FLYJACK

This is a perfect example of your nonsense.. a complete disaster and detrimental for this case. Nobody has put a suspect on the plane.. I am trying. You don't know that Hahneman was not Cooper. You even lied about him to eliminate him. You mock him publicly and convinced most people he is a joke,, you lied never corrected it. He even has a near perfect score on your own flawed matrix.. you ignore that. I never said he was Cooper, I have said I can't eliminate him and am still investigating. I only correct your misinformation.. I am not interested in pushing a suspect or convincing anyone he is,, I just correct false information. That isn't being wrong. Then you make a claim that has not even happened yet to dismiss him.. Poisoning the well.. Look, you really know virtually nothing.. you have made assumptions and even lied, you are in no position to tell me I am wrong to pursue Hahneman. You are obsessed with harassing me from a position of ignorance.. Actually, if I were you I wouldn't think Hahneman could be Cooper either. Thankfully, I actually use facts and not assumptions and take things as far as I can... So, that is it, you don't think Hahneman can be Cooper, fine, that is your opinion. And you attack me personally for investigating him... makes perfect sense. You can believe anything you want but perpetually harassing me for investigating a suspect is insane... it tells me everything about you. How many suspects are not Cooper,, Vordahl, Skip, Braden, etc.. you don't attack those people... you support them as they promote those suspects.. I don't push Hahneman and I get attacked, I don't even claim he was Cooper.. Do you see your own hypocrisy. You just don't know what you don't know.. you are not the arbiter of truth. The funniest thing,, you actually concluded that using the rear stairs v front is not an improvement... of course it is, the crew can just run off the front stairs. Controlling the exit is an improvement. What I believe, is that you can't figure out why I would waste my time investigating Hahneman.. You think I must have something wrong with me because you know I am not stupid.. what you fail to recognize is that it is you who has erred. You can't see your own bias so you lash out at me personally. I won't forget BTW... In the grand scheme of things what do you care if I investigate Hahneman.. if you are convinced he isn't Cooper you should be happy I am wasting my time rather than harassing me... Frankly,, as a Professional Lawyer,,, you should be ashamed of your behaviour.. You can't even pronounce Hahneman correctly..

Projection.. and another lie.. What do I have wrong, Ryan.. You use ad hominem attacks but can't articulate anything that I have wrong. because you are dishonest. Your obsession with attacking me has now reached the level of harassment.

You guys need to decide if you want to be right or want to solve this case..

You are the biggest waste of time..

No, it is juvenile actually. It is not the same since I told you what I had, just not sharing it for a legit reason. Further, it wasn't even needed for that debate, it was extraneous. You claim to have something you can't explain in an attempt to make a point. These are not the same, not equivalent in importance or substance. I don't care what you have, I don't think I have learned anything significant in this case from you.. it would make no difference if I never heard from you on anything ever again. There is no way you could know for a fact what Cooper did with the lever, not even from a rare Tina interview.

Who cares, what you claim to have is very insignificant and irrelevant.. What I have is one of the biggest advancements in many years.. you would take it and use in your book, 100%, it would get blasted in the media and take the case in a different direction.. A legitimate game changer. You are playing a false equivalency. Keep your little insignificant info to yourself... keep everything you have,, save it for your book that might be out in 10 years.

Sure, expectations play a role.. but he was successful eventually. The stairs are hydraulic assist or gravity drop depending how you operate the lever. The evidence indicates the stair light went on twice,, that can only happen if the lever was put back into the uplock detent. That light goes on when the lever is moved from the uplock detent, not when the stairs are opened. So, when the light first went on that does not indicate the stairs were actually open. Also, Mac got out at 100mph faster albeit a small opening. The sled test had no problem with the stairs staying up due to speed. The takeaway is that the speed wasn't the real issue for Cooper having trouble getting them open.. That was the perception.

The erosion here occurred before these bills fanned out. (Tom theorized that the fanning was from rolling along the bottom) The fanning occurred before the bills stuck together.. That supports Palmer's conclusion that the erosion was from tumbling along the bottom.. The money eroded by rolling/tumbling along the bottom and fanned out before landing on TBAR.

So, who cares.. you have a history of conflating and distorting evidence and elevating assumptions to facts.. Tina showing Cooper how to use the stairs does not mean he used them correctly, he was alone when he used the stairs.. Your claim is bogus.

There is no debate. Not sure what School you went to but you should ask for a refund.

According to the files.. Tina showed Cooper how to operate the stairs right before takeoff.. Tina went to the cockpit about 4 minutes after takeoff and the stair light came on the first time. Minutes later Cooper calls saying he was having trouble getting the stairs open. Stair light was on. After that call Tina notices the stair light come on. 8:05 Cooper says everything ok. If the files are correct and Tina is correct.. Cooper operated the stair lever with Tina in the cockpit. Cooper was shown stair operation by Tina right before takeoff,, that doesn't mean he did it correctly later. She did not move the lever as the light did not go on until later. Tina saw the light come on the second time.. the light ONLY indicates the lever was moved from the up/lock detent it does not indicate the stairs were opened. For the light to go on twice the lever must have been returned to the up/lock detent in between. It is possible Tina is mixed up but she did say she saw the light come on in the cockpit so did not see Cooper operate the lever.. There is no way Tina or anybody would know if Cooper initially operated the stairs correctly.

Classic Ryan,, I never said that.. you just make up stuff all the time... Not all theories are created equal some ARE just better than others..

Plausible has a very very wide parameter. I am sure I could make up dozens of plausible scenarios... Ad hoc is not luck, he adapted. Fact is, he did change his demand to stairs lowered on takeoff after Reno was in play. Why did he do that? I have pieces of evidence that support my theory, you don't really.. The only criticism you had was a generalization that a skydiver wouldn't want to go over the ocean as if that means anything. It may be true but that doesn't make the theory false at all. I know how the lever operates.. The lever has nothing to do with my jump theory. We know Cooper was delayed in getting the stairs down. Ryan can't know that Tina or Cooper operated the stairs correctly initally. He is probably using something Tina said and claiming it as fact.

Where do you think he landed.. informed guess based on everything you know.. IMO, he jumped about 8:11 along the Sage path,, drifted 2-4 miles NNE... mostly open fields.

We'll see,,, Either Tina claimed she moved the lever or she saw Cooper move it.. Either way that doesn't prove it was operated correctly. The stairs have a gravity drop and hydraulic assist. Cooper told the pilots he couldn't get the stairs open. The light came on twice, he complained he couldn't get them open (assuming speed) and MAC made it out going 100 MPH faster.

You wouldn't have any way to know that, not even Tina would know that for sure. So, it isn't a fact it might be Tina's opinion.

What didn't happen..

So what you are doing is flipping logic on its head. You are using the negative condition to make positive assumption. aka you don't know so must be true.. this is irrational. If you use that standard then anything goes and many in the case do that.. You exaggerate and take things out of context. I am Canadian and I know where Tacoma and McChord is.. I have flown out of Seattle once and driven down South many times. Pilots said ground markers visible (somewhere),, that doesn't mean they were when Cooper jumped, the cloud cover was patchy.. and it doesn't mean he could ID them if he could see them. Cooper was delayed getting the stairs down, he could not see the ground/lights until he descended the stairs at 8:09.. To claim he intentionally timed that is not supported by anything. A pilot describing BG lights does not mean Cooper saw them or recognized them as BG or used them as an indication to jump.. He would not be able to see them, (if he did) until he descended at 8:09. Again, South is not a path, it encompassed 50% of the direction. That is your error. So, you claim I think he is an idiot who got lucky,, this is a great example RYAN's typical logic and straw-man tactics,, to use hyperbole or ridicule as an argument... newsflash, it isn't an argument. I have never said that, you are making it up just like you are making up these many assumptions. I said it was ad hoc, that isn't an idiot getting lucky. Do you understand that you are just making up stuff. There are good theories and bad theories, not all are equal... My theory fits into the evidence and rationalized some significant conflicts. Your theory is not supported by evidence, is contradicted and relies on many unfounded assumptions. The more evidence that supports a theory and fewer assumptions the better the theory. and your theory is not new, it goes way back, most Cooper beginners jump in excited with this type of thinking and make the same errors.

You make several unproven assumptions.. You don't know if he knows the area well. You don't know if he could see the ground. You fail to understand that he was delayed having trouble with the stairs. You assume he saw the lights and knew it was BG. You assume he knew the path beforehand. So, you have a theory, it doesn't fit well within the evidence and relies on many unfounded assumptions..

Define region he knew and how do you know that he targeted it? You have just made it up, there is no evidence to support it. NONE Obviously he knew the plane was travelling South..

Of course you are,, you always use generalizations to make assumptions.. Hahneman was slightly injured because he had a hard landing due to a tear in his canopy.. You just misapplied the cause to justify your idea that Cooper was slightly injured.. You made a false assumption I corrected it then you made another false assumption. and I don't disagree that Cooper may have sustained slight injuries,, I don't know because there is no evidence.

You have no idea what Cooper did with the lever. YOU are just making it up.. and ignoring the evidence. Nothing new for you. The button needs to be pushed and the lever held forward. The stair light went on twice, the light comes on when the lever is moved from the up/lock detent, it does not indicate the stairs are opened. So, Cooper must have moved the lever from the detent initially, then later moved it back to locked position then forward again causing the light to come on a second time. That plus the speed error indicates he DID NOT operate the stairs correctly initially.

Not necessarily, it depends where he landed. YOU assume all landings were equivalent. Hahneman had a hard landing because he had a tear in his canopy.

and it never occurred to anybody that Cooper could have gotten out at 2/3rds the speed.. Cooper not being able to get the stairs down was not because the plane was flying too fast,, it was because he didn't operate them properly initially.