I usually know you hit a nerve when people on the FB group start talking about Hahneman. There was an anonymous post about him and then Chris B. one of the Vordhal people who is still sticking with him and Crucible made a comment about every witness except one saying Cooper was Caucasian. Total muddying of the waters. Cooper was swarthy. Dark. Hahneman and Smith both get the half truth stories. It reminds me of a Senate confirmation hearing where one side tells only what they want and it’s out of context. The social club is our version of MSNBC. EU apparently has some new info on where Cooper worked. Why anyone believes it is beyond me.
It’s been 54 years, and the narrative on there keeps changing. B was a good sketch for Braden and Vordhal, but I guess not now. Somehow Chris C. knows what brand the sunglasses were and where he jumped. No one disagrees anymore. I guess if you look at the same thing over and over again then you want something for your time.
Sifting through the transcript of Ryan’s YouTube, I see a lot on Hahneman. The mispronunciation of his name is grating. Him going after Hahneman is akin to ad hominem at this point. Very little is ever discussed about Hahneman, but you are attacked for researching him all of a sudden when you disagree with Ryan. Hahneman gets called out. 5’8 was fine when he liked Braden. B sketch was fine when he liked Vordhal. As usual Skip Hall gets praise too.
Ryan has consistently said there is 0% percent chance Smith is Cooper. No suspect is 0%. It’s the same old misdirection and cherry picking. His reason for 0%? Well, because Smith’s daughter says so. But he never says she was 6 in 1971. Never. He claims she waited up looking for headlights and that if he was gone on Thanksgiving then who would have cooked dinner? Come on. And he worked two jobs? When, in 1971? Working two jobs is a red flag at anytime. In 1971 then you needed money. In 1990 then you needed money (they claim Cooper lost the $), or someone is working two jobs pretending to not be Cooper.
It is actually getting to be like EU. “If I say it, then people will believe”. But it’s always prefaced with “I like so and so, but I disagree with them”. Well at least give the facts.
EU does not speak for the whole group and neither does Ryan. No one does. But if someone is going to speak then at least acknowledge the facts or that you changed your stance once you changed suspects or the pros of Smith and Hahneman. It looks to me that some people get upset that others have a say in this case. The effort put into going after Gryder was amazing. If you disagree with the social club you get the wrath. But no one is really listening anyhow.
And the group wonders why Dan Gryder gets the microphone and not them.