FLYJACK

Hahneman walked backwards down the 727 ventral stairs and went off back first at 9000 ft,, don't know when he pulled..

The tie plant theory is a common one that goes way back.. WE don't know if he discarded it intentionally, or accidentally.. I believe he used it to wipe prints in the plane but that is speculation.

Yes, Shutter you have missed the point, completely It only negates a premise used for an argument.. it doesn't make a positive argument for anything which you are assuming. You have always had trouble with logic. I am not making any argument other than the premise for Cooper "planting the tie" is busted. That is all... you have added the inverse and assumed an argument that isn't there.

Eric and Robert99 are still pushing these falsehoods... based on compounded assumptions represented as FACTS.. I have addressed these many times and they just get ignored... It is not a fact that the placard came from inside 305... unlikely but possible There is no evidence the other part found was from 305... The wind at the Placard find around 8 PM was S recorded at Toledo.. The winds aloft at the placard find from SW is NOT A FACT. There is no record. Even the winds the FBI used for the LZ was an estimate, even that was not a fact. The flightpath was not the F-106, they turned E too late and did loops. The western flightpath theory is conjecture, assumptions and rejection of known facts. There is really ZERO to support it. ZERO, it is just made up.

Tom and I got the same slope for TBAR... about 10%. 5.5-5.7 degrees That puts the money spot about 4 ft above the river in Feb 1980. Less if buried. The money spot is reached by seasonal water level fluctuations. You don't need the 72/74 flood event to reach the money spot. The seasonal high flow for the Columbia is Spring. Money found along high water line.. said right at beginning

Shutter, you keep stating the obvious.. The point is ONLY to asses the argument that the "tie was planted" because Cooper was meticulous with evidence.. He was not. The premise for that argument is false.

Tina admitted she was handed ransom money.. The stews said all were offered tip money from the drink change. There are a few reports that Flo and Alice were also offered ransom money as they left. They all claimed the money was refused or returned in Tina's case. It would not have been a crime to take the money if they turned it in, they should have taken it for potential prints. It is actually something that happens often, hijackers give money to crew and sometimes passengers. It compromised them as witnesses. Tina had a huge bag and coat if she did keep the money it could have easily been concealed. Being religious is irrelevant. Maybe she kept the money handed to her then was scared to turn it in naively thinking she would be in trouble, she wouldn't have been. If she didn't turn it in right away she had to keep it eventually discarding it.. If Tina did keep the money she would be compromised as a witness.

No, Shutter you still don't get the point.. It only addresses the "tie was a plant" argument. The standard argument claims Cooper was so careful about all the evidence he must have planted the tie. He wouldn't have been so sloppy to leave it.. Well, handing cash to the stews which could have his fingerprints isn't careful and meticulous. If he was sloppy with the money he could have been sloppy with the tie.

FBI files state his initial demand was changed and the radio transcript confirms it.. Cooper's initial demand was airstairs to be lowered in flight.. it was changed when they were negotiating to land in Reno. The argument that Cooper wanted to jump ASAP is based on his demanding the airstairs down on take off.. << this premise is often repeated and it is false with respect to his initial plan. There is no evidence to indicate his initial plan was to jump ASAP.. When Reno was in play he wanted out ASAP.. If Cooper's initial plan was to jump ASAP he could have initially demanded airstairs down on take off.

Here is a similar bogus argument.. Everyone, including myself believed Cooper wanted to jump ASAP because he demanded airstairs down on takeoff.. But, as clearly laid out in the FBI files his initial demand was airstairs lowered inflight, he changed it during negotiations with the crew.. Since his plan A was airstairs lowered inflight that indicates he did NOT want to jump ASAP or near Seattle. The conclusion that he wanted to jump ASAP at least initially is busted. Once the plane was going to land in Reno he wanted out ASAP.. Authorities would have mobilized on Reno. That tells us he jumped into an area he had not planned.

Shutter responded... "It was Cooper's money? of course his prints would be found on any of it he touched prior to or after exiting the plane..plus dozens of other prints would be found on the money since it was in circulation prior to being stored at the bank..does't mean any good prints would be found or even able to link to him.." This is why I lose patience with that forum, Shutter completely missed the point. The point isn't whether prints could be found or not on money, the point is Cooper took the risk... and because he took that risk with the money it contradicts the argument that he was meticulous about evidence (clearly he wasn't) and could have only left the tie as a plant. It tells us that the tie plant theory based on Cooper's thoroughness with evidence is bogus. That is all.

I know Eric claims the placard came from next to the bulkhead door but that is impossible, there is not enough room between the access panel and the door on the 727-100,, maybe there is more room on the 727-200, I am not sure.. further the emergency release is too far from that location and behind its own panel. So, the claim that it was attached next to the bulkhead door is false for NORJAK's 727-100. It is not a fact that the placard came from NORJAK.. I think it is very unlikely based on many factors but it is possible.. even the FBI walked it back.

He demanded the notes and matchbook back so many infer he was meticulous about prints and argue he would never leave the tie evidence and therefore it was a plant.. The fact that he handed out money and left cigarette butts refutes that level of meticulousness.. and the main argument for the plant theory.

I just don't see how leaving the tie benefits Cooper.. he may have left it intentionally or unintentionally. If he wanted to mess with the FBI there are many better ways to do it.. Also, Cooper handed money to Tina.. she took it and claimed to return it. Now, Cooper's prints would likely be on that money. So, handing money to Tina was not smart and contradicts his perceived thoroughness. Cooper also handled the drink money, reportedly offered the other stews ransom money and tip/change money from his pocket. That demonstrates that he wasn't as "sharp" as claimed.. I think he was as lucky as he was sharp. That risk Cooper took of leaving prints on the money negates the argument that Cooper must have planted the tie because he was so meticulous about not leaving prints behind.

According to the FBI, sketch "B" is more accurate...

Why? for what purpose.. How would it benefit him,, pre DNA.. it took 40+ yrs to analyze the particles.

It is possible the tie wasn't his... anything is possible. The Goodwill thing is a stretch for such a dirty cheapo tie. Can't see that, it was filthy. I think he probably used the tie to wipe prints in the plane, based on the particle distribution clusters, but he left cigarettes possibly cups and magazines.. and the parachutes he handled. So, leaving the tie isn't really out of character. Hahneman left a tie behind for his hijacking..

Short version.. Eric is dishonest, frequently wrong and I don't publicly debate people I don't respect about their nonsense theories. The IMPORTANT Cooper take away is the tie was made and likely sold after early 1964 into 1965. Since the tie had 6-7 years worth of "environments" to collect all those particles and not the couple years the FBI claimed, then matching a suspect to an environment in that timeframe is a big deal. EVERYONE is missing this..

Wrong Dave, Eric is full of it. The funky "P" was already known to have been introduced in 1963. I have since pinned down the exact date in 1963. The Remington manufacturer is easily found based on a 2 second google search of the RN number. That is a gimme. What I am referring to is dating the tie by deciphering the patent numbers from the Cooper tie, the label was actually misaligned so the last number on the patent was missing from view. Way back, I did a massive search for similar Pennys Towncraft Snapper ties.. I noticed they had different patent numbers for the Snapper.. Looking up the patents you can get a date range.. Later ties had different numbers and ties 1963 and before did not have the funky "P". So, we could narrow down the date. I posted this ongoing process with pics and long before Eric claimed to have figured it out. I also mentioned it in posts many times.. I also emailed it to a bunch of Cooper people. About a year and half after I posted this stuff Eric brags about deciphering the tie patents. I asked him where he got that from.. He said he did it himself.. RIGHT Eric also bragged that he had been studying the case thoroughly for a long time so there is no way he didn't see my posts on it.. there are many posts referring to the tie patents and dating the tie to around 1965. Anybody reading Shutters forum back then would have seen my many posts on it. To deflect, Eric has been calling me a troll and a liar trying to discredit me ever since. I point out facts that refute his nonsense theories and he either calls me names or ignores it.. So, he is a fraud. There is no way he didn't see my many posts about the tie patents over about a year and half and miraculously come up with it himself. No serious Cooper sleuth believes his Sheridan nonsense, it is wall to wall conjecture layered upon speculation wrapped in guesses and sandwiched in ignorance. If he wasn't running the CooperCon he'd be trashed. CooperCon bought him a level of immunity from criticism, probably the reason he does it. Not debating Eric is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of integrity. I don't publicly debate people I don't respect and debating nonsense theories is akin to debating the existence of Bigfoot. You can't prove Bigfoot doesn't exist. I actually prefer that Eric keeps pursuing his increasingly ridiculous metamorphosing theory... now that I have shown the money spot was reached by the river outside of the 72/74 floods Eric needs to conjure up another version to fit his narrative. Lastly,, Eric has it wrong. It was not in 1963. He wants the tie to be 1963 to put Sheridan in possession. So, he made it up. Eric will get mad again and call me names but he has been doing that ever since I caught him lying. and I really don't care that Eric used it, I posted it for everyone. It is the lies and smears he started... Enough of that nonsense, back to Cooper. The tie dating isn't precise as we can only get a range. A patent application/grant doesn't tell you exactly when that part was made or actually used in manufacture. We also don't know how long the tie may have been in store inventory before being sold. The earliest manufacture is early 1964 thru around the end of 1964.. but the tie could have been sold in 1965.. or a little later if inventory slow.. I use an estimate of 1965 +/- 6 months. These are images I posted around Feb 2017.. I also mentioned it many many times in posts before Eric claimed it was his. So, it would be a huge plus for a Cooper suspect environment to match the tie particles from around 1965 +/- and Hahneman matches it better than any suspect. The FBI went to a Pennys store and asked a manager about the tie and they said a few years old... So, the FBI went with that and assumed the tie was only a couple years old. It was actually about six years old. Cooper tie on right.. examples of the different patents on other ties on the left. The last "0" is cutoff the Cooper tie patent number label.

The Hans Egger family owned the N property adjacent to the Fazio's from well before the hijacking to 2004.. Anderson bought it in 2004. I assume he was the "resident/user" prior to 2004, but not the legal owner. The problem is the Fazio's commercial sand and gravel operation is an entirely different process from beach nourishment which had nothing to do with the property owner. There is a water level on the beach where the property actually ends and it is public.. The money spot was very close to the border of the properties and public beach line and it seems unlikely the Fazio's would place their commercial material right up to that border.. We need to find any and all "beach nourishment" records for the Egger property and Fazio's. My preliminary guess is there was "continuous" beach nourishment operations there. The Fazio Commercial dredging operations/permits are probably a red herring and took place South of the money find..

The money may not have been recognizable, looked like wood or garbage.. A local resident said his kids drove a 4wd over the spot... The Ingram's added Clorox to the sink water but were mostly unsuccessful in separating individual bills. They got a few but the 3 packets ended up in 12 clumps.

I checked the shadows in the TBAR pic and estimate the time is late afternoon,, Tide height was about 2.5 ft

Tom's diatom research indicates they entered the money packets in Spring when the money fanned out.. Spring 72-79 The diatoms would not have penetrated the sand or a solid clump of bills. Palmer and the Army Corps suggest the money landed on TBAR within a year or so of the find in 1980. 78-79 If the 1974 dredge operation did not actually reach the TBAR spot it also looks like there was a beach nourishment there in 1973. The money spot is only about 4 ft above the water level in Feb 1980, the river reached that spot frequently including 1978. (The 72/74 flood event only is bogus) The money was found in the top fresh debris layer. Conclusion.. The money most likely entered the River in Spring 79 (poss 78) and was deposited on TBAR within a very short period of time. This is what I have been saying all along.... case is solved.

Apparently for some "continuous" means once every ten years... “During fishing season, the beach is packed from end to end, say local residents Clarence and Barbara Ellis. They have lived in their mobile home just down the road from Fazio Bros. for the past 30 years. Every day Clarence takes his outboard skiff along Tina Bar patrolling the river and the beach for renegade logs that could damage other boats. Ellis says that the Army Corps of Engineers continuously dredges sand directly off the shore from where the money was found.” “Today a spokesman for the Army Engineers said they were working closely with the FBI, checking out that lead, The sand sucked up from the bottom of the river and spewed onto the beach could have contained some or all of the long-sought money. While dredging is continuous, the last time sand was deposited in that spot was in October 1974.” “The beach property actually belongs to the Hans Egger family of Vancouver." This may have been an early assumption because the spot is so close to the property boundary.. it is too hard to pinpoint today but the money spot is just on one side of the property boundary line. Edit: The quotes above are not my statements, they are reports at the time.. Your ignorance is duly noted. Here is the Egger property bordering N of Fazio's.. along the River right at the money spot.

I recently discussed the TBAR slope with Tom.. He got 5.5 deg from his photo, I got 5.7 deg from this photo (about 10% slope). Essentially a match.. using people in the photo and the slope it puts the money spot height at about 4 ft above the water level in Feb 1980. Sorry Eric, wrong again. Here in June 1978 the river level is right at the money spot.. it looks to be just N of the Fazio's and on the Egger property but it is too close to call.