FLYJACK

What a load of garbage.. Let me clue you in... I don't owe you or anyone anything,, it is not my responsibility to do all the research for you, get it. Now, you still ignore the FACT that the STEWS told the sketch artist that Cooper had a protruding lower lip..

Nice dodge, the point is the protruding lower lip which is backed up in the video, not the video itself. You still refuse to acknowledge it. That is a tell. and it is not my responsibility to convince or share any of my info on Hahneman with you or anyone.. Georger tried the same nonsense. Each suspect rises or falls on their own merits not the advocate. Ulis is good salesman, he kept selling the Sheridan Peterson narrative to the media and even got a show made but Peterson is a terrible Cooper suspect when you look at the evidence. I don't follow salesmen, I follow the facts. The fact is that the stews told the Sketch artist that Cooper had a protruding lower lip.. That fact has been previously ignored by everyone. It seems to me it is a big clue. They tried to depict it in the sketch,,, but it isn't really obvious until you hear the sketch artist claim of a protruding lower lip.

McCoy..

You didn't watch the video and missed the point entirely.. This is a very important and overlooked clue, the sketch artist said the the stews (THEY) described Cooper as having a protruding lower lip. That protruding lower lip is NOT seen in the Cooper sketch because it is a front perspective. They did consider doing a profile sketch but one hasn't been released. I posted the video so people could hear it precisely.. including you. But you distract and minimize by claiming descriptions were all over the place. WRONG The fact is the stews describing Cooper as having a protruding lower lip to the sketch artist Mr Rose means any suspect that doesn't have that has a really big problem. and my question is how common or uncommon is a protruding lower lip. and the original Cooper description was THIN LIPS

Roy Rose, the FBI Cooper case sketch artist said that Cooper's unique feature was a protruding lower lip... That is not captured in the front view sketches... It would eliminate most suspects.. But, how prevalent is a protruding lower lip in the male population? I haven't found any data on that. at 3:10 in video..

You can check out but you can never leave... Robert, you'll need a new hat..

This is interesting... The TBAR shoreline right at the money spot looks to have been replenished before the famous 1974 dredge operation and after Sept 71.. Remember, the 74 dredge operation shows South of the money spot, this is exactly at the money spot. No Georger, wrong again,, This change shown in the image is the beach, not where Ulis is digging. Georger is a perpetual source of misinformation. If you are going to steal my post at least get it right. September 1971 on the left and Jul 1973 on the right.

That ground looks like real tough digging... Eric needs some help..

The DOJ stated a fact,, no SOL for a capital crime. Speculation is fine and necessary but all speculation is not created equal.. Speculation that Cooper threw money into the River with the intention of it being found to throw off investigators is Ulis level crazy speculation.

Now you triple down.

No, I don't know everything, nobody does.. I do know that you have this wrong and doubled down. When I showed you the 1976 DOJ stating that the SOL would not apply contradicting your claim, you tossed it aside and tried to discredit it instead of re-evaluating your position. So, they knew the SOL didn't apply and went ahead with a last minute John Doe warrant.. maybe there was another reason for that other than the SOL. But, I don't see this as very important. The speculation that Cooper threw money into the River to be found to throw of investigators makes no sense whatsoever. Tossing money into the River would have zero expectation of being found. That is Ulis crazy.

Not splitting hairs.. The FBI does investigations and may recommend a case to the Prosecutor.. The Prosecutor decides whether the case should proceed.. not the FBI. OF COURSE THE DOJ CALLS THE SHOTS... In theory, they proceed based on the probability of winning but in reality there are other (dubious) considerations. In fact, the Prosecutor has no obligation to reveal any case that was rejected. If the FBI recommended charges for a Cooper suspect and the DOJ rejected the case we would never know. The DOJ's opinion was that the statute of limitations did not apply, John Doe warrants are controversial and may not have been constitutional. The purpose of the John Doe warrant was for public perception and to create a point of leverage over a potential Cooper suspect. At the same time the FBI admitted they didn't have the evidence and required the cooperation of Cooper to bring a prosecution.

Not so fast,,, In 1976, the DOJ determined the Statute Of Limitations would not apply,,, AND, the real reason for the John Doe warrant was for "publicity". The "public" perception of perpetual leverage over a suspect.

A person tossing a bundle of money into the River is a possibility but not with an expectation that it was going to be found. If it was tossed it was to get rid of it. There was no statute of limitations for a capital crime.. per Cooper FBI investigators. The trousers are mentioned in the FBI files and after investigating it was dismissed. 42" waist, too big.

Yes, but Tom Kaye said money was dry until Spring 1972.... not exactly. Actually, it is at least Spring 1972, but the money could have entered the Columbia R in any Spring from '72 thru '79... The Diatom's indicate that the money entered the Columbia R first in a Spring from 72-79 and became embedded in the sand within a relatively short time. I have 3 theories that fit this scenario. Also, the money didn't float it sank within minutes so it is not likely it washed up to the surface of the River and got deposited on TBAR.. The money spot was at about the 5-7 foot water level and the River frequently went well above that with the seasonal high water in Spring. You do not need the 72 and 74 record flood events to put the money spot under water. It is most likely the money went into the River in a Spring (72-79) when the River was above the money spot and the money tumbled along the bottom to its spot (which was effectively the River bottom) where it became buried. Of course, where was the money between NORJAK and its Spring entry into the River.

Here is Bruce Smith's photo of the card found in the chute returned to Hayden. https://themountainnewswa.net/2011/10/25/db-cooper-case-heats-up-again-with-controversy-over-parachutes/ The FBI couldn't read the card correctly.. The descriptor is below not above. MAKE: Pioneer TYPE: 26' Ripstop Conical SERIAL NO: 226 DATE OF MFR: Sept 1957 Here, they get the descriptors wrong, TYPE, SN and DATE. They also get the descriptors for other card (60-9707) found in the chute wrong. Those are two different packing cards both packed by Cossey same date May 21, 1971. 60-9707 found in the chute.. Here the FBI never got Cossey's records.. Did he not have them or did he realize he gave them the wrong description? FBI claims they can't eliminate a chute based on the serial number, but they did have the two packing cards. We have two back chute packing cards, packed the same date by Cossey both from the plane.. Tosaw's book claims that Cooper removed the packing cards and that claim supports the two cards being found. So, the FBI had the packing card and SN for the chute Cooper took and It does not match Cossey's NB6 claim. Cossey's claim was the only evidence for Cooper using his NB6.

I have never heard anybody claim or even entertain the idea that Cooper jumped and landed with the briefcase... He can't hold it, he would have to somehow tie it to himself and that doesn't make sense. Regardless, the buckle and hinge do not match an attache/briefcase and the about 10 feet thick of material has eroded since NORJAK..

There was never any means to a prosecution.. the FBI knew they didn't have enough evidence without a cooperating suspect. In 1976 the FBI held their own CooperCon and concluded that a prosecution was extremely difficult if Cooper was uncooperative. Eyewitnesses were weak and limited physical evidence. All latents lifted form the hijacked aircraft of no value... "this case considered closed"? 1987

Ulis is claiming the buckle and hinge were a legitimate find,,, that makes it worse than a plant.. Do they not realize that about 10 feet DEEP of material is completely eroded from that area.. The money spot isn't actually 15 feet into the River on the bottom, the River didn't rise the bar has been completely obliterated. and does anyone actually believe that Cooper jumped and landed with the briefcase...

The hinge and clasp look like they are from a guitar case, not a briefcase. Musicians I know get their guitars stolen often... it is a big problem.

This Reca nonsense has to end.. Somebody named Carl called in to the Steven Rinehart show 2008 during an interview with Larry Carr. Carl’s voice sounds exactly like Carl Laurin. The interview was in 2008 and Carl claims he taped his conversation with Walter Reca in 2008/2009. The tapes with Reca clearly show leading questions. Carl Lauren researched the case and fed info to Reca for the tape recordings. Reca sounds like he has early Alzheimer's in those tapes. Unfortunately, Carl’s research was poor. and he got some things wrong. The Reca narrative relies on him knowing info only the hijacker would know, that is not the case. All the info was available and Carl was researching it as evidenced by his questions to Larry Carr.. Carl at 10:39 Carl on our Salt Lake County line... Aug 2008 - interview of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) field agent Larry Carr by Steve Rinehart of K-TALK, 630 AM Salt Lake City, discussing the FBI's ongoing investigation of the NORJAK hijacking by Dan Cooper, Carl’s voice.. @ 25:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErCM9LSFrl0 SR: We have some callers. I want to continue asking you questions of my own, but let’s try to fit a couple of them in here, as we go. LC: Sure. SR: We got Carl on the Salt Lake county line. Carl, you’re on the air with Agent Carr. Carl: Yeah, hi. The FBI put on the newspapers the composite drawings. Now, are these pretty accurate in terms of the people who actually came in contact with the hijacker? LC: Yeah, you know everyone that came in contact with that gentleman in the interview with a sketch artist. They went about their process, developing all of the parameters of the individual’s face. They went back and constructed these sketches and then they were sent back out to the field. Each person looked them over. The three stewardesses involved looked them over, and there were some changes made to the original one. Once the stewardesses gave the thumbs up that this is the best representation, and that’s what was put out to the public. Carl: Okay, and then these thousands of suspects you developed, did they fit the basic description then? LC: Well, you know, a lot of them were ruled out basically on the physical descriptors of who D.B. Cooper was. Not necessarily the sketch, but basically the physical parameters; the dark complexion, or the olive skin complexion. Well, if your suspect’s fair skinned, and even if they weren’t solely ruled out on that, that’s one tick. Yeah okay, I guess if this person, if they were 5’7, as opposed to what was reported as 5’10 to 6’1, there’s another tick, that hey maybe this isn’t the right person. If they had blue eyes... Well, we’re pretty sure D.B. Cooper had brown eyes. So, you know, rule that off. Yeah, you know, a lot of the suspects were ruled because they didn’t fit the physical criteria. Carl: Yeah, I mean, since the FBI, they have this belief that the man may’ve been killed in the jump or when he hit the ground. Did the FBI conduct a search among the missing person reports? LC: Well you look at the databases back then, you know, long before the time of the computer, it was easier to connect the dots as far as missing persons go. So there was, of course, an effort at the missing persons database, but it just simply didn’t really exist back in that point of time. You know, it would’ve individual sheriff departments that would’ve collected the data, and someone had to do that. I couldn’t even guess how many sheriff’s departments there are in the United States, but I would imagine is was well into the thousands. Carl: Yeah, you know, is it possible when the hijacker got on the plane he would’ve changed his appearance? Like wearing a wig or maybe wearing these thick soled shoes so, you know, it’d make it appear that he might be taller, or maybe colored his hair a different color. Is that at all possible? LC: All that is possible, but when you look at how much time, especially Tina Mucklow, spent, the hijacker, shoulder-to-shoulder with him... You know, you can try these experiments yourself. Go ahead and put some makeup on your skin, if you’re fair skinned, and put enough on to swarthy, and then have someone sit next to you. You’re going to see that makeup, it’s going to be pancaked on to you. Same thing with a wig, it looked very unnatural, especially during 1971. So if someone’s wearing a wig, it’s going to be very noticeable. Carl: What seat was he sitting in before he, you know, hijacked the plane? LC: He was sitting in the very back, and I don’t have the file in front of me so... Carl: Was he sitting next to somebody else with whom he had a conversation? LC: No, he was sitting all by himself in a row of three. And, you know, ultimately, Flow Chapner sat by him originally, and Tina Mucklow the rest of the flight. Carl: What type of firearm did he have? LC: No firearm. SR: And a grenade. LC: No grenade. He had opened up his briefcase and there was either dynamite or road flares in there. Carl: Yeah, well interesting case. I wish you good luck Agent Carr. SR: Carl, thanks for the call. We appreciate it. Carl: Yeah, thank you. Goodbye.

At the very end they flash a new suspect... no name just a sketch.

Watched the new Expedition Unknown,,, Tom Kaye was good and the guys at the beginning discussing suspects was good, should have had Hahneman in the suspects but nobody (but me) really has enough info on him. The Walter Reca stuff was nonsense. The Eric Ulis stuff was ridiculous. Maybe the briefcase parts find was staged.. Josh has been known to do things like that.. But, Ulis claim is wrong.. it is 100% false that the Columbia River reached the money spot only in ’72 and ’74… The money spot was about the 5 to 7 foot level which was easily reached without the River at flood stage. The ’72 and ’74 flood levels were about 21 feet.. So, in June '72 the money spot was 12-15 feet underwater.. when Ulis claims Cooper was digging it up. The briefcase find is a joke, the money spot has lost maybe 10 feet of material depth to erosion.. the money spot plus 10 ft deep of material is long gone. I assume it was a plant for dramatic effect.

Cossey claimed the chute left behind was returned to him,, Cossey's replica Cooper chute... https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/b-cooper-replica-parachute-packed-190703299 At min 32.00s Cossey described the NB8 chute "he provided"...

FBI File #61 https://vault.fbi.gov/D-B-Cooper /d.b.-cooper-part-61-of-61/view