DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 772]

15 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

The final score on the boarding:

Flo - second to last has some secondary evidence in support of her statement.

Gregory - he thought he was last to board and was likely the third from the end. He just didn’t notice Cooper or Bill Mitchell come in after him and take seats further back. 

Bill Mitchell - he likely wasn’t with the terminal group and runs to catch the flight after calling his folks after getting a standby ticket. He doesn’t notice Cooper boarding because Cooper boards before him. 

Dan Cooper - he intentionally boards last of the terminal group. He wanted to be last, Bill just ruins that by calling home and running late. 

Michael Cooper - seems to be conflating things 50 years on. 

Maybe,, I would prefer to switch Mitchell and Gregory because Gregory said he was late.. but who knows.

[Nicholas Broughton 78]

2 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

 

 

I'm trying to define this. Is this a photograph that someone took in the airplane or the terminal? Did a witness have their own sketch done?   ??

Yeah. Good luck with that! 

[Kamkisky 13]

 

The Oregonian - November 27, 1971

 

That search zone is a lot closer to the modern consensus than I believed was the case in 71. I thought they were searching just north of BG. Here they are south of Orchards. And there's a quote saying they were searching at "other possible drop areas further south." 

Anyone got anything on this red beacon? Also, what was the original drop zone? Did I just have it wrong thinking it was further north than the southern edge shown in this drawing? 

 

 

[monk71 3]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

By not using this sketch? 

When I first saw this years ago I thought it was a joke because it looked like the character Toby Flenderson on The Office (played by actor Paul Lieberstein).

In one episode, Dwight fails to recognize the sketch of a predator is himself.

Was that really supposed to be a sketch of Hahnemann?

[Kamkisky 13]

37 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

 

The Oregonian - November 27, 1971

 

That search zone is a lot closer to the modern consensus than I believed was the case in 71. I thought they were searching just north of BG. Here they are south of Orchards. And there's a quote saying they were searching at "other possible drop areas further south." 

Anyone got anything on this red beacon? Also, what was the original drop zone? Did I just have it wrong thinking it was further north than the southern edge shown in this drawing? 

 

 

This article proves *the authorities at the time considered Cooper jumped lights.* 

I'm at the point of falling to see a counter argument. The pilots could see lights. The authorities thought he may have jumped lights. It makes the most sense to jump lights. He has I-5. He may have had this red beacon. He would have the counter experience of the darkness of the forest north of the Lewis River. He'd have the lights of BG after the darkness. He'd have the lights of Vancouver/Portland ahead. He'd know the time of flight. He knew Tacoma from the air. He knew McChord from the ground. He knew the plane was going south out of Seattle. He had flown over this part of southern Washington just hours earlier. Mac jumped the lights too. 

Cooper jumped the lights and had a solid idea of where he landed based on I-5 and the BG lights. He knew if he was north or south of BG. He'd know if he was east or west too. 

I'm close to done on this one...someone tell me why he didn't jump the lights?

Edited 17 hours ago by Kamkisky

[Nicholas Broughton 78]

48 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

 

The Oregonian - November 27, 1971

 

That search zone is a lot closer to the modern consensus than I believed was the case in 71. I thought they were searching just north of BG. Here they are south of Orchards. And there's a quote saying they were searching at "other possible drop areas further south." 

Anyone got anything on this red beacon? Also, what was the original drop zone? Did I just have it wrong thinking it was further north than the southern edge shown in this drawing? 

 

 

 

[monk71 3]

53 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

 

The Oregonian - November 27, 1971

 

That search zone is a lot closer to the modern consensus than I believed was the case in 71. I thought they were searching just north of BG. Here they are south of Orchards. And there's a quote saying they were searching at "other possible drop areas further south." 

Anyone got anything on this red beacon? Also, what was the original drop zone? Did I just have it wrong thinking it was further north than the southern edge shown in this drawing? 

 

 

I thought the PDX VORTAC navigation beacon was more south at Battle Ground.

[Kamkisky 13]

58 minutes ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

 

Nice.

It illuminates from the edge of the dark forest. From the time he says everything is good now (8:05) till the time he jumps (8:11-13)...what would be his view? At first pass it looks to me like he'd catch the beacon off to the side/passing by and BG is about 20 miles ahead. 

6-8 minutes. 3 miles per hour. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Kamkisky

[FLYJACK 772]

7 hours ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

Yeah. Good luck with that! 

I have shared the image with people I trust,,, you are definitely not one of them.

[FLYJACK 772]

7 hours ago, Kamkisky said:

 

The Oregonian - November 27, 1971

 

That search zone is a lot closer to the modern consensus than I believed was the case in 71. I thought they were searching just north of BG. Here they are south of Orchards. And there's a quote saying they were searching at "other possible drop areas further south." 

Anyone got anything on this red beacon? Also, what was the original drop zone? Did I just have it wrong thinking it was further north than the southern edge shown in this drawing? 

 

 

That jump zone circle is not accurate.. a red herring.

We don't know if Cooper could see the ground and identify markers. The cloud layer was spotty.. He could not see the city lights glow until he descended the stairs at 8:09, then he could have seen the glow. He jumped about 8:11. 

The problem with the beacon theory other than zero evidence is that he would have had no expectation of visible contact beforehand just like the path.

The only thing we can assume is that he could likely make out the glow of "Portland" from 8:09 at the bottom of the stairs.. this was not predetermined.

IMO, he doesn't know exactly where he is, but generally. Struggles with stairs but gets them open about 8:00 and descends at 8:09, gets his bearings and picks a spot to jump at 8:11.

Another issue nobody has considered,, Cooper received bailout rigs, non-steerable.. did he know they were non-steerable bailout rigs when he jumped? If he thought they were steerable that would change things.

[FLYJACK 772]

The reason the sketch A v B things comes up is because Ryan has an opinion for A based on a generalization, not evidence. He elevates that opinion as the foundation/premise for another opinion.. Cooper had a small narrow nose and must look like A not B, absurd. He uses these compounded "opinions" to eliminate or even mock suspects he doesn't like. He makes the same structural error with his height opinion.. 

It has been noted and is obvious that these are composite sketches and Cooper may be close or not.. put sunglasses on a suspect and they all look similar.. Sketches are NOT made to eliminate, they are created to generate leads. That is why they created B, to generate better quality leads not due to that attribution error. Ryan actually claimed there would be no B sketch without that attribution error.. so B is invalid.. nonsense.

My challenge to Ryan is with respect to the structure of his argument and use, it is flawed.

His opinion or conclusion is really irrelevant.. his logic and reasoning is flawed for the sketches and other things. He uses that flawed reasoning to attack others, that is the problem. 

My issue with Ryan is that his logic and reasoning is often flawed and goal seeking, then he weaponizes those flawed conclusions to mock and ridicule others or to advance other flawed theories. He lashes out when challenged because he really has no evidence for his layers of opinions.

He publicly lied about Hahneman's teeth repeatedly to discredit me, I pointed out that is was false and he just lied bigger,, he stopped discussing it but has not corrected the record. So, he is fine with disseminating false information. Everyone believes Hahneman was missing half his teeth because of Ryan.. and that I must be crazy for not accepting that would eliminate him.. People in the youtube chat mocked Hahneman as a suspect based on the teeth.. But, it isn't true, Ryan lied and everyone just accepted it. Ryan is an influencer but he is dishonest and flawed.. bad combo. It took me six years to sort that out and Ryan's lies will never get taken back in the minds of the public. Damage done.

Ryan is more interested in winning than getting things right. His arguments are riddled with juvenile strategies and fallacies.

He will endlessly mock Hahneman for not looking like sketch A (his opinion) and accuse me of bias even though I have the same position as the FBI on the sketches.. Ryan elevates an opinion to fact then uses it to eliminate..  it is the worst thing you can do while investigating a case like this, use an opinion to eliminate instead of facts.

But he doesn't know what he doesn't know.

I have many pics of Hahneman and he looks like three completely different people.. I even have one that looks surprisingly close to Sketch A except for the super skinny nose..  hair exact, round face shape and mouth very very close. So, Ryan's claim is bogus, it is just made up.

So, I challenge anybody to deal with Ryan, Nicky or anyone publicly disseminating false information to discredit you... to support their personal opinion, bias or agenda. These people are digging themselves into big holes, they just don't realize it yet.

but objectively, sketch B is better though it is still a composite sketch primarily created to generate leads.

 

Edited 9 hours ago by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 772]

On 4/7/2023 at 2:45 PM, olemisscub said:

Kinda like Hahneman missing multiple visible teeth on both sides of his mouth? That’s an absolute kill shot. That should be unrecoverable for a suspect. 
 

This fact should completely expunge Hahneman from contention as Cooper the same as it would any other suspect, but alas you’re going to shrug that off the same way you shrug off every single criticism of Hahneman thrown in your direction: it’s explained in your file. Is that right? 

This exemplifies Ryan's arrogant attitude and weaponization if his own misinformation and bias.. it carries over to the entire case.

The FBI file said several missing teeth upper sides..

When I got that file I also had a 1972 image of Hahneman showing his upper front teeth and none were missing. So, I knew there had to be some explanation,, but could only speculate. Was it a witness error, did he get teeth knocked out, did he wear a partial, no idea. Hahneman was an executive, it didn't make sense he would appear toothless and I had that photo showing his teeth intact.

Here is the difference between Ryan's research and mine..

He just accepted it as a fact then embellished it and said missing half his front teeth then it morphed to upper and lower... He lied because it fit his own bias.

I kept digging for 6 years and it was difficult but I discovered that only one person reported the missing teeth out of about 50 witnesses and they said it was the upper "bicuspids". those are down the side in front of the molar. NOT easy to see at all and common for people who wear braces.. further, removal of the bicuspids to straighten upper teeth often results in teeth moving back and the upper recess. That can cause the lower to protrude. Hahneman does have a protruding lower. 

So, Ryan completely screws this up and doubles down, he uses something that is actually false to eliminate a suspect and discredit me that in reality matches Cooper's sort of protruding lower lip..

Ryan tries to discredit me using an assumption he has about Hahneman that in reality matches Cooper. 

It is a bizarro world to be attacked from such a position of ignorance.... and it carries over to the entire case.

[olemisscub 548]