DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 773]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

I can’t explain, sorry. But I’m right and have won this debate. 

There is no debate.

Not sure what School you went to but you should ask for a refund.

Edited yesterday at 01:39 AM by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 773]

 

[olemisscub 549]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

There is no debate.

Not sure what School you went to but you should ask for a refund.

You’re wrong. This is privileged information, so I can’t actually reveal it yet. My book publishers have advised me not to reveal it. 

[FLYJACK 773]

8 hours ago, olemisscub said:

You’re wrong. This is privileged information, so I can’t actually reveal it yet. My book publishers have advised me not to reveal it. 

So, who cares.. you have a history of conflating and distorting evidence and elevating assumptions to facts.. 

Tina showing Cooper how to use the stairs does not mean he used them correctly, he was alone when he used the stairs.. Your claim is bogus.

[FLYJACK 773]

The erosion here occurred before these bills fanned out. (Tom theorized that the fanning was from rolling along the bottom)

The fanning occurred before the bills stuck together.. 

That supports Palmer's conclusion that the erosion was from tumbling along the bottom..

The money eroded by rolling/tumbling along the bottom and fanned out before landing on TBAR.

 

[Kamkisky 13]

I think getting the stairs to work is likely more about expectations than not being able to work a simple lever. Cooper had just walked up the fully descended stairs. I think it’s reasonable to assume he thought the stairs would fully deploy. I’d think the stairs were fully hydraulic and not gravity going down.
 

So Cooper uses the lever but the stairs don’t go all the way down so he thinks something is wrong and we get the whole interphone episode. Eventually he figures out his weight is going to be enough for him to exit and everything “is good now.”  

Edited yesterday at 03:56 PM by Kamkisky

[olemisscub 549]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

So, who cares.. you have a history of conflating and distorting evidence and elevating assumptions to facts.. 

Tina showing Cooper how to use the stairs does not mean he used them correctly, he was alone when he used the stairs.. Your claim is bogus.

lol how are you still not getting this?

[FLYJACK 773]

Sure, expectations play a role.. but he was successful eventually.

The stairs are hydraulic assist or gravity drop depending how you operate the lever.

The evidence indicates the stair light went on twice,, that can only happen if the lever was put back into the uplock detent. That light goes on when the lever is moved from the uplock detent, not when the stairs are opened. So, when the light first went on that does not indicate the stairs were actually open.

Also, Mac got out at 100mph faster albeit a small opening.

The sled test had no problem with the stairs staying up due to speed.

 

The takeaway is that the speed wasn't the real issue for Cooper having trouble getting them open.. That was the perception.

[FLYJACK 773]

16 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

lol how are you still not getting this?

Who cares, what you claim to have is very insignificant and irrelevant.. 

What I have is one of the biggest advancements in many years.. you would take it and use in your book, 100%, it would get blasted in the media and take the case in a different direction.. A legitimate game changer.

You are playing a false equivalency.

Keep your little insignificant info to yourself... keep everything you have,, save it for your book that might be out in 10 years.

[olemisscub 549]

10 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Who cares, what you claim to have is very insignificant and irrelevant.. 

What I have is one of the biggest advancements in many years.. you would take it and use in your book, 100%, it would get blasted in the media and take the case in a different direction.. A legitimate game changer.

You are playing a false equivalency.

Keep your little insignificant info to yourself... keep everything you have,, save it for your book that might be out in 10 years.

What I’m doing is indeed quite aggravating, isn’t it?

[FLYJACK 773]

5 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

What I’m doing is indeed quite aggravating, isn’t it?

No, it is juvenile actually.

It is not the same since I told you what I had, just not sharing it for a legit reason. Further, it wasn't even needed for that debate, it was extraneous.

You claim to have something you can't explain in an attempt to make a point.

These are not the same, not equivalent in importance or substance.

I don't care what you have, I don't think I have learned anything significant in this case from you.. it would make no difference if I never heard from you on anything ever again.

There is no way you could know for a fact what Cooper did with the lever, not even from a rare Tina interview.

[olemisscub 549]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

No, it is juvenile actually.

It is not the same since I told you what I had, just not sharing it for a legit reason. Further, it wasn't even needed for that debate, it was extraneous.

You claim to have something you can't explain in an attempt to make a point.

These are not the same, not equivalent in importance or substance.

I don't care what you have, I don't think I have learned anything significant in this case from you.. it would make no difference if I never heard from you on anything ever again.

There is no way you could know for a fact what Cooper did with the lever, not even from a rare Tina interview.

You’ve not learned anything of significance from anyone in this case because only your preconceived notions and conclusions can be correct. 

And you’re wrong, what I have is game changing as well. I also have an image of Cooper. It absolutely indicates that Comp A is the better sketch… You and everyone else in the Vortex just have to trust me. My publishers won’t let me release it though. It’s simply too important. 

[Robert99 60]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

You’ve not learned anything of significance from anyone in this case because only your preconceived notions and conclusions can be correct. 

And you’re wrong, what I have is game changing as well. I also have an image of Cooper. It absolutely indicates that Comp A is the better sketch… You and everyone else in the Vortex just have to trust me. My publishers won’t let me release it though. It’s simply too important. 

Olemiss, when will your book be published.  I'll be very happy to buy one of the first copies.

[FLYJACK 773]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

You’ve not learned anything of significance from anyone in this case because only your preconceived notions and conclusions can be correct. 

And you’re wrong, what I have is game changing as well. I also have an image of Cooper. It absolutely indicates that Comp A is the better sketch… You and everyone else in the Vortex just have to trust me. My publishers won’t let me release it though. It’s simply too important. 

You are the biggest waste of time..

[georger 268]

12 hours ago, olemisscub said:

You’ve not learned anything of significance from anyone in this case because only your preconceived notions and conclusions can be correct. 

And you’re wrong, what I have is game changing as well. I also have an image of Cooper. It absolutely indicates that Comp A is the better sketch… You and everyone else in the Vortex just have to trust me. My publishers won’t let me release it though. It’s simply too important. 

Credibility is not an issue! Please continue at your convenience!

[FLYJACK 773]

6 hours ago, georger said:

Credibility is not an issue! Please continue at your convenience!

You guys need to decide if you want to be right or want to solve this case..

[olemisscub 549]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

You guys need to decide if you want to be right or want to solve this case..

You’re already solved it though. So really what you’re saying is we just all need to accept that you’re right about everything you say. 

[FLYJACK 773]

31 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

You’re already solved it though. So really what you’re saying is we just all need to accept that you’re right about everything you say. 

Projection.. and another lie..

 

What do I have wrong, Ryan.. 

You use ad hominem attacks but can't articulate anything that I have wrong.

because you are dishonest.

Your obsession with attacking me has now reached the level of harassment.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 549]

35 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Projection.. and another lie..

 

What do I have wrong, Ryan.. 

You use ad hominem attacks but can't articulate anything that I have wrong.

because you are dishonest.

Your obsession with attacking me has now reached the level of harassment.

 

My obsession with YOU?

You are the one who watches me speak for three hours trying to find errors I make. 

And I can absolutely articulate what you have wrong. You think William Frederick Hahneman was Cooper. Period. 

Seriously, what are you going to do when we get a vault drop in the next few months where his name is listed as being shown to the witnesses and they reject him? You better be practicing Yoga or something because you may break your back bending over backward trying to spin that. It'll be hilarious. Popcorn will be popped to watch you spin that. 

[FLYJACK 773]

3 hours ago, olemisscub said:

My obsession with YOU?

You are the one who watches me speak for three hours trying to find errors I make. 

And I can absolutely articulate what you have wrong. You think William Frederick Hahneman was Cooper. Period. 

Seriously, what are you going to do when we get a vault drop in the next few months where his name is listed as being shown to the witnesses and they reject him? You better be practicing Yoga or something because you may break your back bending over backward trying to spin that. It'll be hilarious. Popcorn will be popped to watch you spin that. 

This is a perfect example of your nonsense.. a complete disaster and detrimental for this case.

 

Nobody has put a suspect on the plane.. I am trying.

You don't know that Hahneman was not Cooper. You even lied about him to eliminate him. You mock him publicly and convinced most people he is a joke,, you lied never corrected it. 

He even has a near perfect score on your own flawed matrix.. you ignore that.

I never said he was Cooper, I have said I can't eliminate him and am still investigating. I only correct your misinformation.. I am not interested in pushing a suspect or convincing anyone he is,, I just correct false information.

That isn't being wrong.

Then you make a claim that has not even happened yet to dismiss him.. Poisoning the well..

Look, you really know virtually nothing.. you have made assumptions and even lied, you are in no position to tell me I am wrong to pursue Hahneman.

You are obsessed with harassing me from a position of ignorance..

Actually, if I were you I wouldn't think Hahneman could be Cooper either. Thankfully, I actually use facts and not assumptions and take things as far as I can...

 

So, that is it, you don't think Hahneman can be Cooper, fine, that is your opinion. And you attack me personally for investigating him...  makes perfect sense.

You can believe anything you want but perpetually harassing me for investigating a suspect is insane... it tells me everything about you.

How many suspects are not Cooper,, Vordahl, Skip, Braden, etc.. you don't attack those  people...  you support them as they promote those suspects.. I don't push Hahneman and I get attacked, I don't even claim he was Cooper.. Do you see your own hypocrisy.

 

You just don't know what you don't know.. you are not the arbiter of truth.

The funniest thing,, you actually concluded that using the rear stairs v front is not an improvement... of course it is, the crew can just run off the front stairs. Controlling the exit is an improvement.

What I believe, is that you can't figure out why I would waste my time investigating Hahneman.. You think I must have something wrong with me because you know I am not stupid.. what you fail to recognize is that it is you who has erred. You can't see your own bias so you lash out at me personally. I won't forget BTW...

In the grand scheme of things what do you care if I investigate Hahneman.. if you are convinced he isn't Cooper you should be happy I am wasting my time rather than harassing me...

Frankly,, as a Professional Lawyer,,,  you should be ashamed of your behaviour.. 

You can't even pronounce Hahneman correctly..

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 549]

48 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

You don't know that Hahneman was not Cooper. You even lied about him to eliminate him. You mock him publicly and convinced most people he is a joke,, you lied never corrected it. 

 

If you think I needed to talk about his MISSING TEETH to eliminate him, believe me, that's near the bottom of the things needed to eliminate him. There are more silver bullets that can be shot at him than almost any other suspect out there, in large part because we KNOW how he pulled off a similar crime. One only needs to spend five minutes reading the FBI Files on his hijacking to realize they aren't the same individual. When men pull off the same crime yet go about it in totally different ways, that usually means they aren't the same person. Sure, go ahead and claim you have unreleased evidence that will explain everything about their behavior differences. There's a reason the FBI eliminated him as Cooper back in 1972 and it's not because higher ups pulled some sort of shenanigans to assist Hahneman and foil the FBI nor was it because he was a CIA asset as you've proposed in the past. He was a mentally ill man whose first cousin was the Honduran Ambassador to the UN. So what? The FBI eliminated him because he wasn't Cooper.

And of course you believe Hahneman is Cooper. You claim to have "thousands" of pieces of evidence on him. You claim that we will all day "know the truth" once you reveal everything. The truth about what if not him being Cooper? This is a Bailey and Motte fallacy. You strongly imply that he's Cooper then when you're called out you retreat back and say "Well, I've never said he WAS Cooper." It's a cheap trick. It's not quite as pathetic as your repeated use of appealing to privileged information when you get trapped in a debate and don't have an actual explanation.

And if I'm "harassing you" about Hahneman it's only because of how agenda driven it makes you. It's obvious to everyone why you take certain stances on positions. If Hahneman had a small nose you wouldn't be arguing with me so vociferously about my opinion on that. If he was 6 feet tall, you wouldn't arguing with me constantly about my opinion hat Cooper was around that height either. Seriously, look at the opinions of mine that you oppose so demonstrably. They are things that hurt Hahneman. So of course you think he's Cooper. 

And yes, I do think there is something wrong with you. You can't admit fault. It's pathological. Once you have publicly stated an opinion, you won't budge from it. You're terrified of being perceived as losing face by admitting you are wrong, which is ridiculous because who cares if you admit you're wrong? I admit I'm wrong all the time as I learn more about the case. This weird pathology of yours is why you're the ONLY person I've ever encountered in the entire Vortex who cries about people attempting to "discredit" them when they receive pushback. No one else does that. Look at all the shit you've written about me. I've NEVER ONCE claimed that you're trying to hurt my credibility. NEVER. And I NEVER WILL. Literally no one else in the Vortex is as sensitive as you. You're soft. 

And I have corrected my statement about this teeth. I posted this clip on this very forum back in April despite you saying I've never corrected it. Timestamped below.  

 

[FLYJACK 773]

3 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

If you think I needed to talk about his MISSING TEETH to eliminate him, believe me, that's near the bottom of the things needed to eliminate him. There are more silver bullets that can be shot at him than almost any other suspect out there, in large part because we KNOW how he pulled off a similar crime. One only needs to spend five minutes reading the FBI Files on his hijacking to realize they aren't the same individual. When men pull off the same crime yet go about it in totally different ways, that usually means they aren't the same person. Sure, go ahead and claim you have unreleased evidence that will explain everything about their behavior differences. There's a reason the FBI eliminated him as Cooper back in 1972 and it's not because higher ups pulled some sort of shenanigans to assist Hahneman and foil the FBI nor was it because he was a CIA asset as you've proposed in the past. He was a mentally ill man whose first cousin was the Honduran Ambassador to the UN. So what? The FBI eliminated him because he wasn't Cooper.

And of course you believe Hahneman is Cooper. You claim to have "thousands" of pieces of evidence on him. You claim that we will all day "know the truth" once you reveal everything. The truth about what if not him being Cooper? This is a Bailey and Motte fallacy. You strongly imply that he's Cooper then when you're called out you retreat back and say "Well, I've never said he WAS Cooper." It's a cheap trick. It's not quite as pathetic as your repeated use of appealing to privileged information when you get trapped in a debate and don't have an actual explanation.

And if I'm "harassing you" about Hahneman it's only because of how agenda driven it makes you. It's obvious to everyone why you take certain stances on positions. If Hahneman had a small nose you wouldn't be arguing with me so vociferously about my opinion on that. If he was 6 feet tall, you wouldn't arguing with me constantly about my opinion hat Cooper was around that height either. Seriously, look at the opinions of mine that you oppose so demonstrably. They are things that hurt Hahneman. So of course you think he's Cooper. 

And yes, I do think there is something wrong with you. You can't admit fault. It's pathological. Once you have publicly stated an opinion, you won't budge from it. You're terrified of being perceived as losing face by admitting you are wrong, which is ridiculous because who cares if you admit you're wrong? I admit I'm wrong all the time as I learn more about the case. This weird pathology of yours is why you're the ONLY person I've ever encountered in the entire Vortex who cries about people attempting to "discredit" them when they receive pushback. No one else does that. Look at all the shit you've written about me. I've NEVER ONCE claimed that you're trying to hurt my credibility. NEVER. And I NEVER WILL. Literally no one else in the Vortex is as sensitive as you. You're soft. 

And I have corrected my statement about this teeth. I posted this clip on this very forum back in April despite you saying I've never corrected it. Timestamped below.  

 

No, Ryan you actually can't eliminate him with facts.. you have an opinion base on your own knowledge and experience.

Claiming I am wrong based on your poorly informed opinion doesn't cut it,,, besides why do you even care if I pursue a suspect you have so easily eliminated.

No, I claimed thousand of pieces for this ENTIRE case... see you can't get anything right.

I strongly implied he was Copper,,, SO, you admit you really lied.

You keep making up straw-man arguments.. if Hahneman had a small nose... I would.. YOU JUST MAKE THIS UP.. I point this nonsense out and you call me soft.. YOU ARE A LIAR..

Here is my position, I have said it before so nothing new,, I believe he is the best suspect by a long shot,, can I put him on the plane, NO,, but I am working on that. If you don't like it,, too bad.

There is no debate, there has never been debate on Hahneman, you are not equipped to debate Hahneman. You are so biased you can't even figure out that using the rear exit is an improvement.. You claimed he demanded B & H ciggs so he isn't Cooper,, this is YOUR messed up logic.

I can't admit fault because I am not AT fault.. that is YOUR bias, that is your creation, it is not reality. You attack me for not admitting to something in your own imagination.

I am at fault for investigating a suspect you eliminated based on your limited opinion.

Hahneman claimed to have worked for the CIA, he did contract work for them but was not CIA per se.... This is typical of you misrepresenting things and using it to try to discredit me..

You are just a very dishonest person Ryan.

You lie, you twist things, you use a multitude of fallacies to discredit me.. even calling me soft is a smear.. You don't know me, you know nothing about me. You are just trying to justify your own bias and since you can't understand why I am still investigating Hahneman based on your own ignorance,, you attack me personally... If you are so confident then what do you care if I investigate Hahneman.. why do you need to attack me. IMO, you aren't really that confident..

And no you didn't really correct the record in that video.. but that is nothing new.

He was missing two upper side teeth, the bicuspids which are very difficult to spot.

 

You should be very careful, history will not be kind to you.

 

[DWeber 3]

How many times have you two had the exact same argument? Seems like these responses could have been  copied and pasted from the last 5 times.