DB Cooper

[CooperNWO305 158]

Ryan’s A sketch stands is being parroted by a few on Facebook, to include one of the Vordahl tie pushers Drew. 
 

Ryan wants people to believe that the B sketch was a mistake. His argument uses a red herring by stating memories of an event are better closer to an event. I generally agree with this, with some caveats. However, when he uses this approach, he leaves a lot of information out. Lies by omission.

Just give all the facts Ryan. 
 

Yes, the terms "red herring" and "misdirection" are essentially synonymous when used to describe a diversion of attention or a deceptive tactic. Both refer to the act of leading someone away from the real issue or truth, often with the intention of distracting them from a more important detail or aspect of a situation

[FLYJACK 760]

  On 4/25/2025 at 3:05 PM, CooperNWO305 said:

Ryan’s A sketch stands is being parroted by a few on Facebook, to include one of the Vordahl tie pushers Drew. 
 

Ryan wants people to believe that the B sketch was a mistake. His argument uses a red herring by stating memories of an event are better closer to an event. I generally agree with this, with some caveats. However, when he uses this approach, he leaves a lot of information out. Lies by omission.

Just give all the facts Ryan. 
 

Yes, the terms "red herring" and "misdirection" are essentially synonymous when used to describe a diversion of attention or a deceptive tactic. Both refer to the act of leading someone away from the real issue or truth, often with the intention of distracting them from a more important detail or aspect of a situation

I get Blevins vibes from Ryan...  they both get onto a false narrative and even when given contrary evidence they just ignore the facts and continue.. They only see what they need to confirm their opinion. That is a pattern I have picked up from Ryan over the years.. He is a trained advocate so he argues to win a position rather than seek the truth. Some of the tactics he has used would be embarrassing to most..

It is an irrational certitude...

 

Don't be a parrot, be skeptical..

Maybe, there needs to be a debunking video of all the nonsense the Vortex now accepts..

[DWeber 3]

  On 4/25/2025 at 4:41 PM, FLYJACK said:

I get Blevins vibes from Ryan...  they both get onto a false narrative and even when given contrary evidence they just ignore the facts and continue.. They only see what they need to confirm their opinion. That is a pattern I have picked up from Ryan over the years.. He is a trained advocate so he argues to win a position rather than seek the truth. Some of the tactics he has used would be embarrassing to most..

It is an irrational certitude...

 

Don't be a parrot, be skeptical..

Maybe, there needs to be a debunking video of all the nonsense the Vortex now accepts..

Debunking video would be good. Where to post though for maximum views? The FB page may not go for it. Reddit group might be the best choice. A Cooperative Vortex episode would also get a lot of listens. 

[CooperNWO305 158]

  On 4/25/2025 at 7:59 PM, DWeber said:

Debunking video would be good. Where to post though for maximum views? The FB page may not go for it. Reddit group might be the best choice. A Cooperative Vortex episode would also get a lot of listens. 

Very good points about getting max views. There are other engagement metrics too that need to be considered. I liked Anthony’s YouTubes on Cooper. He kept them short, usually below 20 minutes. His were basic, using PowerPoint to add structure but nothing crazy requiring a lot of tech. I posted one here. 
 

Like any topic on Cooper, you could go on for hours. But distilling it down to the basic points is better, 10 minutes is really a preferred time to get max views inside and outside the Vortex. If you were really getting deep into something, then longer can work. But for instance, one could lay out the basics of the sketches and let the viewer make some decisions. This could be done in 10-20 minutes. 
 

Bottom line is Ryan is pushing the A sketch and not providing the info about the other sketches. Then you have members of the Facebook group who blindly agree with him, yet they do not ask any questions or look for more info. 
 

Ryan is good with off the cuff knowledge, and is well versed in the case. So getting a question answered by him is good. However, that often makes people assume his opinions are facts, when in reality most of his info is facts, but the opinion pieces like the A sketch get lumped in. EU has a lot of case knowledge too, some of it has atrophied, but he throws a lot of opinion in claiming it’s factual or gospel. 
 

The sketches are interesting, but to say the A sketch with its crazy thin Hollywood plastic surgery nose is best, is a leap. A looks like an alien. We have to take the sketches and descriptions as a whole. But Ryan wants to make us think the FBI made a mistake. 

I may gather all the info on the sketches and lay it out in a short video and then let people decide. Ryan’s parrots won’t change their mind though until Ryan decides B is better when the next new suspect comes out. Remember, he used the B sketch to push Vordhal  

 

Edited April 25 by CooperNWO305
Na

[CooperNWO305 158]

  On 4/25/2025 at 4:41 PM, FLYJACK said:

That is a pattern I have picked up from Ryan over the years.. He is a trained advocate so he argues to win a position rather than seek the truth.

Perfectly said. He has a lot of case knowledge but is a conditioned defense attorney. 

[FLYJACK 760]

This nonsense really can't go on.... how many things can one person get wrong.

 

Ryan's keeps pushing this ridiculous personal theory to elevate sketch A..

Despite what a few people with a vested interest in Comp B say, the sketch never would have been reworked to such a huge degree if the agent hadn't mistakenly thought that Flo disliked Comp A. She was indeed talking about the INITIAL sketch. They did want to age the sketch and put it in color, but they only overhauled his face so totally due to the misinterpretation of which sketch Flo was talking about. It's written in plain English. They thought Flo disliked Comp A, so they overhauled it. It wasn't necessary. All they needed to do, and all they WOULD have done had they not made their mistake, was just "age" Comp A. Make him look older.

 

He starts by discrediting critics of his theory by using "a few people with a vested interest", this is to front run any criticism.. The FBI said sketch "B" was the best likeness. So, if you agree with the FBI you are a small few with a vested interest.. sleazy lawyer tactic. The irony is Ryan has a vested interest in this theory to support sketch A because there is nothing else.

Then "the sketch never would have been reworked to such a huge degree" Ryan is just making this up and using hyperbole. The attribution error for Flo was incidental, not causative. He is making a claim that he has no knowledge of and there is zero evidence for.

Here in this Aug 1972 doc.. "A" was made with two stews, Flo and Alice, Rose said he met with two stews. Tina saw it later but she also said she never saw Cooper's face.

Then the key, the FBI mentions Flo's KK5-1 and the subsequent alterations and sketch produced.. sketch A. So, this shows that the previous error was irrelevant. The FBI knew that sketch A came from KK5-1.

They wanted to better capture age and complexion AND IN VIEW OF ______ MORE RECENT COMMENTS.. sketch B was created.

That may be Mitchell...  

https://themountainnewswa.net/2020/06/29/db-cooper-a-retrospective-on-the-development-of-the-sketches/

DB Cooper researcher Galen Cook says the FBI told him that Mitchell’s input carried significant weight in the development of Composite B because he was considered an “emotionally neutral” observer, while Florence Schaffner’s views were discounted because the Bureau thought her residual anxieties from the hijacking would color her recollections.

 

It was Mitchell who carried the weight in the development of B, not the irrelevant attribution error in a document.

Ryan's personal theory is completely bogus and sketch "B" is the best likeness.

Ryan has made up a false theory to support sketch A. 

So, the reason why A and B differ is because A was primarily Flo and Alice while B was Mitchell.. the FBI didn't trust Flo's emotional state... she later said none of sketches were right.

"B" IS the best likeness, the FBI said so. Ryan is making up a premise to support his sketch "A" bias.. 

I am sure Ryan will push this nonsense forever... don't believe it. This nonsense is probably in his upcoming book so he has to push it.

 

Edited April 27 by FLYJACK

[CooperNWO305 158]

  On 4/27/2025 at 12:06 AM, FLYJACK said:

This nonsense really can't go on.... how many things can one person get wrong.

 

Ryan's keeps pushing this ridiculous personal theory to elevate sketch A..

Despite what a few people with a vested interest in Comp B say, the sketch never would have been reworked to such a huge degree if the agent hadn't mistakenly thought that Flo disliked Comp A. She was indeed talking about the INITIAL sketch. They did want to age the sketch and put it in color, but they only overhauled his face so totally due to the misinterpretation of which sketch Flo was talking about. It's written in plain English. They thought Flo disliked Comp A, so they overhauled it. It wasn't necessary. All they needed to do, and all they WOULD have done had they not made their mistake, was just "age" Comp A. Make him look older.

 

He starts by discrediting critics of his theory by using "a few people with a vested interest", this is to front run any criticism.. The FBI said sketch "B" was the best likeness. So, if you agree with the FBI you are a small few with a vested interest.. sleazy lawyer tactic. The irony is Ryan has a vested interest in this theory to support sketch A because there is nothing else.

Then "the sketch never would have been reworked to such a huge degree" Ryan is just making this up and using hyperbole. The attribution error for Flo was incidental, not causative. He is making a claim that he has no knowledge of and there is zero evidence for.

Here in this Aug 1972 doc.. "A" was made with two stews, Flo and Alice, Rose said he met with two stews. Tina saw it later but she also said she never saw Cooper's face.

Then the key, the FBI mentions Flo's KK5-1 and the subsequent alterations and sketch produced.. sketch A. So, this shows that the previous error was irrelevant. The FBI knew that sketch A came from KK5-1.

They wanted to better capture age and complexion AND IN VIEW OF ______ MORE RECENT COMMENTS.. sketch B was created.

That may be Mitchell...  

https://themountainnewswa.net/2020/06/29/db-cooper-a-retrospective-on-the-development-of-the-sketches/

DB Cooper researcher Galen Cook says the FBI told him that Mitchell’s input carried significant weight in the development of Composite B because he was considered an “emotionally neutral” observer, while Florence Schaffner’s views were discounted because the Bureau thought her residual anxieties from the hijacking would color her recollections.

 

It was Mitchell who carried the weight in the development of B, not the irrelevant attribution error in a document.

Ryan's personal theory is completely bogus and sketch "B" is the best likeness.

Ryan has made up a false theory to support sketch A. 

So, the reason why A and B differ is because A was primarily Flo and Alice while B was Mitchell.. the FBI didn't trust Flo's emotional state... she later said none of sketches were right.

"B" IS the best likeness, the FBI said so. Ryan is making up a premise to support his sketch "A" bias.. 

I am sure Ryan will push this nonsense forever... don't believe it. This nonsense is probably in his upcoming book so he has to push it.

 

It’s an integrity issue at this point. Ryan’s input in the case is important, but it’s becoming an issue. Bruce would never have tried to sway the narrative so much, even though he liked MACV SOG for the hijacking. He’s going to need to take a break from Reddit at some point. Many of the users there are new or have minimal knowledge and can be swayed, especially by someone like Ryan. Even Cunningham isn’t banned from there, as abrasive as he is. In fact, Nicky is the only well known person banned. Most if not all of the bans on there are trolls and people trying to sneak around. Even a temporary ban is not something the mods want to do with Ryan, but this is getting ridiculous. All he has to to is lay out the facts and not start off with “Flyjack and Dave are biased”

Maybe lawyers don’t think there are integrity issues doing things the way Ryan does, but I do. 

 

[FLYJACK 760]

  On 4/27/2025 at 2:02 AM, CooperNWO305 said:

It’s an integrity issue at this point. Ryan’s input in the case is important, but it’s becoming an issue. Bruce would never have tried to sway the narrative so much, even though he liked MACV SOG for the hijacking. He’s going to need to take a break from Reddit at some point. Many of the users there are new or have minimal knowledge and can be swayed, especially by someone like Ryan. Even Cunningham isn’t banned from there, as abrasive as he is. In fact, Nicky is the only well known person banned. Most if not all of the bans on there are trolls and people trying to sneak around. Even a temporary ban is not something the mods want to do with Ryan, but this is getting ridiculous. All he has to to is lay out the facts and not start off with “Flyjack and Dave are biased”

Maybe lawyers don’t think there are integrity issues doing things the way Ryan does, but I do. 

 

Right, Ryan is smart, knows the public case well but he has his own theories that are not supported by the evidence.. even contradicted by the FBI..  there is nothing wrong with that per se that but Ryan has lied and tried to discredit and ridicule others that don't accept his ideas. IMO, he crossed the line and lied about me and Hahneman as a proxy to try to discredit me.. or anyone who challenges his assumptions. He continues to spread misinformation and elevated personal assumptions to facts and has zero credibility. Because he has the video channel and is so active he gets elevated to an authority he doesn't deserve.. He has muddied the case with terrible suspects, bad theories and lies...  influencing others to accept his nonsense narratives..

I think he might be trying to soften the ground for his upcoming book,,, perhaps he will be claiming sketch A in it and needs to discredit B and any skeptics..  A book needs something new.. he keeps repeating false info over and over and over...  unfortunately for Ryan many of his personal theories are wrong. There is case information that Ryan does not have. He doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Let's be clear, Ryan lies, he makes up stuff to push his personal narratives. 

That is beyond a different opinion, it is dishonest.

 

[FLYJACK 760]

Murphy was liked by witnesses well before sketch B was ever started..

 

[olemisscub 527]

Your mutual foray into dumping on me is transparent to literally everyone. If both of your suspects had a smaller nose or looked more like Comp A than Comp B, neither of you would be saying a damn thing to me about it. Everyone can see it. I couldn't care less whether the evidence led me to conclude that Cooper had a small nose or if it led me to conclude that his nose looked like it had been smashed with a frying pan like Reca's nose. What agenda could I possibly have other than it just being my genuine opinion? This attack on me is so transparent. You two are foot stomping and gnashing teeth and tearing your clothes because what I'm saying goes against your suspect and for no other reason. Remarkable that I don't get any pushback from either of you on my belief that Cooper needs to look ethnic. It's only on things about his physical description that go against your suspect. I wonder why that it is...

 

 

Edited April 29 by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 760]

  On 4/29/2025 at 2:24 AM, olemisscub said:

Your mutual foray into dumping on me is transparent to literally everyone. If both of your suspects had a smaller nose or looked more like Comp A than Comp B, neither of you would be saying a damn thing to me about it. Everyone can see it. I couldn't care less whether the evidence led me to conclude that Cooper had a small nose or if it led me to conclude that his nose looked like it had been smashed with a frying pan like Reca's nose. What agenda could I possibly have other than it just being my genuine opinion? This attack on me is so transparent. You two are foot stomping and gnashing teeth and tearing your clothes because what I'm saying goes against your suspect and for no other reason. Remarkable that I don't get any pushback from either of you on my belief that Cooper needs to look ethnic. It's only on things about his physical description that go against your suspect. I wonder why that it is...

 

 

But they don't look like A so you are creating a strawman... Do even you realize what you are doing making up more nonsense. The evidence supports B not A... What you are saying goes against the evidence. You just ignore any facts that contradict your theory..  

The sketch A small nose is your opinion, not fact. It is not supported by the totality of evidence, some of which you do not even possess, but you are entitled to that opinion, you are not however, entitled to smear and discredit those that do not accept your opinion. 

You get pushback where you are wrong.. support when you are right.. you can't even see that without trying to discredit others. When you use dishonest tactics to discredit others you get criticism. Anyone that disagrees with you is biased...  maybe it is because you are wrong and your opinion is not supported by the evidence, ever think of that. No, of course not.

You have lied about Hahneman and me... you have misled the Vortex with misinformation. You have promoted terrible suspects and ideas. You have some strong opinions that are not facts.. You have a bias to favour your buddies terrible suspects and theories.

But, you crossed the line when you attack the integrity of others making up claims with no evidence, just because we don't accept your personal theories you claim a bias.. In your mind, it must be a bias because you think you can't be wrong. You are wrong, often.

Your motivation is irrelevant, it could be ego, book content or something else.. it doesn't really matter.

I can't speak for others but you have no cred whatsoever.. I have observed too much dishonesty. You have accused me of so many things that are false that you just made up for the sole purpose of discrediting. IMO, you being an influencer is a disaster for this case. 

 

FYI, Hahneman was missing NO front teeth, NOT upper front, NOT lower front, NOT half his teeth. You are a misinformation machine.

 

Edited April 29 by FLYJACK

[CooperNWO305 158]

  On 4/29/2025 at 2:24 AM, olemisscub said:

Your mutual foray into dumping on me is transparent to literally everyone

As usual I need to translate this for people.  You insinute that this is a collaboration. It is not.  Fly has been calling you a liar for a while, I have bit my tongue. I called you sneaky over text two years ago, and felt a little bad about it, but it was true then and is now.  I've just gotten to the point where your antics require someone more than just Flyjack to call out.  It's easy to make him look like the boogeyman when it is just him.  This isn't you and Cunningham or your other buddies. Fly and I like eachother, but literally have never met and I have only spoken to him once, and it was about the US government process and not DB Cooper.

 

  On 4/29/2025 at 2:24 AM, olemisscub said:

If both of your suspects had a smaller nose or looked more like Comp A than Comp B, neither of you would be saying a damn thing to me about it. Everyone can see it.

You keep using supsects as your proxy.  You went after Hahneman, then Smith, you have an issue with McCoy, and even had issues with Lisa when she was discussing Reca.  Suspects come and go, none of them last.  I don't push Smith, but I do defend things when you say ridiculous things like he can't be Cooper because his 6 year old daughter waited up at night to see headlights.  Same for Hahneman, Fly does not push him, he mainly just corrects the record.  You love suspects for some reason.  You like putting them down and you like building certain ones up.  I'm saying what the FBI says and a whole lot of other people say, that B is the more accepted sketch. It does not even fit Smith's nose, his is bigger, at least in some pics. However, A is too weird, no one has that nose except people who have had work done.  You also make sure to push certain suspects like Hall, while not critiquing other suspects that probably need critiquing.

Who is everyone? Nicky who used B sketch? The Braden group who uses B, the Recca group, Rackstraw, etc?  As far as I remember, it has mostly been EU pushing for A to try and pass off Sheridan as Cooper.

  On 4/29/2025 at 2:24 AM, olemisscub said:

What agenda could I possibly have other than it just being my genuine opinion?

And agenda does not need to be profitable or even nefarious.  I told you I think you are very deep into this case.  I think you overthink it and think it about too much.  EU was the same way, and I realized after being around him that that was all he thought about and talked about. He was always looking for some new angle that probably did not exist.  Like looking at an art piece or a poem trying to find some hidden meaning.  I think you love the case, I think you want to be heard, and I think you want to control the narrative.  You also seem to like the pseudo camraderie you get from it.  

 

  On 4/29/2025 at 2:24 AM, olemisscub said:

This attack on me is so transparent. You two are foot stomping and gnashing teeth and tearing your clothes because what I'm saying goes against your suspect and for no other reason.

Again, sneaky lawyer tricks.  Focus on a suspect, make it seem like without a suspect then the B sketch would be moot.  The last time I thought A was the right sketch was in 1987, long before Smith.  You continue to withold information about the sketches.  None of them are pictures. If they were, then we'd have found Cooper.  I don't think everyone agrees with you on A, they just don't say it.  Just like the morality police decided you have to use POI and not suspect, and you can't name suspects who were not investigated by the FBI, this is the same thing. You've now made it that someone has to tie Cooper to the A sketch and have a movie star thin nose.  This is the Western Flight Path.  Talk about it enough and people believe it.

 

  On 4/29/2025 at 2:24 AM, olemisscub said:

Remarkable that I don't get any pushback from either of you on my belief that Cooper needs to look ethnic.

I don't even remember you using the term ethnic, at least not with me.  Must have been on Facebook.  You're not the one who invented that. The 302s have Latin, swarthy, olive, etc.  To me that means ethnic, I just don't use the term.  I've been clear for years that there are plenty of areas of Europe that have these types of individuals.  You and Nicky tried to claim Sweeden is home to many of them.

 

  On 4/29/2025 at 2:24 AM, olemisscub said:

It's only on things about his physical description that go against your suspect. I wonder why that it is...

Again, you want people to think that we disagree with you because we are pushing suspects.  We did not invent the B sketch.

I disagree with your approach.  The changing of suspects, the treehouse club, you claiming your views are right, withholding info.  You would love for DZ to go away, you've got people convinced that this place is just Fly and I badmouthing you.  The fact is that you go unchecked, and this is the only place to check you.  I would be fine to never comment on Reddit.  I don't care for Eric's or Gryder's methods, but if they bring publicity to the case then I'll post it on Reddit.  You'll notice that I rarely answer questions, I usually just post, except when you or your fan club get on there and don't tell the whole story or when I see accounts pop up out of nowhere who only comment when it comes to Smith, or Fly, or Blevins, or to promote Vordahl.

I don't know if I would call you a liar, even though you have told some mistruths, but I definitely say you lie by omission and try to play to an audience by using logical fallacies and other methods.

We need to bring back Bruce Smith and have someone just lay out the facts.  You certainly are not doing it.

[FLYJACK 760]

To be clear,, I don't care what Ryan's opinions are, in fact I prefer he has things messed up, those people that just accept his narratives will find out eventually that they have been played. 

 

This is not about a difference of opinion.

He crossed the line when he lied about me and lied about Hahneman to discredit me..

and he does it over and over...  Just one example.. To discredit me, he claimed I left the DZ because of a post, he just made it up, I left for a few weeks when my step-brother suddenly died.

I have posted tons of evidence here refuting his personal theories,, his response is twofold, try to discredit me and ignore the evidence.

This is pure lunacy.. Ryan does not use the scientific method. He has inverted it using opinions to reject an hypothesis...

"I feel that I must add that this one reason that I actually appreciate current Cooper enthusiasts like Ryan Burns. I think that their approach is more fact-delineating to the point that it reminds me of aligning more to a scientific method of research."

 

For example,,

This is how Ryan sells his opinion as fact,, masked in misinformation. These points sound convincing but they do not support his claim.

Ryan claimed Cooper jumped at Orchards. No evidence for that.

He claimed that is the consensus now. A consensus with his FB buddies.

He claimed Anderson noted a significant delay from oscillations to bump. False, Anderson was referring to the call, the bump was "abrupt".

He claimed the FBI now believes Cooper jumped at Orchards. False, the FBI never made that claim, Ryan was referring to Larry Carr's current opinion, he is no longer FBI and does not speak for them. Larry also believes Cooper died in the jump.

 

Cooper did not jump at Orchards but if you weren't knowledgeable about the case you'd just accept it. Ryan would have called me biased but the LZ doesn't infer a suspect.

 

[CooperNWO305 158]

  On 4/29/2025 at 10:05 PM, FLYJACK said:

This is pure lunacy.. Ryan does not use the scientific method. He has inverted it using opinions to reject an hypothesis...

Someone on Reddit claimed Ryan does use the scientific method.

 

  On 4/29/2025 at 10:05 PM, FLYJACK said:

He claimed that is the consensus now. A consensus with his FB buddies.

Laywer trick.  Appeal to authority, in this case the authority is the term consensus.  Like referencing the supsect matrix that no one has seen yet in its full form.

I believe I've heard this "consensus" comment claiming consensus on the A sketch, the thin nose, the triangle head, Gunther made it up, Gunther got hoaxed, Hall is the best suspect.  I've lost track of all the consensuses.

[FLYJACK 760]

On Hahneman's teeth issue... The Facts..

I obtained his FBI file many years ago,, in it was claimed... missing several upper side teeth..

At that time I had an image of Hahneman showing his front upper teeth and none were missing. So, I knew something was off.. not sure how to explain it, did he get some knocked out, did he wear a partial?? I knew there had to be an explanation. It took me 6 years getting to the bottom of it.. and I eventually did.

Meanwhile, Ryan requests Hahneman's file for his book.. I waited and pushed the FBI for two years to get it and Ryan gets it in a week.. Ryan reads the teeth thing and uses it to dismiss Hahneman.. Ryan lied and claimed he was missing half his teeth then he said upper and lower,,,  The file never said that, Ryan often uses hyperbole. Since Hahneman is a legitimate suspect if he was missing half his teeth that would be a serious negative. Ironically, the FBI still investigated him. Why is that. 

Turns out one person of about 50 who knew teeth really well noticed two upper side teeth, the bicuspids missing, common for people with braces. the ones in front of the molars.

Hahneman was NOT missing any front teeth.

But, the problem is Ryan was wrong, he then spread this misinformation on FB and his videos,, I corrected him and he just kept repeating this falsehood.. So, it took me 6 years to sort this out and Lyin Ryan undermines the truth in seconds,, everyone who just accepts his false narrative believes Hahneman is eliminated based on Ryan's lie. 

The person who noticed his teeth also mentioned something funny about his lips.. 

No, that doesn't make him Cooper, it means that he is NOT eliminated because on the missing side teeth.

Ryan took his false claim one step further, he accused me of having a sunk cost bias.. because I would not accept his error. This is irrational, insane and an inversion of the scientific method.. He made a false claim then attacked me personally for not accepting it. 

One researcher kept at an issue for 6 years to resolve it.. the other made an assumption and used it to falsely rejected a legitimate suspect.

Now, everyone in Ryan's universe has rejected Hahneman based on Ryan's repeated false claims. Ryan has distorted people's perception of Hahneman. 

He uses Hahneman as a proxy to discredit me... because I am the only one who has the high level case knowledge to challenge his nonsense. Every time I criticized Vordahl or something Ryan was claiming he mocked Hahneman.

I can't present this on FB because these guys blocked me even though I never posted anything... So, FB and Ryan's vids are not just getting one side, they are getting fed false information.

If anyone here is also on FB post this there.. I don't push Hahneman because the investigation is still in progress and I don't have a problem with people not accepting him but there is a big problem when false information is disseminated to eliminate a legit suspect. 

 

FACT: Hahneman was NOT missing any front teeth.

 

 

 

Edited April 30 by FLYJACK

[CooperNWO305 158]

  On 4/30/2025 at 4:10 PM, FLYJACK said:

On Hahneman's teeth issue... The Facts..

I obtained his FBI file many years ago,, in it was claimed... missing several upper side teeth..

At that time I had an image of Hahneman showing his front upper teeth and none were missing. So, I knew something was off.. not sure how to explain it, did he get some knocked out, did he wear a partial?? I knew there had to be an explanation. It took me 6 years getting to the bottom of it.. and I eventually did.

Meanwhile, Ryan requests Hahneman's file for his book.. I waited and pushed the FBI for two years to get it and Ryan gets it in a week.. Ryan reads the teeth thing and uses it to dismiss Hahneman.. Ryan lied and claimed he was missing half his teeth then he said upper and lower,,,  The file never said that, Ryan often uses hyperbole. Since Hahneman is a legitimate suspect if he was missing half his teeth that would be a serious negative. Ironically, the FBI still investigated him. Why is that. 

Turns out one person of about 50 who knew teeth really well noticed two upper side teeth, the bicuspids missing, common for people with braces. the ones in front of the molars.

Hahneman was NOT missing any front teeth.

But, the problem is Ryan was wrong, he then spread this misinformation on FB and his videos,, I corrected him and he just kept repeating this falsehood.. So, it took me 6 years to sort this out and Lyin Ryan undermines the truth in seconds,, everyone who just accepts his false narrative believes Hahneman is eliminated based on Ryan's lie. 

The person who noticed his teeth also mentioned something funny about his lips.. 

No, that doesn't make him Cooper, it means that he is NOT eliminated because of the missing side teeth.

Ryan took his false claim one step further, he accused me of having a sunk cost bias.. because I would not accept his error. This is irrational, insane and an inversion of the scientific method.. He made a false claim then attacked me personally for not accepting it. 

One researcher kept at an issue for 6 years to resolve it.. the other made an assumption and used it to falsely rejected a legitimate suspect.

Now, everyone in Ryan's universe has rejected Hahneman based on Ryan's repeated false claims. Ryan has distorted people's perception of Hahneman. 

He uses Hahneman as a proxy to discredit me... because I am the only one who has the high level case knowledge to challenge his nonsense. Every time I criticized Vordahl or something Ryan was claiming he mocked Hahneman.

I can't present this on FB because these guys blocked me even though I never posted anything... So, FB and Ryan's vids are not just getting one side, they are getting fed false information.

If anyone here is also on FB post this there.. I don't push Hahneman because the investigation is still in progress and I don't have a problem with people not accepting him but there is a big problem when false information is disseminated to eliminate a legit suspect. 

 

FACT: Hahneman was NOT missing any front teeth.

 

 

 

There was a stretch there where FOIAs were taking a long time. I'm actually impressed that you have gotten as much as you have out of your requests not being a US citizen.  You've gotten way better results than I have or many others.  Ryan and crew like to attack you for holding onto your information.  I learned my lessons and keep my cards close.  I can vouch 100% that I've seen some of Fly's research, to include FBI- files, sketches, and pictures, and other info.  In many cases I would like to use it, but can't.  And I know that is just a fraction of what Fly has.  Bottom line is that he does not owe anything to anyone.  No matter what he publishes on the case, regardless of it is related to Hahneman, the social club will cut it down, all the while blindly accepting what Ryan says and then parroting it.

Can you imagine if Bruce Smith claimed consensus on all the things Ryan has?  Or if Bruce purposely warped the truth?  There are posters on Reddit practically repeating word for word what Ryan says on other pages.  Luckily EU and Gryder have big followings too, so at least the false info is diluted.

[FLYJACK 760]

 

My current take on the Max Gunther book..

 

Gunther’s book is controversial in the Vortex and the reason is we can’t separate fiction from fact. Most people discounted it as a complete work of fiction and irrelevant to the Cooper case. I always believed that he was contacted by somebody claiming to be Cooper.. whether a hoaxer or the real Cooper. I think people misunderstand the book, it is not meant to be an accurate recount of the hijacking. It is Gunther’s experience and he admits he doesn’t know if it is true. He lays out his experience and leaves it up to the reader. Gunther was telling the story "Clara" told him not claiming her story was true. There are “errors” in it but they don’t prove the book is a hoax..  The Barb Dayton connection is nonsense, the letter sample size for stylometry is far too small, anything under 3000 words is random noise.

The Gunther letter to the FBI about "Clara" proves that Gunther did not make up the Clara part.. if Gunther did not make up the Clara part he couldn’t have made up the first “Cooper” contact since “Clara” is an extension to the initial contact. If "Clara" existed then the initial contact must have.

 

Therefore, we really have only two possibilities..

Gunther was contacted by a hoaxer to extort money, they dropped it for some reason. A female “Clara” contacted Gunther a decade later to continue the hoax. Gunther was in contact with Himmelsbach who believed this scenario that Gunther was hoaxed because there is no evidence to support the contact being Cooper. IMO, this scenario is bizarre, why would a hoaxer disappear for a decade then reappear using a female and not ask for money. What is the motive? I don't see a motive here. A decade long prank.. doesn’t make sense..

 

or..

 

Gunther was contacted by the real Cooper to get money and he dropped off for some reason.. About decade later a female “Clara” contacted Gunther to claim Cooper had died. It seems her primary motivation was to publicly establish Cooper’s death. Two things are important, Clara read from notes and we know her story has errors. That indicates she was coached to give a plausible narrative, how much is true?? some or none? who knows. What was Clara’s motivation.. to publicly establish that Cooper had died.. Cui bono.. from Cooper’s established death..  a hoaxer, no way..  The only person who benefits would be the real Cooper who was still alive… and an accomplice, “Clara".  To be true, then obviously Cooper survived the jump.

My hypothesis is that Gunther was likely contacted by the real Cooper and a decade later had an accomplice contact Gunther to convince Gunther and get the narrative public that Cooper had died.

This can’t be proven so far, it may be a hoaxer but IMO on balance it is more likely than a hoax. So, investigating the Gunther angle is not only legitimate, it is necessary until it is proven a hoax. That is the scientific method,, not discounting a possibility based on assumptions.

It would not surprise me either way..

 

[FLYJACK 760]

  On 4/30/2025 at 6:24 PM, CooperNWO305 said:

There was a stretch there where FOIAs were taking a long time. I'm actually impressed that you have gotten as much as you have out of your requests not being a US citizen.  You've gotten way better results than I have or many others.  Ryan and crew like to attack you for holding onto your information.  I learned my lessons and keep my cards close.  I can vouch 100% that I've seen some of Fly's research, to include FBI- files, sketches, and pictures, and other info.  In many cases I would like to use it, but can't.  And I know that is just a fraction of what Fly has.  Bottom line is that he does not owe anything to anyone.  No matter what he publishes on the case, regardless of it is related to Hahneman, the social club will cut it down, all the while blindly accepting what Ryan says and then parroting it.

Can you imagine if Bruce Smith claimed consensus on all the things Ryan has?  Or if Bruce purposely warped the truth?  There are posters on Reddit practically repeating word for word what Ryan says on other pages.  Luckily EU and Gryder have big followings too, so at least the false info is diluted.

Yes, I can't share stuff publicly because I am working on my own project with others.. Some of it would go straight into Ryan's book... and he would take credit.. or just stolen by others, this has happened before. I have already posted more than I should have.

and of course Ryan said I was lying and don't have anything.. he just made it up.

Today, I received stuff from the State Department and recently some from the DOD... FYI: Cooper goes well beyond the FBI..

Edited April 30 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 760]

Ryan created HIS best Cooper image from witnesses using AI..

I don't like AI stuff, but there some points..

Ears are abnormally small,, should be bigger, to normal size

Hair should be mores wavy/curly/marcelled.. maybe one said straight

Mouth is downturned too much.. top lip should be thin.

Needs dark olive complexion..

Nose wasn't pinched in middle.. a unique feature like that would have been noticed by all witnesses.

Not sure about button downed shirt and shoulder straps on the overcoat.

Head good, looks oval not triangular.

 

 

[olemisscub 527]

No doubt this one is more your speed

 

 

[FLYJACK 760]

  On 5/1/2025 at 4:20 AM, olemisscub said:

No doubt this one is more your speed

 

 

Now have him smiling showing his teeth.

[FLYJACK 760]

  On 4/30/2025 at 8:13 PM, FLYJACK said:

Ryan created HIS best Cooper image from witnesses using AI..

I don't like AI stuff, but there some points..

Ears are abnormally small,, should be bigger, to normal size

Hair should be mores wavy/curly/marcelled.. maybe one said straight

Mouth is downturned too much.. top lip should be thin.

Needs dark olive complexion..

Nose wasn't pinched in middle.. a unique feature like that would have been noticed by all witnesses.

Not sure about button downed shirt and shoulder straps on the overcoat.

Head good, looks oval not triangular.

 

 

I have said it before these IA concepts are not helpful, they may be fun for people to produce but they distort the real case evidence in the minds of the pubic. Like Cunningham's altered flightpath times it pollutes the case.. Sketches are a composite likeness that may or may not be accurate, they are each produced within their own context. For example, Ryan's argument for A has two premises. First, the attribution error for Flo's comment caused B.. It didn't, that is an assumption, reading the docs that is not true. Second, a witness produced sketch is more accurate closer to the event. This is true in general IF everything else is equal. It was not. Context and process matters. If this was always true then the pre A sketch would be more accurate. BTW that sketch is closer to B and A is actually the outlier. Sketch A was primarily Flo and Alice in a brief meeting while B was primarily Mitchell and done over a longer period. So, the context for the production of the two sketches was entirely different and can't be compared with overly general statements like the earlier is more accurate. Further, the fact that they really liked Murphy which is closer to B well before B was ever started proves B was the better likeness. I also have that undisclosed Cooper image that looks closer to B, though that isn't even needed.

 

Having said that I find Ryan's AI sketch ironic.. Ryan claimed Hahneman was the worst match to the sketch you could ever find.. yes, his go to is hyperbole.. I have many images of Hahneman and he looks like 3 completely different people. The FBI showed his pic to witnesses for his hijacking and some said definitely not him, it was...  this pic of Hahneman is poor but he does looks like Ryan's AI image. Other than the pinch, the nose is the same size when Ryan says Hahneman's nose is WAY too big. Head shape the same, forehead and hairline the same.. 

If Ryan's AI image had Murphy's mouth and the right "average" sized ears, it would be a near perfect match... this doesn't make him Cooper but it makes Ryan's criticism of Hahneman biased nonsense.

and this is not a particularly good pic of Hahneman.

Edited May 1 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 760]

Ryan actually knows very little about Hahneman.. he hates Hahneman and it has influenced his perceptions. 

His non apology... he uses vague language to give a false impression. His claim of "truth" is actually misleading and his opinion.

Oh, and while we're on the topic, I'll take this opportunity to beg forgiveness from Flyjack for misstating on my show one time that Hahneman was missing upper and lower teeth. I misspoke. In reality, Hahneman was only missing his upper teeth on both sides of his mouth. When you speak extemporaneously for three hours straight without a break you're bound to get a few things wrong. He implies that it was an intentional misstatement on my part i.e. "a lie", thus "Ryan is a liar". But I assure you all, I had no reason to lie about that because, from my perspective, the truth is JUST as comically bad for a Cooper suspect. It makes no difference to me whether he was missing upper and lower teeth or JUST his upper teeth on both sides. That should instantly disqualify you from being Cooper. There's no need whatsoever for me to intentionally exaggerate to discredit Hahneman as a Cooper.

 

Ryan, read this carefully, you are still wrong and misleading everyone. You exaggerate to discredit me because I do not accept some of your personal theories. We actually agree on a lot but it is you who can't handle criticism. You didn't misspeak, you weaponize hyperbole and play word games, your go to when you want to attack me or others.

Hahneman was missing the two upper bicuspids, normal for people with braces, those are the ones down the side in front of the molars.. The FBI file says, several upper side teeth. NO front visible teeth were missing. I have had an image of his upper front teeth for years and NONE are missing. One witness out of 50 noticed the teeth and they knew teeth very well.. they actually i'd the bicuspids.. I had to look it up. Also, people who have the bicuspids removed to straighten the upper teeth often get the appearance of a protruding lower lip because the upper teeth shift back slightly to fill the space..

What Ryan has done is misrepresented the evidence to eliminate when it does the exact opposite...  because he uses Hahneman to discredit me.

YOU ARE STILL MISLEADING EVERYONE. These missing bicuspids do not eliminate him.. 98% of the witnesses did not notice any missing teeth. So, you have distorted the evidence to falsely eliminate Hahneman publicly, and you wonder why I say you have no credibility.

Like all suspects Hahneman has a few legit issues that I have been working on but the teeth is NOT one of them. It took me 6 years to resolve that and you have undermined it in seconds with false information. STOP EXAGGERATING, you have made yourself a Cooper influencer and with that you have a responsibility to be accurate. So, be accurate. Don't let your personal anti-Hahneman bias and animus undermine the progress of this case. 

The truth is.. he was missing the upper bicuspids not easily seen, normal for people who have had braces.. they are down the side in front of the molar, VERY HARD TO NOTICE, and he was missing NO VISIBLE FRONT TEETH. One person of over 50 noticed. It does not eliminate him.

How many times do I have tell you.

You don't like Hahneman, fine, I really don't care.. but don't spread misinformation to confirm your personal bias.

If you want to claim missing the upper bicuspids eliminates a suspect that is your opinion and you can have it. It is not the truth and it is irrational.

Many people who have had braces get the bicuspids removed, it would not surprise me if other higher profile suspects have had them removed but we just don't know about it.. that alone would not eliminate them either.

Edited May 1 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 760]

No, Ryan Easton was not his hometown..  his family lived there, he might have stayed there for a total of a few weeks over the entire previous 10 years...

So, when you say he was not like other hijackers and used his hometown,, First, that is irrelevant if true, Second, he hadn't actually lived there for 10 years. 

You make assumptions based on your own limited knowledge.. which create poorly reasoned conclusions.

[CooperNWO305 158]

  On 5/1/2025 at 1:21 PM, FLYJACK said:

I have said it before these IA concepts are not helpful, they may be fun for people to produce but they distort the real case evidence in the minds of the pubic. Like Cunningham's altered flightpath times it pollutes the case.. Sketches are a composite likeness that may or may not be accurate, they are each produced within their own context. For example, Ryan's argument for A has two premises. First, the attribution error for Flo's comment caused B.. It didn't, that is an assumption, reading the docs that is not true. Second, a witness produced sketch is more accurate closer to the event. This is true in general IF everything else is equal. It was not. Context and process matters. If this was always true then the pre A sketch would be more accurate. BTW that sketch is closer to B and A is actually the outlier. Sketch A was primarily Flo and Alice in a brief meeting while B was primarily Mitchell and done over a longer period. So, the context for the production of the two sketches was entirely different and can't be compared with overly general statements like the earlier is more accurate. Further, the fact that they really liked Murphy which is closer to B well before B was ever started proves B was the better likeness. I also have that undisclosed Cooper image that looks closer to B, though that isn't even needed.

 

Having said that I find Ryan's AI sketch ironic.. Ryan claimed Hahneman was the worst match to the sketch you could ever find.. yes, his go to is hyperbole.. I have many images of Hahneman and he looks like 3 completely different people. The FBI showed his pic to witnesses for his hijacking and some said definitely not him, it was...  this pic of Hahneman is poor but he does looks like Ryan's AI image. Other than the pinch, the nose is the same size when Ryan says Hahneman's nose is WAY too big. Head shape the same, forehead and hairline the same.. 

If Ryan's AI image had Murphy's mouth and the right "average" sized ears, it would be a near perfect match... this doesn't make him Cooper but it makes Ryan's criticism of Hahneman biased nonsense.

and this is not a particularly good pic of Hahneman.

These AI images definitely are polluting the case. We have enough trouble with all the other sketches and deciphering witness statements.