DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 782]

2 hours ago, lxchilton said:

I agree there is way too little out there about him--seems like his later entry into the parajacking pantheon and the fact that he was tight lipped about so much of it after the fact wrapped him up in a thicker air of mystery than the rest. The fact that he jumped into Honduras certainly makes it more unique and interesting too.

The fact that there's basically no public information about how the ransom money came back is bonkers.

Personally, I cannot get over the fact that he seems so much smaller than the general witness accounts of Cooper. Or that he seems to be described as looking entirely different. But I won't belabor that point any further. 

Maybe there is some evidence out there to show he's connected to Cooper somehow, but as it stands with publicly available information he's as much an outlier as most of the named suspects.

I would pay good money to see a solid movie or documentary on the whole Hahneman saga though!

I know where the money was hidden and how it was recovered.. and lots of other stuff.

He matches the physical description very well... 

He isn't smaller,, that is the poorly formed opinion from Ryan...

Cooper's described build and weight matches him and somebody close to 5' 10" not 6'....  witnesses had Cooper from 5' 9"... H was 5' 9 1/2" in shoes..  

The FBI used 5'8" as the lower bound.. 

This myth that he is too small is nonsense.

Mitchell had Cooper at 5' 9-10" medium build and 160 lbs,, said way smaller than himself at 6' 2"..  matches him exactly. Mitchell was 5 feet away from Cooper.

 

Way too many misunderstandings and misinformation... 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:22 PM by FLYJACK

[lxchilton 8]

21 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I know where the money was hidden and how it was recovered.. and lots of other stuff.

He matches the physical description very well... 

He isn't smaller,, that is the poorly formed opinion from Ryan...

Cooper's described build and weight matches him and somebody close to 5' 10" not 6'....  witnesses had Cooper from 5' 9"... H was 5' 9 1/2" in shoes..  

The FBI used 5'8" as the lower bound.. 

This myth that he is too small is nonsense.

Mitchell had Cooper at 5' 9-10" medium build and 160 lbs,, said way smaller than himself at 6' 2"..  matches him exactly. Mitchell was 5 feet away from Cooper.

 

Way too many misunderstandings and misinformation... 

 

 

I am not going to bite other than to say that that's a bit of a...stretch.

It's also interesting that Hahneman has 2 draft cards and is an inch shorter on the second one, right at 5'8". 

Edited Wednesday at 08:43 PM by lxchilton

[FLYJACK 782]

7 minutes ago, lxchilton said:

I am not going to bite other than to say that that's a bit of a...stretch.

It's also interesting that Hahneman has 2 draft cards and is an inch shorter on the second one, right at 5'8". 

It isn't a stretch it is fact.

This is why I really hate forums and repeatedly ignorant comments.. utter uninformed arrogant nonsense.

This has been discussed over and over and over...

People almost always self report height without shoes.. the FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for that reason.

Draft cards are self reported. DL's and passports are self reported..

He is 5' 8 1/2" self reporting without shoes,, I have numerous records of him 5' 9" and some 5' 8".. He is rounding up or down..

The kill shot is that I have almost ten witnesses claiming he was 5' 11" or 6' feet tall for his hijacking.. he wasn't... this is a myth that won't die.

Mitchell NAILED his size exactly....  

 

 

 

[olemisscub 574]

34 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Mitchell NAILED his size exactly....  

 

You mean he nailed YOUR suspect's size exactly... 

[FLYJACK 782]

20 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

You mean he nailed YOUR suspect's size exactly... 

Yes, of course "his" as in Hahneman's size...  that doesn't make him Cooper it means he is NOT an outlier.... and NOT too small..

 

[lxchilton 8]

19 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

The kill shot is that I have almost ten witnesses claiming he was 5' 11" or 6' feet tall for his hijacking.. he wasn't... this is a myth that won't die.

[FLYJACK 782]

18 minutes ago, lxchilton said:

Groupthink..

[lxchilton 8]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Groupthink..

I do think there is a lot of stuff in the Cooper case that deserves a harder look at rather than being treated as a fact (any science at Tena Bar, stuff on the tie, etc.), but I don't think that relying on the witness statements in the case is an example of groupthink. If the entire argument for a suspect is predicated on "what if everything was not as it seemed!" it sounds like it should join other fringe theories like "he never jumped," "he wasn't real," or "it was a CIA plot to strengthen airport security."

When does going against the grain turn into just ignoring the evidence we don't like and keeping that which we do?

[FLYJACK 782]

1 minute ago, lxchilton said:

I do think there is a lot of stuff in the Cooper case that deserves a harder look at rather than being treated as a fact (any science at Tena Bar, stuff on the tie, etc.), but I don't think that relying on the witness statements in the case is an example of groupthink. If the entire argument for a suspect is predicated on "what if everything was not as it seemed!" it sounds like it should join other fringe theories like "he never jumped," "he wasn't real," or "it was a CIA plot to strengthen airport security."

When does going against the grain turn into just ignoring the evidence we don't like and keeping that which we do?

Might be true as a generalization but not in this situation.. you seem to enjoy pulling generalization from your hat...

Claiming Hahneman is an outlier is absurd and abuse of reason. 

IMO, it is the same mediocre thinking that has plagued this case since the beginning and a little arrogance from people thinking they have some special insight the FBI didn't have.. 

The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for suspect elimination.

A suspect 5' 9.5" in shoes 160-165 lbs medium build is NOT an outlier.

This is an opinion based on a poor analysis of the evidence.

Groupthink has spread bad ideas like a cancer..

[DWeber 3]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Might be true as a generalization but not in this situation.. you seem to enjoy pulling generalization from your hat...

Claiming Hahneman is an outlier is absurd and abuse of reason. 

IMO, it is the same mediocre thinking that has plagued this case since the beginning and a little arrogance from people thinking they have some special insight the FBI didn't have.. 

The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for suspect elimination.

A suspect 5' 9.5" in shoes 160-165 lbs medium build is NOT an outlier.

This is an opinion based on a poor analysis of the evidence.

Groupthink has spread bad ideas like a cancer..

But aren’t you claiming to have some special insight the FBI didn’t have? 

[FLYJACK 782]

1 hour ago, DWeber said:

But aren’t you claiming to have some special insight the FBI didn’t have? 

I have found some big errors. Not sure if I would call it "special insight". Not the same thing.. Nobody has shown any evidence for Cooper's size that the FBI didn't have..

 

The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for suspects, the passenger witnesses all had 5' 9 -10" and averaged about 160 lbs..  even Tina had 5-10 as the lower bound... most well/medium/medium heavy build...  The passenger witnesses saw Cooper seated which makes it harder to estimate height.. but it doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong (short) and weight and build is not affected by Cooper sitting..  Mitchell said Cooper was way smaller 5' 9-10 160 lbs, he was 5 feet away, men are better at sizing other men than women are.. Mitchell was 6-2..  A guy 6' plus and a medium/heavy build is not likely 160 lbs... 

That evidence proves Hahneman's size is not an outlier.. it is within spec.. 

This case is riddled with assumptions elevated to facts used to back up poor opinions.

They are repeated and disseminated as fact..  they are not.

 

Edited yesterday at 02:29 AM by FLYJACK

[georger 271]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

I have found some big errors. Not sure if I would call it "special insight". Not the same thing.. Nobody has shown any evidence for Cooper's size that the FBI didn't have..

 

The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for suspects, the passenger witnesses all had 5' 9 -10" and averaged about 160 lbs..  even Tina had 5-10 as the lower bound... most well/medium/medium heavy build...  The passenger witnesses saw Cooper seated which makes it harder to estimate height.. but it doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong (short) and weight and build is not affected by Cooper sitting..  Mitchell said Cooper was way smaller 5' 9-10 160 lbs, he was 5 feet away, men are better at sizing other men than women are.. Mitchell was 6-2..  A guy 6' plus and a medium/heavy build is not likely 160 lbs... 

That evidence proves Hahneman's size is not an outlier.. it is within spec.. 

This case is riddled with assumptions elevated to facts used to back up poor opinions.

They are repeated and disseminated as fact..  they are not.

 

Shall we gather at the river? Ere we reach the shining river, Lay our burden down;
Grace our spirits and deliver, And provide a robe and crown. This case is riddled with assumptions. Elevated to facts used. To back up poor opinions. Gather at the river. And lay your burden down.

 

Edited yesterday at 03:08 AM by georger

[dudeman17 364]

There was a news show tonight discussing yesterday's shooting. They had a panel on talking about the tools and tactics the FBI has to try to find the shooter. One of them said, "This is not the 70's and this guy is not DB Cooper!"

[lxchilton 8]

9 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I have found some big errors. Not sure if I would call it "special insight". Not the same thing.. Nobody has shown any evidence for Cooper's size that the FBI didn't have..

 

The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for suspects, the passenger witnesses all had 5' 9 -10" and averaged about 160 lbs..  even Tina had 5-10 as the lower bound... most well/medium/medium heavy build...  The passenger witnesses saw Cooper seated which makes it harder to estimate height.. but it doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong (short) and weight and build is not affected by Cooper sitting..  Mitchell said Cooper was way smaller 5' 9-10 160 lbs, he was 5 feet away, men are better at sizing other men than women are.. Mitchell was 6-2..  A guy 6' plus and a medium/heavy build is not likely 160 lbs... 

That evidence proves Hahneman's size is not an outlier.. it is within spec.. 

This case is riddled with assumptions elevated to facts used to back up poor opinions.

They are repeated and disseminated as fact..  they are not.

 

I think we have to differentiate between using the lower height bound because it was expedient to remove as many outliers as possible while making sure they didn't discount someone because they got an erroneous height estimation from a tip and the FBI believing that their best witnesses to Cooper's height were completely wrong. Also the FBI was casting the widest net possible because they were stumped.

Since Cooper is sitting down the entire time Bill is observing him and we don't know the proportion of Cooper's legs to his torso AND we know Tina said he was slouched over the entire time he was seated, a seated estimation of height seems like the worst one to latch onto.

[FLYJACK 782]

44 minutes ago, lxchilton said:

I think we have to differentiate between using the lower height bound because it was expedient to remove as many outliers as possible while making sure they didn't discount someone because they got an erroneous height estimation from a tip and the FBI believing that their best witnesses to Cooper's height were completely wrong. Also the FBI was casting the widest net possible because they were stumped.

Since Cooper is sitting down the entire time Bill is observing him and we don't know the proportion of Cooper's legs to his torso AND we know Tina said he was slouched over the entire time he was seated, a seated estimation of height seems like the worst one to latch onto.

Again, extremely flawed and desperately twisted logic... 

Heights are not that accurate even self reported heights don't include shoes..

A guy 6' tall in shoes would be self reported 5-11"..

But, I am not arguing Cooper has to be under 5-10"... I am arguing he very well could be based on the evidence... and 5-9.5" is not an outlier,,, it is only 1/2" under Tina's range...

It is exactly in line with all the passenger witnesses... 5-9-10"

The described weight and build suggests closer to 5-10 not 6' or plus.

Even though Cooper was seated there is no evidence that all of the passengers were wrong,, that is an assumption...  a cancer in this case.

You people have misread the evidence.. and falsely overweighted some evidence and dismissed away others with no rational basis to do so.. You guys have no info that the FBI didn't have.

Nobody measured Cooper's height, when asked later people give an impression from recall.. Witness height estimates are not very accurate..

Hahneman walked around and his height estimates were all over the place up to many at 6 feet..

 

Alice didn't see him standing..

Cooper was rarely standing. It was dark when he stood up and ordered Tina to the front. 

The ticket/gate agents didn't know he was a hijacker, they said they couldn't remember him if they saw him again. Not reliable.

Flo only saw him standing when he boarded before he was known to be the hijacker.. the FBI thought Flo was emotional and less reliable than Mitchell.

 

To claim a suspect 5-9.5" in shoes is an outlier or eliminated based on the evidence is absurd...  It is an abuse of reason.

 

[lxchilton 8]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

To claim a suspect 5-9.5" in shoes is an outlier or eliminated based on the evidence is absurd...  It is an abuse of reason.

If this is the case then the same can be said about your reasoning. 

We have to make some assumptions in this case and a sort of violent "witnesses are never right about anything" bent doesn't seem like a rational choice to me. 

This is not a freshman college seminar where a student barges in and "steals" the professor's bag so that the professor can then ask the class what color hat he was wearing (he had no hat!), this is something of an outlier in terms of witness testimony. 

We can't say which witnesses are most correct because we don't know who Cooper was, but you can always assume that a person who sees someone standing is going to have a better idea of how tall they are vs. a person who saw the same someone sitting down. If that's an abuse of reason then so is the entirety of reality. 

Williams does indeed say "(he) is not sure he would recognize the individual...if he were to see him again," but he would certainly be looking for someone who was tall, slender, and 175-180lbs. Williams was in a place that was known to him, noticing a passenger who stood out from the others, and he made a note of his basic physical attributes in said setting. None of the worries over witness testimony would apply as Williams is not involved in the crime. 

I have no idea why the self reporting of heights is coming into this at all. Lots of people report their height in shoes when asked how tall they are and I assume some do not.

As for "The described weight and build suggests closer to 5-10 not 6' or plus." The witnesses gave a weight and also gave a height. Saying that one must be wrong because of the other is abusing reason; I know plenty of people who are quite a bit taller than 6' and are slender. I assume I am not the only person to know such people.

All said, it is certainly possible that Cooper was shorter than 6'. It's possible he was 5' 10". But at that point we are going so far against the grain of the general description of people who really looked at him that it's a couple of orders of magnitude less likely than the alternative. Why waste time on trying to make him someone he isn't and, instead, spend time looking for someone who actually fits the bill? 

[FLYJACK 782]

23 minutes ago, lxchilton said:

If this is the case then the same can be said about your reasoning. 

We have to make some assumptions in this case and a sort of violent "witnesses are never right about anything" bent doesn't seem like a rational choice to me. 

This is not a freshman college seminar where a student barges in and "steals" the professor's bag so that the professor can then ask the class what color hat he was wearing (he had no hat!), this is something of an outlier in terms of witness testimony. 

We can't say which witnesses are most correct because we don't know who Cooper was, but you can always assume that a person who sees someone standing is going to have a better idea of how tall they are vs. a person who saw the same someone sitting down. If that's an abuse of reason then so is the entirety of reality. 

Williams does indeed say "(he) is not sure he would recognize the individual...if he were to see him again," but he would certainly be looking for someone who was tall, slender, and 175-180lbs. Williams was in a place that was known to him, noticing a passenger who stood out from the others, and he made a note of his basic physical attributes in said setting. None of the worries over witness testimony would apply as Williams is not involved in the crime. 

I have no idea why the self reporting of heights is coming into this at all. Lots of people report their height in shoes when asked how tall they are and I assume some do not.

As for "The described weight and build suggests closer to 5-10 not 6' or plus." The witnesses gave a weight and also gave a height. Saying that one must be wrong because of the other is abusing reason; I know plenty of people who are quite a bit taller than 6' and are slender. I assume I am not the only person to know such people.

All said, it is certainly possible that Cooper was shorter than 6'. It's possible he was 5' 10". But at that point we are going so far against the grain of the general description of people who really looked at him that it's a couple of orders of magnitude less likely than the alternative. Why waste time on trying to make him someone he isn't and, instead, spend time looking for someone who actually fits the bill? 

You still fail to recognize my argument and are abusing the actual case evidence... and are employing a juvenile strawman..

 

A suspect 5-9.5" is NOT an outlier and is NOT eliminated based on the evidence..

If you guys believe this nonsense there is no discussion.

You are not equipped to evaluate the evidence.

End of discussion.

 

[Nicholas Broughton 87]

2 hours ago, lxchilton said:

If this is the case then the same can be said about your reasoning. 

We have to make some assumptions in this case and a sort of violent "witnesses are never right about anything" bent doesn't seem like a rational choice to me. 

This is not a freshman college seminar where a student barges in and "steals" the professor's bag so that the professor can then ask the class what color hat he was wearing (he had no hat!), this is something of an outlier in terms of witness testimony. 

We can't say which witnesses are most correct because we don't know who Cooper was, but you can always assume that a person who sees someone standing is going to have a better idea of how tall they are vs. a person who saw the same someone sitting down. If that's an abuse of reason then so is the entirety of reality. 

Williams does indeed say "(he) is not sure he would recognize the individual...if he were to see him again," but he would certainly be looking for someone who was tall, slender, and 175-180lbs. Williams was in a place that was known to him, noticing a passenger who stood out from the others, and he made a note of his basic physical attributes in said setting. None of the worries over witness testimony would apply as Williams is not involved in the crime. 

I have no idea why the self reporting of heights is coming into this at all. Lots of people report their height in shoes when asked how tall they are and I assume some do not.

As for "The described weight and build suggests closer to 5-10 not 6' or plus." The witnesses gave a weight and also gave a height. Saying that one must be wrong because of the other is abusing reason; I know plenty of people who are quite a bit taller than 6' and are slender. I assume I am not the only person to know such people.

All said, it is certainly possible that Cooper was shorter than 6'. It's possible he was 5' 10". But at that point we are going so far against the grain of the general description of people who really looked at him that it's a couple of orders of magnitude less likely than the alternative. Why waste time on trying to make him someone he isn't and, instead, spend time looking for someone who actually fits the bill? 

Bang on. It’s cherry picking at its finest. Let’s just toss out the height estimate  given by the witness who had the longest observation time of him standing, in like you said a known setting to him and not knowing he was a skyjacker, that got within inches of him when he handed him his ticket. Why? Because he thought he probably wouldn’t recognize him again by face…. has nothing to do with his height. Pretty delusional reasoning for discounting Hal’s height estimate IMO. I think Hal being honest about that makes him an even more credible witness. 

[olemisscub 574]

 

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

the FBI thought Flo was emotional and less reliable than Mitchell.

 

Hearsay from Galen Cook. Please provide a document from the actual investigation that suggests anything of the sort. 

[olemisscub 574]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Again, extremely flawed and desperately twisted logic... 

 

Do you have any self awareness? You're actually claiming that it is "desperately twisted logic" to opine that eyewitnesses who saw a person standing are more likely to provide an accurate height estimation over eyewitnesses who only saw a person sitting. 

[FLYJACK 782]

1 minute ago, olemisscub said:

Do you have any self awareness? You're actually claiming that it is "desperately twisted logic" to opine that eyewitnesses who saw a person standing are more likely to provide an accurate height estimation over eyewitnesses who only saw a person sitting. 

That is not what I am saying....   you never fail to disappoint in your twisted logic.

You and others claim a suspect 5-9.5" in shoes is an outlier or eliminated,, that is an opinion based on an a poor analysis of the evidence... and frankly some ignorance.

Ryan you are smart guy, I really don't understand why you take that position.. it is not supported by the evidence.

It is YOU who has inflated an opinion to fact.. and applied a negation against basic logic. This is amateur stuff.. 

It is a generalization (fallacy) without context to claim the witnesses seeing Cooper standing are correct and the others are not.. Each of those witnesses had a brief and unique experience... all but Tina say him standing BEFORE he was known to be the hijacker.

and many Hahneman witnesses were also at 6 feet... HE was standing and KNOWN to be the hijacker.

Height recall is not that reliable...  and must be assessed within its context.

Generalizations are ok for speculation but they shouldn't be used for negation.

Cooper's height is not known fact,, no matter what you think.

I am NOT claiming he must be under 5-10", YOU guys are claiming he can't be..

Your collective failures in understanding this distinction and your own bad logic indicates that this is a waste of time..

So, go immerse yourselves in your own groupthink,,  I have no patience for irrational arguments..

 

Here is how this goes,,, you guys will figure this out in a few years and think it is something new... congratulate and praise each other as arbiters of Cooper truth..

 

 

[FLYJACK 782]

37 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

 

Hearsay from Galen Cook. Please provide a document from the actual investigation that suggests anything of the sort. 

Evidence and Rat also indicated Flo was emotional reluctant to follow instructions.. and kept her in the cabin. You know that, you have admitted that.

I don't need documentation.. this isn't a court case.

 

[FLYJACK 782]

46 minutes ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

Bang on. It’s cherry picking at its finest. Let’s just toss out the height estimate  given by the witness who had the longest observation time of him standing, in like you said a known setting to him and not knowing he was a skyjacker, that got within inches of him when he handed him his ticket. Why? Because he thought he probably wouldn’t recognize him again by face…. has nothing to do with his height. Pretty delusional reasoning for discounting Hal’s height estimate IMO. I think Hal being honest about that makes him an even more credible witness. 

Projection...

[lxchilton 8]

Here's my incredibly detailed and precise example of why sitting is bad for judging height:

The inverted triangles are, from top to bottom: head, torso, legs. Exaggerated of course!

All of these triangle people are the same height but if the first sits down he's going to look shorter than the other two. 

Seems like Cooper might have been more like our small torso triangle man and if he was slumping over the whole time...

[lxchilton 8]

18 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

That is not what I am saying....   you never fail to disappoint in your twisted logic.

You and others claim a suspect 5-9.5" in shoes is an outlier or eliminated,, that is an opinion based on an a poor analysis of the evidence... and frankly some ignorance.

Ryan you are smart guy, I really don't understand why you take that position.. it is not supported by the evidence.

It is YOU who has inflated an opinion to fact.. and applied a negation against basic logic. This is amateur stuff.. 

It is a generalization (fallacy) without context to claim the witnesses seeing Cooper standing are correct and the others are not.. Each of those witnesses had a brief and unique experience... all but Tina say him standing BEFORE he was known to be the hijacker.

and many Hahneman witnesses were also at 6 feet... HE was standing and KNOWN to be the hijacker.

Height recall is not that reliable...  and must be assessed within its context.

Generalizations are ok for speculation but they shouldn't be used for negation.

Cooper's height is not known fact,, no matter what you think.

I am NOT claiming he must be under 5-10", YOU guys are claiming he can't be..

Your collective failures in understanding this distinction and your own bad logic indicates that this is a waste of time..

So, go immerse yourselves in your own groupthink,,  I have no patience for irrational arguments..

 

Here is how this goes,,, you guys will figure this out in a few years and think it is something new... congratulate and praise each other as arbiters of Cooper truth..

 

 

Ultimately, all I am saying (and I am not a part of some cabal of Cooper people) is that since there are so many unknowns in this case I am choosing to narrow down the likelihood of a suspect using a different set of criteria than you.

I am not arguing the validity of yours to your own self, I am just a little put off by choosing so narrow a focus on what appears to me to be one of the areas least likely to achieve a positive result. 

It's...interesting to begin with and the fact that your two choices to back it up/argue for it are 1) being abrasive and 2) refusing to actually back anything up in an argument about how others are misusing facts is wild. 

And boring, in the end. 

How do you rationalize your assertion that people who are not privy to the hijacking are less reliable than those who are? When we get into unreliable witness testimony we are almost always talking about people who knew they were witness to a crime.