DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 775]

8 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

 

Of course people get things right and wrong at the same time. Duh. I wasn't actually making that argument. I was being facetious to highlight your obvious cherry picking. You clearly prioritize witness descriptions that suit you and dismiss those that don't. How do you know Alice was wrong about Cooper's nose? You don't. For all we know she could be some savant like Rain Man and have a photographic memory. But you discount her automatically because it doesn't work for you for Cooper to have a small nose. But when it comes to her being the only one who said Cooper's sunglasses looked prescription...hold the phones! You'll believe her on that one because your suspect wore prescription sunglasses. 

It really is remarkable how the only witnesses descriptions in this case that you put stock in are the ones that confirm your bias for your suspect. It's uncanny how that always happens. You are a biased researcher. Again, if Hahneman had been six feet tall would you still be hammering out thousands and thousands of words on a keyboard arguing that Cooper MIGHT could have been 5'8? Of course you wouldn't. You don't argue with me over my belief that Cooper was unattractive, but if Hahneman looked like Brad Pitt you would be. You don't argue with me about my belief that Cooper needs to look ethnic, but if Hahneman was as white as most of the other suspects you would be. 

Seriously, look at the things that you spend so much effort gnashing your teeth at me over: my opinion that Cooper was close to 6 feet tall, that his nose wasn't large, and that Comp A is the better sketch. Hell of a coincidence that Hahneman was 5'8, had a larger nose, and cannot conceivably be a match for Comp A. 

Cry all you want and say I'm attacking you. That's fine. But it's quite obvious why you argue with me so strenuously about certain aspects of Cooper's description. You have a clear agenda and you interpret the evidence to fit that agenda. 

Sure, you use hyperbole, you are being facetious when you try to make an argument..

You always claim I am bias to discredit the messenger and distract from the facts... you have no argument.

When I agree with the FBI you claim I am biased because you are projecting.

I don't have a problem with your opinion that Cooper was closer to 6' feet, I do have a problem with your assertion that he can't be under 5-10'... see you twist my position to fit your own narrative. Hahneman was at least 5-9 in shoes.. not 5-8. You keep making him shorter than he was..

How do I know Alice was wrong,, it is called evidence.. sketch B.. suspects that were liked.. other witnesses... how do you know she was wrong about the prescription sunglasses,, there is no contradicting evidence. NONE

Small nose is subjective... sketch B was wider than A.. it required a wider nose.

You are one of the most dishonest people I have ever run across in the Vortex...

Your bias is to be right so you just make up unfounded accusations. If I don't agree with your crazy ideas it is because I am biased, not the actual evidence.

 

Is the FBI biased too...

The FBI said sketch B is the best.. 

The FBI used 5-8- 6' for suspect elimination.. 

 

Anybody who disagrees with you is biased.

Do you even realize how insane that is.. it is a self serving lie..

 

 

[FLYJACK 775]

25 minutes ago, c99acer said:

Are you two sure that you're comparing the same sketches to each other and to what the stewardesses said?

I am sure I know which sketch was; "Initial", "Original", "First", "A", or any other terms we have seen. Now add in the game of telephone between the witness, the interviewer, and the one writing the information into the reports. Does everyone know which of the sketches was truly being discussed? Did all the witnesses know there was an "Initial" sketch? Did any of the witnesses only know "A" as the first sketch? Did "A" only gain a label after Sketch "B" came out? 

Did any of the interviews with the witnesses have a visual of the sketch attached to the reports? Or do we all just attach one of the ambiguous labels to it and think we are all speaking the same language?

It is a bit confusing but Ryan and I have them sorted..

Ryan did find an attribution error in the files, but jumped on it thinking that was the reason B was made,, it was not and that is clear in the files. Sketches are not created to eliminate potential suspects per se but to stimulate tips.. Sketch A was too young and clean cut looking causing too many poor tips and wasting agents time. Sketch B was created to produce better tips.. Ryan thinks A was better, it wasn't, the FBI even admitted B was better in the files. 

Ryan has no argument whatsoever. He is too stubborn to take the L..

Apparently claiming I am biased means he is right the FBI is wrong and Cooper had a small nose, that is his insane logic.

KK5-1 was picked out for A and then used as a basis for B...  

Flo also gave adjustments to KK5-1 but not his big nose..

 

In the end these sketches are not meant to represent Cooper exactly but to elicit tips..

 

 

[CooperNWO305 159]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

 

Of course people get things right and wrong at the same time. Duh. I wasn't actually making that argument. I was being facetious to highlight your obvious cherry picking. You clearly prioritize witness descriptions that suit you and dismiss those that don't. How do you know Alice was wrong about Cooper's nose? You don't. For all we know she could be some savant like Rain Man and have a photographic memory. But you discount her automatically because it doesn't work for you for Cooper to have a small nose. But when it comes to her being the only one who said Cooper's sunglasses looked prescription...hold the phones! You'll believe her on that one because your suspect wore prescription sunglasses. 

It really is remarkable how the only witnesses descriptions in this case that you put stock in are the ones that confirm your bias for your suspect. It's uncanny how that always happens. You are a biased researcher. Again, if Hahneman had been six feet tall would you still be hammering out thousands and thousands of words on a keyboard arguing that Cooper MIGHT could have been 5'8? Of course you wouldn't. You don't argue with me over my belief that Cooper was unattractive, but if Hahneman looked like Brad Pitt you would be. You don't argue with me about my belief that Cooper needs to look ethnic, but if Hahneman was as white as most of the other suspects you would be. 

Seriously, look at the things that you spend so much effort gnashing your teeth at me over: my opinion that Cooper was close to 6 feet tall, that his nose wasn't large, and that Comp A is the better sketch. Hell of a coincidence that Hahneman was 5'8, had a larger nose, and cannot conceivably be a match for Comp A. 

Cry all you want and say I'm attacking you. That's fine. But it's quite obvious why you argue with me so strenuously about certain aspects of Cooper's description. You have a clear agenda and you interpret the evidence to fit that agenda. 

Ryan. Are you saying that if Fly was not researching Hahneman that he would prefer sketch A?

[FLYJACK 775]

38 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Ryan. Are you saying that if Fly was not researching Hahneman that he would prefer sketch A?

Yes he is,, 

Convenient, you can never be wrong if you accuse anyone who disagrees with your opinion of being biased.. the FBI must be biased as well.

It is dishonest,, 

Of course it isn't true.. Ryan is a desperate liar.. 

Here is a pic of Hahneman and sketch A,,, the hair is the same, closer than any suspect.. the red frame is exactly the same so the position of features is identical,,, the only real difference is his nose is slightly wider.

So, If I was biased I would claim sketch A was better to match this pic of Hahneman, but that is not what the evidence shows..

This proves I am not biased and Ryan is a liar... and Ryan's sleazy lawyer tactics are undermining the advancement of this case. 

Take the L, Ryan..

Edited 16 hours ago by FLYJACK

[Kamkisky 13]

Fly - out of curiosity, how do you explain the Hahneman sketch? 

[FLYJACK 775]

5 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

Fly - out of curiosity, how do you explain the Hahneman sketch? 

What do you mean..

 

[Kamkisky 13]

37 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

What do you mean..

 

That sketch looks like him more than any Cooper sketch. 

[FLYJACK 775]

2 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

That sketch looks like him more than any Cooper sketch. 

Not sure what you mean exactly... I have lots of pics of Hahneman and he looks like three entirely different people,, His sketch looks like one of his pics that is really poor and AI enhanced..

Like the Cooper sketch, witness liked parts of his sketch and disliked other parts.. One didn't like it at all.

He has a forgettable look,, changes his hair style, weight fluctuated in his face and complexion went from white to very dark if in sun.. Some witnesses were shown his actual pic and they said definitely not him... 

The Cooper sketch was produced by very few witnesses,, Hahneman had close to 50 witnesses...  

I know Ryan and Nicky will blow a gasket but I have an undisclosed Cooper image that matches Hahneman maybe 90%...  It is just a fact they can't deal with.

Hahneman also looks like Murphy who witnesses said was the best match in hundreds..

So, sketches are just for generating leads,, even the two Cooper sketches look like two different people. Three if you count Flo's later sketch.

Cooper has four completely different images...  which one is Cooper?

My view is this case is unique in that it remained unsolved so you can't treat it like a typical crime case.. you have to be more open and not an absolutist because there reasons the case was not solved using standard investigative techniques,, that is where most people go wrong in this case. "Cooper was not under 5-10" "Cooper has a tiny nose"... "Using the front stairs is better than using the rear"..  "H is not Cooper because he demanded Benson and Hedges" "H is not Cooper because he was missing two upper bicuspids"."H is not Cooper because he is the worst match to the sketch on the world" "Skip has extreme forehead lines and lumps on his face, Cooper has forehead lines".... this is complete nonsense, confirmation bias.

The irony is that I know Ryan has that same Hahneman image I posted above that looks like sketch A, he claims A is the best Cooper but he still claims Hahneman is the worst match in the world.. that proves how dishonest Ryan is... 

Ryan knew that pic looked like A and still trashed Hahneman for not matching the sketch.

NEVER, EVER trust this guy... He wants to own the Cooper narrative and lies to achieve it.

[Kamkisky 13]

Of the photos I’ve seen of him the sketch of H is a really good likeness. Maybe there are other photos of H around 1971 that like look the Cooper sketches, but until those are seen by the public that’s not part of the record. So on the record there are the Cooper sketches that don’t look as close to H as his sketch. That’s a problem for H as Cooper.

Two skyjackings. One sketch looks just like H. The other skyjacking sketches don’t as much. Until there’s more evidence presented that’s what’s on the record. I think you can see how it’s fair for people to come to that determination. 

[FLYJACK 775]

23 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

Of the photos I’ve seen of him the sketch of H is a really good likeness. Maybe there are other photos of H around 1971 that like look the Cooper sketches, but until those are seen by the public that’s not part of the record. So on the record there are the Cooper sketches that don’t look as close to H as his sketch. That’s a problem for H as Cooper.

Two skyjackings. One sketch looks just like H. The other skyjacking sketches don’t as much. Until there’s more evidence presented that’s what’s on the record. I think you can see how it’s fair for people to come to that determination. 

Not sure what you are saying.. 

You think that eliminates him?

 

 

 

 

[Kamkisky 13]

28 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Not sure what you are saying.. 

You think that eliminates him?

 

 

 

 

I think it presents an obstacle to the case it’s him. If a H photo from when he was caught was juxtaposed to the H sketch and any Cooper sketch you want the results would be overwhelming. Massively disproportionate. 
 

You say you have photos of H that look like the Cooper sketches and a sketch of Cooper that looks more like H. But those aren’t in the record so they can’t be evaluated by the broader community. Therefore, people can discount it. There’s no evidence that’s been submitted. Barring a submission you have to expect people to poo-poo it. That’s the appropriate response. 

Edited 12 hours ago by Kamkisky

[CooperNWO305 159]

13 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

I think it presents an obstacle to the case it’s him. If a H photo from when he was caught was juxtaposed to the H sketch and any Cooper sketch you want the results would be overwhelming. Massively disproportionate. 
 

You say you have photos of H that look like the Cooper sketches and a sketch of Cooper that looks more like H. But those aren’t in the record so they can’t be evaluated by the broader community. Therefore, people can discount it. There’s no evidence that’s been submitted. Barring a submission you have to expect people to poo-poo it. That’s the appropriate response. 

There’s a lot to making a suspect be Cooper. But I can vouch. I’ve seen the pics and they are legit. He owes nothing to the broader community. As I remember there was a lot more witness views during Hahneman’s hijacking, and it happened after Cooper, so people were likely more primed up to look at someone like that. 
 

 

[FLYJACK 775]

52 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

I think it presents an obstacle to the case it’s him. If a H photo from when he was caught was juxtaposed to the H sketch and any Cooper sketch you want the results would be overwhelming. Massively disproportionate. 
 

You say you have photos of H that look like the Cooper sketches and a sketch of Cooper that looks more like H. But those aren’t in the record so they can’t be evaluated by the broader community. Therefore, people can discount it. There’s no evidence that’s been submitted. Barring a submission you have to expect people to poo-poo it. That’s the appropriate reason. 

You didn't answer the question..  

 

FWW,, I am not making the case here or now...

maybe tomorrow I find something that eliminates him 100%..

Edited 11 hours ago by FLYJACK

[Kamkisky 13]

13 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

You didn't answer the question..  

I asked you not "people"..  

 

 

I can only evaluate the evidence on record.

The evidence on record show the sketch made of H looks like the photos of him immediately after his skyjacking. The sketch’s of Cooper don’t look like him IMO. But beyond just my opinion, a poll of his photo post skyjacking and both H/C sketches wouldn’t be close, at all.

Is any of that definitive, nahh. But it’s big problem. One that is not overcome-able without new evidence. And until that evidence is submitted for scrutiny by the larger community it can’t counted because it can’t be falsified or contextualized. It might exist, but it doesn’t count. Once it’s available, different story. But until then…

Edited 11 hours ago by Kamkisky

[Kamkisky 13]

52 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

There’s a lot to making a suspect be Cooper. But I can vouch. I’ve seen the pics and they are legit. He owes nothing to the broader community. As I remember there was a lot more witness views during Hahneman’s hijacking, and it happened after Cooper, so people were likely more primed up to look at someone like that. 
 

 

That’s good but it doesn’t overcome the obstacle. 

It’s like any unknown suspect, the goods might be there but until submitted it’s not viable. Otherwise anyone could claim they found Cooper without showing key evidence.

If someone wants to build up their evidence base in private..cool. But it doesn’t prove anything in anyone else’s eyes. It might be the real McCoy (so sorry, had to) or it might be hype. The vortex has seen its share of hype. I’m not saying Fly doesn’t have more, I’m saying no one will believe it until they can inspect it and that’s the appropriate response. 

Edited 11 hours ago by Kamkisky

[CooperNWO305 159]

3 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

That’s good but it doesn’t overcome the obstacle. 

It’s like any unknown suspect, the goods might be there but until submitted it’s not viable. Otherwise anyone could claim they found Cooper without showing key evidence.

If someone wants to build up their evidence base in private..cool. But it doesn’t prove anything in anyone else’s eyes. It might be the real McCoy (so sorry, had to) or it might be hype. The vortex has seen its share of hype. I’m not say Fly doesn’t have more, I’m saying no one will believe it until they can inspect it and that’s the appropriate response. 

I think you’re fairly new to the group, maybe not to the case. You may or may not know the history here. Fly really does not spend much time selling Hahneman. It really only happens as a result of Ryan’s comments. Fly is one of those guys who does not need the spotlight. He works independently and from what I’ve learned, he values the process and the analysis. He has quite an array of hobbies and life experiences. He found one guitar that was pretty cool and made on CNN, but the one he just found is even better. He doesn’t brag. He will sit on info for years, and does not need the community approval. Frankly no one does. If he gets what he needs, then it does not matter what this community says. At least that’s how I feel and operate. Plenty of well known researchers want nothing to do with this group. Who should Fly show his info to? Eric? Nicky? Ryan?  He’s had info basically stolen already. You see how Ryan and Nicky tried to gang up on him. This has been going on for a while. You simply can not trust the group. It leaks like a sieve. If people don’t believe him then so be it. It’s just funny how people fell all over Eric’s particle analysis and then Vordhal and then Hall. So even if Fly showed a video of Hahnemann hijacking 305, the usual suspects would discount it. 
 

I don’t think he cares if the group believes him or not. I don’t. 

[Kamkisky 13]

2 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

I think you’re fairly new to the group, maybe not to the case. You may or may not know the history here. Fly really does not spend much time selling Hahneman. It really only happens as a result of Ryan’s comments. Fly is one of those guys who does not need the spotlight. He works independently and from what I’ve learned, he values the process and the analysis. He has quite an array of hobbies and life experiences. He found one guitar that was pretty cool and made on CNN, but the one he just found is even better. He doesn’t brag. He will sit on info for years, and does not need the community approval. Frankly no one does. If he gets what he needs, then it does not matter what this community says. At least that’s how I feel and operate. Plenty of well known researchers want nothing to do with this group. Who should Fly show his info to? Eric? Nicky? Ryan?  He’s had info basically stolen already. You see how Ryan and Nicky tried to gang up on him. This has been going on for a while. You simply can not trust the group. It leaks like a sieve. If people don’t believe him then so be it. It’s just funny how people fell all over Eric’s particle analysis and then Vordhal and then Hall. So even if Fly showed a video of Hahnemann hijacking 305, the usual suspects would discount it. 
 

I don’t think he cares if the group believes him or not. I don’t. 

Fair. He doesn’t have to care what others think. He can sit on evidence he found. But that comes with an understanding that others are inherently going to be highly skeptical and critical and they are justified in being so. 
 

Also, I agree that DNA, clear video, a hundred eyewitnesses, fingerprints and a full confession wouldn’t convince 100% of people. That’s not really my point. I’m just noting that until evidence is available on the record -that is available for public scrutiny- it’s easily discountable. It doesn’t count. Show it or be ready to be discounted. That’s how it works, right? 

[FLYJACK 775]

7 hours ago, Kamkisky said:

I can only evaluate the evidence on record.

The evidence on record show the sketch made of H looks like the photos of him immediately after his skyjacking. The sketch’s of Cooper don’t look like him IMO. But beyond just my opinion, a poll of his photo post skyjacking and both H/C sketches wouldn’t be close, at all.

Is any of that definitive, nahh. But it’s big problem. One that is not overcome-able without new evidence. And until that evidence is submitted for scrutiny by the larger community it can’t counted because it can’t be falsified or contextualized. It might exist, but it doesn’t count. Once it’s available, different story. But until then…

You still didn't answer the question..  

Have you eliminated him?   not that you think he is Cooper.. but you know he isn't.

[FLYJACK 775]

8 hours ago, Kamkisky said:

Fair. He doesn’t have to care what others think. He can sit on evidence he found. But that comes with an understanding that others are inherently going to be highly skeptical and critical and they are justified in being so. 
 

Also, I agree that DNA, clear video, a hundred eyewitnesses, fingerprints and a full confession wouldn’t convince 100% of people. That’s not really my point. I’m just noting that until evidence is available on the record -that is available for public scrutiny- it’s easily discountable. It doesn’t count. Show it or be ready to be discounted. That’s how it works, right? 

So, you have a false premise... people should be skeptical, I am one of the most skeptical people around.. question everything. Skeptical is the correct position.... When I started researching H I tried to find a reason to 100% eliminate him,,  facts, not opinions.  I still haven't found it.. and I did find a massive error by the FBI.

Skepticism is not the issue,, the issue is guys like Ryan and now Nicky who harass and attack me personally for not accepting their positions.. as if they are some arbiter if truth... they just lie to discredit me to justify their own opinions, not facts. I have seen a lot in this case but the lies and personal attacks from Ryan are off the charts.. if I said here what I really think of him I would get banned.

Ryan is suffering from a cognitive dissonance.. He knows I am a very good researcher but he has eliminated Hahneman.. those things are incompatible. To resolve this internal conflict he has decided that I have "psychological defect", "won't admit I am wrong", "have a confirmation bias" etc...  He must destroy me to justify his own position. Ryan doesn't even consider that he may be wrong. 

Why does he care what I think,, because he is not confident in his own position and I am a threat. He doesn't attack others who actively push suspects that aren't Cooper..

Ryan doesn't attack Limbach for Skip,, even though Skip has severe forehead lines and facial lumps,, and the claim he is wearing Cooper's Towncraft tie in a pic is debunked.. way too short.

Now Ryan finds himself in another dilemma... he claims sketch A is best (B is best) and I posted a pic of H that matches A very well.. but he has trashed H saying he is the worst match in the world.. He trashed me saying I am only biased for sketch B because of H,,   Now, the cognitive dissonance will be off the charts..

Ryan will ignore it, manufacture some incoherent excuse or just attack me more..

So no, skepticism isn't the problem,, absolutism is,, it a cancer in this case.

Absolutists are low level thinkers... they are detrimental to the advancement of this case.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by FLYJACK

[Kamkisky 13]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

You still didn't answer the question..  

Have you eliminated him?   not that you think he is Cooper.. but you know he isn't.

It’s a spectrum. I would eliminate at 6’6’’ suspect definitively. So there is a category of suspect that’s just flat out, not Cooper. 

Based on the evidence on the record about H I would say he isn’t Cooper but with a caveat, show me new evidence and I’ll reconsider. I’m not reconsidering a 6’6’’ suspect. H did do a similar crime and is the right age, etc. And getting from 5’8’’-5’9’’ to 5’10’’-5’11’’ is conceivable. So I don’t see him as Cooper but would not definitively rule him out. 

Where I fully agree is that there’s something off. That’s why it hasn’t been solved. It’s been said that Cooper will be 15% different than one of the things considered fact/canonical. That’s something I believe to be the case.