FLYJACK

Ryan created HIS best Cooper image from witnesses using AI.. I don't like AI stuff, but there some points.. Ears are abnormally small,, should be bigger, to normal size Hair should be mores wavy/curly/marcelled.. maybe one said straight Mouth is downturned too much.. top lip should be thin. Needs dark olive complexion.. Nose wasn't pinched in middle.. a unique feature like that would have been noticed by all witnesses. Not sure about button downed shirt and shoulder straps on the overcoat. Head good, looks oval not triangular.

Yes, I can't share stuff publicly because I am working on my own project with others.. Some of it would go straight into Ryan's book... and he would take credit.. or just stolen by others, this has happened before. I have already posted more than I should have. and of course Ryan said I was lying and don't have anything.. he just made it up. Today, I received stuff from the State Department and recently some from the DOD... FYI: Cooper goes well beyond the FBI..

My current take on the Max Gunther book.. Gunther’s book is controversial in the Vortex and the reason is we can’t separate fiction from fact. Most people discounted it as a complete work of fiction and irrelevant to the Cooper case. I always believed that he was contacted by somebody claiming to be Cooper.. whether a hoaxer or the real Cooper. I think people misunderstand the book, it is not meant to be an accurate recount of the hijacking. It is Gunther’s experience and he admits he doesn’t know if it is true. He lays out his experience and leaves it up to the reader. Gunther was telling the story "Clara" told him not claiming her story was true. There are “errors” in it but they don’t prove the book is a hoax.. The Barb Dayton connection is nonsense, the letter sample size for stylometry is far too small, anything under 3000 words is random noise. The Gunther letter to the FBI about "Clara" proves that Gunther did not make up the Clara part.. if Gunther did not make up the Clara part he couldn’t have made up the first “Cooper” contact since “Clara” is an extension to the initial contact. If "Clara" existed then the initial contact must have. Therefore, we really have only two possibilities.. Gunther was contacted by a hoaxer to extort money, they dropped it for some reason. A female “Clara” contacted Gunther a decade later to continue the hoax. Gunther was in contact with Himmelsbach who believed this scenario that Gunther was hoaxed because there is no evidence to support the contact being Cooper. IMO, this scenario is bizarre, why would a hoaxer disappear for a decade then reappear using a female and not ask for money. What is the motive? I don't see a motive here. A decade long prank.. doesn’t make sense.. or.. Gunther was contacted by the real Cooper to get money and he dropped off for some reason.. About decade later a female “Clara” contacted Gunther to claim Cooper had died. It seems her primary motivation was to publicly establish Cooper’s death. Two things are important, Clara read from notes and we know her story has errors. That indicates she was coached to give a plausible narrative, how much is true?? some or none? who knows. What was Clara’s motivation.. to publicly establish that Cooper had died.. Cui bono.. from Cooper’s established death.. a hoaxer, no way.. The only person who benefits would be the real Cooper who was still alive… and an accomplice, “Clara". To be true, then obviously Cooper survived the jump. My hypothesis is that Gunther was likely contacted by the real Cooper and a decade later had an accomplice contact Gunther to convince Gunther and get the narrative public that Cooper had died. This can’t be proven so far, it may be a hoaxer but IMO on balance it is more likely than a hoax. So, investigating the Gunther angle is not only legitimate, it is necessary until it is proven a hoax. That is the scientific method,, not discounting a possibility based on assumptions. It would not surprise me either way..

On Hahneman's teeth issue... The Facts.. I obtained his FBI file many years ago,, in it was claimed... missing several upper side teeth.. At that time I had an image of Hahneman showing his front upper teeth and none were missing. So, I knew something was off.. not sure how to explain it, did he get some knocked out, did he wear a partial?? I knew there had to be an explanation. It took me 6 years getting to the bottom of it.. and I eventually did. Meanwhile, Ryan requests Hahneman's file for his book.. I waited and pushed the FBI for two years to get it and Ryan gets it in a week.. Ryan reads the teeth thing and uses it to dismiss Hahneman.. Ryan lied and claimed he was missing half his teeth then he said upper and lower,,, The file never said that, Ryan often uses hyperbole. Since Hahneman is a legitimate suspect if he was missing half his teeth that would be a serious negative. Ironically, the FBI still investigated him. Why is that. Turns out one person of about 50 who knew teeth really well noticed two upper side teeth, the bicuspids missing, common for people with braces. the ones in front of the molars. Hahneman was NOT missing any front teeth. But, the problem is Ryan was wrong, he then spread this misinformation on FB and his videos,, I corrected him and he just kept repeating this falsehood.. So, it took me 6 years to sort this out and Lyin Ryan undermines the truth in seconds,, everyone who just accepts his false narrative believes Hahneman is eliminated based on Ryan's lie. The person who noticed his teeth also mentioned something funny about his lips.. No, that doesn't make him Cooper, it means that he is NOT eliminated because on the missing side teeth. Ryan took his false claim one step further, he accused me of having a sunk cost bias.. because I would not accept his error. This is irrational, insane and an inversion of the scientific method.. He made a false claim then attacked me personally for not accepting it. One researcher kept at an issue for 6 years to resolve it.. the other made an assumption and used it to falsely rejected a legitimate suspect. Now, everyone in Ryan's universe has rejected Hahneman based on Ryan's repeated false claims. Ryan has distorted people's perception of Hahneman. He uses Hahneman as a proxy to discredit me... because I am the only one who has the high level case knowledge to challenge his nonsense. Every time I criticized Vordahl or something Ryan was claiming he mocked Hahneman. I can't present this on FB because these guys blocked me even though I never posted anything... So, FB and Ryan's vids are not just getting one side, they are getting fed false information. If anyone here is also on FB post this there.. I don't push Hahneman because the investigation is still in progress and I don't have a problem with people not accepting him but there is a big problem when false information is disseminated to eliminate a legit suspect. FACT: Hahneman was NOT missing any front teeth.

To be clear,, I don't care what Ryan's opinions are, in fact I prefer he has things messed up, those people that just accept his narratives will find out eventually that they have been played. This is not about a difference of opinion. He crossed the line when he lied about me and lied about Hahneman to discredit me.. and he does it over and over... Just one example.. To discredit me, he claimed I left the DZ because of a post, he just made it up, I left for a few weeks when my step-brother suddenly died. I have posted tons of evidence here refuting his personal theories,, his response is twofold, try to discredit me and ignore the evidence. This is pure lunacy.. Ryan does not use the scientific method. He has inverted it using opinions to reject an hypothesis... "I feel that I must add that this one reason that I actually appreciate current Cooper enthusiasts like Ryan Burns. I think that their approach is more fact-delineating to the point that it reminds me of aligning more to a scientific method of research." For example,, This is how Ryan sells his opinion as fact,, masked in misinformation. These points sound convincing but they do not support his claim. Ryan claimed Cooper jumped at Orchards. No evidence for that. He claimed that is the consensus now. A consensus with his FB buddies. He claimed Anderson noted a significant delay from oscillations to bump. False, Anderson was referring to the call, the bump was "abrupt". He claimed the FBI now believes Cooper jumped at Orchards. False, the FBI never made that claim, Ryan was referring to Larry Carr's current opinion, he is no longer FBI and does not speak for them. Larry also believes Cooper died in the jump. Cooper did not jump at Orchards but if you weren't knowledgeable about the case you'd just accept it. Ryan would have called me biased but the LZ doesn't infer a suspect.

But they don't look like A so you are creating a strawman... Do even you realize what you are doing making up more nonsense. The evidence supports B not A... What you are saying goes against the evidence. You just ignore any facts that contradict your theory.. The sketch A small nose is your opinion, not fact. It is not supported by the totality of evidence, some of which you do not even possess, but you are entitled to that opinion, you are not however, entitled to smear and discredit those that do not accept your opinion. You get pushback where you are wrong.. support when you are right.. you can't even see that without trying to discredit others. When you use dishonest tactics to discredit others you get criticism. Anyone that disagrees with you is biased... maybe it is because you are wrong and your opinion is not supported by the evidence, ever think of that. No, of course not. You have lied about Hahneman and me... you have misled the Vortex with misinformation. You have promoted terrible suspects and ideas. You have some strong opinions that are not facts.. You have a bias to favour your buddies terrible suspects and theories. But, you crossed the line when you attack the integrity of others making up claims with no evidence, just because we don't accept your personal theories you claim a bias.. In your mind, it must be a bias because you think you can't be wrong. You are wrong, often. Your motivation is irrelevant, it could be ego, book content or something else.. it doesn't really matter. I can't speak for others but you have no cred whatsoever.. I have observed too much dishonesty. You have accused me of so many things that are false that you just made up for the sole purpose of discrediting. IMO, you being an influencer is a disaster for this case. FYI, Hahneman was missing NO front teeth, NOT upper front, NOT lower front, NOT half his teeth. You are a misinformation machine.

Murphy was liked by witnesses well before sketch B was ever started..

Right, Ryan is smart, knows the public case well but he has his own theories that are not supported by the evidence.. even contradicted by the FBI.. there is nothing wrong with that per se that but Ryan has lied and tried to discredit and ridicule others that don't accept his ideas. IMO, he crossed the line and lied about me and Hahneman as a proxy to try to discredit me.. or anyone who challenges his assumptions. He continues to spread misinformation and elevated personal assumptions to facts and has zero credibility. Because he has the video channel and is so active he gets elevated to an authority he doesn't deserve.. He has muddied the case with terrible suspects, bad theories and lies... influencing others to accept his nonsense narratives.. I think he might be trying to soften the ground for his upcoming book,,, perhaps he will be claiming sketch A in it and needs to discredit B and any skeptics.. A book needs something new.. he keeps repeating false info over and over and over... unfortunately for Ryan many of his personal theories are wrong. There is case information that Ryan does not have. He doesn't know what he doesn't know. Let's be clear, Ryan lies, he makes up stuff to push his personal narratives. That is beyond a different opinion, it is dishonest.

This nonsense really can't go on.... how many things can one person get wrong. Ryan's keeps pushing this ridiculous personal theory to elevate sketch A.. Despite what a few people with a vested interest in Comp B say, the sketch never would have been reworked to such a huge degree if the agent hadn't mistakenly thought that Flo disliked Comp A. She was indeed talking about the INITIAL sketch. They did want to age the sketch and put it in color, but they only overhauled his face so totally due to the misinterpretation of which sketch Flo was talking about. It's written in plain English. They thought Flo disliked Comp A, so they overhauled it. It wasn't necessary. All they needed to do, and all they WOULD have done had they not made their mistake, was just "age" Comp A. Make him look older. He starts by discrediting critics of his theory by using "a few people with a vested interest", this is to front run any criticism.. The FBI said sketch "B" was the best likeness. So, if you agree with the FBI you are a small few with a vested interest.. sleazy lawyer tactic. The irony is Ryan has a vested interest in this theory to support sketch A because there is nothing else. Then "the sketch never would have been reworked to such a huge degree" Ryan is just making this up and using hyperbole. The attribution error for Flo was incidental, not causative. He is making a claim that he has no knowledge of and there is zero evidence for. Here in this Aug 1972 doc.. "A" was made with two stews, Flo and Alice, Rose said he met with two stews. Tina saw it later but she also said she never saw Cooper's face. Then the key, the FBI mentions Flo's KK5-1 and the subsequent alterations and sketch produced.. sketch A. So, this shows that the previous error was irrelevant. The FBI knew that sketch A came from KK5-1. They wanted to better capture age and complexion AND IN VIEW OF ______ MORE RECENT COMMENTS.. sketch B was created. That may be Mitchell... https://themountainnewswa.net/2020/06/29/db-cooper-a-retrospective-on-the-development-of-the-sketches/ DB Cooper researcher Galen Cook says the FBI told him that Mitchell’s input carried significant weight in the development of Composite B because he was considered an “emotionally neutral” observer, while Florence Schaffner’s views were discounted because the Bureau thought her residual anxieties from the hijacking would color her recollections. It was Mitchell who carried the weight in the development of B, not the irrelevant attribution error in a document. Ryan's personal theory is completely bogus and sketch "B" is the best likeness. Ryan has made up a false theory to support sketch A. So, the reason why A and B differ is because A was primarily Flo and Alice while B was Mitchell.. the FBI didn't trust Flo's emotional state... she later said none of sketches were right. "B" IS the best likeness, the FBI said so. Ryan is making up a premise to support his sketch "A" bias.. I am sure Ryan will push this nonsense forever... don't believe it. This nonsense is probably in his upcoming book so he has to push it.

I get Blevins vibes from Ryan... they both get onto a false narrative and even when given contrary evidence they just ignore the facts and continue.. They only see what they need to confirm their opinion. That is a pattern I have picked up from Ryan over the years.. He is a trained advocate so he argues to win a position rather than seek the truth. Some of the tactics he has used would be embarrassing to most.. It is an irrational certitude... Don't be a parrot, be skeptical.. Maybe, there needs to be a debunking video of all the nonsense the Vortex now accepts..

And, the FBI tested the tie for bodily fluids,, that may have added some luminescent chemicals to the tie.. not sure if they tried fingerprints. Lots of particles in fingerprint powder. The "club moss" was used in pill coating and latex glove lubricant.. possible it came from latex gloves used by the FBI to handle the tie.

I suggested that jet exhaust may possibly account for some particles, not all or most,,, because the rear door was open and the plane was covered in black dust according to a later stew.. but that black dust was probably fingerprint powder.. Some particles do match jet exhaust, but Tom believes the particles were transferred to the tie by the fingers... So, if any were from jet exhaust at all, it would be minor. The tie had about 7 years to accumulate those particles and IMO, it was in one or more electronics environments. The tie wearer was working with their hands and transferred particles to the tie..

IMO, the tie particles best match an electronics environment.. Tom was close when he suggested Tektronix.

Here it is.. Alice said "nose small" in a later interview to determine a sketch... the context is to create a sketch. She also said HEAD OVAL, NOT TRIANGULAR.... She didn't mention the nose in prior interviews or any other witness claim it. Alice is probably responsible for the nose error on sketch A.. She also said she had given all information prior.. never mentioned a small nose. Small is relative and subjective,,, bridge? flair? base? length? and compared to what?

1969 Apollo 11 launch Kennedy Space Center...