None of that is really enough to eliminate him IMO when he has so many positives working in his favor.

BAHAHAHAHAH how?? A crap photo? You were acting like Skip Hall was virtually bald. He clearly wasn't. There are photos of him from the late 70's with a legitimate Afro.

You haven't provided ANY evidence that a lowlife aircraft hijacker in 1971 would have known about the verbiage "Minnesota Nice". None.

again, if you say that something wouldn't have been missed by witnesses, then you need to eliminate Hahneman, who looks less like Cooper than any suspect ever except for Walter Reca.

1. Notice it's only occurring when he's raising his eyebrows. 2. He had plenty of hair, as photos of him as an older man show. And...oh the humanity! Just LOOK at the forehead wrinkles in this photo!

what facts eliminate Hall? Again, you are being outrageously hypocritical to eliminate ANY suspect based off of a minor physical detail when you don't apply a similar level of scrutiny to your own suspect.

That's fair about the "I don't bite." But he was clearly just saying the terrain is fine, and yes, despite what Flyjack says, it IS "nice country".

no shit. You'd better not.

Not a strawman. You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to nitpick minute details of other people's suspects and claim that they should be eliminated because the witnesses WOULD have noticed something, while at the same time totally expecting these same eagle-eyed witnesses to ignore the litany of things wrong with your own suspect.

This is perhaps the single goofiest, as well as totally pointless, theory ever put forth by an investigator with credibility. He was making small talk. Nervous. Smoking a cigarette. Go look up any list of US states by beauty. I'm sure Minnesota is listed in the top half of all of them. There is lots of pretty scenery in Minnesota. He was just making small talk and being polite. Implying that Cooper MAY have been engaging in some sort of pun whilst in the middle of a hijacking where his life and freedom were at stake is goofy.

I've said many times that his nose and attractiveness are his biggest flaws.

So the witnesses WOULD NOT have missed some bumps and forehead lines, yet you expect us all to believe that they WERE such poor eyewitnesses that they thought ANY of the sketches were an accurate portrayal of Hahneman? The Cooper eyewitnesses would have to be the worst eyewitnesses in all of human history for you to be right on this, so you nitpicking Skip Hall is laughable. No one has to even nitpick Hahneman to eliminate him visually. Skip isn't Cooper, but he's INFINITELY better than Hahneman.

So you find an OP-ED from 2017 simply claiming it started in the 60's and that's your proof that it predates the 80's? And we're the amateurs? I'd think an honest researcher such as yourself would use contemporary evidence from before Nov 24, 1971 to refute Georger's claim and not the word of a dude writing into a newspaper in 2017. Newspapers dot com doesn't have jack squat about "Minnesota Nice" before the 80's. If you can provide some actual proof of your assertion that it predates NORJAK, I'm sure we'll all admit to being wrong (something you continue to be pathologically incapable of doing).

I just ran a very unscientific test of all the 1969 L series 20's on ebay and compared them to ransom list to see how many numbers I could get. no digits - 1 two digits - 2 three digits - 12 four digits - 4 So, the top one is only interesting because of possible metathesis or scrivener's error and knowing that I can get 4 digits in on about a fifth of the random bills on ebay makes the bottom one not so impressive. Regardless, it's definitely interesting that he turns up randomly a month after he's eliminated. It's not as if the police chief in Astoria knew he had been investigated for being Cooper. Him being picked up in the AM doesn't really change much aside from him not being able to be the drop-off accomplice. Perhaps originally it was going to be a two-man job or perhaps Cooper was the accomplice and he stole Johnston's idea and did it himself when Johnston failed to show back up that night. We live and breathe coincidences in the Vortex and I spend a fair amount of time on the Facebook groups naysaying the people who talk about "this thing in the file can't be a coincidence!" (Samdal asking about jumping out of a 727, McClellan's plane, Ben Leibson's rental house, etc), but Johnston makes me somewhat uneasy. An older burned out ex-con who is an unlicensed pilot and also has limited skydiving experience is really what I'm after when I'm thinking about the kind of person who would devise this heist. Most likely it's a nothingburger, but so far he's the "coincidence" that I think is least likely to be a genuine coincidence that has come from the files.

Yes, I caught that today. What I was looking at said PM. But apparently he's written up in the Longview Journal on the 24th which stated that he was arrested "earlier today", so that clinches it. Definitely going with AM now. Regardless, those serial numbers are too close for comfort. Something stinks with him.

Canadians don't have the royal "we"? We as in humanity. The Cooper community. The Cosmos. And just to be clear, when we inevitably get the stews rejecting Hahneman's photo, you're going to claim their memory was faulty...while simultaneously claiming their memory was good enough to make Comp B four of five months AFTER they are shown Hahneman's photo?

Tina - "100% like him" Flo - "Likes drawing very much" Alice - "Could not pinpoint any characteristic about the sketch she didn't like" Bill - "Everything from nose up is good. Mouth also good." Spreckel - "if face were widened one sixteenth of an inch it would be an excellent likeness" Hal - "artist's conception very good overall" Gregory - "resemblance good" Labisonniere [arguably its harshest critic] - "hijacker had an overall appearance in some ways similar to artist's conception."

Yet we have several HUMAN suspects who look like it.

Half a century later you're suggesting that Comp A is a bad sketch despite not a single eyewitness having a major problem with it. Its only criticisms were essentially tweaks. All of them saw Cooper. None of us did. What gives you the right to say that it is a "bad" sketch? How do you know that? Tina - "100% like him" Flo - "Likes drawing very much" Alice - "Could not pinpoint any characteristic about the sketch she didn't like" Bill - "Everything from nose up is good. Mouth also good." Spreckel - "if face were widened one sixteenth of an inch it would be an excellent likeness" Hal - "artist's conception very good overall" Gregory - "resemblance good" Labisonniere [arguably its harshest critic] - "hijacker had an overall appearance in some ways similar to artist's conception."

It’s really not as complicated as I think you’re making this. There is nothing nefarious going on. I used to dismiss Comp A because I THOUGHT (like the FBI did) that Flo hated it. Once I realized that she said that she “liked it very much” and that Tina said it was “100% like him”, I began to believe it had serious value. Both sketches have value to me now. If you’ve seen or heard where I’ve began dismissing Comp B as lacking value, I’d like to see it. Three days later the best witnesses liked Comp A. 9 months to a year later they all liked Comp B. No reason for me to be attacked for suggesting that the one closest to the event is more likely to be accurate. That’s just common sense. I’m planning on having this person who wrote a law book about eyewitness testimony on my show next month. I can’t imagine he is going to say that an eyewitnesses memory of a face is going to be better 9 months after an event as opposed to a week later. But they definitely represent different humans. So which human does Cooper look like more. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. You’re making an appeal to authority by saying “the FBI says it’s the best” and that B shouldn’t be questioned because of that. Sure, of course they say that. When they made that pronouncement they still were operating under the assumption that Flo didn’t like Bing and here now this new sketch is getting rave reviews. So, of course they’re going to say B is the best: they thought Revised Comp B was the first sketch that had achieved a consensus from their best witnesses…but it wasn’t.