FLYJACK

I have the entire list of 9998 Cooper bills in a spreadsheet matching the alpha numeric list published by the FBI... that FBI list was re-ordered, it does not match the order as given to Cooper on the Micro. We do not have that original order. I have checked all the start/stop numbers, they are not in there. You guys have to remember there were two bank emergency stashes and two different Micros sent to the FBI.. The 15 packets left behind and not given from the initial bank stash given to Cooper was immediately incorporated into a second bank stash. The entire Micro for the second emergency stash was requested by the FBI as they were having trouble deleting the bills not given to Cooper based on the initial 15 pairs of stop/start numbers. The second Micro had a range of bills to be deleted and that had an error on one of the bills. Was that error material,, no way to know.

Georger claims bait money is never sent out in paper straps... he cites experts and protocol. Georger is manufacturing a premise to influence perception. Richard Floyd McCoy ransom money in what,,,, paper straps. Even though the evidence strongly suggests paper bands were used it isn't really material. Carr believed that the packets were randomized in count. CKRET.. "November 29, 2007 · Report reply The money was packaged in varying amounts, so one bundle would have $500.00 another $1,000.00, there was no uniformity to it. I have been searching for the evidence report from the lab but have not found it yet, lots of files to go through. When I get it you'll be the second to know." Here he makes two errors, 1st he is referring to the packets of 100 as bundles and 2nd they were not random counts, they were in 100's.. Georger and Carr got this wrong a decade ago and this error plagues the case today. The important takeaway is the individual packets (100 bills) were not randomized in count, the rubber banded bundles of individual packets was. That means the money went to Cooper in individual packets of 100's and those packets were rubber banded into random sized bundles. What does that mean,, the TBAR money likely arrived as one rubber banded bundle of several packets (100 bills each). And that means the idea that the money could have ONLY arrived on TBAR as three separate packets thereby limiting how it got there is BUSTED. Welcome to 2017.... strapped packets were not opened and recombined.

That is interesting,, Snowmman is reviewing the bills and money,, I went over that years ago and was smeared ridiculed and told to shut up.. yup, everybody got it wrong. I already sorted this out.. Carr and Georger got this completely screwed up. I do have all the 9998 bills in a spreadsheet and identified about 80 of them as TBAR bills. Yes, that took some time. The money was in packets of 100's in random sequence. Evidence suggests it was in bank bands and then rubber banded into bundles. The bundles were randomized and rubber banded, not the packets (of 100) but the bundles of packets. Carr and Georger got this wrong, the packets (100's) were not randomized in count, the bundles of packets were. So, the money went to Cooper in packets of 100's (random sequence) then rubber banded in a random number of packets into bundles. Therefore, money found on TBAR was likely from one bundle of packets rubber banded, not three individual packets. The FBI list.. what a mess. The FBI got the Micro with images of all the bills from the bank stash including bills that were not given to Cooper. The FBI was given the start and stop bill numbers for the 15 packets (of 100) that Cooper did not get and were told to deduct those and all in between. Now, the bank immediately made a new emergency stash including those 15 packets on the Micro that did not go to Cooper.. The FBI told the bank they were having difficulty making the Cooper list and asked for the Micro of the new bank stash to check the against the first one.. Confused yet.. The bank gave the FBI a range for those bills on the Micro which had an error in it. Somehow the FBI came up with their list from two Micro lists of two emergency bank stash's.. The FBI list is re-ordered to be alpha numeric, it is not in the sequence that was given to Cooper which was random. We don't have the actual bill order as it was given to Cooper. Further, the FBI list is 9998 bills or two short. That is likely due to an error in deducting a start stop set of bills. Takeaway, the money went to Cooper in packets of 100's of non-sequential random $20 bills, each packet rubber banded into bundles of random packet counts. The TBAR money most likely arrived as one bundle of several packets not three individual packets. The FBI list was re-ordered and likely contains an error. It is very unlikely but theoretically possible that the TBAR money never actually went to Cooper but was part of the money not given to Cooper and put in the new stash. The problem is the chain of custody and tracking was all done by the bank, not the FBI. We have no way to check and confirm that they were accurate. We know that the Cooper bills were on the Micro but we can't confirm 100% that the 1st Micro less the 2nd was accurate. I am sure Georger will read this and distort it into some nonsense to cover for his decade old error. Geoger does not have permission to use this post in whole or part.

KC is a disaster, there is nothing there. He doesn't even fit the description. If your suspect isn't olive/swarthy/latin in appearance and features you have a real big problem. Stick a fork in your case for KC, he is done. I think you already know that. I am not pissed because of your question, I am pissed because of your lies and misinformation. You keep making assumptions that are just wrong and claims about me that are false. That would piss off anybody. The question is legitimate, I asked it myself, if the FBI looked at Hahneman then why wasn't he uncovered. That is were I started... Why wasn't Hahneman Cooper.. was he eliminated, if so why.. I thought there must be something obvious to eliminate him but as I uncovered information he became more likely not less. I already mentioned that I found a gross error made by the FBI and I also found very high level intervention on behalf of Hahneman. I have proof of both. Also, McCoy's hijacking was at the same time, perhaps the FBI focussed on him as Cooper. You make the assumption that he was eliminated. There is no evidence of that. If he was, we don't know if it was accurate. This case is extraordinary and something extraordinary occurred for Cooper to not have been uncovered by the FBI. Hahneman matches the Cooper profile and description virtually perfectly, better than any other suspect. Hahneman is redacted from FBI files while others (who have died) are not. Hahneman committed a nearly identical crime. FACT, the FBI made a gross error and there was very high level intervention on Hahneman's behalf.. and Hahneman was not a copycat, US official said his plans to HJ predated Norjak. Based on that, a real investigator would ask why Hahneman was not Cooper.. an amateur would assume he wasn't with no evidence whatsoever.

Yes, Tosaw claimed in his book that Cooper removed the packing cards. I think there were two cards found, but the inspection of Hayden's back chute will confirm. Cossey's recall was the only source for the Cooper chute being his NB6/8, he never produced his records. If he was wrong and the chute was the 60-9707 then it may have been already found. read more here.. https://themountainnewswa.net/2021/07/29/db-cooper-fbi-documentation-on-the-parachutes-gets-another-review/

No, you have contradicted yourself so many times I've lost track.. You twist what I have written to fit within your warped reality.. You ignore actual facts and assert assumptions.. most wrong. You just make up stuff out of thin air.. straw-man nonsense. You project your own failure on me.. you released your Cooper research and failed.. I don't care to release mine and it is driving you crazy. You seem threatened. You are experiencing cognitive dissonance.. the process of enlightenment when you come to the realization that all your Cooper work is wrong. Instead of acknowledging that you have it all wrong, you are lashing out at me for not disclosing my research. Now, you claim with no evidence whatsoever that I have nothing.. << this is psycho stuff. Be thankful some fools are willing to give some scratch for your nonsense, Ulis made money too, at least he finally admitted Peterson wasn't Cooper, I respect that.

The chute SN 60-9707 was described as a 24 ft from the card. Here a 24 ft chute was found but rejected as they believed the Cooper chute was 28 ft from Cossey. If Cossey was wrong about his NB6/8 being used it may have been a 24 ft SN 60-9707.

You have a very loose relationship with reality... seek help

You are so clueless it is beyond belief... It's like trying to reason with Sybil... she faked it.. You brought up Hahneman after I pointed out the protruding lower lip evidence, not me. Another fact you just deny... I have said it over and over,, I am not here to convince anybody of anything. I have enough evidence to convince ME that Hahneman is the best Cooper suspect by a long shot. I have been trying but can't forensically put him on the plane. You have just repeated the lie that I think LEO is stupid.. I have never said that, you just make it up because you don't know what you don't know. You claim you don't make up stuff then you make up stuff.. see a pattern here. CRAZYTOWN You want to dismiss Hahneman but you can't because you don't have any facts so you make up a narrative, a proxy that is irrational. Blame me for not giving you proof then you can dismiss him... that people, is insane. You are a joke, your reasoning/logic, your research, your ignorant assumptions.. are incompatible with reality. Go look for UFO's... the Cooper case is not for you. Say what you want about Hahneman but stop lying about me.

Making up stuff... I was referring to your bogus comments about myself and Hahneman. Your KC is an open book and there is nothing there. Lots of work but no results. Probably in running for the weakest suspect of all. Understand this,, then take a hike. I do not owe you anything. I am NOT going to give you my research. You are not worthy. It is not my responsibility to educate you... Sorry, I am not researching this case for you, I am doing it for myself. Just because I won't give you my research doesn't mean I don't have any. You can think whatever you want about Hahneman with your limited knowledge but you crossed the line when you manufactured false claims about me. I did not bring up Hahneman, you did.. when you tried to dismiss the Cooper protruding lower lip evidence with your ridiculous backasswards logic about height.

Hard work doesn't mean quality, the KC case is as weak as it gets. You know he wasn't Cooper. Here is what I think, you are a moron... Why, You make completely false assumptions and 100% bogus claims,,,, because you don't actually know anything. You make errors that I correct and you just keep going with same ones and add new ones. A never ending sewer. I am not interested in correcting your garbage. It is far too time consuming and no upside for me. YOU ARE JUST MAKING UP STUFF... So, get lost.

I am not going to argue with a moron.

Your statements make no sense, the stews told the sketch artist the same thing, Cooper had a protruding lower lip. That makes it more reliable not less or the same as height estimates.. Your argument is backasswards. A protruding lower lip is something objectively seen, height is a subjective estimate. Do you understand your error? I really don't like to have to unwind your messed up logic for you. And I have said that Hahneman is the best suspect based on the evidence I have short of forensics putting him on the plane. Based on all the evidence I have, I believe he was Cooper. I have tried but can't put him on the plane, no suspect can be put on the plane. Now, I would never expect others to accept Hahneman as Cooper without having all the info I have, but to reject him with VIRTUALLY NO INFORMATION is intellectually ignorant. You know nothing about Hahneman or what the FBI believed or didn't or if what they believed is even accurate. You also assume the FBI didn't make errors or wasn't influenced by outside sources.. I have evidence of both. What you have expressed is a BIG FAT logical fallacy... You have made assumptions about something you have zero knowledge about to reach a predetermined conclusion. I despise this type of thinking, it ends valid intellectual inquiry. Essentially, your lack of knowledge is your argument. This is amateur thinking. You should ask yourself, if Hahneman pulled off a virtually identical crime, matched the unique description perfectly, was virtually erased from public discourse and FBI files and was falsely labelled a copycat then why wasn't he Cooper. That is where you start. You don't start with he wasn't Cooper because the FBI didn't tell us he was. That is insane. The FBI admitted that they had no case without Cooper's co-operation due to lack of evidence. No, you aren't picking on me, you are only discrediting yourself and becoming completely irrelevent. Your arguments are ignorant unfounded assumptions or completely backasswards. Seriously, I have thousands of pieces of information, it would take me a month to pull it all together into a presentable form and I am just not interested. So, keep your blinders on, ignore the evidence and bury your head in the sand.

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.