FLYJACK

Right, I brought it up before bit never got a final answer.. can one determine from the card or visually that the chute is a bailout rig vs main. Cooper initially asked for 2 rigs "fronts and backs" he was referring to one set (front and back) being one rig X2. He later clarified and said 4 total chutes, he didn't actually change his demand, he clarified. The 2 front and two back = 4 total chutes. Just by coincidence, Hahneman also asked for "fronts and backs" using the exact same terminology, but he asked for 6, he got 6 sets of fronts and backs = 12 total, not bailout rigs. So, initially 1 chute meant 1 set of a front and back together. Cooper asking for fronts and backs is earlier terminology for a main and reserve.. He was asking for mains and received bailout rigs. You'd think that if he knew they were bailout rigs that he would have demanded mains on the ground on Seattle.. he complained about the missing D rings,, so it is very likely he did not realize they were bailout rigs. Kaminsky's theory is not new, the idea that Cooper saw the lights or saw ground markers goes way back.. Kaminsky takes that to an unreasonable conclusion that Cooper targeted his jump zone. No way he knew where the plane would be and he was delayed having trouble with the stairs.. add to that Cooper was jumping with a bailout rig, his drift was potentially up to 5 miles. V23 itself was 10 miles wide. There is absolutely no chance Cooper targeting a predetermined jump spot. A 5 mile radius from the 8:11 time. Ignore Cunningham's absurd path time adjustment abomination. It took Cooper about two minutes after descending the stairs and pick a jump spot. He may have seen the city light glow, per pilots. We don't know if he could see ground markers due to broken clouds. We don't know if he could even recognize markers if he could see them. He jumped over mostly farms and fields with some patches of heavy brush and trees so easily survivable if he pulled. Conclusion, Cooper did not know he was using a non steerable bailout rig, he did not jump to a predetermined spot, after being delayed with the stairs he descended at 8:09 and looked for what he felt was a good spot and jumped 2 minutes later,, nothing to do with ground markers or lights. He did not have a target, he did not target PDX,, it was ad hoc.

Typically, you have assumed incorrectly.

This exemplifies Ryan's arrogant attitude and weaponization if his own misinformation and bias.. it carries over to the entire case. The FBI file said several missing teeth upper sides.. When I got that file I also had a 1972 image of Hahneman showing his upper front teeth and none were missing. So, I knew there had to be some explanation,, but could only speculate. Was it a witness error, did he get teeth knocked out, did he wear a partial, no idea. Hahneman was an executive, it didn't make sense he would appear toothless and I had that photo showing his teeth intact. Here is the difference between Ryan's research and mine.. He just accepted it as a fact then embellished it and said missing half his front teeth then it morphed to upper and lower... He lied because it fit his own bias. I kept digging for 6 years and it was difficult but I discovered that only one person reported the missing teeth out of about 50 witnesses and they said it was the upper "bicuspids". those are down the side in front of the molar. NOT easy to see at all and common for people who wear braces.. further, removal of the bicuspids to straighten upper teeth often results in teeth moving back and the upper recess. That can cause the lower to protrude. Hahneman does have a protruding lower. So, Ryan completely screws this up and doubles down, he uses something that is actually false to eliminate a suspect and discredit me that in reality matches Cooper's sort of protruding lower lip.. Ryan tries to discredit me using an assumption he has about Hahneman that in reality matches Cooper. It is a bizarro world to be attacked from such a position of ignorance.... and it carries over to the entire case.

The reason the sketch A v B things comes up is because Ryan has an opinion for A based on a generalization, not evidence. He elevates that opinion as the foundation/premise for another opinion.. Cooper had a small narrow nose and must look like A not B, absurd. He uses these compounded "opinions" to eliminate or even mock suspects he doesn't like. He makes the same structural error with his height opinion.. It has been noted and is obvious that these are composite sketches and Cooper may be close or not.. put sunglasses on a suspect and they all look similar.. Sketches are NOT made to eliminate, they are created to generate leads. That is why they created B, to generate better quality leads not due to that attribution error. Ryan actually claimed there would be no B sketch without that attribution error.. so B is invalid.. nonsense. My challenge to Ryan is with respect to the structure of his argument and use, it is flawed. His opinion or conclusion is really irrelevant.. his logic and reasoning is flawed for the sketches and other things. He uses that flawed reasoning to attack others, that is the problem. My issue with Ryan is that his logic and reasoning is often flawed and goal seeking, then he weaponizes those flawed conclusions to mock and ridicule others or to advance other flawed theories. He lashes out when challenged because he really has no evidence for his layers of opinions. He publicly lied about Hahneman's teeth repeatedly to discredit me, I pointed out that is was false and he just lied bigger,, he stopped discussing it but has not corrected the record. So, he is fine with disseminating false information. Everyone believes Hahneman was missing half his teeth because of Ryan.. and that I must be crazy for not accepting that would eliminate him.. People in the youtube chat mocked Hahneman as a suspect based on the teeth.. But, it isn't true, Ryan lied and everyone just accepted it. Ryan is an influencer but he is dishonest and flawed.. bad combo. It took me six years to sort that out and Ryan's lies will never get taken back in the minds of the public. Damage done. Ryan is more interested in winning than getting things right. His arguments are riddled with juvenile strategies and fallacies. He will endlessly mock Hahneman for not looking like sketch A (his opinion) and accuse me of bias even though I have the same position as the FBI on the sketches.. Ryan elevates an opinion to fact then uses it to eliminate.. it is the worst thing you can do while investigating a case like this, use an opinion to eliminate instead of facts. But he doesn't know what he doesn't know. I have many pics of Hahneman and he looks like three completely different people.. I even have one that looks surprisingly close to Sketch A except for the super skinny nose.. hair exact, round face shape and mouth very very close. So, Ryan's claim is bogus, it is just made up. So, I challenge anybody to deal with Ryan, Nicky or anyone publicly disseminating false information to discredit you... to support their personal opinion, bias or agenda. These people are digging themselves into big holes, they just don't realize it yet. but objectively, sketch B is better though it is still a composite sketch primarily created to generate leads.

That jump zone circle is not accurate.. a red herring. We don't know if Cooper could see the ground and identify markers. The cloud layer was spotty.. He could not see the city lights glow until he descended the stairs at 8:09, then he could have seen the glow. He jumped about 8:11. The problem with the beacon theory other than zero evidence is that he would have had no expectation of visible contact beforehand just like the path. The only thing we can assume is that he could likely make out the glow of "Portland" from 8:09 at the bottom of the stairs.. this was not predetermined. IMO, he doesn't know exactly where he is, but generally. Struggles with stairs but gets them open about 8:00 and descends at 8:09, gets his bearings and picks a spot to jump at 8:11. Another issue nobody has considered,, Cooper received bailout rigs, non-steerable.. did he know they were non-steerable bailout rigs when he jumped? If he thought they were steerable that would change things.

I have shared the image with people I trust,,, you are definitely not one of them.

Maybe,, I would prefer to switch Mitchell and Gregory because Gregory said he was late.. but who knows.

This is your game,, you just make up stuff..

Cooper CAN'T be under 5-10.... the FBI used 5-8 as the lower bound for elimination.. See a pattern,, I agree with the FBI and get attacked for it.. You are 100% correct and I have even said that generally a memory is better closer to an event.. However, that doesn't mean that happened here. If the process was identical it would have merit but the process was not the same, the witness inputs were not the same. Sketch A was quick, B took longer with more witnesses. All the witnesses liked B,, and I that image that looks closer to B... the FBI admitted B was the best sketch. You can't just apply a general claim without context.. it doesn't make it true. There is no argument.. Sketch B is the best likeness.

Sure, when you lie and attack me personally I will respond. You said I have psychological defect ONLY because I didn't accept your theory. It was not provoked.

Whatever,,, Your sketch A argument is absurd.. your comment is full of personal insults because you lack confidence. You actually have no idea what you are even talking about. I know exaclty where the FBI messed up. Stick to your nutty ideas.. I prefer you keep them and continue digging yourself into a big hole.

Tina also said she never saw Cooper's face..... so, there's that. But I would be the first to applaud you if you are sticking to the facts.. because you've got some wacky opinions. You are so aggressive with your sketch A better theory it suggests you lack confidence in it.

I have an image from a witness. Looks closer to sketch B but not exactly, nothing like A. No Michael Jackson nose. Sketch B is better than A,, but still a composite sketch..

Sketch B is a very good match for Murphy.. sketch a is not. Witnesses really liked Murphy in glasses and hat.

It is just a fact that Mitchell was was not under the same level of anxiety as the stews.. Flo probably affected the most. He was not aware of the bomb threat,, It is reasonable for the FBI to know this and use that information in their investigation. There is no reason to doubt Galen's claim that the FBI elevated Mitchell's observations because he was a more neutral observer since the underlying premise is true. In fact, that neutral observer might even be extended to the four male passenger witnesses.

You have a point. Sketches are really for generating leads... they are weak evidence. Sketch A is not even human, nose way too small, looks way too young, no complexion.. and the FBI said B is the best likeness, witnesses thought it was excellent. Ryan needs clickbait for his book. So, he invented A being better. Good luck with that.

The FBI made the claim it was the best, some witnesses liked it better. They are all absurd.. Flo liked A and B, then claimed none were any good.. reliable? Hahneman has nothing to do with this, you pull that out for your endless strawman tactics when you have nothing and are losing. Anyone who doesn't agree with your made up nonsense is biased.. This is a pattern, I have the same position as the FBI but I am accused of being biased. Is it in your book? Better be careful.. I have receipts. You are wrong on sketch A being better, you have nothing to back it up.

So, the FBI just didn't understand that doing a sketch a year later was irrelevant.. and falsely claimed it was the best likeness... based on all the witnesses liking it. They didn't figure it out because it isn't true, it is just something you invented to support sketch A..

You are making an assumption, a very bad one.. The reason was for age and complexion... to get better leads and stop wasting time on poor ones. The primary goal of a sketch is to get quality leads.. Sketch A was not doing that. The fact is they used a better process for B and everyone liked it.

The claim from Galen via the FBI was that Flo suffered from anxiety vs Mitchell who was a more neutral observer,, he was not in fear of his life but got a close look at the hijacker. This is objectively true. Ryan needs either Galen or the FBI to be lying.. I just don't accept that... there is no indication they are and it makes perfect sense. Objectively, based on circumstances Mitchell being a more neutral observer would be more reliable. There is no reason for the FBI or Galen to lie. That moves us to the sketch,, the reason for the difference between A and B is still unresolved. As far as I can tell the stews Alice and Flo probably had more influence for sketch A.. not sure about Tina... the other passengers had reviewed it but little or no input. Sketch A was created very quickly in a personal interview.. Sketch B was a completely different process, more reliable. It took longer with more feedback from all witnesses. The stews were also interviewed in person for sketch B. Everybody really liked B except maybe Tina who claimed she didn't see Cooper's face.. The FBI also concluded it was the best likeness. So, where did the change come from.. did all the stews memories alter or was the additional input from the other witnesses. How do so many witnesses like sketch B.. IMO, it was a more comprehensive process. I recognize the attribution error Ryan found but don't accept it as the reason for sketch B, it was incidental. Also, I am convinced that sketch B is more accurate based on process, the claim that earlier is better is a general concept but only when the process is the same. The process for sketch A and B was not the same. Further, I have that undisclosed Cooper image and it is closer to B.. Flo was understandably shaken by the hijacker's threat..

I read that as meeting with three, but first meeting with 2 together, Flo and Alice.. then with Tina showing her the sketch prepared. Rose said he met with 2 which was probably the first meeting with Flo and Alice.

Are you saying that Flo gave no new input for B. an aside but Rose said he interviewed 2 stews for A.. This seems to say two, then the third was shown the result.

So why was B so different from A..

So, it is your position that the reason the reason the sketches look different is because Flo's memory changed.

Yes, I have a psychological defect because I don't agree with your argument.. check the mirror. I genuinely don't agree with your position, so have no reason to admit I am wrong. You have an opinion.. What you have mixed up is relativeness. Less Flo more Mitchell for B v A. Simple objective fact. The argument is less Flo not no Flo for B. Fact is Flo played a more significant role overall in producing A than B. If she played a greater role in B then why is it so different... has to be a reason why they are so different... Flo was emotional, she participated in two sketches and later said none were right.