DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 768]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

I’m not arguing against an 8:11 time, as I’ve begun to independently see the merit of that time. 

WOW, nice to see you change...

I was 8:11 to 8:15 until recently..  8:11 all the way now...

Edited June 9 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 536]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

WOW, nice to see you change...

I was 8:11 to 8:15 until recently..  8:11 all the way now...

I change regularly. I go with however the evidence persuades me. I'm not married to any particular viewpoint. Why would I be? Why would I care if Cooper jumped at 8:11 or 8:15. It doesn't matter to me. I'm very malleable actually. I just need to see enough evidence to persuade me. 

As for the time of the jump, it's not evidence that is making me lean a certain way now, it's the lack of evidence. My understanding of Anderson's interviews was that they waited a while after the pressure bump then called to report it. So why isn't this call documented? Why isn't it in Soderlind's notes? Why isn't in Lowenthal's notes? Or the other NWO notes? I would think that would be an important freaking thing to document: the crew telling you "hey I just think he jumped." 

Yet we DO have them documenting the hell out of the "oscillations" call. Every single notetaker from NWO documented the oscillations call. But nothing at all about a pressure bump call. 

We have the FBI transcript from the oscillations call and it has a parenthetical inserted that says Rat lost his ear piece when he turned to look at the cabin rate of climb indicator because of an "increase in pressure." How would they know to include that parenthetical unless Rat or NWO told them that's what was occurring when his ear piece popped out? Unlikely they would insert that unless they knew. Case agents wouldn't have just made that up.  

Additionally, in that transcript Rat appears to be a bit shaken up. It reads as if he just experienced the pressure bump and was taken aback for a second. He's at a loss for words (for once). We've been told that the oscillations were only seen but not felt. Rat wouldn't have been reacting that way if he was just reporting on something they were seeing in the gauges. He seems shocked as if he just felt something. 

Rat's reaction makes it seem like the pressure bump occurred WHILE he was in the middle of reporting the oscillations. If so, then Cooper jumps at 8:11 or 8:12. 

The Vortex has dramatically complicated his jump time. I'm guilty of it obviously.

But the lack of any reporting about a post 8:11 "second call" is really hard to overlook. Sometimes absence of evidence IS evidence. 

[Robert99 55]

9 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Surprising to see you put so much faith in the FBI considering that you believe in the western flightpath. Those same documents, all of which are on my website, support the idea that they were strictly following V-23.

I’m not arguing against an 8:11 time, as I’ve begun to independently see the merit of that time. I’m just surprised that you would appeal to authority on the jump time but not on the location of the plane.

It all depends on which FBI agent to believe. 

I have held various licenses issued by the Federal Government since the age of 16, I have served in the military, and I have worked for several different government organizations.  The USAF, and presumably the FBI, have had my fingerprint cards since the age of about 16 since it was required for me to fly on military aircraft.

In all that time, the government got my name wrong in only one instance.  And that was when I filed an FOIA action to get the unredacted version of the radio transcripts between the airliner and the Seattle ATC Center.  After denying my request, the FBI changed my name on the appeal paperwork to DOJ from "Robert" to "Richard".  And "Richard" didn't compute with the DOJ.

Although I never got the transcripts, my Congresswoman did get some information for me through her House of Representatives office.  The point of the above is that there are some bureaucrats, even in the FBI, who like to play silly games.

OleMiss, how about passing your web site, or whatever it is, to Funny Stuff so he can make some effort to catch up on what has been going on here for the last decade or two.    

Edited Tuesday at 07:25 AM by Robert99

[georger 264]

3 hours ago, olemisscub said:

I change regularly. I go with however the evidence persuades me. I'm not married to any particular viewpoint. Why would I be? Why would I care if Cooper jumped at 8:11 or 8:15. It doesn't matter to me. I'm very malleable actually. I just need to see enough evidence to persuade me. 

As for the time of the jump, it's not evidence that is making me lean a certain way now, it's the lack of evidence. My understanding of Anderson's interviews was that they waited a while after the pressure bump then called to report it. So why isn't this call documented? Why isn't it in Soderlind's notes? Why isn't in Lowenthal's notes? Or the other NWO notes? I would think that would be an important freaking thing to document: the crew telling you "hey I just think he jumped." 

Yet we DO have them documenting the hell out of the "oscillations" call. Every single notetaker from NWO documented the oscillations call. But nothing at all about a pressure bump call. 

We have the FBI transcript from the oscillations call and it has a parenthetical inserted that says Rat lost his ear piece when he turned to look at the cabin rate of climb indicator because of an "increase in pressure." How would they know to include that parenthetical unless Rat or NWO told them that's what was occurring when his ear piece popped out? Unlikely they would insert that unless they knew. Case agents wouldn't have just made that up.  

Additionally, in that transcript Rat appears to be a bit shaken up. It reads as if he just experienced the pressure bump and was taken aback for a second. He's at a loss for words (for once). We've been told that the oscillations were only seen but not felt. Rat wouldn't have been reacting that way if he was just reporting on something they were seeing in the gauges. He seems shocked as if he just felt something. 

Rat's reaction makes it seem like the pressure bump occurred WHILE he was in the middle of reporting the oscillations. If so, then Cooper jumps at 8:11 or 8:12. 

The Vortex has dramatically complicated his jump time. I'm guilty of it obviously.

But the lack of any reporting about a post 8:11 "second call" is really hard to overlook. Sometimes absence of evidence IS evidence. 

Rat has never struck me as being very bright, frankly. Highly conflicted. Emotional and maybe even an emotional basket case during part of the the hijacking was in progress. A true-blue company man through and through. Sworn to secrecy (by God!). An idiot about some things..... a damned fool at times.

I base this not just on Rat's erratic behaviors during and after the hijacking, but in conversations he's had with people in the past. 

It doesnt even surprise me that he would overlook or even dismiss a 'bump'. Bump Shmump! Who cares! That is until the Flight Engineer drilled into Rat's consciousness. Then the argument about reporting it or not! Then more uncertainty and arguing on top of that before Rat finally radios it in. Rat has never taken any responsibility for that ... its below his pay level! It's not what Company guys do, on the premise: what good would it do ?

Rat was very angry when a mere passenger hijacked HIS plane. Rat suggested taking the guy out over the ocean and . . . Rat asked ________ where the plane pistol was while the passenger was just settling into his seat. Rat was scared shitless that the guy would parachute and leave a live ticking bomb to blow everyone up. The FAA Psychiatrist may have had something to do with generating that fear.

We have literally nothing about the conversation that passed back and forth between Scott and Rataczak.  

It is what it is.

 

Edited Tuesday at 09:02 AM by georger

[olemisscub 536]

7 hours ago, Robert99 said:

 

In all that time, the government got my name wrong in only one instance.  And that was when I filed an FOIA action to get the unredacted version of the radio transcripts between the airliner and the Seattle ATC Center.  After denying my request, the FBI changed my name on the appeal paperwork to DOJ from "Robert" to "Richard".  And "Richard" didn't compute with the DOJ.

Although I never got the transcripts, my Congresswoman did get some information for me through her House of Representatives office.  The point of the above is that there are some bureaucrats, even in the FBI, who like to play silly games. 

Honest question: Why do you think the FBI cares enough about NORJAK to be playing games?

Also, I'm pretty sure we have the complete unredacted transcripts. Himmelsbach's grandson had a copy with Ralph's stuff and Cunningham scanned the entire thing. Nothing remarkable at all behind the redactions. Just info about other flights in the area, etc. Not sure why that was redacted in the first place. 

Edited Tuesday at 02:55 PM by olemisscub

[c99acer 8]

9 hours ago, georger said:

Rat has never struck me as being very bright, frankly. Highly conflicted. Emotional and maybe even an emotional basket case during part of the the hijacking was in progress. A true-blue company man through and through. Sworn to secrecy (by God!). An idiot about some things..... a damned fool at times.

I base this not just on Rat's erratic behaviors during and after the hijacking, but in conversations he's had with people in the past. 

It doesnt even surprise me that he would overlook or even dismiss a 'bump'. Bump Shmump! Who cares! That is until the Flight Engineer drilled into Rat's consciousness. Then the argument about reporting it or not! Then more uncertainty and arguing on top of that before Rat finally radios it in. Rat has never taken any responsibility for that ... its below his pay level! It's not what Company guys do, on the premise: what good would it do ?

Rat was very angry when a mere passenger hijacked HIS plane. Rat suggested taking the guy out over the ocean and . . . Rat asked ________ where the plane pistol was while the passenger was just settling into his seat. Rat was scared shitless that the guy would parachute and leave a live ticking bomb to blow everyone up. The FAA Psychiatrist may have had something to do with generating that fear.

We have literally nothing about the conversation that passed back and forth between Scott and Rataczak.  

It is what it is.

 

Rataczak became the Northwest spokesperson for the hi-jacked flight. Do you think this is self-appointed or company appointed? Wouldn't the Captain normally deliver any statements or have comment on his ship? There seems to be something more to this part of the puzzle.

[olemisscub 536]

22 minutes ago, c99acer said:

Rataczak became the Northwest spokesperson for the hi-jacked flight. Do you think this is self-appointed or company appointed? Wouldn't the Captain normally deliver any statements or have comment on his ship? There seems to be something more to this part of the puzzle.

I don’t think it’s anything more complicated than Scott being extremely taciturn as an individual. Rat is the complete opposite. Rat wouldn’t have just taken it upon himself to do that given that he was outranked in the company by Scott, so Scott must have just deferred that role to Rat. 

[georger 264]

51 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I don’t think it’s anything more complicated than Scott being extremely taciturn as an individual. Rat is the complete opposite. Rat wouldn’t have just taken it upon himself to do that given that he was outranked in the company by Scott, so Scott must have just deferred that role to Rat. 

No doubt there were company negotiations about this - no pilot wants a hijacking on his record!  But the pilots could not possibly know everything that went on in the background. It took years for the crew to put it all together. Did any of the crew ever read the full Transcript? Probably not until years later if then. The crew would have been at a real disadvantage knowing what to say or not to say. Meanwhile Cooper is running around somewhere in the world. No guarantee that Cooper wont strike twice or even show up at someone's door some night! I imagine Rat was looking over his shoulder ... for years?  Meanwhile the crew have their lives to try and live with the hijacking behind them? It is never behind them! Like a bad divorce... you are living the consequences every day for the rest of your life ? Something like that . . .  Scott taciturn. Good description. Rat the opposite. I think Rat got put in a very bad position ... with constant demands on him. My sense is Rat never fully recovered!  Likewise Tina ?

Edited Tuesday at 07:42 PM by georger

[Robert99 55]

4 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Honest question: Why do you think the FBI cares enough about NORJAK to be playing games?

Also, I'm pretty sure we have the complete unredacted transcripts. Himmelsbach's grandson had a copy with Ralph's stuff and Cunningham scanned the entire thing. Nothing remarkable at all behind the redactions. Just info about other flights in the area, etc. Not sure why that was redacted in the first place. 

Here is an honest answer to your honest question.  Honest answer:  Do you actually think the FBI is interested in solving the hijacking?   Answer "yes" or "no"?  No "maybes".

Next question.  How many air traffic control radio transcripts have you reviewed in your lifetime?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  More?

Do you have any experience listening to live air traffic control communications or communicating with air traffic control?

Have you read the Oakland Center/Reno radio transcripts?  Did you notice any differences with the type of information in the Seattle Center radio transcripts?

In all the paperwork shuffling, the FBI has NEVER denied the existence of an unredacted version of the Seattle Center transcripts.  And they have NEVER claimed that the publicly released transcripts were not redacted.

Himmelsbach was not directly involved in the initial FBI investigation which was done by the Seattle FBI Office.

OleMiss, if you have a copy of the unredacted Seattle ATC radio transcripts how about giving a link to it.  When all is said and done, it has been in the public domain since day one.

Edited Tuesday at 07:48 PM by Robert99

[georger 264]

11 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Here is an honest answer to your honest question.  Honest answer:  Do you actually think the FBI is interested in solving the hijacking?   Answer "yes" or "no"?  No "maybes".

Next question.  How many air traffic control radio transcripts have you reviewed in your lifetime?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  More?

Do you have any experience listening to live air traffic control communications or communicating with air traffic control?

Have you read the Oakland Center/Reno radio transcripts?  Did you notice any differences with the type of information in the Seattle Center radio transcripts?

In all the paperwork shuffling, the FBI has NEVER denied the existence of an unredacted version of the Seattle Center transcripts.  And they have NEVER claimed that the publicly released transcripts were not redacted.

Himmelsbach was not directly involved in the initial FBI investigation which was done by the Seattle FBI Office.

OleMiss, if you have a copy of the unredacted Seattle ATC radio transcripts how about giving a link to it.  When all is said and done, it has been in the public domain since day one.

Answer. The peanut disappears from under thimble #1, into your hand when no one is looking ?

Edited Wednesday at 07:23 AM by georger

[FunnyStuff 8]

On 6/9/2025 at 6:47 PM, FLYJACK said:

I checked a bunch of current flights from Seattle to SF and Seattle to LA.. and none went out over the Ocean.. some went close to Red Bluff just as NORJAK did before heading to Reno.. The anti coastal claim is dead.. He didn't want a large airport for refuelling.

Interesting stuff here but I'm curious if the 10,000 ft height requirement would have changed these.  Quick and dirty research suggests you could probably make it without going straight to the coast but the Klamath mountains would ultimately push you towards the coast line so I think there's a good chance they'd just fly out that way to start.

[FLYJACK 768]

6 minutes ago, FunnyStuff said:

Interesting stuff here but I'm curious if the 10,000 ft height requirement would have changed these.  Quick and dirty research suggests you could probably make it without going straight to the coast but the Klamath mountains would ultimately push you towards the coast line so I think there's a good chance they'd just fly out that way to start.

The could have flown the same route they did (or close) to Red Bluff..

[FLYJACK 768]

How tall was Ted Braden in shoes??

[FunnyStuff 8]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

How tall was Ted Braden in shoes??

I think there's conflicting reports because there's contension on accuracy of some military record which I think pegs him at 5'6".  If memory serves everyone pegs him at 5'8" which I think came from some's personal experience with him and an eyeballing estimate so probably quoted "with shoes"

[FLYJACK 768]

50 minutes ago, FunnyStuff said:

I think there's conflicting reports because there's contension on accuracy of some military record which I think pegs him at 5'6".  If memory serves everyone pegs him at 5'8" which I think came from some's personal experience with him and an eyeballing estimate so probably quoted "with shoes"

yes, I have read/heard different numbers... he joined the military young so may still be growing..

1946 discharge,, 5-7" grey eyes..  maybe 5-8" in shoes??

 

Edited Friday at 03:40 PM by FLYJACK

[FunnyStuff 8]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

yes, I have read/heard different numbers... he joined the military young so may still be growing..

1946 discharge,, 5-7" grey eyes..  maybe 5-8" in shoes??

 

I've always thought the "in shoes" consideration is a little silly anyway.  I feel that people mostly quote height as "without shoes" anyway.  In other words when some says "i'm 5'10"" they were measured without shoes so Tina/Flo/everyone's internal understanding of "that guy is 6ft" is based on an no shoes measurement.

Furthermore, if you see the full body photos of Ted he looks extremely tiny in all proportions like his arms and shoulder width.  He's so petite I can't imagine the witnesses not calling it out.

[FLYJACK 768]

34 minutes ago, FunnyStuff said:

I've always thought the "in shoes" consideration is a little silly anyway.  I feel that people mostly quote height as "without shoes" anyway.  In other words when some says "i'm 5'10"" they were measured without shoes so Tina/Flo/everyone's internal understanding of "that guy is 6ft" is based on an no shoes measurement.

Furthermore, if you see the full body photos of Ted he looks extremely tiny in all proportions like his arms and shoulder width.  He's so petite I can't imagine the witnesses not calling it out.

People almost always quote their own height without shoes but estimate a "suspects" height as observed... meaning in shoes. So, there is a variability between reported and observed.. People also round up or concatenate if between.. I am 5-8 3/4" without shoes and when I was young I would just concatenate to 5' 8",, later in life I rounded up to 5' 9",, but I am 5' 10" in normal shoes.. I have never reported my height as 5' 10"..  So, my old recorded height would have been 2 inches below observed height.. 

We have to reconcile different datasets,,, self reported height vs observed height in shoes.

The FBI used 5-8" as the lower band for height instructing agents not to eliminate based on height down to 5-8".. sorry Ryan.

They probably used 5-8" to account for "no" shoes and observed height estimate of 5-9" by the two male witnesses. 

The original Cooper description was from 5' 9" but was updated to 5' 10" to overweight Tina..

If Braden is 5-8" in shoes that is low for Cooper. Cooper in shoes was taller than Tina..

If Braden was 5-9" in shoes then he is within the range.

 

 

Edited Friday at 05:22 PM by FLYJACK

[Robert99 55]

4 hours ago, FunnyStuff said:

Interesting stuff here but I'm curious if the 10,000 ft height requirement would have changed these.  Quick and dirty research suggests you could probably make it without going straight to the coast but the Klamath mountains would ultimately push you towards the coast line so I think there's a good chance they'd just fly out that way to start.

By coincidence or otherwise, the 10,000-foot altitude that Cooper specified also happens to be the minimum altitude for radio reception and obstacle clearance for aircraft headed south on V-23.

It should be remembered that the airliner had to climb to 11,000 feet to clear the mountains between V-23 and Reno when it turned toward Reno.

While Rataczak suggested climbing above the overcast and then circling over the Pacific until Cooper jumped and/or blew up the airliner, he was told to forget about it by NWA management.  

There is no specific reason for any aircraft flying south from Seattle to fly over the Pacific.

[Nicholas Broughton 70]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

People almost always quote their own height without shoes but estimate a "suspects" height as observed... meaning in shoes. So, there is a variability between reported and observed.. People also round up or concatenate if between.. I am 5-8 3/4" without shoes and when I was young I would just concatenate to 5' 8",, later in life I rounded up to 5' 9",, but I am 5' 10" in normal shoes.. I have never reported my height as 5' 10"..  So, my old recorded height would have been 2 inches below observed height.. 

We have to reconcile different datasets,,, self reported height vs observed height in shoes.

The FBI used 5-8" as the lower band for height instructing agents not to eliminate based on height down to 5-8".. sorry Ryan.

They probably used 5-8" to account for "no" shoes and observed height estimate of 5-9" by the two male witnesses. 

The original Cooper description was from 5' 9" but was updated to 5' 10" to overweight Tina..

If Braden is 5-8" in shoes that is low for Cooper. Cooper in shoes was taller than Tina..

If Braden was 5-9" in shoes then he is within the range.

 

 

John Granados and Ted Braden were both with the 101st Aviation Co in 1958-59. According to John he took a few pictures of Braden during that time period, including this one in the boonies of Fort Brag (1958) during Operation White Cloud. I asked John what he’d estimate his height to be and he said maybe 5’8. This would of been based on how John saw him which would of been in army boots. For reference, John was a fairly tall guy standing at 6ft. I say was because John recently passed away last month, a few weeks after our communication. John Granados was a true OG in the sport parachuting world. He started jumping in Elsinore/Perris during the early 1960’s and was a member of the famed Latin skydivers club, which as fate/vortex would have it put him on the feds radar for NORJAK. The FBI looked at this club early on in their investigation. With witnesses describing Cooper as having a darker complexion and his presumed parachuting background, it was an obvious place to look. The bottom line is FIVE FOOT EIGHT in army boots makes Braden a non starter! 

Edited Friday at 09:33 PM by Nicholas Broughton

[olemisscub 536]

6 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

People almost always quote their own height without shoes but estimate a "suspects" height as observed... meaning in shoes. So, there is a variability between reported and observed.. People also round up or concatenate if between.. I am 5-8 3/4" without shoes and when I was young I would just concatenate to 5' 8",, later in life I rounded up to 5' 9",, but I am 5' 10" in normal shoes.. I have never reported my height as 5' 10"..  So, my old recorded height would have been 2 inches below observed height.. 

And I'd wager a great sum of money that if 4 people saw you standing that none of them would think you were 6 feet or taller. Yet with Cooper we have 3 of the 4 witnesses who saw him standing going as tall as 6 feet tall or taller. 

According to statistics, 81 percent of eyewitnesses get height within 2 inches. It's statistically improbable that the witnesses who saw Cooper standing would ALL be that far off. 

Shoes can only do so much. As Nicky pointed out, a person's proportions likely also go into how our brains calculate height. To think that a person who is 5'8 (I don't care what sort of Al Pacino shoe lifts they are wearing) would be mistaken for 6'0 or 6'1 is an absurd notion to me. Their overall body types are different looking. 

 

 

 

Edited Friday at 11:34 PM by olemisscub

[olemisscub 536]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

They probably used 5-8" to account for "no" shoes and observed height estimate of 5-9" by the two male witnesses. 

Two witnesses who never saw him standing.  

[FLYJACK 768]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

And I'd wager a great sum of money that if 4 people saw you standing, none of them would think you were 6 feet or taller. Yet with Cooper we have 3 of the 4 witnesses who saw him standing going as tall as 6 feet tall or taller. 

According to statistics, 81 percent of eyewitnesses get height within 2 inches. It's statistically improbable that the witnesses who saw Cooper standing would ALL be that far off. 

Shoes can only do so much. As Nicky pointed out, a person's proportions likely also go into how our brains calculate height. To think that a person who is 5'8 (I don't care what sort of Al Pacino shoe lifts they are wearing) would be mistaken for 6'0 or 6'1 is an absurd notion to me. 

 

 

Well, I haven't hijacked a plane seated almost the entire time.. the witness height estimates are recall not in real time, not comparable.

The average shoe is an inch, but if somebody is between inches they can round up or down when self reporting. 

No witness actually measured height, it is an impression recalled based on many factors, build, dress, ethnicity, vs average height, etc..

According to statistics, what study, what context?? is just not meaningful, how about an actual hijacking.

Your assumption is 100% wrong... many witnesses had Hahneman at 6 feet and he was standing more than Cooper. He was between 5-9 and 5-10 in shoes. Sounds like Braden is shorter.

The fact is the FBI used 5-8" as the lower bound for reported height,, and warned agents to NOT eliminate down to reported 5-8". I still haven't heard you explain what you know 50 plus years later that they didn't know. 

Norjak has a ridiculously small sample size,,, and a very low confidence level.

Hal Williams is not that reliable, he said he wasn't sure if he could recognize Cooper if he saw him again,, he saw him not knowing he was the hijacker. I know you like him as a witness... I don't think he is very relaible.

Flo saw Cooper standing briefly before he was known as a hijacker,, FBI said Flo was emotional and unreliable. They diminished her input for sketch B in favour of Mitchell..

Tina said 5-10 to 6 feet.. the FBI updated the height description relying on her..

Essentially one witness for height. 

Now that is absurd,,,

Mitchell and Gregory had Cooper at 5-9,, he was seated but that doesn't mean they were wrong...

NORJAK witnesses need to be put in context,, very small sample size with some unreliable means low confidence level..

 

 

 

 

[olemisscub 536]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

The fact is the FBI used 5-8" as the lower bound for reported height,, and warned agents to NOT eliminate down to reported 5-8". I still haven't heard you explain what you know 50 plus years later that they didn't know. 

 

Number one, I don't have to explain anything. I'm not the FBI. I'm not bound by their metrics or beliefs or intuitions or opinions. I can PERSONALLY eliminate a suspect based on whatever I want, the same as you do.  

Number two, this memo you always reference where it says there is a lower bound of 5'8 clearly wasn't something they applied because several agents eliminated suspects for being that short. So appealing to authority on this issue doesn't work. I personally think Cooper was about six feet tall based on witness statements and lo and behold, so did case agents like Ron Nichols. Go look at the Boeing File Review eliminations. They eliminated multiple individuals literally for no other reason than them being 5'8 to 5'10. 

Then we've got multiple occasions in the files such as these instances, including one document where they say the lower limit is 5'10. 

[FLYJACK 768]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

Number one, I don't have to explain anything. I'm not the FBI. I'm not bound by their metrics or beliefs or intuitions or opinions. I can PERSONALLY eliminate a suspect based on whatever I want, the same as you do.  

Number two, this memo you always reference where it says there is a lower bound of 5'8 clearly wasn't something they applied because several agents eliminated suspects for being that short. So appealing to authority on this issue doesn't work. I personally think Cooper was about six feet tall based on witness statements and lo and behold, so did case agents like Ron Nichols. Go look at the Boeing File Review eliminations. They eliminated multiple individuals literally for no other reason than them being 5'8 to 5'10. 

Then we've got multiple occasions in the files such as these instances, including one document where they say the lower limit is 5'10. 

This is not appeal to authority fallacy.. this is the second time you have misused that. Appeal to authority fallacy is when the authority makes a claim outside their expertise.

Using this fallacy accusation in such a fraudulent way demonstrates a lack of logic.

The FBI stated NOT to eliminate based on the MERE FACT a suspect is 5-8,, that means based solely,, Suspects were eliminated for lots of reasons or combinations of things. If agents did not apply the memo after released they just didn't see or follow the memo.

The FBI also investigated interesting suspects they knew were under 5-8"...

Those you listed clearly have other reasons included.. not relevant.

 

You have three false assumptions..

The FBI statement to agents for 5-8" was also used for vetting Elsinore suspects. Whatever any individual agent believed or missed was irrelevant. You need to rationalize this. You clearly can't.

You overestimate the confidence level for height estimates of witnesses in NORJAK.. the sample size is too small and the reliability for some is questionable. 

And you are 100% wrong claiming witnesses wouldn't overestimate, many witnesses had Hahneman at 6 feet... argument busted.

 

Sure, you can have any opinion you want,, even wrong ones. In this case, you don't even have an argument for your opinion. It is pure speculation. Explaining why the FBI was wrong would help... You want everyone to explain things but suddenly, you are exempt, you know why, because you can't answer it.

You don't have an argument for your speculation. None. It is a guess, you don't know how tall Cooper was.

You have a propensity to take hard irrational positions,, like Cooper can't be under 5-10".. I get the position some have that Cooper was probably between 5-10 to 6 feet.. but to eliminate suspects under 5-10 presenting no rational argument and contradicted by the FBI is nutty.

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 02:02 AM by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 536]

24 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

And you are 100% wrong claiming witnesses wouldn't overestimate, many witnesses had Hahneman at 6 feet... argument busted.

And I will continue to refuse to believe this until you prove it. I'm guessing you need to hoard evidence that MANY passengers thought Hahneman was 6 feet for your "documentary" because that's totally something that is pertinent and worthy of keeping under your hat...

I'll concede the point if you provide the receipts, but this just sounds like BS to me until proven otherwise.