FLYJACK

Dr Edwards on podcast.. listening at 1.5x speed, going through the basics so far..

Tom Kaye's 2022 CooperCon presentation.. sound is low, headphones help.

absolutely...

Well, if people think that then I don't care because it isn't true, perception isn't always reality and I have good reasons that will be obvious later. Those reasons have been shred with some Cooper people privately.. Why would I share case info with people who mock me or think I am playing some stupid one upman game.. I have shared lots of case info, more than most.. it is because I am protecting the potential resolution of this case.. and I have been advised not to disclose. When I say I have stuff, believe me I do. You really think mocking me based on your false assumptions is appropriate.. Isn't that a game..

No, you are exaggerating and editing Rose's comment,, Rose said stews said a "sort of" protruding lip and it isn't in the FBI witness statements.. that means a slight protruding lip,, not that monster Vordahl has.. That thing is a huge "unique characteristic".. witnesses said Cooper didn't have.. That profile shot of Vordahl eliminates him.. that is not a "sort of" protruding or slightly pouty lip.. that is an extremely unique characteristic.

but, it is true.. I have images. Yes, it is a big deal. You are making up false claims you have no way of knowing.. Is that how you do your research?? I am not sitting on it, as I have said I am working on putting something comprehensive together, but I was expecting some final docs from the FBI in October that got delayed another year. When you consistently try to mock me from a position of sheer ignorance, it really doesn't make me want to share anything with you.. it exposes you as an intellectual fraud. When I tell the truth and get ridiculed over and over,, I think, why the hell should I help you with anything.

Vordahl isn't just pouty,, that is a huge lower lip with a massive extension, extremely distinctive.

That Vordahl lower lip isn't just poutier,, it is massive. Cooper was described as unmemorable with no distinguishing characteristics.. If that massive fat lower lip image is accurate, it eliminates Vordahl right there. No witness would have missed it.

This is an adult reaction? You are a little arrogant child,, you have no clue what evidence I have.

I am married to the facts.. the witnesses were clear. Read through the witness statements and FBI summaries, it is overwhelmingly clear.. and I have Cooper witness images nobody else has.. they clearly depict Latin characteristics and complexion, dark, higher cheeks and marceled/wavy/curly hair.. Cooper clearly had those Latin characteristics, not maybe he was a rare dark Norwegian or a guy with a tan. Look at that photo, nobody would describe that person as the witnesses described Cooper. Mitchell agreed he resembled the sketch, since he does, he also said he can't ID Cooper. An audience gasp is not evidence for a suspect being Cooper or not. I am sure it gave you guys a boost but it is irrelevant.

This profile pic looks odd,, if this is a true representation of Vordahl's lip profile he can be eliminated from this alone.. That massive fat lower lip is so distinctive no witness would have missed it...

That is a real stretch,, Vordahl's photo would not compel witnesses to describe him as dark, swarthy, latin Mexican/Native American blood.. features and complexion. Having a dark subset of Norwegian ancestry or not is irrelevant,, The witnesses collectively would not see that in that photo... You guys are seeing what you want to see not what is there.

because that means I would be lying,, I don't lie,, anybody who has been involved in this case over the 10 years know this.. I might get things wrong but I don't lie, it is not in my character.. Mitchell said he can't ID Cooper, you know that, everybody knows it. He agreed Vordahl resembles the sketch, he does, so does over 100,000 people.. You've lost perspective.

What makes you think that those tie articles were only produced in one of those patents. The patent does not even match the particles.. You have exaggerated what the patent actually says and ignored the limitations of patents as a knowledge source.. There is no evidence those particles have anything to do with that specific patent or any patent.. it is a baseless assumption to ascribe exclusivity..

So, I had him look at a suspect about 9 years ago through an intermediary and he said the same thing. Bill said he can't ID Cooper, his reference is the sketch and Vordahl does resemble the sketch better than Ulis's guy.. Do you realize that you have lost objectivity.. I am not suggesting you don't pursue him but you are exhibiting severe confirmation bias..

because we aren't discussing Hahneman, we are discussing Vordahl.. as suspects they are completely independent of each other. You are playing a red herring by (ignorantly) attacking another suspect. Your suspect does not compel a witness to say dark olive latin Mexican/ American Indian features and characteristics, or homely or geeky, that is just a fact.

Not true. I have images you clearly don't. Hahneman is half native Honduran and half German. You are seeing things in this image that aren't there.

I have gone through this before many times,, people get suspects and lose objectivity.. Now, I don't see anything indicating Vordahl was Cooper. He resembles the sketch, the Ti patent tie particle thing is a red herring and he does not fit the profile whatsoever. So, for me they will have to bring a lot more to the table.. Whenever all the evidence for Cooper gets laid out, if ever, it will be absolutely clear to everyone.. it will be an overwhelming AHA.. not maybe this, assume that, sort of, could be,,, Guys, you just need more.. keep digging.

No, not latin characteristics and not dark swarthy complexion.. No witness would see that image and say DARK, SWARTHY and LATIN possibly 1/4 MEXICAN/AMERICAN INDIAN blood.

I am not talking about the instrument.. the patent is not what you guys claim it is. There is no evidence that those particles are exclusive to the patent.. they are not exclusive and the patent does not show that.. you have exaggerated a general statement about 20% Antimony.. the particles with all elements actually don't match anything in the patent. You guys have taken a huge leap in logic... There is no evidence that those particles have anything to do with that patent or any patent.

My experience with them in addition to managing to get a Cooper letter un-redacted on my own.. makes me believe the FBI does not want this case solved or publicized. The redactions in that letter really makes no sense.. I have a Foia that has been delayed for six years..

I was only looking at Dan Cooper's or Daniel Cooper's.. not all Cooper's. The takeaway is that it wasn't as common as I thought and Daniel was 4X more common than Dan.. If you include all Cooper's then all significance is lost..

Can they still do DNA on the chords... probably touched by others but still might get something.. Cooper must have held them when he cut them.. if he cut them one at a time he likely held the chord in a loop in one hand then cut the loop with the knife..

An interesting data point,, Most often an alias is not entirely random but from some past reference, easier to remember.. Cooper was the right age to be in WW2 contrary to what Dr Edwards keeps saying,, So, I searched the AAD WW2 enlisted names... I am not suggesting that Cooper necessarily used the name from somebody he knew in WW2 but it is entirely possible he crossed paths with the name somewhere. People have claimed "Dan Cooper" is a common name.. but is it.. What is interesting is using the WW2 name search as a proxy, There are 7 "Dan Cooper" names in the WW2 AAD enlistment search.. very rare. There are 33 "Daniel Cooper" names in the WW2 AAD enlistment search.. still rare. There were 16 million men enlisted in WW2.. the AAD may not be 100% complete but it is an interesting data point.. "Dan Cooper" is very rare "Daniel Cooper" more common but still rare. The US pop in 1971 was 208 million,, say half male = 104 million. If we use the AAD as a rough proxy, in 1971 there were about 45 Dan Cooper's and 214 Daniel Cooper's in the US,, Could Cooper have got the alias from one of them...

You guys have lost your objectivity,, those particles have nothing to do with the patent.. they don't even match each other. Those particles are not exclusive to any patent. There are 100's of thousands particles on the tie you can randomly match anything.. and these still don't actually match the patent. Titanium with some % Antimony is not exclusive.. https://www.freepatentsonline.com/3266951.pdf His hair is parted on the wrong side in the pic closest to the hijacking date. He has small and beady eyes.. his ears are smallish and stick out. He does not have the dark Latin features and appearance.. Cooper did not have a bubba gump lower lip, Cooper's lower lip "sort of" protruded. Lips were thin, lower was thicker and "sort of" protruded aka slightly.. Cooper was not a successful high profile, tennis playing PHD with up to 80 Titanium patents who decided to hijack a plane in his own backyard.. unmasked. You have found a random guy who resembles the sketch, that is it. You have jumped the gun like everybody does when they get emotionally invested in a suspect. Naive people will react positively and that will feed into your confirmation bias.. step back, challenge your own beliefs and proceed carefully. There is nothing that indicates this guy is Cooper.