DB Cooper

[olemisscub 548]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

From 2011.. long before any sketch A v B perceived debate (IMO, there is no real debate even now, sketch B is provably better)

Facts,,

Galen had a close relationship with the FBI. He had no sketch bias.

Sketch A was heavily influenced by Flo.

Mitchell played a greater role in B than A.

Flo was more emotional than Mitchell.

Sketch B was different from A.

 

Logical inference,, Mitchell's increased input in sketch B accounts for some of the difference in the sketches.

Again, show me a SINGLE FBI DOCUMENT that even hints at what you are claiming. You. Cannot. Do. It. 

And Galen absolutely had a sketch bias. Gossett was his suspect. Gossett is OBVIOUSLY a Comp B suspect. 

Yeah man, this is some INTENSE increased input by Bill....this is the GRAND TOTAL of what you'll find from Bill on Comp B within the files. But keep appealing to the existence of files none of us have ever seen to save your position. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 05:33 PM by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 772]

17 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Hyperbolic? We literally have an FBI document from the DIRECTOR OF THE FBI'S OFFICE stating "Here is the new sketch. Here is how it was created."

I swear debating with you is like living in some bizarro world. You simply REFUSE to admit you're wrong regardless of what evidence is presented before you. Even in spite of me presenting a plain English document stating HOW COMP B WAS CREATED you won't acknowledge it and will just say "well, we don't have all the files..." This isn't like the Benzedrine example. That is something that ISN'T in the files. This IS in the files. A hearsay statement allegedly given by an FBI agent in the 2000's CANNOT trump an original source document that is stating as plain as day the COMPLETE OPPOSITE. 

Frankly, if you continue to argue this point that Comp B came from Bill Mitchell instead of Flo Schaffner then its a demonstration of some psychological defect on your part where you simply cannot give an inch after you've stated a position on something. 

 

Yes, I have a psychological defect because I don't agree with your argument.. check the mirror.

I genuinely don't agree with your position, so have no reason to admit I am wrong.

You have an opinion..

What you have mixed up is relativeness. Less Flo more Mitchell for B v A. Simple objective fact. The argument is less Flo not no Flo for B.

Fact is Flo played a more significant role overall in producing A than B.

If she played a greater role in B then why is it so different... has to be a reason why they are so different... 

Flo was emotional, she participated in two sketches and later said none were right.

 

 

 

 

[Kamkisky 13]

Is there any other evidence besides the one statement by Flo that indicates Cooper boarded second to last? Or is that it? 

[olemisscub 548]

3 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Yes, I have a psychological defect because I don't agree with your argument.. check the mirror.

I genuinely don't agree with your position, so have no reason to admit I am wrong.

You have an opinion..

What you have mixed up is relativeness. Less Flo more Mitchell for B v A. Simple objective fact. The argument is less Flo not no Flo for B.

Fact is Flo played a more significant role overall in producing A than B.

If she played a greater role in B then why is it so different... has to be a reason why they are so different... 

Flo was emotional, she participated in two sketches and later said none were right.

 

 

 

 

This is not even an opinion though. This is a DEMONSTRABLE FACT. I don't have anything mixed up. You aren't going to wiggle out of this. 

You're also pivoting. I already agreed that Flo was emotional. That's not what we're arguing. You're claiming that she had a reduced role in Comp B and that Mitchell had an increased role based SOLELY on what someone in the 2000's told Galen Cook. That is literally hearsay. I have MULTIPLE original source documents that blatantly contradict this.

It doesn't matter if it makes sense to us or not or what we would have done. We have documentation stating what the FBI DID IN FACT DO. Hearsay from the 2000's NOR our opinions about what we would have done is totally irrelevant when we have literal facts presented in front of us. 

This isn't complicated at all. 

And the REASON why Comp A looks so different from Comp B is that the sketch artist WASN'T SITTING THERE with the girls this time. Rose received a photo of KK5-1 that the Seattle office attached in a memo along with the adjustments Flo wanted to make to KK5-1. So Rose made adjustments to KK5-1, apparently forgetting that he had ALREADY DONE THIS to KK5-1 back in Nov 71. 

Comp A already is KK5-1 with the adjustments. When he created Comp B he didn't have the girls with him directing him on the PRECISE changes. So he just took Flo's WORDS about KK5-1 and modified KK5-1. This is why they look different. It's not a mystery as to why they look so different. The issue with the sketches is human memory. They think Comp A looks great in Nov 71 and then by Nov 72 they think Comp B (a completely differently looking human) also looks great. 

 

[olemisscub 548]

40 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

Is there any other evidence besides the one statement by Flo that indicates Cooper boarded second to last? Or is that it? 

Bill says that his name was called first at the roll call on the bus. He said Cooper's name came second. Important to keep in mind that the roll call on the bus was ONLY of the passengers who boarded in Portland as provided to the FBI by Northwest at PDX. An argument could be made that if Mitchell's name was first and Cooper's was second on this manifest, that this is the order that the names were in when the boarding passes were handed over to the FBI. 

Think of it like this: Williams is collecting boarding passes. The last person to hand him a boarding pass will likely have their boarding pass on the top of the pile. It could be a coincidence that their names were back to back like that, but it could also indicate that Mitchell was last to board with Cooper second to last. 

[FLYJACK 772]

19 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

This is not even an opinion though. This is a DEMONSTRABLE FACT. I don't have anything mixed up. You aren't going to wiggle out of this. 

You're also pivoting. I already agreed that Flo was emotional. That's not what we're arguing. You're claiming that she had a reduced role in Comp B and that Mitchell had an increased role based SOLELY on what someone in the 2000's told Galen Cook. That is literally hearsay. I have MULTIPLE original source documents that blatantly contradict this.

It doesn't matter if it makes sense to us or not or what we would have done. We have documentation stating what the FBI DID IN FACT DO. Hearsay from the 2000's NOR our opinions about what we would have done is totally irrelevant when we have literal facts presented in front of us. 

This isn't complicated at all. 

And the REASON why Comp A looks so different from Comp B is that the sketch artist WASN'T SITTING THERE with the girls this time. Rose received a photo of KK5-1 that the Seattle office attached in a memo along with the adjustments Flo wanted to make to KK5-1. So Rose made adjustments to KK5-1, apparently forgetting that he had ALREADY DONE THIS to KK5-1 back in Nov 71. 

Comp A already is KK5-1 with the adjustments. When he created Comp B he didn't have the girls with him directing him on the PRECISE changes. So he just took Flo's WORDS about KK5-1 and modified KK5-1. This is why they look different. It's not a mystery as to why they look so different. The issue with the sketches is human memory. They think Comp A looks great in Nov 71 and then by Nov 72 they think Comp B (a completely differently looking human) also looks great. 

 

So, it is your position that the reason the reason the sketches look different is because Flo's memory changed.

[olemisscub 548]

8 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

So, it is your position that the reason the reason the sketches look different is because Flo's memory changed.

Hardly. In one instance the sketch artist used KK5-1 as a template with real-time assistance from the stews. In another instance he uses KK5-1 without real-time assistance relying only on Flo's words from Nov 71. 

 

[FLYJACK 772]

37 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Hardly. In one instance the sketch artist used KK5-1 as a template with real-time assistance from the stews. In another instance he uses KK5-1 without real-time assistance relying only on Flo's words from Nov 71. 

 

So why was B so different from A..

[olemisscub 548]

33 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

So why was B so different from A..

To create Comp A, he had the template of KK5-1, Flo’s verbal instructions spoken to him directly on that day, and the other girls adjusting it in real time as he sat there with his sketch pad and pencil asking them how to make it look more like the hijacker.

For Comp B, all he had to use was the template of KK5-1 and a 302 of what Flo said about KK5-1 back in November. 

Of course the two are going to look wildly different and naturally, without Flo’s ACTUAL verbal instructions and without real time assistance from the stews, Comp B is going to look a lot more like KK5-1 than Comp A does. 

THAT is why the Hoodlum is such a drastic departure. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 08:29 PM by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 772]

11 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

To create Comp A, he had the template of KK5-1, Flo’s verbal instructions spoken to him directly on that day, and the other girls adjusting it in real time as he sat there with his sketch pad and pencil asking them how to make it look more like the hijacker.

For Comp B, all he had to use was the template of KK5-1 and a 302 of what Flo said about KK5-1 back in November. 

Of course the two are going to look wildly different and naturally, without Flo’s ACTUAL verbal instructions and without real time assistance from the stews, Comp B is going to look a lot more like KK5-1 than Comp A does. 

THAT is why the Hoodlum is such a drastic departure. 

 

Are you saying that Flo gave no new input for B.

 

an aside but Rose said he interviewed 2 stews for A..  This seems to say two, then the third was shown the result.

Edited Tuesday at 08:41 PM by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 548]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Are you saying that Flo gave no new input for B.

Correct. We know what was used to create the Hoodlum because it's in the document sent to D.C. dated August 7th, 1972 (Vault 69, pg 252). It doesn't say that we will be attaching additional files or anything like that. This is why the Hoodlum is so completely different than Comp A: It's just KK5-1, but he looks older, has a darker complexion, and has a lower hairline and ears that don't protrude (according to what this document says).

Flo, of course, did propose changes to Hoodlum, which we can clearly see that they incorporated those changes to create Revised Comp B because his forehead is narrower and his chin is more pointed and narrower. They also made Revised Comp B's mouth not point down as much as Hoodlum's. 

 

Then on 12-8-72 she gave additional input on Revised Comp B, resulting in the Final Comp B. Again, we see that they listened to Flo (the opposite of diminishing her input) because she said that she wanted his forehead to be slightly narrower and indeed, Final Comp B's forehead IS narrower than Revised Comp B's. 

 

 

Feel free to believe what you want about what an FBI agent allegedly told Galen Cook in the 2000's, but an investigation into the FBI's own files very clearly indicates that Flo had the most influence of anyone when it came to the Cooper sketch, which is literally the opposite of what Galen is claiming this agent told him. 

[olemisscub 548]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Are you saying that Flo gave no new input for B.

 

an aside but Rose said he interviewed 2 stews for A..  This seems to say two, then the third was shown the result.

Again, we're relying on Rose's memory nearly 50 years later for that. The FBI files indicate it was all three. Doesn't matter to me either way. I don't see why Alice wouldn't have been involved though. She was in town, obviously. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 10:42 PM by olemisscub

[olemisscub 548]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

This seems to say two, then the third was shown the result.

I have all three fitting in there. 

 

[haggarknew 5]

5 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Yes, I have a psychological defect because I don't agree with your argument.. check the mirror.

I genuinely don't agree with your position, so have no reason to admit I am wrong.

You have an opinion..

What you have mixed up is relativeness. Less Flo more Mitchell for B v A. Simple objective fact. The argument is less Flo not no Flo for B.

Fact is Flo played a more significant role overall in producing A than B.

If she played a greater role in B then why is it so different... has to be a reason why they are so different... 

Flo was emotional, she participated in two sketches and later said none were right.

 

 

 

 

Do we know for fact that Flo was 'emotional'? I've wondered if the  emotional Flo narrative has {was} been overblown? Has {was} she ever asked by anyone about her emotional state during the hijacking? Is it possible that the 'emotional Flo ' narrative might have been a misrepresentative of her activity that night?

[FLYJACK 772]

35 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I have all three fitting in there. 

 

I read that as meeting with three, but first meeting with 2 together, Flo and Alice.. then with Tina showing her the sketch prepared. Rose said he met with 2 which was probably the first meeting with Flo and Alice.

[olemisscub 548]

31 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I read that as meeting with three, but first meeting with 2 together, Flo and Alice.. then with Tina showing her the sketch prepared. Rose said he met with 2 which was probably the first meeting with Flo and Alice.

I mean, I’ve posted three different documents now that say all 3 were there. Logically I don’t see any reason why Alice wouldn’t be there considering she was consulted on every sketch creation and all of the suspect photos as well. 

[olemisscub 548]

34 minutes ago, haggarknew said:

Do we know for fact that Flo was 'emotional'? I've wondered if the  emotional Flo narrative has {was} been overblown? Has {was} she ever asked by anyone about her emotional state during the hijacking? Is it possible that the 'emotional Flo ' narrative might have been a misrepresentative of her activity that night?

Well, it’s never been confirmed that she was too emotional but it’s pretty easily inferred. There’s only one reason they’d have kept her in the cockpit and that’s because she was crying or too emotional to head back into the cabin, lest the passengers see. 

The flight crew were too much of gentlemen to have ever thrown her under the bus like that by directly stating that she cracked up a bit. 

She did appear to calm down when they landed considering that Scott sent her back there to stand by row 15 and not let anyone past her.  

[Kamkisky 13]

5 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Bill says that his name was called first at the roll call on the bus. He said Cooper's name came second. Important to keep in mind that the roll call on the bus was ONLY of the passengers who boarded in Portland as provided to the FBI by Northwest at PDX. An argument could be made that if Mitchell's name was first and Cooper's was second on this manifest, that this is the order that the names were in when the boarding passes were handed over to the FBI. 

Think of it like this: Williams is collecting boarding passes. The last person to hand him a boarding pass will likely have their boarding pass on the top of the pile. It could be a coincidence that their names were back to back like that, but it could also indicate that Mitchell was last to board with Cooper second to last. 

That’s good secondary evidence.

[haggarknew 5]

31 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Well, it’s never been confirmed that she was too emotional but it’s pretty easily inferred. There’s only one reason they’d have kept her in the cockpit and that’s because she was crying or too emotional to head back into the cabin, lest the passengers see. 

The flight crew were too much of gentlemen to have ever thrown her under the bus like that by directly stating that she cracked up a bit. 

She did appear to calm down when they landed considering that Scott sent her back there to stand by row 15 and not let anyone past her.  

Stand by row 15? Not let anyone past her?  I must have missed this. Could you expand on this?

[olemisscub 548]

11 minutes ago, haggarknew said:

Stand by row 15? Not let anyone past her?  I must have missed this. Could you expand on this?

At some point either right before they landed or right after they landed (evidence is contradictory), they moved four or five passengers up past row 15 to give Cooper some space. Once they landed they had Flo go stand at Row 15 so no passengers wandered back into those rear rows as they were deplaning. 
 

[haggarknew 5]

8 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

At some point either right before they landed or right after they landed (evidence is contradictory), they moved four or five passengers up past row 15 to give Cooper some space. Once they landed they had Flo go stand at Row 15 so no passengers wandered back into those rear rows as they were deplaning. 
 

Did Flo get another look at Cooper without his sunglasses on when this occurred? Or was he already wearing them by this time? Seems a little strange that she would be the one positioned between Cooper and the passengers considering her supposed emotional state?  I am surprised Alice wasn't the one positioned here. 

[FLYJACK 772]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

Well, it’s never been confirmed that she was too emotional but it’s pretty easily inferred. There’s only one reason they’d have kept her in the cockpit and that’s because she was crying or too emotional to head back into the cabin, lest the passengers see. 

The flight crew were too much of gentlemen to have ever thrown her under the bus like that by directly stating that she cracked up a bit. 

She did appear to calm down when they landed considering that Scott sent her back there to stand by row 15 and not let anyone past her.  

The claim from Galen via the FBI was that Flo suffered from anxiety vs Mitchell who was a more neutral observer,, he was not in fear of his life but got a close look at the hijacker. This is objectively true.

Ryan needs either Galen or the FBI to be lying.. I just don't accept that... there is no indication they are and it makes perfect sense. Objectively, based on circumstances Mitchell being a more neutral observer would be more reliable. There is no reason for the FBI or Galen to lie.

That moves us to the sketch,, the reason for the difference between A and B is still unresolved. As far as I can tell the stews Alice and Flo probably had more influence for sketch A.. not sure about Tina... the other passengers had reviewed it but little or no input. Sketch A was created very quickly in a personal interview.. Sketch B was a completely different process, more reliable. It took longer with more feedback from all witnesses. The stews were also interviewed in person for sketch B.

Everybody really liked B except maybe Tina who claimed she didn't see Cooper's face..

The FBI also concluded it was the best likeness. 

So, where did the change come from.. did all the stews memories alter or was the additional input from the other witnesses.

How do so many witnesses like sketch B..

IMO, it was a more comprehensive process. 

I recognize the attribution error Ryan found but don't accept it as the reason for sketch B, it was incidental.

Also, I am convinced that sketch B is more accurate based on process, the claim that earlier is better is a general concept but only when the process is the same. The process for sketch A and B was not the same.

Further, I have that undisclosed Cooper image and it is closer to B..

Flo was understandably shaken by the hijacker's threat..

Edited yesterday at 01:47 AM by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 548]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Further, I have that undisclosed Cooper image and it is closer to B..

Lord have mercy, this again lol. Really? 

This isn’t complicated. The FBI concluded it was the best likeness because they didn’t realize there had been a consensus on Comp A. They’d have had no reason not to just age Comp A up and give him color if they realized there was a consensus. 

When every key witness likes a sketch (as they did with Comp A) there is no reason to turn the sketch into a completely different human except for a belief that there wasn’t a consensus. 

Of random interest is that it wasn’t case agents who recommended that the sketch be changed. It was an independent group of FBI investigators. FBI Director told the NORJAK case agents to select a couple of agents with fresh eyes to review the case files and write a report within two weeks with new leads or suggestions. 

The recommendation (not a terrible suggestion in principle to age the sketch up) and their mistake was part of this review. 

[olemisscub 548]

15 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

The claim from Galen via the FBI was that Flo suffered from anxiety vs Mitchell who was a more neutral observer,, he was not in fear of his life but got a close look at the hijacker. This is objectively true.

Ryan needs either Galen or the FBI to be lying.. I just don't accept that... there is no indication they are and it makes perfect sense. Objectively, based on circumstances Mitchell being a more neutral observer would be more reliable. There is no reason for the FBI or Galen to lie.

That moves us to the sketch,, the reason for the difference between A and B is still unresolved. As far as I can tell the stews Alice and Flo probably had more influence for sketch A.. not sure about Tina... the other passengers had reviewed it but little or no input. Sketch A was created very quickly in a personal interview.. Sketch B was a completely different process, more reliable. It took longer with more feedback from all witnesses. The stews were also interviewed in person for sketch B.

 

I don’t need anyone to be lying, just mistaken. This is the same as the agent in 1980 reporting an erroneous statement about the money. Whoever believes Bill was more involved than Flo in Comp B is demonstrably wrong. There isn’t even a reasonable argument to be made.

And the process is irrelevant when it’s done 9-12 months after an event. Who the hell would remember a face they only saw for a few moments 9 months after they saw that face? It’s absurd.  Also, we have about as much input from the passengers with Comp A as we do with Comp B. 

[olemisscub 548]

23 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

The stews were also interviewed in person for sketch B.

Not by the sketch artist as he was drawing it. They were shown faxes of the sketch by agents whenever these agents could catch them at an airport and they suggested changes.