Leaderboard

And ICE cars never fully replaced horses and oxcarts Wendy P.

My take on this height is this: I think the FBI probably got it right, with the 5'10 to 6' assessment. Tina was 5'8. It's on her passport from 71 and she also apparently told the FBI this as well since it's in her 302. There is a video clip of the crew getting out of a van the next morning in Reno about to take the plane back to Seattle. You can see briefly see Tina's boot heels in that clip and she looks to have about a half inch heel. I actually figured their heels would be higher, but they weren't. Tina's first 302 says the HJ was 5'10 to 6'. Her second 302 she just says 6'. It is a well known phenomenon that people who are intimidated by an individual will exaggerate height. However, think about your own height and go through this exercise. I'm 6'1. If someone was 6'1 or 6'2, there is no chance in hell that I would estimate them to be as tall as 6'5. So if Tina was willing to estimate that someone was 4 inches taller than her, then it seems hard to believe he could be roughly her same height. It goes the other way as well. If Tina was willing to go as low as 5'10, then someone 6'2 is probably out of the question. That would be like me thinking that someone could be 6'3 and they turn out to be 6'7. This is why I think 5'10 to 6 is probably about right. But then again, did she ever stand side by side with him? We don't know. Perhaps she had to squeeze past him at some point if he was standing up working on the money bag or something like that. She also claimed that she showed Cooper how to lower the stairs, but does that mean she was standing next to him literally pointing at how to do it or did she merely just explain to him how to do it? Regardless of how people can and do misinterpret height, Tina thought he could have been as much as 4 inches taller than her, which suggests to me that he likely wasn't close to her height. So a suspect who is 5'8 or lower is a complete non-starter for me and by that same token, I have a difficult time with a suspect who 6'2 or something like that.

Disagree completely.. the ham operator comment was vague and not accurate or conculsive. Here in the Harrison notes is the same time reference. 04:25 - 04:30 = 8:25-8:30 "Reno looks good" matches and asking stew to communicate with man (before landing).. she is not talking to Cooper. Here at 8:30 Soderlind was asking for the stew to try to contact Cooper... She was NOT talking to Cooper.

I don't like Timmies, but it beats Dunkin Donuts 100/100.

Trolls don't need to form rational arguments. They just need to generate responses.

The last message received from Major King before the fateful Battle of the Red Barn.

The model T wasn't groundbreaking at all, just look at what Ford's market share is now compared to then....pff.

His other recent blog post about the sketch and the eyes was erroneous. I emailed him about it and he said he'd do a correction on it. He thought that this document was a reference to Schaffner picking out this set of eyes. I pointed out to him that the reference to Eugene is the clue that this document was about Bill Mitchell. Schaffner couldn't remember what his eyes looked like so the agents ran around asking which of the other witnesses saw his eyes. We knew Gregory and Hal Williams made claims about seeing his eyes and picked out eyes from the Facial Identification Catalog, but this most recent Vault release was the first indication we have that Bill also picked out a set of eyes. The eyes he chose didn't end up on the Bing sketch, so Bing's eyes came from either Gregory or Williams. In my most recent video that I published yesterday, I argue (although it should be obvious) that the eyes on the sketches are likely the least accurate components of the sketches. Bing's eyes are, as I stated, based on Gregory or Williams' selection from the catalog. Then, with the Comp B's, Rose essentially just drew the eyes from KK5-1.

There have been comments about the need for a site like DZ to discuss Cooper. Since the DB Cooper Forum has basically stopped, this is the only forum available for critical discussion on the case. The FB group run by Eric has Nicky as one of its admins, and he or someone in support of him deleted a comment of mine questioning him on his stance on whether the money was spent. Nicky or someone did not like that I noted how his stance on the money being spent seems to change depending on which angle he is playing for the day. Remember, he’s the one who liked Rackstraw for Cooper, then Klansnic, then Vordahl. His excuse is that it is ok to completely change theories and suspects, even after as a so called “expert” you would think when he stood for something for years that he would have done legit research. I’ve stated to others that if you’re not vetting your theories over here on DZ, then you’re not getting the feedback that is really needed. There are very few of the original Cooper researchers posting like they used to on the Forum.

I know. Frankly, I think it's admirable. I was at the immigration museum in Halifax (I think it was Halifax), and was impressed. I also found my grandfather's immigration into Canada from Sweden (before he went to the US). Wendy P.

Checking the Epstein list for DB Cooper...

I haven't looked at the discord in ages. I assume whomever you are speaking about probably watched Jude's video because he goes into Gunther's pretty varied catalog of books. Gunther seemed capable of writing about any topic he set his mind to, which is why I'm very suspicious that he was pulling one over on all of us. Vordahl as Clara! HA! Now that's funny. Barb is indeed being investigated as a possible hoaxer and there are some plausible connections, but that's not for me to divulge. I haven't looked too much into it anyways. My current stance is that it smells like performance art. I think saying he "lied" is an unnecessary pejorative, at least as far as my view of him. It'd be like saying Andy Kauffman was "lying" or that the Coen Brothers were "lying" about Fargo. Artistic license is the way I'd phrase it. That seemed to be the majority opinion in the reviews I've read from the time period. It was sort of a "wink-wink" thing i.e. "we see what you're up to and it's quite clever". As for my legal cases, you can usually tell when someone is full of shit pretty quickly. Just an intuition I guess. But you said, there are some damn good liars out there. Most of my clients don't lie to me because they know I have the evidence. I have had a few who I totally believed UNTIL I got the surveillance footage showing them doing what they said they weren't doing! Lying is a skill I suppose. Also, motivation matters as well. If the person has no motivation to lie and gets a fact or two wrong, well, maybe that can be forgiven. Like say if it's just a random witness to something. Take Robert Gregory in the Cooper case. Is his testimony useless because he says Cooper sat in the window seat and says that a dark headed stew sat with him the majority of the time? No, I think not. On the other hand, we have an evidentiary rule that's called The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. This usually applies to law enforcement and their investigation. If they screw up one thing, then by default you have to assume that the rest of it is screwed up or susceptible to being screwed up. So it's really a case by case basis of when someone's testimony should be deemed useless. With the Gunther book it's difficult because we don't know anything about Cooper before or after the hijacking, so everything that "Clara" says outside of the actual hijacking is unfalsifiable. Yet she fails on the very few things in the book that we CAN check. She said he had a reservation as opposed to just buying his ticket, she has him seated in row 15, Capt Scott coming back to check the bomb, he asks the pilots their location before jumping, etc. And yes, I know that she wasn't there for the hijacking, but she wasn't there for his life before she met him either, and she appears to have supplied a ton of details about that stuff. So why should that be trusted? I don't know, she just seems like a literary device to me, as Georger said. It's like the way Melville uses Ishmael in Moby Dick or something. But again, just my two cents.