FLYJACK

Bill Mitchell had Cooper at 5' 9"- 5' 10" medium build.. The initial FBI description...

How tall/big is Bill Mitchell... anybody see him at CooperCon. He said he was way bigger than Cooper in an interview.. anybody know?

FBI confirmation dated 1998 cigarette butts destroyed years earlier.... But the FBI was still looking for them in 2016 when they "closed" the case... maybe we should tell the FBI that they destroyed them.

The Cooper Vortex's Darren drops a nuclear truth bomb on the Fenn world.. names the HAHAHA author..

I just noticed the velocity drops below zero... that is the tidal reverse flow. I read that the reversal went far but this confirms it went up to the Vancouver gauge beyond TBAR. Can a reverse flow push the money 9 miles upstream from the mouth of the Lewis R... seems hard to believe, lots of variables to sort. Above my pay grade. At about 0.25 ft/sec it would take about 52 hours,, the tidal reverse flow doesn't last that long.. unless multiple flows can push it.

I can't take Blevins BS anymore.. Blevins you are re-blocked, ignore activated.

The data for the last 5 years peaked at about 3.8 ft/sec.. or 2.6 mph.

No Blevins, if somebody tossed a bundle of money into the Columbia River there is no reasonable expectation in the real world that it would be found. Your theory is pure looney tunes. If it was tossed it was to dispose of it. My point about the human intervention makes a money landing near the Columbia then washed in by natural means very unlikely. Many people argue this idea shifting the dropzone south, but if the money sat for at least six months in nature before naturally entering the River then the rubber bands would have deteriorated before it entered.

You, like usual, fail to understand the point.. Kaye mentioned human intervention earlier because TBAR was 20 miles from the dropzone. I am pointing out human intervention because of the new diatom evidence and delay in entering the River. If the money was sitting out in nature for six months or more then went into the river the rubber bands would have been deteriorated before it entered. So, the delay between NORJAK and entering the river must have involved human intervention at some point.. that is a different argument than Tom had prior. The idea that Cooper threw money into the Columbia with the expectation of it being found to throw off investigators is as looney as Eric' burial/retrieval theory.. If you throw a bundle into the Columbia the expectation is that it would not be found. If somebody threw it in the River it was to discard it. Your theory is ridiculous.

The irony is that the Fenn crowd are driving the book demand based on Fenn being Cooper and the author, but to print more copies the author who isn't Fenn or Cooper must agree.. The world serves up some really strange things..

The takeaway is that the money went into the Columbia River in a Spring from 72-79.. Eric's burial/retrieval theory is flawed as he claimed the only Spring that the River reached the money was during either the '72 or '74 extreme flood events. This is false, those recorded floods reached about the 21 ft mark and the money was at about the 5.5-7.5 foot mark. That puts the money 12-15 feet underwater.. but the Columbia River reaches the money spot every year and the Spring is highest seasonal water flow. So, you don't need a record flood event to reach the money spot and it isn't restricted to the floods of 72 and 74. It could be any Spring from 72-79. So, Cooper would have had to retrieve money well under the water in 72, the theory is extreme speculation and is IMO borderline ridiculous. Cooper could have buried the money anywhere and he chose next to a River (damaging it) then returned 6 months later to dig it up 15 feet underwater,, silly stuff. What does make sense is that the money went into the Columbia in the spring 72-79. While the money spot was underwater the money was pushed along what would then essentially be the bottom of the river to its spot. Suction dredge doesn't seem to make sense. Never did really. The question is, where was the money after the hijacking and how did it get into the River. Another note.. A Sioux City Sarsaparilla Soda can was found with the money in the same layer.. that was not sold until 1974. It is not related to Cooper but may date the debris deposit. I have several theories,, one is entirely new that would blow up the Cooper case for a while. I have been researching it but can't prove anything. I was going to post it but it is too much work to explain for now. Another thing Tom and everyone still misses, is that the money went to Cooper in rubber banded bundles of packets, individual packets of 100 were rubber banded in groups. So, it probably arrived on TBAR as a single bundle. The money arrival is not constrained by three separate packets arriving together. For the money to arrive together as 3 separate packets they had to be separated from its rubber banded single bundle after Cooper got the money. Doesn't really make sense. The rubber band frags found attached to the money may have been holding the single bundle together. The uniformly rounded ends of the bills suggest that the money tumbled as one bundle along the bottom before landing on TBAR. The Willamette bottom is gravel and the Columbia is sandy. One of my theories involves the Columbia and the other the Willamette.. none are suspect specific and both maintain the "FBI" flightpath and dropzone. One other important consideration, if the money went into the River at least six months later (or more) and stayed intact until it reached TBAR that indicates human intervention. Since rubber bands begin to deteriorate outside within months that makes it unlikely the money landed somewhere and sat in nature until it got washed into the River.. the rubber bands would have deteriorated. So, there must have been some human intervention along the way.

No, Blevins your reality is a mess,, I don't care if you sell KC, that is your choice. I judge suspects by the evidence not the advocate. My point is that I choose not to sell a suspect so I do not need to share my research to defend myself. It is not my responsibility to educate you or anyone. Of course, you won't understand the difference, it is above a part time super secret agent pay grade.

I don't need help with my case.. because I am not selling a suspect to others. Do you understand that, I don't need to explain anything to anybody. You are projecting your own motivations, you need to sell KC because he isn't Cooper.. and you failed.. KC does match the evidence.

Tom Kaye Part 2

Wrong Blevins you weren't claiming realities, you were making distortions and lies. That pisses me off, I hate liars. I don't care about KC, he wasn't Cooper. You are just projecting.. Hahneman is irrelevant. You are the one ignoring the evidence regarding KC.. Maybe you should actually read the files. But then you'd realize KC doesn't fit the evidence. KC should be tossed into the dustbin...

Lunacy and delusional. I didn't care about Sheridan as he was obviously not Cooper until Ulis stole my work claimed it was his and then called me a liar and troll. So, I pointed out the evidence. I never ever cared about KC as the evidence clearly rejects him,, until Blevins started making false claims and lying. So, I point out the evidence. KC is not a threat to anything or anybody... He is not Cooper, not because I think so but because the evidence shows it. Attacking me personally with lies and false claims doesn't change the evidence. KC is insignificant. Reca level insignificance. I would have never mentioned KC if you hadn't lied.. I don't like liars. Unlike Blevins my agenda is the truth.

That is isn't true,, I have given out more than the info on a wanted poster you just weren't paying attention and ignored it as it suits your KC denial. You keep repeating that lie.. if you keep lying about that what else are you lying about and why do you need to lie? And you still conflate a suspect with the advocate.. Advocates are irrelevant.. Look at the evidence, a suspect has to fit the evidence and objectively KC does not... my opinion doesn't reject KC, the evidence does. There are suspects I don't reject because there is not enough evidence to make a determination. There are probably thousands of people out there that could be a Cooper suspect that we are unaware of. There is enough known about KC to reject him. You aren't Ulis, he admitted his mistake based on an objective analysis of the facts. You need to do the same.

And I pointed out the evidence as well,,, KC is not Latin/Mexican in features and characteristics or a swarthy/olive complexion,, KC does not have a full head of wavy/curly/marceled hair,, KC does not resemble the more accurate sketch B.. Cooper had thin lips with a protruding lower lip.. He continued to work for the airline.. because he wasn't Cooper. If you list all the Cooper facts,, KC is a very poor match.. and is rejected by many.

That is problem, it is a poor example. It only makes sense to you because it fulfills your confirmation bias.

That is a terrible example.. I don't own a suspect.. neither do you. You created a narrative for KC that doesn't do what you claim. KC doesn't match the evidence and there is no evidence to suggest he was Cooper. Essentially the same problem Eric had with Sheridan... by an objective measure of the evidence KC was not Cooper..

You don't understand, it isn't my opinion.. Objectively the facts reject KC. If the facts supported him I'd say so. They don't. It is that simple. You will say anything to discredit the messenger.. by your own logic anything you say about any other suspect is invalid.

Exactly as I said,, attack the messenger,, Hahneman has nothing to do with KC not being Cooper, he is irrelevant. The evidence shows KC is not Cooper. You have constructed a narrative to fit your own bias and to do that you ignore, reject and spin the evidence. Not the wanted poster, that is your attempt to discredit the evidence. Kenneth Christiansen was not Cooper, nobody should waste their time or money on him..

You said it, then denied it, then confirmed it... reminds me of the Marxist professors I had in University.. they play that ninja mind trick all the time.. so you have no idea what their position really is and since they have taken both sides, some more than once they never lose an argument.. The matrix inside a matrix.. I don't have a KC suspect bias.. I knew the evidence eliminated KC before I ever looked into Hahneman. You got that wrong. I wish the case were solved 100%, that is to say putting a suspect on the plane, that is what I have been trying to do but it probably requires new DNA,, maybe Eric can get the tie to Tom.. but it will cost money to test and may still be contaminated or inconclusive. As it is there is very little new to discuss publicly at a high level, so you are wrong there as well. I have thousands of pieces of info that I could discuss for a hundred years but choose not to. My motivation is not social or discussions but to solve this thing. The difference is, you fail to accept the universal reality, and claim your reality is true. It is only your perception, there are universal truths backed by evidence, reason and logic. To maintain your reality you ignore and reject universal truths and exaggerate and elevate supporting information. You engage in extreme confirmation bias. Most people cannot see and compensate for their own bias. Some are just better at suppressing bias than others, even professional investigators can be sucked in by bias. Eric did the same thing with Sheridan, when I pointed out contradictory evidence he attacked the messenger calling me a troll and a liar.. but he has finally realized to his credit that he was wrong about Sheridan. You're bias has done the same,, KC was not Cooper and you attack the messenger.. not the facts. The Forrest Fenn crowd is doing the same thing with Cooper.. they claim to be very careful about confirmation bias then proceed with it full speed ahead.. They claim Fenn faked smoking. They claim he wore contacts. They claim he darkened his complexion. They claim he disguised his accent. They claim he needed money and became a sky-pirate. They claim he had a grudge against the Gov so he took their money,, oops it wasn't the Gov money. I think they know better but are trying to build a new following as the Forrest Fenn world has ended. Like a black hole they are co-opting and consuming the Cooperverse.. to expand a collapsing base. I am sure they are working on some way to monetize it, a Cooper-Fenn treasure hunt with baubles, t-shirts, hats or a board game.. a sucker born every minute. HAHAHA.. The problem with the Cooper case is that there are actually very few hard facts.. really,, and that means people can twist and contort virtually any suspect to fit by claiming what is "possible". Intellectually, anything is possible.. but if that is your standard then almost anyone can be Cooper and that is the dangerous lure of the Vortex, it turns your mind inside out, distorts realty, it is the ultimate intellectual puzzle and test of reason where most of the pieces are missing and many don't even belong.. it exposes mediocre thinking. You can enter but you can never leave,, at least not intact. I have put together a checklist of Cooper facts and a profile mostly based on the one in the FBI files, if you run these prominent suspects against that list they are all very weak or rejected. Some suspects don't have enough info. If part time junior super secret agent Blevins was intellectually honest with himself he would admit KC was not Cooper just as Eric has with Sheridan.

Three Cooper bills for sale.... https://www.apmex.com/search?&q=cooper

Right, you didn't say it, you just gave a possible scenario.. and what you HELL yeah believe. So, you did say it. But yet you deny it,,, very clever psychological ninja game you play special junior agent,, very clever. I have communicated with the FBI. Promise. And I am a real person, I asked my wife and she said yes.. So there,