FLYJACK

You are being diplomatic,, I have tried that and it doesn't work with Ryan he is very stubborn.. Having an opinion on height is fine but virtually useless for vetting suspects within the FBI's range. The FBI even looked at compelling suspects under 5-8... Ryan's view that Cooper can't be under 5-10 undermines the case and as a Cooper influencer misleads people. Further, he uses that opinion to discredit and ridicule others. He actually weaponizes ignorance.. a low level tactic that works for low level thinkers. The twisted irony is Hahneman has many reported docs with a 5-9 height,, he might even be 5-10 in shoes and Ryan still ridiculous him and eliminates him based solely on height.. because he trying to discredit me using Hahneman as a proxy,, I really don't care what he thinks, he has many things wrong based on false assumptions,,, IMO, Cooper could be 5-8 or 6 feet in shoes.... the odds are greatest at about 5-10. Extremely low under 5-8 or above 6 feet.. Braden is not a good suspect because he has grey eyes, dimples, a crooked mouth and thinner hair.. He is also a legit skilled badass and no connection to the case, Cooper was not a badass and less skilled. Not 100% sure how tall Braden was in shoes... if 5-8 that is really borderline but not the sole reason to eliminate. Carr has explained it,, elimination is subjective based on a combination of factors, there was a suspect eliminated who was re-examined.. Unless they are wildly off in description or have an alibi most of these people aren't really technically "eliminated". I have found that many people express opinions in this case with a level of certainty that isn't warranted or supported by evidence. It makes for great arguments but doesn't advance the case. I would really like to advance the case based on the evidence rather than dispute opinions.

Two guys had him at 5-9, another at 5-10.. opinions for Cooper's height are worthless, they have no meaning. That 2 inch error does not apply to Cooper witnesses, the variables are not the same. Some saw him briefly standing, some seated, some before he was known as the hijacker, some after. Plus, it is a very small sample size.. The FBI used 5-9 initially in the description but updated it to 5-10 to reflect Tina's estimate.. one person.. that was not what the FBI used to vet suspects, they used 5-8 as the lower bound. Ryan's opinion is that any suspect under 5-10 is eliminated solely based on height, that is an irrational position.. contradicted by logic and the evidence. I am not claiming Cooper must be under 5-10.. rather that he could be. That is the difference. I accept the range the FBI used whereas Ryan rejects the FBI range. Ryan can't or won't explain why.. and accuses me of confirmation bias for agreeing with the FBI. The FBI can make errors but you need something substantial to show their mistake.. Ryan has nothing. So, I am not claiming Cooper is below 5-10, I am only acknowledging the evidence that he could be.

Seek help.. that is an embarrassing screed.. Cooper could be 5-9 or he could be 5-11.. from day one I thought he was about 5-10... I agree with the FBI and the evidence, if you want to call that confirmation bias it only demonstrates your own desperation to defend your baseless opinion. Ryan, seriously keep your opinion I don't want you to change it.. I asked for your argument behind it to be polite, maybe there is something I don't know.. Turns out as I suspected you have no evidence or argument.. What I really despise is when you use ridicule and false claims of confirmation bias to discredit others who don't share your opinion.. it is intellectually dishonest.

He wasn't 5-8" standing in a plane in shoes. You try to make him shorter and Cooper taller,, it is as if your brain is stuck. At least you stopped saying he was 5-7.. that was funny. You made Hahneman 2 inches shorter and Cooper 2 inches taller. Hahneman also has a card that says 5-9" as well as other confirming documents. Witnesses had him up to 6 feet.. He was between 5-8 and 5-9 without shoes.. He was between 5-9 and 5-10 in shoes.. I have explained this to you but it just doesn't penetrate your ego. But keep distorting the facts to fit your opinion. It is your pattern. There is no evidence or argument to automatically eliminate a suspect between 5-9 to 5-10" based solely on height.. Your opinion is just irrational... it is not supported by facts and is contradicted by the FBI. Keep your goofy opinion but don't use it to try discredit others.

Yes, it is your opinion... you can keep it. But you constantly dismiss and mock with your arrogant prose that Hahneman and others for being slightly under 5-10... based on your opinion, not evidence. You even accuse me of confirmation bias for agreeing with the FBI. You even mock Hahneman to discredit me,,, the irony is you are using an assumption not facts. That assumption is bogus. The FBI used 5-8" as the lower bound for suspects.. Your opinion is WRONG. Nobody knows exactly how tall Cooper was.. not you, not me, not the FBI..

If Ryan's opinion was only that Cooper was 6 feet that isn't a problem.. but he is claiming all suspects under 5-10 are eliminated based solely on height. This is irrational, it isn't supported by evidence and is actually contradicted by the FBI... This is what Ryan does, he takes a hard position which is just an opinion claims it as fact then tries to justify it twisting the evidence,, it is an inversion of logic and reason. But what is really dishonest is when he uses a strawman to discredit the same positions that are supported by the FBI. He always goes there, not just with me. Ryan's wants to win an argument more than advancing the case. Cooper was most likely taller than Tina.. So, how tall was Tina.. She is 5-8" in her passport and Al Lee said she was 5-6".. That is one of the reasons the FBI used 5-8" as the lower bound.. there is a variability in reported heights. This isn't even debatable. From day one I thought Cooper was around 5-10"..

Nich.. you are the King of confirmation bias.. you are the last person to accuse others of confirmation bias. As for drugs.... well... So, how is taking the position of the FBI confirmation bias?? and if you or Ryan thinks the FBI eliminated those two Boeing guys solely for being 5-10" you need to leave the Vortex and find another hobby.. No, accusing me of confirmation bias is a strawman fallacy designed to discredit because you have no argument.. just an opinion. To claim as Ryan has that any suspect under 5-10" is automatically eliminated based on height is not supported by any evidence and contradicted by the FBI file.. It is a baseless opinion that neither of you guys can back up with evidence or even a rational argument. There are examples of interesting suspects in the FBI files under 5-10 that were investigated after the FBI knew their height,, like Melvin Cooper, 5-8 to 5-9.. still investigated. The Elsinore suspects,, 5-8 lower bound. Height is one variable, it is not the SOLE reason to eliminate to 5-8 as the FBI memo makes clear. If the FBI found Braden interesting even at 5-8 in shoes he would not have been eliminated based solely on height.. You guys are just wrong... there is a reason you keep finding terrible suspects. Ryan overestimated Darren's height..

No you didn't.. you have shown incidents that include other things.. agent elimination was subjective and included everything. The FBI memo effectively said do not eliminate SOLELY on height to 5-8".. they also used that standard for Elsinore. There were interesting suspects investigated who were known the be shorter than your bogus 5-10 line.. So, height under 5-10 ONLY was NOT an automatic elimination. Elimination was based on a comprehensive evaluation by agents,, Carr said it was subjective.. You didn't make any argument,, you posted information irrelevant to the point. Looks like a fake it til you make it thing.. might fool some people. That Boeing post is nonsense.. they didn't eliminate based on those heights.. you edited the full file where most employees had more information.. Do you think they eliminated two people SOLELY because they were 5-10.. that is nuts and misrepresentation. That is NOT what that means. I point out where you are wrong based on evidence.. claiming I have a confirmation bias is a strawman, your go to when you have no argument. I am agreeing with the FBI in both those cases yet you claim I am biased.. while you won't or can't explain their error. Cunningham did the same thing, he went crazy when I agreed with the FBI/Soderlind jump zone and rejected his River landing.. For both sketch A and height minimum the FBI disagrees with you. In both cases, you can't explain why. 50 plus years later you claim to have figured out what the FBI got wrong,, they do get things wrong but you either can't reveal it by choice or just can't do it.. I don't think you can because it is just your opinion. I know this case very well and you just don't have anything to back up your opinion here. You have overestimated the reliability of the witnesses in this case.. very small sample size and reliability of some. You can't accept or challenge the memo to NOT eliminate to 5-8. Some suspects under 5-10 were investigated. You have made up a false argument that Cooper wasn't overestimated by some witnesses. Finally, this case is unique in that it wasn't solved,, there is a good possibility that something unique happened in this case to hinder solving it.. So, it is especially important in this case to NOT reject based on assumptions. Your bias should be toward being open, not closed. Claiming all under 5-10" are eliminated SOLELY on height is absurd. It was not the position of the FBI and it is not reflected in the evidence. It exists only in your imagination.

This is not appeal to authority fallacy.. this is the second time you have misused that. Appeal to authority fallacy is when the authority makes a claim outside their expertise. Using this fallacy accusation in such a fraudulent way demonstrates a lack of logic. The FBI stated NOT to eliminate based on the MERE FACT a suspect is 5-8,, that means based solely,, Suspects were eliminated for lots of reasons or combinations of things. If agents did not apply the memo after released they just didn't see or follow the memo. The FBI also investigated interesting suspects they knew were under 5-8"... Those you listed clearly have other reasons included.. not relevant. You have three false assumptions.. The FBI statement to agents for 5-8" was also used for vetting Elsinore suspects. Whatever any individual agent believed or missed was irrelevant. You need to rationalize this. You clearly can't. You overestimate the confidence level for height estimates of witnesses in NORJAK.. the sample size is too small and the reliability for some is questionable. And you are 100% wrong claiming witnesses wouldn't overestimate, many witnesses had Hahneman at 6 feet... argument busted. Sure, you can have any opinion you want,, even wrong ones. In this case, you don't even have an argument for your opinion. It is pure speculation. Explaining why the FBI was wrong would help... You want everyone to explain things but suddenly, you are exempt, you know why, because you can't answer it. You don't have an argument for your speculation. None. It is a guess, you don't know how tall Cooper was. You have a propensity to take hard irrational positions,, like Cooper can't be under 5-10".. I get the position some have that Cooper was probably between 5-10 to 6 feet.. but to eliminate suspects under 5-10 presenting no rational argument and contradicted by the FBI is nutty.

Well, I haven't hijacked a plane seated almost the entire time.. the witness height estimates are recall not in real time, not comparable. The average shoe is an inch, but if somebody is between inches they can round up or down when self reporting. No witness actually measured height, it is an impression recalled based on many factors, build, dress, ethnicity, vs average height, etc.. According to statistics, what study, what context?? is just not meaningful, how about an actual hijacking. Your assumption is 100% wrong... many witnesses had Hahneman at 6 feet and he was standing more than Cooper. He was between 5-9 and 5-10 in shoes. Sounds like Braden is shorter. The fact is the FBI used 5-8" as the lower bound for reported height,, and warned agents to NOT eliminate down to reported 5-8". I still haven't heard you explain what you know 50 plus years later that they didn't know. Norjak has a ridiculously small sample size,,, and a very low confidence level. Hal Williams is not that reliable, he said he wasn't sure if he could recognize Cooper if he saw him again,, he saw him not knowing he was the hijacker. I know you like him as a witness... I don't think he is very relaible. Flo saw Cooper standing briefly before he was known as a hijacker,, FBI said Flo was emotional and unreliable. They diminished her input for sketch B in favour of Mitchell.. Tina said 5-10 to 6 feet.. the FBI updated the height description relying on her.. Essentially one witness for height. Now that is absurd,,, Mitchell and Gregory had Cooper at 5-9,, he was seated but that doesn't mean they were wrong... NORJAK witnesses need to be put in context,, very small sample size with some unreliable means low confidence level..

People almost always quote their own height without shoes but estimate a "suspects" height as observed... meaning in shoes. So, there is a variability between reported and observed.. People also round up or concatenate if between.. I am 5-8 3/4" without shoes and when I was young I would just concatenate to 5' 8",, later in life I rounded up to 5' 9",, but I am 5' 10" in normal shoes.. I have never reported my height as 5' 10".. So, my old recorded height would have been 2 inches below observed height.. We have to reconcile different datasets,,, self reported height vs observed height in shoes. The FBI used 5-8" as the lower band for height instructing agents not to eliminate based on height down to 5-8".. sorry Ryan. They probably used 5-8" to account for "no" shoes and observed height estimate of 5-9" by the two male witnesses. The original Cooper description was from 5' 9" but was updated to 5' 10" to overweight Tina.. If Braden is 5-8" in shoes that is low for Cooper. Cooper in shoes was taller than Tina.. If Braden was 5-9" in shoes then he is within the range.

yes, I have read/heard different numbers... he joined the military young so may still be growing.. 1946 discharge,, 5-7" grey eyes.. maybe 5-8" in shoes??

How tall was Ted Braden in shoes??

The could have flown the same route they did (or close) to Red Bluff..

WOW, nice to see you change... I was 8:11 to 8:15 until recently.. 8:11 all the way now...

I checked a bunch of current flights from Seattle to SF and Seattle to LA.. and none went out over the Ocean.. some went close to Red Bluff just as NORJAK did before heading to Reno.. The anti coastal claim is dead.. He didn't want a large airport for refuelling.

You are wrong, for safety planes don't fly close to their max and the plane made a big loop over Honduras to land in Mexico. Simply measuring the direct distance is not accurate. A rough estimate is 10-15% less than max range. The early 727-200's range was about 1900 miles. Less 15% = 1615 miles in ideal conditions. A direct flight from Dulles to Honduras is about 1750.. So, YES YOU ARE WRONG they needed a fuel stop.. Another poor assumption. Why ABE Airport, because it was less secure. Most hijackings were to Cuba and from the South East with higher security. Smarter to pic ABE. Another poor assumption. As for the required refuelling stop, he chose New Orleans, I don't know why I can only speculate. He could have picked another location. Emotional/familiar.. He had lived in New Orleans, his father died and was buried there. Last goodbye.. Practical.. He went to New Orleans over land.. the Caribbean was over the Atlantic and it is questionable whether that 727 could safely land there.. Safety,, He had a gun and a fake bomb.. Cooper only had a fake/real bomb... Having a gun grants a higher level of protection from getting stormed, if Cooper was stormed in Reno he was a dead man fake or real bomb. Experience,, If Hahneman was Cooper he was more experienced the second time. Whoever Cooper was it was his first hijacking and his decisions would be different. X factor,, He just adapted. But you are wrong, Hahneman landing in New Orleans does not prove he isn't Cooper. There can be a perfectly good reason for it, we will never know for sure. Also, hijacking from ABE doesn't prove he isn't Cooper. In fact, nothing you have ever claimed about Hahneman proves he isn't Cooper.. funny because you are adamant he can't be Cooper with no proof. You have an irrational bias.. I am the objective one. He is #1 in your matrix after all. You can admit it, nobody will laugh at you.

I have been an electronics person since Tom said Tektronix way back,, maybe not Tektronix exactly but something close or similar to it.. I went through all the particles and it fits electronics.. the uniqueness of the tie isn't in one or two odd particles but the wide profile.

Like I said we don't know what the crew said to him about range.. we don't know if he understood the error.. Did the crew say hey, if we don't fly dirty all the way we can make it to Mexico.. he would have said OK don't fly dirty all the way.. For whatever reason Cooper deferred to the crew.. This is still a theory I can't prove it but it explains everything. Why Cooper decided to jump and not demand to go Mexico is not knowable. It is really impossible to put yourself in his position.. But his primary plan is not to go to Mexico but get the money and get away with it. If he felt jumping early achieved that and he hasn't been caught then he made the right decision.

I don't think we will ever know.. there have been things happen that we didn't get in the FBI files... like the Benzedrine. If these particles are in the knot area that indicates finger touch,, if an agent was handling other evidence that was fingerprinted then grabbed the tie by the knot that could easily transfer particles. I am sure there is some contamination on that tie, figuring out which particles is impossible.. The take away from the new particle analysis IMO just supports an electronics environment.

You lost me.. I don't even know what your argument is... You are making bizarre claims,, I never said or assumed he agreed to anything.. the key is he never made any attempt to support or reject any path.. he did not care, so your idea is that suddenly he cared about the coast for SF/LA but not Mex/Reno, it makes no sense. Yes, I meant SF/LA was too big.. for him to reject them based on it being too big means that he was thinking about being on the plane when it landed, the coastal argument doesn't fly, at that point in the negotiation. He decided to jump early to avoid being on the plane for refuelling, so the only change was landing. He also changed his demand to airstairs lowered on takeoff. Cooper doesn't abandon Mexico, the plane would have had to refuel in Mexico... he gets scared about being on the plane when it lands in the US, if he gets rushed with a fake bomb he is a dead man. If the bomb is real he is a dead man. We don't know exactly what was said to Cooper about the limited range, but he did suggest other airports close to the border. Another tell is the knapsack,, why didn't he demand the proper knapsack, same issue; instead of being forceful he just adapted.. For whatever reason he felt more confident jumping randomly in the PNW. than being on the plane in Reno and potentially getting rushed. Even landing for fuel in Mexico increases the risk. He had the chutes, the money and the opportunity to go early. I think this is one of the reasons why he wasn't caught.. he adapted. because you or somebody else might have acted differently doesn't negate the theory.

They might have,, who knows,, some of those particles do match fingerprint powder. Polyester fabric can be fingerprinted but no idea if they did. They did check the tie for bodily fluids.. Another concern is contamination in storage or handling. The tie is a mess..

No, A coastal route for the Mex/Reno route was a legit option. FACT Cooper never gave any input for a route other than Mex/Reno. FACT A coastal route for the SF/LA route was a legit option. FACT Cooper said SF/LA was too "big" correction. FACT Conclusion Cooper did not care about the route.. Why, because he wasn't jumping, during the negotiations he was going to be on the plane for refuelling but after Reno was in play he decided to jump early.. This theory is solid, it explains everything. You won't get it if you still think Cooper targeted his LZ, he didn't, impossible.

No, that is not the point, you are straw manning, they discussed a coastal path so it was a legitimate route for the plane. You kept denying this.. claiming some specific path from Cooper,, you are wrong. I have been arguing that the plane's path options to Mexico/Reno was very wide and Cooper had no foreknowledge or input for that path taken. He did not say don't go over the water or take V23,, his jump was not targeted. He did not care about the path. So, why would he then care about a coastal route to SF/LA.. or making up an excuse. He said they were too big,, that is the reason.

He did not request south... He requested Mexico then Reno, the plane can take a coastal route to those places... they can even take a land route to SF or LA. He said those airports were too big, no reason not to say he didn't want to go over the water or must take a land route. But, he never said that for Mexico or Reno. It isn't mountain top dodging in southern Wa.. you can draw a line about 150 across at that point from the Eastern mountains out to the ocean. The plane could have been anywhere along that line. Just V23 was 10 miles wide. I don't think you actually understand the dynamics here. To fly to Mexico or Reno they can take a coastal route and they actually considered it.. Cooper said nothing.. end of debate. You have no actual argument. Find an elevation map for southern WA/OR then draw a horizontal line from off the coast East to the mountains,, it is actually over a 150 mile corridor than the plane could have taken..,,,