DB Cooper

[olemisscub 582]

5 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

No way you have ever lied about or tried to discredit Drew like you have done to me...

 

No one has to lie about anything to discredit you. Your bias is apparent to everyone. You discredit yourself by having such a poor suspect. There's a reason no one else in the Vortex supports Hahneman as Cooper, and it's not because you're the only one of us who has access to super secret hidden knowledge: it's because he's a dramatically flawed suspect. 

Edited September 15 by olemisscub

[olemisscub 582]

5 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

It has never occurred to you that you don't actually know everything and you might be wrong...

 

You do realize that this is how the entire Vortex views you. I've proven to be malleable and have admitted to being wrong numerous times. You on the other hand...

[FLYJACK 785]

23 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

No one has to lie about anything to discredit you. Your bias is apparent to everyone. You discredit yourself by having such a poor suspect. There's a reason no one else in the Vortex supports Hahneman as Cooper, and it's not because you're the only one of us who has access to super secret hidden knowledge: it's because he's a dramatically flawed suspect. 

You have lied,,, even that recent post is full of of lies..  

My bias is following the evidence I have,, which isn't apparent to you because you have a fraction of the knowledge that I have..

You have trashed Hahneman for years and have spread misinformation that has convinced people Hahneman can't be Cooper,, and I actually don't mind that.

He isn't flawed, that is your opinion,, there is no evidence that eliminates him.. you have never produced anything other than your own lies, distortions and opinions..

When I began looking at him I expected to find a smoking gun that eliminates him and move on,, it doesn't exist.. Instead I found evidence that makes a stronger case,,,

[FLYJACK 785]

3 hours ago, olemisscub said:

You do realize that this is how the entire Vortex views you. I've proven to be malleable and have admitted to being wrong numerous times. You on the other hand...

My track record in this case and outside is excellent... I get things right because I apply logic and don't trap myself in absolutes....  The constant attacks by you and and your cohorts distort peoples view... Cunningham, you and Nicky all lied about me regarding leaving the DZ,,, which is irrelevant to anything anyway.. like a bunch of high school gossip girls making up stuff... You even said I have a psychological issue... because I won't admit Hahneman isn't Cooper...   that is insane.. You twist my positions and strawman them like a Mississippi lawyer would....

and I am not working on this case for you or any others,, not for likes or to make friends, what others think is completely irrelevant.. nobody has the info I have and I am doing this for myself.. It would not be reasonable for others to agree with me based on their knowledge.

No, I don't have anything wrong because I apply logic and don't make absolute claims.. I never claimed I can prove Hahneman is Cooper, I could find something tomorrow that eliminates him...

You claim Cooper can't be under 5-10.. I never claimed he can't be 6 feet.. see the difference. Probably not, you can't even comprehend self reported height vs observed height..

We just have a different process for investigating things,,, my bias is to be open and use assumptions to advance theories to be explored... You use assumptions to form opinions that get elevated to fact and end inquiries.. My approach advances the case, yours stifles it.

If you have evidence that legitimately eliminates Hahneman. Let me know... what you have presented so far is opinions and distortions.. and I don't hold your opinions as very credible.. 

You have to understand, you don't own this case and you aren't the arbiter of truth,,, you are extremely flawed and I don't think you have what it takes to solve this thing.

You tried to sell us Vordahl....  I am not selling anybody..

 

and I keep forgetting that Hahneman scores near perfect on your own suspect matrix (due to your flawed height thing),,,  you just ignore that and underscored him throughout...

The worst thing anybody can do in this case is to follow the crowd...  and rely on self imposed "experts"..

 

Edited September 15 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 785]

Leaving Seattle the ground could not be seen...

[georger 271]

6 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Leaving Seattle the ground could not be seen...

Nor Hong Kong either.

[FLYJACK 785]

5 hours ago, georger said:

Nor Hong Kong either.

I know you have this thing for Cooper in Hong Kong...

but everyone seems to just assume Cooper could see the ground...

That isn't likely,, possible if there was a break but it was low visibility and overcast.

 

 

[lxchilton 10]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I know you have this thing for Cooper in Hong Kong...

but everyone seems to just assume Cooper could see the ground...

That isn't likely,, possible if there was a break but it was low visibility and overcast.

 

 

I've always assumed he could see some kind of light through the clouds, though it would have been visible as a brighter section of clouds rather than literally seeing the lights themselves. 

[Kamkisky 30]

16 minutes ago, lxchilton said:

I've always assumed he could see some kind of light through the clouds, though it would have been visible as a brighter section of clouds rather than literally seeing the lights themselves. 

Agreed. All this describes is typical November PNW weather. It’s patchy, rolling grey and periodic light rain. It wasn’t a giant storm covering the state of Washington. As the plane traveled there would have been more visibility sometimes and less others. 

[FLYJACK 785]

It isn't a certainty that he could see the ground lights where he jumped but he wouldn't be able to see anything if he could until he was down the stairs..

He may have just jumped blind...

[lxchilton 10]

23 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

It isn't a certainty that he could see the ground lights where he jumped but he wouldn't be able to see anything if he could until he was down the stairs..

He may have just jumped blind...

Yeah he was at best approximating how far they had traveled until he was down the stairs. And he jumps so soon after that...he either had immaculate timing, just immediately went for it, or saw whatever he wanted to real quick. 

[Kamkisky 30]

31 minutes ago, lxchilton said:

Yeah he was at best approximating how far they had traveled until he was down the stairs. And he jumps so soon after that...he either had immaculate timing, just immediately went for it, or saw whatever he wanted to real quick. 

It makes total sense he jumped quick. As soon as he sees lights he knows they are closing in on Portland and he can’t wait. Landing in a city is game over. He has to jump at the first sign of lights, which is exactly what he did. This is what makes me think he picked that region to jump into.
 

Again, Mac did the same thing. He wanted to see lights, but not jump into a city. It just makes sense, there’s no reason Cooper wouldn’t do the same The difference is Cooper limited the variables so he knew what city the lights represented and thus knew what terrain type he was over. 

[lxchilton 10]

16 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

It makes total sense he jumped quick. As soon as he sees lights he knows they are closing in on Portland and he can’t wait. Landing in a city is game over. He has to jump at the first sign of lights, which is exactly what he did. This is what makes me think he picked that region to jump into.
 

Again, Mac did the same thing. He wanted to see lights, but not jump into a city. It just makes sense, there’s no reason Cooper wouldn’t do the same The difference is Cooper limited the variables so he knew what city the lights represented and thus knew what terrain type he was over. 

I think that's right though I will reserve a small possibility that he got very lucky with it; it's more likely that he was doing something in a small way to make sure they headed dead south, but it's also possibly he was just like "I bet they will fly one way no matter what!" and then they did and it worked out too.

[olemisscub 582]

20 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

If you have evidence that legitimately eliminates Hahneman. Let me know...

What WOULD legitimately eliminate him in your opinion? I dare say that when we inevitably get 302's from Tina et al saying that Hahneman wasn't Cooper, you won't accept that to eliminate him. So what would? I'm not even being jerky in asking this. I'm sincerely curious. 

[FLYJACK 785]

8 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

What WOULD legitimately eliminate him in your opinion? I dare say that when we inevitably get 302's from Tina et al saying that Hahneman wasn't Cooper, you won't accept that to eliminate him. So what would? I'm not even being jerky in asking this. I'm sincerely curious. 

"Sincerely curious",, no you aren't,, you don't have anything so you flip the question onto me.

You have eliminated him already not me,,,, so you must know something I don't.... apparently not.

Claiming some evidence that doesn't exist isn't very honest.. we'll see if any new evidence comes up.. 

I realize it is very difficult to eliminate so called suspects..  even bad ones.. especially in a 50+ year old case.. So, I don't expect an answer..

I am making a point..you attack me for NOT agreeing with you and eliminating him, you said I have a psychological issue, sunk cost, bias,, etc.. 

You are experiencing a cognitive dissonance, you know I am a good researcher but can't accept that we have different conclusions,, Instead of acknowledging that you may be wrong with far less info, you attack me publicly to convince yourself you are right..

If you want to eliminate him prematurely that is great,, just don't attack me for not sharing that opinion..  

If he is not Cooper,, then why are you so obsessed with attacking me over it.. why care. To you, I would be just wasting my time..

 

 

[georger 271]

9 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

"Sincerely curious",, no you aren't,, you don't have anything so you flip the question onto me.

You have eliminated him already not me,,,, so you must know something I don't.... apparently not.

Claiming some evidence that doesn't exist isn't very honest.. we'll see if any new evidence comes up.. 

I realize it is very difficult to eliminate so called suspects..  even bad ones.. especially in a 50+ year old case.. So, I don't expect an answer..

I am making a point..you attack me for NOT agreeing with you and eliminating him, you said I have a psychological issue, sunk cost, bias,, etc.. 

You are experiencing a cognitive dissonance, you know I am a good researcher but can't accept that we have different conclusions,, Instead of acknowledging that you may be wrong with far less info, you attack me publicly to convince yourself you are right..

If you want to eliminate him prematurely that is great,, just don't attack me for not sharing that opinion..  

If he is not Cooper,, then why are you so obsessed with attacking me over it.. why care. To you, I would be just wasting my time..

 

 

You always construct a false narrative (based on false claims) to shoot people down with. People are tired of your bullshit. 

[georger 271]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

It isn't a certainty that he could see the ground lights where he jumped but he wouldn't be able to see anything if he could until he was down the stairs..

He may have just jumped blind...

It isn't a certainty that he could not see ground lights. You ignore the fact that other pilots said they did that night.

This is just one more of your false narratives you construct to play with .... if it doesnt work out for you you will just claim you never said 'that', whatever 'that' happens to be!   

Jo Weber used the same strategy.

Edited September 16 by georger

[FLYJACK 785]

Just now, georger said:

You always construct a false narrative (based on false claims) to shoot people down with. People are tired of your bullshit. 

 

Like what..  

You lie as well,, you told everyone I was driven off DZ....  I left for a time when my father suddenly died..  you just make it up..

You people are the lowest of the low...

You claimed Tina meant rubber bands she was contacted,,, NO, you lied...

 

Please put me on ignore...

[georger 271]

6 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Like what..  

You lie as well,, you told everyone I was driven off DZ....  I left for a time when my father suddenly died..  you just make it up..

You people are the lowest of the low...

You claimed Tina meant rubber bands she was contacted,,, NO, you lied...

 

Please put me on ignore...

There it is - even your instant response is bullshit! You barely give people time to think and respond. You have a table in the Cooper Carnival and you run your game ....

YES! To this day nobody has PROVEN HOW THE MONEY WAS PACKAGED! The conclusion people operate with is just an assumption based on circumstances. I know how to keep facts vs assumptions straight! You apparently dont.

This BS has already gone on for years. That is the nature of Cooper research and Cooper forums and the people in them.

Edited September 16 by georger

[FLYJACK 785]

9 minutes ago, georger said:

There it is - even your response is bullshit!

Really, you are a serial liar Georger and have contributed nothing to this case in over a decade.

 

 

[FLYJACK 785]

20 minutes ago, georger said:

There it is - even your instant response is bullshit! You barely give people time to think and respond. You have a table in the Cooper Carnival and you run your game ....

YES! To this day nobody has PROVEN HOW THE MONEY WAS PACKAGED! The conclusion people operate with is just an assumption based on circumstances. I know how to keep facts vs assumptions straight! You apparently dont.

This BS has already gone on for years. That is the nature of Cooper research and Cooper forums and the people in them.

Point is YOU LIED about it,,,,  your opinion is irrelevant.. 

Edited September 16 by FLYJACK

[georger 271]

3 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Really, you are a serial liar Georger and have contributed nothing to this case in over a decade.

 

 

What does this prove? It proves you are an idiot on a mission to control the whole DB Cooper discussion. You probably started with that goal. ............................................  again this is bullshit and laughable! 

Try another game. Try a game where you dont have all the answers and you allow people to think and sort ... you even try to control the thinking process! You are trying to control how people think and the conclusions they must come to. Tactical gam playing is your vice. 

[georger 271]

23 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Point is YOU LIED about it,,,,  your opinion is irrelevant.. 

So ?  What! ?   Enny meenie minie moh! ?   is this your language problem again ? 

DO YOU SPEAK SANDWICH!?

She said bank type bands. What did she mean? Nobody knows! She was NOT contacted and asked about that specific point!  Now ............ you build a whole evaluation of a forum member in a persona attack ........ on this!? 

You are one sick dude. An idiot bent on controlling .... ?

Never mind what Tina meant by what she said still is unsettled to this day years and years and years later! ......... which is just fine with you because it fits your program of control.

Conclusion: control means more to you than fact or proof. The issue for me is methodology.

All because the word 'not' was left out of the original post I made?  You could have asked for a clarification but you were hell-bent on another agenda.

Edited September 16 by georger

[FLYJACK 785]

25 minutes ago, georger said:

So ?  What! ?   Enny meenie minie moh! ?   is this your language problem again ? 

DO YOU SPEAK SANDWICH!?

She said bank type bands. What did she mean? Nobody knows! She was NOT contacted and asked about that specific point!  Now ............ you build a whole evaluation of a forum member in a persona attack ........ on this!? 

You are one sick dude.

Knowing you for a decade or so,,  You are unable to make cogent arguments and resort to lies and personal discrediting attacks to win...  Your arguments are confirmations of your own long held opinions/bias...  You praise anybody who posts something you already believe.. You seek your faded relevance and never actually process new information or arguments.. You goal seek affirmations..

A good example,, you ridiculed me for theorizing that the money rolled along the bottom of the River causing the rounding... Palmer and the FBI also concluded that,, Kaye suggested the torquing of the bills was possibly from rolling/tumbling... instead of evaluating the theory you ridicule it because it doesn't fit your predetermined bias. You are incapable of processing information, you just attack it..

You do no new research and rest on the stuff you did a decade or so ago...  You no longer contribute anything which causes you to attack those that do..... it makes you feel relevant... but you aren't.

You are still the only one who doesn't understand the difference between a packet and a bundle...

Edited September 16 by FLYJACK

[georger 271]

15 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Knowing you for a decade or so,,  You are unable to make cogent arguments and resort to lies and personal discrediting attacks to win...  Your arguments are confirmations of your own long held opinions/bias...  You praise anybody who posts something you already believe.. You seek your faded relevance and never actually process new information or arguments.. You goal seek affirmations..

A good example,, you ridiculed me for theorizing that the money rolled along the bottom of the River causing the rounding... Palmer and the FBI also concluded that,, Kaye suggested the torquing of the bills was possibly from rolling/tumbling... instead of evaluating the theory you ridicule it because it doesn't fit your predetermined bias. You are incapable of processing information, you just attack it..

 

Kaye suggested the torquing of the bills was possibly from rolling/tumbling...  ? Did you check your claim about Tom with Tom?  I called Tom up and asked him after you started making this claim about Tom.

You continue to claim: the money rolled along the bottom of the River.  (and Tom claims this...)

Stop claiming and prove it!

Call Tom up and ask him what he thinks.

Ive had enough of your eternal bullshit for one day. 

Yes. The rolling on the bottom theory is interesting. It says a  lot about the people and conditions at the time of the excavation. That this piece of drivel ever got started!  The fact that you peddle this says a  lot about you! How far in school did you go? 

Are you self trained? Came up by your bootstraps? Nothing wrong with that but .... that may leave gaps in a persons maldum fornax . . . . ? 

Edited September 16 by georger