FLYJACK

Should be, search for "snowmman" two m's

People lied in the 70's and 80's.. Cooper was somebody the more criminal element aspired to be.. lots of made up stories about being him or knowing him. Guys would tell girls they were Cooper as a pick up line in the bar. Point is there is no corroboration for any of it.. just like many confessions to being Cooper.. made up, people lie all the time.. You need some actual evidence..

No dredge,, too violent. For a bundle of money packets to go into a dump truck, get dumped and migrate to the money spot is just not very plausible. First, the money spot was not close to the sand and gravel operation, that would be too violent as well, and the Fazio's got their sand from the river. Anything that was trucked in would be minor.. I don't see it as being something that a reasonable explanation. None of it is supported by evidence.. There are a few parameters that a good theory should fit otherwise you can make up almost anything. Most likely, somebody was given or found some money and it became a liability so they tossed it in the River to discard it.. it was not planted for any reason, it was discarded. I have one other really good theory that is a variation, the money was stashed next to the River in a structure, that structure was destroyed and the money went into the river upstream of TBAR.

Haven't seen that for a long time but it relies on stories from sketchy people, no evidence.. Cooper was regarded as a hero back then,, to brag many people claimed to know him or even be him... I don't give Briggs or the party story any credibility.

That was a 1975 Incorporation.. those docs are meant to describe the widest business operation foreseeable but not necessarily carried out. It does not show that they imported sand from other operations. They obtained their sand from the River. It may be possible something was brought in to mix but I don't see any way the TBAR money could be trucked in, dumped and then migrate 500 ft to its spot intact. Not only is that an extreme long shot but the money would not remain in its condition. The money landed there in the condition it was given to Cooper. For three packets to remain bundled and largely intact limits the mechanism by which it was moved. The best explanation is that somebody tossed it into the River. The big problem I have and go back and forth on is when.. Did the money arrive in a spring soon after the hijacking or was it in the late 70's. Palmer thought within a few years of the find. If we knew that we could narrow down some of these theories. My latest idea,, if the money arrived close to the hijacking is that the 1974 dredge operation went on top of it. That eroded to 1980 and exposed it. The dredge layer Palmer identified as 1974 being beneath the money was actually a pre-Norjak 1970 dredge layer.

No, the Fazio exported sand from the River... it was also about 500 ft south of the TBAR find.. The TBAR money money spot was a few feet from the border of the next northern property. The money alone would sink but still have some buoyancy to be pushed along the river bottom.. Granted TBAR is speculation, there are some theories that are better than others.

First, these are theories, not fact.. I have several competing TBAR theories. The key is that the money offered to Tina was the only known money separated from the ransom in the bag, perhaps the money offered to the other stews but we don't have clear info on that. Logical inference suggests it is likely the money that ended up on TBAR. Tosaw initially suggested that the money offered to Tina ended up in Cooper's coat pocket, he landed in the Columbia and it ended up on TBAR. I don't think Cooper went into the Columbia but the idea that the money in his coat pocket somehow ended up on TBAR is reasonable. For Tina, if one claim is switched it all falls onto place. She said she handed the money back, if she didn't or Cooper snuck it back into her purse then the TBAR money likely came from Tina. If Tina somehow got that money and was too scared to report it, she kept it until the late 70's and when she lived near Portland just one mile from the Columbia River. She told her brother in law and he threw it in the Columbia to protect her. The most likely process was that the money was thrown into the Columbia to discard it, not human buried. That may may have been via Tina or perhaps Cooper paid somebody for a ride from money in his coat pocket and they tossed it. The most likely spot is just 2 miles upstream at Frenchman's Bar, a public park with easy beach access. If somebody is carrying money it would likely be in some type of container and tossed into the River in a container.. some type of bag perhaps a brown paper bag.. which will float for some time.. So, when people claim the money sinks, true on its own but it is more likely that it went into the River in some type of container. IMO, TBAR will never be solved.. just some theories.

I know the case is riddled with these things,, did he put it in his coat pocket. Was the package one packet or one bundle of packets. Agent Baker said the bundle sizes were made random,, were there bundles of 3 packets delivered to Cooper... Since the money Cooper gave to Tina and possibly offered the other stews was the only money we know of that was separated from the ransom money bag.. it is reasonable to theorize that it was the money that ended up on TBAR.

That is a big mystery... only Tina and Cooper know what happened to that money.. IMO, it is even possible that Tina didn't hand back the money. Her story never really made sense to me. To be humorous... Tina asks for some money. Cooper hands her "one package". She claims she handed it back telling Cooper she was not allowed gratuities.. citing a later incident when all stews were offered the tip money. Then right before they launch that big search in March, a short comment pops up in her local paper claiming Cooper offered her money but she refused.. The only inside case info coming out publicly from Tina.. It sounds like she was front running the search in case the money was found and some was missing.. Can't prove it but the entire thing is suspicious. This was undisclosed case info,, she did not publicize any other case info.. She also lied,, she asked for the money.

Ryan's video.. It is good,, Ryan clearly put a lot of work into it. Tina did not say one "packet" of $2000 was handed to her. The FBI file for Tina says only "one package" that may be one packet or several in a bundle. This is important because the TBAR money may be the money Cooper offered to Tina.

This guy looks familiar.. he still doesn't have 8 deep forehead lines..

The anatomy of deception.. Skip Loran Hall IS NOT DB Cooper. Skip Loran Hall is 100% eliminated based on his unique facial features, fact, Limbach can write a thousand books, Skip is NOT Cooper. Anybody who defends Skip's facial features as being compatible with Cooper is just not being honest and engaging in propaganda. Skip has severe forehead lines, deep, numerous and they go right up into his receding part, not normal, not Cooper. Skip parts his hair on both sides, the forehead lines go way up into the part on both sides. Cooper parted his hair on the left and had normal forehead lines. Skip has severe lines from his eyes down his face, Cooper did not have these. Skip has a mole on the left side the side Tina would be facing it and never mentioned it. No mole mentioned for Cooper. Skip also has at least 4 large lumps/bumps near his mouth, these are clear in the video of him without the moustache/goatee, it hides most of them. Cooper did have a moustache and they would have been noticed by witnesses. Never mentioned for Cooper. These were not reported by Cooper witnesses and are so unique they would not all be missed by every witness. Hall is 100% eliminated. Stick a fork in him, he is done. Here is how Ryan lies to manipulate, influence and deceive.. a lot of people seem to get duped by him. Lie by commission.. Ryan claimed my argument was Cooper had no forehead lines. False, Ryan is creating a strawman by completely making up and distorting my argument. Cooper had normal forehead lines I have never said he did not. Ryan often falsely restates my arguments to attack them. This tactic works when the target audience only hears one side and does not realize that Ryan is misrepresenting my argument. Lie by omission.. Ryan only focusses on the forehead lines, he ignores the 4 large lumps/bumps on Skip's face, the mole on the left side, the severe lines from the eyes and hair part on both sides. Lie by distortion.. Ryan claims Skip's forehead lines make him more like Cooper. No, Cooper had normal forehead lines Skip's are severe lines in depth, number and coverage. Lie by distraction.. Ryan claims Hahneman had no forehead lines. False, he does have normal forehead lines. Ryan used a poor photo of Hahneman to claim he had no lines, this is also a lie by deception. He also compared it to a poor image of Skip to minimize his forehead lines. Lie by distraction #2. Attack the messenger,, Ryan attacks Hahneman to discredit me.. Hahneman has nothing to do with Skip's sever facial features. If Hahneman never existed Skip still has those unique facial features that eliminate him. Lie... by appeal to authority... Ryan claims that Skip ranked #1 his on his matrix.. (Hahneman is #1 BTW) and won a poll to give credibility to Skip. Limbach touts this as some achievement. Both are irrelevant. It is strange because Ryan claims Hall isn't Cooper but irrationally defends him... My guess is Limbach will be doing a significant presentation at CooperCon of Skip and Ryan doesn't want to undermine the ticket draw. Skip is an interesting guy for sure, but he is not Cooper and has no place at CooperCon.. There may be good reasons to go but not for Skip... IMO, it is irresponsible and deceptive to present a "suspect" who is provably not Cooper. Not Cooper,, hair parted both sides severe forehead lines, deep, numerous and travel right up both receding hair parts,, Cooper's forehead lines were normal. You can't explain these lines away.. this is NOT DB COOPER. Skip's video in 1968... once you see these things you can't unsee them... Two of the facial bumps clear in video grab next to moustache,,, at least four can be seen in that video. Severe eye wrinkles, Cooper did not have these. Mole left side of face, upper cheek, Tina would have seen it. Large bump also clearly visible at corner of moustache.

Both facts and speculation for this. I found a gross FBI error early on, fact.. It would eliminate him if they used it, I assume they did though the FBI has never admitted why he is not Cooper. My speculation is also a high level coverup later at the State Department for political reasons, not FBI level. I have circumstantial evidence, not direct facts, so still a theory. However, Cooper has to be put in context, the FBI met in 1976 and concluded that there was no case unless Cooper cooperated. They said the evidence was just too weak... That was 1976 not 1972 but the evidence was weak, that is why we have a new suspect pop up every week that ticks many boxes. The evidence is vague enough to interpret tens of thousands of people to fit. It is extremely difficult to put somebody on the plane and may even be impossible. So, until somebody is put on the plane the case can't be 100% solved. None of this is new I have mentioned this before.. My point in using Hahneman for Ryan's matrix (he is #1 BTW) is to expose his hypocrisy and bias, that matrix doesn't make somebody Cooper.. did I mention Hahneman is #1.. That matrix is so basic that thousands and thousands of people can check the boxes. My suspect matrix is almost 200, not 400 as Hyperbolic Ryan keeps claiming, far more detailed and Hahneman does not tick every box.

Ryan will never admit that Hahneman is #1 on his OWN matrix.. no, that doesn't make him Cooper, it exposes Ryan's bias.. The only thing he doesn't get a point for is being a pilot, he claimed to be a pilot but there is no proof of that. But Ryan still has the height range wrong. He claims he is just using the FBI's 5-10-6 ft.. but they didn't... Ryan is misleading, claiming his opinion is backed by the authority of the FBI.. it isn't. That is an ESTIMATE of the hijacker standing in shoes based on Tina. the initial published estimate was 5-9 to 5-10, that one included Gregory's and Mitchell's 5-9.. the description closet to the event.. there is no evidence Tina was right and the two guys were wrong. Clearly, the witness estimates included shoes.. But the FBI used 5-8 as the lower bound for suspects, not 5-10. They used 5-8 to search Elsinore records and there is a warning notice to agents to NOT eliminate suspects based on height down to 5-8.. A self reported height is almost always without shoes, usually an inch less in average shoes. We don't know the height of Cooper's shoes. Laceless ankle something's.. So, Ryan is directly comparing two contextually different datasets. Self reported heights vs height estimate range of the hijacker by Tina in shoes.. You can't do that. The Cooper witness estimates started from 5-9... so the FBI used 5-8 to account for shoes and Tina's claim that Cooper was taller than her... we don't know the height of Cooper's shoes. Ryan's actual height range for Cooper in shoes is defacto 5-11, not 5-10 because he doesn't account for self reporting variability. Bottom line, based on all witnesses and self reporting variability and shoes.. the fact is the FBI used 5-8 as the lower bound.. Ryan uses 5-10 as a cutoff which is incorrect. If you agree with the FBI and disagree with Ryan you are just biased and have an agenda. This is really simple.. You can't directly compare reported heights to Tina's Cooper estimate in shoes to eliminate. It is irrational.

I got Ryan's matrix wrong.. a suspect gets 2 points for aviation experience not 1.. Hahneman goes up 1 point. Ryan only gave Hahneman 9 points, he should update his data and tell everybody that Hahneman is #1. Ryan’s matrix for Hahneman.. he gives him only 9 points.. Ryan obviously has some things wrong. I count 15 points on Ryan’s matrix, 16 minus 1 for height.,, should be 17 if you use the FBI height minimum not Ryan’s personal opinion. Either way Hahneman wins Ryan’s matrix… almost a perfect score. But he can't be Cooper. Ryan's matrix.. Hahneman's scoring on Ryan's matrix.. 1 opportunity 1 point 2 height -1 FBI disagrees with Ryan,, should be a 1 FBI used 5-8 and said do not use to eliminate. What does Ryan know that FBI didn't. 3 Complexion 1 point 4 Age 1 point 5 Drinker 1 point 6 Parachute training/experience 1 point 7 Pilot 0 points 8 Aviation history 2 points 9 727 knowledge 1 point he flew on extensively, not sure if that counts or does it mean specific technical knowledge. 10 Criminal history 1 point committed serious crimes but wasn’t charged. No evidence Cooper had a criminal history. FBI believed he didn’t. 11 Spent time in PNW 1 point 12 Know McChord 1 point must have in air force, Pacific region navigator. 13 Tie particles 1 point 14 Family 1 point 15 Dropzone incorrect (-3) 0 16 Eye witness photo (-3) 0 17 Eye witness see later (-1) 0 18 Demolition 1 point 19 Smoker 1 point 20 Neutral accent 1 point

Yup, Ryan claims those who don't accept his opinions have an agenda.. He can't fathom that he may actually be wrong. We just agree with the evidence and FBI when they said sketch B was the best likeness.. and I agree with the FBI when they used 5-8 as the lower bound.. So, the FBI has an agenda against Ryan as well since 1971/2.. odd argument. But I admit I do have an agenda.. pursue the truth. and Ryan's vid was a train wreck of lies and misinformation.. he completely altered my position on issues to attack and mock them.. completely dishonest and a form of lying.

RyanBurns-NORJAK •1h ago If only we knew what he knew….That’s literally how a 9 year old tries to win a debate. This is the problem, I am not trying to win a debate. I don't need to.. the issue is you have opinions that are not supported by facts, your information base is mediocre.. reasoning poor.. many facts you claim are not true. My goal working on this case is to get to the truth for myself not convince others of anything.. not hand you my research to win an irrelevant debate. I've already won this you just don't realize it yet.

See, what it is like dealing with Hyperbolic Ryan, he said several times I claimed my matrix was 400,, no it is 200. It is quoted right above. I said 200, not 400.. and yes it is almost 200. Ryan always does this.. he never gets anything right. I keep correcting him and he just keeps repeating falsehoods.. I updated Hahneman's score on Ryan's matrix. IMO, he is #1.. if you use the FBI height minimum not Ryan's opinion. Ryan’s matrix for Hahneman.. he gives him only 9 points.. Ryan must have some things wrong. I count 14 on Ryan’s matrix,, should be 16 if you use the FBI height minimum not Ryan’s opinion. I think the top score is 17 if a pilot. 16 is the highest suspect score, Hahneman wins Ryan’s matrix… almost a perfect score. But he can't be Cooper. Somebody said something about a reward... Ryan's matrix.. I think this is it. Hahneman's scoring on Ryan's matrix.. 1 opportunity 1 point 2 height -1 FBI disagrees with Ryan,, should be a 1 FBI used 5-8 and said do not use to eliminate. What does Ryan know that FBI didn't. 3 Complexion 1 4 Age 1 5 Drinker 1 6 Parachute training/experience 1 7 Pilot 0 8 Aviation history 1 not a pilot but was on an aircrew and very knowledgable 9 727 knowledge 1 he flew on extensively, not sure if that counts or does it mean specific technical knowledge. 10 Criminal history 1 committed serious crimes but wasn’t charged. No evidence Cooper had a criminal history. FBI believed he didn’t. 11 Spent time in PNW 1 12 Know McChord 1 must have in air force, Pacific region navigator. 13 Tie particles 1 14 Family 1 15 Dropzone incorrect (-3) 0 16 Eye witness photo (-3) 0 17 Eye witness see later (-1) 0 18 Demolition 1 19 Smoker 1 20 Neutral accent 1

Easton Pa was NOT Hahneman's hometown. He was not born there. He did not grow up there. He was not living there. hometown noun [ C ] UK /ˈhəʊm.taʊn/ US /ˈhoʊm.taʊn/ Add to word list the town or city that a person is from, especially the one in which they were born and lived while they were young:

Officially they claim Hahneman jumped at 3:55 AM in Honduras,, sunrise is about 5:30.. he did jump in the dark. The original plane was delayed in New Orleans when they faked that mechanical issue and had to switch planes so he probably wanted an even earlier jump time.

To Mr Kamkisky on Reddit.. It seems to not be in dispute at all that Hahneman had the plane land a second time because of the denominations issue. I don’t see how that can be ignored. Why would Cooper mess that up so bad he needs to land again and wait four hours for $1,000 and $500s? It makes no sense. Cooper would know basically the size of the bag that was coming to him based on his ask. Is there even a counter argument to that? I just don’t see how the behavior pattern fits. Hahenman is worse at it than Cooper (who didn’t have to land a second time). Is there an example of this anywhere else? Is there a bank robber (sober) who has done two jobs and was worse when requesting and taking the money the second time? Generally people learn from experience and get better. Then there’s the clutching issue. Maybe there is some specific skydiving reason? Is holding a briefcase better? Seems off to me but I don’t know skydiving. First, Ryan knows almost nothing about Hahneman, he was not what we would consider mentally ill. Hahneman that is, I don't know anything about Ryan.. The newspapers are not really accurate often spewing half truths and contextual distortions kind of like Ryan. He initially demanded specific denominations.. took off and discovered he was given the wrong denomination.. that was an excuse to land again and swap some of it.. He later claimed his real reason to return was to delay the hijacking because he wanted a night jump and it had nothing to with the size of the money bag. He did not clutch or jump with the briefcase that is 100% false like many claims about him. He left it in the stairwell and it was tossed by the crew in case the bomb was real. It was very likely fake. Nobody knows anything close to what I know about Hahneman. Newspaper reports are not always that accurate or leave out context,, you see that with the Cooper case as well. One news report had him putting the Captains head in a noose,, didn't happen. Many people used that false to claim to eliminate him as Cooper, too violent. Just like Ryan does with his false claim about the teeth. Fact is.. The FBI had faked a mechanical issue with the plane and Hahneman got upset because he knew they were playing him. He demanded a new plane knowing they had snipers on him ready to blow off his head so he had to surround himself with the crew to transfer planes, he tied a rope to the captains mid section to keep him next to him for protection... Cooper was never put under that stress or in that type of situation.. in fact the stew made an almost identical comment as Tina did about Cooper. Hahneman stew vs Tina.. The problem is guys like Ryan who have a big voice in the Cooper world really have a limited knowledge about Hahneman but don't realize it. So, they form juvenile opinions based on limited knowledge. That is why I get pissed when he spreads misinformation then doubles down on it. If I wasn't me and know what I know now I wouldn't think Hahneman could be Cooper either but I would not eliminate him. I have some requests, do not spread false information (Lyin Ryan), do not use assumptions to eliminate, be patient, keep an open mind and lastly never pet a burning dog.

Hahneman's Wiki page is very very superficial, half truth's, opinions and errors.. I had to scan it because I have never read it. The info is culled from newspaper's. I can see some posters on Reddit have just repeated those errors... The reason the teeth and Ryan are important is because he has used false information to eliminate him and disseminated that to a wide audience. I never wanted to be in the position to defend Hahneman or try to convince anybody anything.. My goal is to get the the truth and Ryan's misinformation undermines that whether that is Hahneman or any other issue. So, Wiki is largely garbage.. everybody with a brain knows that... Ryan really does not know much about Hahneman and has been trashing him and disseminating false information to discredit me. My investigation is still in progress and at this stage it is moving very slow... So, I am not in a position to make a case yet or share my research. Meanwhile, go back to your Skip's, Vordahl's or whatever endless parade of bad suspects with no chance of being Cooper. Write a few bogus books, make a doc, put on a show all the world is a stage.

Exactly... they seem fun and interesting but distort the legit evidence in the minds of the public. Like "the force" it can be used for good or evil..

No, Ryan Easton was not his hometown.. his family lived there, he might have stayed there for a total of a few weeks over the entire previous 10 years... So, when you say he was not like other hijackers and used his hometown,, First, that is irrelevant if true, Second, he hadn't actually lived there for 10 years. You make assumptions based on your own limited knowledge.. which create poorly reasoned conclusions.

Ryan actually knows very little about Hahneman.. he hates Hahneman and it has influenced his perceptions. His non apology... he uses vague language to give a false impression. His claim of "truth" is actually misleading and his opinion. Oh, and while we're on the topic, I'll take this opportunity to beg forgiveness from Flyjack for misstating on my show one time that Hahneman was missing upper and lower teeth. I misspoke. In reality, Hahneman was only missing his upper teeth on both sides of his mouth. When you speak extemporaneously for three hours straight without a break you're bound to get a few things wrong. He implies that it was an intentional misstatement on my part i.e. "a lie", thus "Ryan is a liar". But I assure you all, I had no reason to lie about that because, from my perspective, the truth is JUST as comically bad for a Cooper suspect. It makes no difference to me whether he was missing upper and lower teeth or JUST his upper teeth on both sides. That should instantly disqualify you from being Cooper. There's no need whatsoever for me to intentionally exaggerate to discredit Hahneman as a Cooper. Ryan, read this carefully, you are still wrong and misleading everyone. You exaggerate to discredit me because I do not accept some of your personal theories. We actually agree on a lot but it is you who can't handle criticism. You didn't misspeak, you weaponize hyperbole and play word games, your go to when you want to attack me or others. Hahneman was missing the two upper bicuspids, normal for people with braces, those are the ones down the side in front of the molars.. The FBI file says, several upper side teeth. NO front visible teeth were missing. I have had an image of his upper front teeth for years and NONE are missing. One witness out of 50 noticed the teeth and they knew teeth very well.. they actually i'd the bicuspids.. I had to look it up. Also, people who have the bicuspids removed to straighten the upper teeth often get the appearance of a protruding lower lip because the upper teeth shift back slightly to fill the space.. What Ryan has done is misrepresented the evidence to eliminate when it does the exact opposite... because he uses Hahneman to discredit me. YOU ARE STILL MISLEADING EVERYONE. These missing bicuspids do not eliminate him.. 98% of the witnesses did not notice any missing teeth. So, you have distorted the evidence to falsely eliminate Hahneman publicly, and you wonder why I say you have no credibility. Like all suspects Hahneman has a few legit issues that I have been working on but the teeth is NOT one of them. It took me 6 years to resolve that and you have undermined it in seconds with false information. STOP EXAGGERATING, you have made yourself a Cooper influencer and with that you have a responsibility to be accurate. So, be accurate. Don't let your personal anti-Hahneman bias and animus undermine the progress of this case. The truth is.. he was missing the upper bicuspids not easily seen, normal for people who have had braces.. they are down the side in front of the molar, VERY HARD TO NOTICE, and he was missing NO VISIBLE FRONT TEETH. One person of over 50 noticed. It does not eliminate him. How many times do I have tell you. You don't like Hahneman, fine, I really don't care.. but don't spread misinformation to confirm your personal bias. If you want to claim missing the upper bicuspids eliminates a suspect that is your opinion and you can have it. It is not the truth and it is irrational. Many people who have had braces get the bicuspids removed, it would not surprise me if other higher profile suspects have had them removed but we just don't know about it.. that alone would not eliminate them either.