FLYJACK

G lies about me constantly to discredit, he has lied about you on occasion. I don't do that to anybody. You have created a false equivalency.. You still don't get it, I don't care if you accept my tie theory, the fact is there are unique lines on the tie.. you are rejecting the evidence by attacking my theory with assumptions. Don' t you think those lines are significant? or are you going to just ignore them. I don't expect people to accept Hahneman as Cooper, none of you have enough information to form an opinion.. and none of you have enough information to reject him. When I asked you for facts to reject Hahneman, I was attacked and accused of playing games.. no facts were forthcoming. Crickets.. It isn't my responsibility to lay out the case, hand over all my info and prove anything to anybody. Some of you guys have already rejected Hahneman based on assumptions, that is irrational and void of critical thinking. You should reject based on facts. Why would I waste my time explaining a massive amount of evidence to people like that. G who lies about me, Lynn trashed me from a position of absolute ignorance, you have a closed mind and accuse me of games. I owe you people nothing. I have maybe 500 pieces of information which IMO makes Hahneman the best suspect ever presented by a long shot, what do you have to reject him? Seriously, I looked and haven't found it yet. If I missed something I want to know..

It changes nothing, the original photo is there for anyone to see. I only adjusted the contrast and resized when analyzing it, I was looking for marks and patterns. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE The lines are right there on the original, are you going to deny that too.. might as well, right, make up some more excuses to reject an idea. I am getting trashed on your site by the intellectually dishonest and the ignorant.. pathetic. It reminds me why I don't release most of the info I have.. I am not the subject,,, Lynn knows virtually nothing about Hahneman, I have formed an opinion based on many hundreds of pieces of information, not just some newspaper reports. None of you wanted to discuss Hahneman honestly. G is blowing hot air, as usual, the original image is the same as it clearly shows the lines.. adjusting the contrast makes them a bit clearer. None of you want to discuss those lines on the tie honestly. EDIT: "I wouldn't attempt such a conclusion without checking with someone in that field. I've thought of many things that never make it to any Cooper boards." Shutter This is your problem right here,, I found something new, the semi-horizontal particle lines on the tie and proposed a reasonable theory based on other evidence... not a conclusion. You guys spend your time attacking me and denying. Fact is.. those particle lines are still there, where did they come from?

I can't see how marks like that come from handling the tie.. but those "contact" marks indicate a method of particle deposit and may indicate how at least some of the particles got on the tie. The tie was manufactured in 1964 and likely sold in 1964/65 the accumulation of particles are likely from many environments. They have some partial prints but nobody knows if it was Cooper. Many agents claim the prints are of no value but they were used to eliminate suspects. Strangely, McCoy didn't match but some agents still think he was Cooper.. EDIT: The semi-horizontal lines (as worn) are clear in the UV image I posted... The particles aren't entirely random, there are unique semi-horizontal contact patterns that tell us something. I am only suggesting that using the tie to wipe a surface is a good possibility based on other evidence. expand the image.

Sure.. not proof, but interesting Richard Tosaw - "The agents were hopeful that they would find some fingerprints on the aluminum staircase railing or on the handle that lowered the staircase. But the prints that they found were too smeared to be identifiable” Calame and Rhodes - p. 122: "Two days later, 26 November 1971, (SAC) Red Campbell received a teletype from the FBI headquarters, confirming their educated appraisal about the smudges: 'Finger prints found on Flight 305 of no value.’" p. 124: "No matter how you cut it, one of the Salt Lake agents said, from here on out that bunch in Reno will either have to hang together and stonewall it - or come up with some pretty sophisticated explanations why they let the Reno City police dust that plane for prints, and why those damn magazines never got sent back to the FBI Fingerprint Division."

Nonsense, 302's are incomplete and that ASSUMES they even recognized a "wipe". You should know that by now. Smudged prints found...

I didn't realize you had such inside knowledge and know for a fact that prints were obtained from all surfaces and the FBI confirmed no area was wiped. Of course you don't, you are assuming. Prints aren't that easy to get.. We do know by his actions that Cooper was concerned about leaving prints. There are semi-horizontal lines of very concentrated particles on the tie both above and below the pin/tack. They don't appear consistent with folding. Cooper removed the tie and left it behind. Logically, a concentration of particles was smeared semi-horizontally across the tie many times. I am only suggesting that those lines look to be formed from many wiping actions. Considering Cooper removed and left the tie and was concerned with prints that is a very good explanation. Do you have any other possibilities for concentrated particles to form those lines?? Either the tie wiped an object with a concentration of particles or an object with the concentration of particles was wiped on the tie (semi-horizontally) many times, this seems less likely given the location of the lines. What type of object contact could form those lines of particles?

False, you are using weak assumptions to reject a possibility. Bad logic. You have no idea where they got all the prints they have or where they didn't find any. How many did they get from the Lav?? How many were Cooper's?? My statement is 100% valid. Your 100% rejection is irrational, you just don't know.

Not true, at all. The prints have never been confirmed to be from Cooper and he may not have wiped everything (if he did use the tie to wipe prints). My statement is 100% accurate. If anyone can actually read.

FBI DB Cooper file #39 has been posted.. https://vault.fbi.gov/D-B-Cooper

One of the most irresponsible and dishonest Cooper characters continues to undermine the advancement of this case by lying.. to discredit others. I wrote "some of the particles may have been picked up in the plane if Cooper used the tie to wipe prints from surfaces" NOT "So, he says, particles on the tie probably all came from the plane" Never, ever trust anything this guy says..

The tie: There are semi horizontal lines (as worn) of "particles" on the tie... These aren't random but suggest a sideways wiping... it looks consistent with Cooper using the tie to wipe prints from the plane. Most of the particles were used in the 727 (inc CP TI), some of the particles may have been picked up in the plane if Cooper used the tie to wipe prints from surfaces. I can't see how you would get those "line" patterns so high above the tie "clip/pin/tack" on the tie during normal wearing/use. Those lines look like a series of rub/wipes.. at a similar semi-horizontal angle.. and none vertical..

Drops by gravity, wind held them up but Cooper's weight helped push them down. When Cooper jumped the wind pushed them back up.

RE: Walter Reca.. flight path obviously makes this theory nonsense. But, I found something else interesting.. In an August 2008 FBI agent Larry Carr gave an interview with Steve Rinehart of K-Talk Salt Lake City. A caller named "Carl" called in and asked some interesting questions. That caller Carl sounds exactly like Carl Lauren, video below. Carl's evidence for Reca was audio tapes with Reca in 2008/2009 exactly when he was "researching" the case. Note the questions?? Carl is formulating a narrative.. if he had been discussing RECA as Cooper for many years, why did he get so much wrong in 2008, because RECA was not Cooper and Carl was shaping the narrative in 2008. @ 22:25 voice in audio, transcript below http://www.washingtonhistory.org/collections/item.aspx?irn=121232&record=40 SR: We have some callers. I want to continue asking you questions of my own, but let’s try to fit a couple of them in here, as we go. LC: Sure. SR: We got Carl on the Salt Lake county line. Carl, you’re on the air with Agent Carr. Carl: Yeah, hi. The FBI put on the newspapers the composite drawings. Now, are these pretty accurate in terms of the people who actually came in contact with the hijacker? LC: Yeah, you know everyone that came in contact with that gentleman in the interview with a sketch artist. They went about their process, developing all of the parameters of the individual’s face. They went back and constructed these sketches and then they were sent back out to the field. Each person looked them over. The three stewardesses involved looked them over, and there were some changes made to the original one. Once the stewardesses gave the thumbs up that this is the best representation, and that’s what was put out to the public. Carl: Okay, and then these thousands of suspects you developed, did they fit the basic description then? LC: Well, you know, a lot of them were ruled out basically on the physical descriptors of who D.B. Cooper was. Not necessarily the sketch, but basically the physical parameters; the dark complexion, or the olive skin complexion. Well, if your suspect’s fair skinned, and even if they weren’t solely ruled out on that, that’s one tick. Yeah okay, I guess if this person, if they were 5’7, as opposed to what was reported as 5’10 to 6’1, there’s another tick, that hey maybe this isn’t the right person. If they had blue eyes... Well, we’re pretty sure D.B. Cooper had brown eyes. So, you know, rule that off. Yeah, you know, a lot of the suspects were ruled because they didn’t fit the physical criteria. Carl: Yeah, I mean, since the FBI, they have this belief that the man may’ve been killed in the jump or when he hit the ground. Did the FBI conduct a search among the missing person reports? LC: Well you look at the databases back then, you know, long before the time of the computer, it was easier to connect the dots as far as missing persons go. So there was, of course, an effort at the missing persons database, but it just simply didn’t really exist back in that point of time. You know, it would’ve individual sheriff departments that would’ve collected the data, and someone had to do that. I couldn’t even guess how many sheriff’s departments there are in the United States, but I would imagine is was well into the thousands. Carl: Yeah, you know, is it possible when the hijacker got on the plane he would’ve changed his appearance? Like wearing a wig or maybe wearing these thick soled shoes so, you know, it’d make it appear that he might be taller, or maybe colored his hair a different color. Is that at all possible? LC: All that is possible, but when you look at how much time, especially Tina Mucklow, spent, the hijacker, shoulder-to-shoulder with him... You know, you can try these experiments yourself. Go ahead and put some makeup on your skin, if you’re fair skinned, and put enough on to swarthy, and then have someone sit next to you. You’re going to see that makeup, it’s going to be pancaked on to you. Same thing with a wig, it looked very unnatural, especially during 1971. So if someone’s wearing a wig, it’s going to be very noticeable. Carl: What seat was he sitting in before he, you know, hijacked the plane? LC: He was sitting in the very back, and I don’t have the file in front of me so... Carl: Was he sitting next to somebody else with whom he had a conversation? LC: No, he was sitting all by himself in a row of three. And, you know, ultimately, "Flow Chapner" sat by him originally, and Tina Mucklow the rest of the flight. Carl: What type of firearm did he have? LC: No firearm. SR: And a grenade. LC: No grenade. He had opened up his briefcase and there was either dynamite or road flares in there. Carl: Yeah, well interesting case. I wish you good luck Agent Carr. SR: Carl, thanks for the call. We appreciate it. Carl: Yeah, thank you. Goodbye.

Georger fails to recognize that his own statements are in conflict,,, Other evidence is consistent. It is really irrelevant and the nature of the "sleuthing" process... Ammerman was clearly ARTCC. The real take away is that a team was watching and directing the chase planes from Seattle Center and an alternate flight path is implausible unless there was a massive conspiracy and coverup which knowingly caused all the resources to search the wrong area. The alternate flight path is beyond DEAD. It is a joke.

A headwind helps keep a plane up....

That is the problem,, there is no wind data for the "LZ" location at exactly 8:09-8:13... the wind data the FBI used to estimate was from far away and AVERAGED over an hour time period. Winds can vary within miles or minutes.. The FBI wind has always been treated as a fact.. it isn't. It is just an estimate, a weak one. All available data showed wind direction consistent at all levels but increasing speeds at altitude and shifting from SSE to SSW.. close to 8 PM. Fact is, the wind data the FBI used was an estimate based on Portland and Salem, they admit that in the files. 60-110 miles away?? That is ridiculous. The wind in Seattle was SSE.. Toledo S.. If that FBI estimate was wrong and the wind was actually 160-170 degrees at jump time/location, they got the parachute drift direction wrong and initially searched the wrong area. With 160-170 degree winds the LZ "cone" would be back along the flight path and slightly west.

80 knots was at 14,000 ft not 10,000 ft... He estimated 65 knots at 10,000 ft.. 35 knots surface. However, the estimated wind speed is not the point.. the wind direction is far more significant. The nearby data indicates the wind was shifting from SSE to SSW around 8 PM... that is consistent with 160 to 170 degree wind. Since, the FBI admits the wind direction was an estimate.. if the winds were 160-170 degrees they got LZ and initial search area wrong.

TRACON was in the Tower in 1971.... Ammerman's interview in Matheson's book names Seattle Center.. matches the transcripts. Georger's SEATAC account is incorrect or inaccurate.

The wind direction is the take away, at all elevations and estimated speeds. BTW,,, I have always wondered how that would effect the flight timing and location/jump time.. if the winds were about 160-170 degrees.. Parachute drift would be back along flight path/slightly west.. That would put the LZ mostly outside the initial search area.. the orange zone would be spun to about 11 o'clock.

Continental pilot 4 minutes behind 305 reported two important things... The plane was on V-23... > no alternate flight path. and The wind was 160-170 degrees, that is exactly what I have been saying. The FBI wind data was an estimate based on an average between Eugene and Portland and over an hour timeframe... A 160-170 degree wind would put the Placard exactly where it was found if 305 was on the FBI path.. (if the Placard even came from 305) The plane was flying at 166 degrees straight into the wind. The takeaway is Cooper may have landed slightly West of the flight path. EDIT: Follow up investigation suggests he may have been just in front of Norjak.

EU, Eric Ulis falsely claimed Emrich fingered Sheridan, it was Bill Whitney not Sheridan. It was just Emrich's opinion, but the FBI did look at Whitney in 1971. "Bill Whitney" posted on mountain news.. re: Cossey https://themountainnewswa.net/2013/04/27/the-hunt-for-db-cooper-earl-cossey-feared-dead-in-woodinville-homicide/

Bill Mitchell WSHS interview full audio and transcript.. link http://www.washingtonhistory.org/collections/item.aspx?irn=122559

A few interesting claims??? ( IMO, McCoy wasn't Cooper) Seattle FBI made mistakes,, never collected mags and other articles for prints. Cooper (and McCoy) used aviation flight plans for notes.. WHAT? Tina saw Cooper remove tie. Cooper offered packets of money to each STEW, Tosaw also said this. Cooper yellow stains on fingers.

"I watched him land and that back door of that airplane was dragging on the runway and shooting sparks like—you know when you put a knife on the grinder?!It looked like the sparks was going 50 feet in the air! It’s dark, and we probably…. got up there about somewhere around 6 o’clock—it was VFR, it was great—a clear night and we could see other airplanes … and there were a couple F-106s out of McChord, they came down and were available for a while, then they went back. And we asked Maj Gene Winchester ‘What are our instructions?’ They said ‘Well, we don’t know if he’s still on the airplane, or if he went out the back door when it stopped, he might be here, we ‘re going to make a cordon, a perimeter off, and do a ground search… And you go over there and get out of the way and fill up ’cause we think he might be going to Mexico; you might be following him to Mexico And I thought ‘That sounds interesting!’ So we sit over there for, I don’t know, several hours. And then they called us and said ‘you could go home’. We got back here about 7:00 a.m., Jack and I.”1 Winchester had no direct radio contact with the airline crew, only with FAA Controllers. In the darkness and following in-trail at a safe distance, they never saw Cooper leave the airliner. “" There it is, even more corroboration, the chase planes were in contact with the Controllers.. Alternate flight path has left the building....

Another Eric Ulis unverified claim looks to be imploding... EU (Eric Ulis) wrote.. (and has stated many times) "Also, it's worth mentioning again, Linn Emrich is the guy who fingered Sheridan as Cooper to the FBI. Sheridan is the guy that Linn is referring to in the 1971 Issaquah Press article that has recently been posted on this site. Linn hadn't seen Sheridan for 6 1/2 years at this point." Lynn, a member at Shutter's site... has documents which indicate... Linn Emrich named a Willard Whitney as a suspect.... Emrich never mentioned Sheridan Peterson in that article. Lynn wrote.. "Well, this is a new one on me. Have been in touch with someone close to Linn Emrich. Apparently Linn kept a journal of his observations on the Cooper case, and while I'm having some trouble reading the pages sent to me online, I'm going to try to sharpen them so I can read them. He names a suspect called Willard Whitney at one point, which is a new one on me." Some good stuff from Lynn and from Shutter recently... Georger not so much..