FLYJACK

Huh,,, the semantics is claiming South is a path to argue Cooper knew where the plane would be.. Most of the disagreements in this case involve semantics.. Fact is... South is NOT a PATH... not in any reality... The Ad Hoc theory fits the evidence better... but let's be done and pretend an absurd argument has legitimacy...

Hey I am just an amateur sleuth,,, but maybe you really smart guys can explain how South is a path.. South is a general direction (not North),, a path is a specific course.. Crude image to make a point not meant to be exact..

I actually tend to believe Rat said it but there is no proof of course.. But, I don't see what difference it makes,,, what changes?

No, that theory is absurd... it doesn't fit the evidence and relies of layers of assumptions.. A terrible analysis of the evidence so no surprise you support it with your admittedly limited case knowledge.. South is not a path.. the coast is also South.... going through the pass then to Reno is also South... the plane could have taken maybe dozens or more paths South to Reno... To claim South is a path is an abuse of reason.. and should be immediately disqualifying.. like claiming the moon is made of cheese and can feed the world. His theory is that Cooper knew the plane would be there, he originally had that target LZ and used the lights of Battle Ground, all of those are assumptions with no evidence.. Since we know Cooper gave no path, had no indication for a path, confirmed no path,,, he had no knowledge or expectation the plane would be there. They could have taken many routes... The evidence also indicates they could not see the ground out of Seattle so he wouldn't know which specific path it was taking.. Claiming he just would have said something if the plane took a different path is desperation to maintain a narrative... The theory is weak and doesn't fit the evidence... Cooper's jump was ad hoc,, that fits the evidence... though I agree we may never know his original plan..

It got boring when you claimed South was a path... one of dumbest things I have ever heard on this forum.. and Cooper knew the plane would be there,, complete nonsense, rejected not supported by evidence. Now, you shifted to attack a theory... with assumptions not evidence. Your theory is busted by evidence... see the difference. My theory fits within the evidence and explains some things that don't make sense otherwise... of course it doesn't make it true.. it is a theory to be tested with facts. Your theory doesn't fit in the evidence and relies on compounding weak assumptions. If there is actual evidence to reject my theory let me know.. your assumptions don't cut it.

Why is this so hard to understand.. You are arguing he pre-planned a random jump... OK,, makes no sense but fine. The evidence is that he had no indication where the plane would be,, it could have been on the coast... His eventual LZ was not his original plan when he boarded the plane,,, his original plan would be speculation but facts suggest it was somewhere further South... and he would have given specific path instructions in the air.. The fact that he did not ensure a position for the plane proves he did not target a location.. this is simple stuff.. To believe his original plan was a random jump is silly,,, The simplest and best explanation within the evidence... He boarded with a jump plan, when Reno was in play he altered it and jumped as soon as he felt he could,,,

So, you are stated a few generalities,,, "it worked" etc.. that don't actually support the argument. How can he have this plan the entire time if he gave no path, no demand or confirmation for the planes position.. It can be reasonably argued he would have no expectation for the plane to fly over a populated area... Safe to assume he had a plan,, targeting his jump where he did based on the lights of Battle Ground wasn't it. His jump as ad hoc... and I believe NOT his original plan based on the evidence.. There is no way Cooper boards the plane targeting his eventual LZ... no way.. He adjusted and just jumped..

Lunacy... curtain was closed.. blinds were pulled.. He could only see that far forward if looking around stairs from bottom, possible but no evidence he saw Battle Ground or planned it... but that isn't the point, South is not a path,,, he had ZERO knowledge for that plane to be there. It is a weak theory that doesn't fit the evidence, just layers and layers of assumptions. In fact, they seriously discussed taking the coast, going over populated areas with a potential bomb was not a good idea..

The difference is when.. Did he have this "plan" before he got on the plane... Evidence says no...

No, it isn's exactly when he jumped,, and you have zero evidence he saw the lights, planned to jump at the lights and he did not have the pre-knowledge that the plane would be there on that path... You have manufactured a narrative which is fine for a theory but it does not fit the evidence.

I am not going bite,, you are wrong and making absurd arguments.. If you have evidence that I don't have then I would revisit but until then it is a dead end.. Maybe try to convince Georger..

You are just wrong..... South is not a path.. it could have taken other paths and there would be no reason for Cooper to NOT demand or confirm a path if he had a predetermined target.. Your argument fails right there. He had no predetermined target. Your theory is so weak made of layers of assumptions and contradicted by facts that it is really not worth consideration... But stick to it all you want.. People make up stuff in this case all the time..

Self serving nonsense. Another terrible assumption... This isn't an argument... Cooper did not know where the plane would be, he had no pre-knowledge that the plane would be near Battle Ground.. If he did see the lights and that is IF, it was incidental

Cooper couldn't see any city glow "lights" if he even did until he was down the stairs.. "Lining up" doesn't make it a fact. It actually doesn't really line up.. He went down the stairs well before Battleground... Unlikely the lights had anything to do with it.. Cooper using the lights of Battleground is a weak theory at best. You are stacking several assumptions to claim Cooper intentionally jumped at a spot knowingly using the lights of Battleground.... He was delayed getting stairs down.. He could not see the glow of Battle Ground until he was at the bottom of the stairs and looked forward. He might have seen the glow of Battle Ground from the bottom of the stairs.. If he did see it,, there is no evidence or indication he knew it was Battleground. There is no evidence or indication he targeting his jump in any way.. Most likely,, he wanted to jump ASAP, was delayed having trouble getting the stairs down,, he went down the stairs about 8:09 picked a spot and jumped about 8:11... if he did notice the Battle Ground glow that was incidental.. He gave no path and the plane could have been nowhere near Battle Ground..

Cooper did not jump in the Portland area or even in the Portland Metropolitan Area.. 20-25 miles North. However, my point was that it is not a certainly that Cooper could see the ground even from the bottom of the stairs as many seem to assume... maybe, if there was a break in the clouds at the right spot.

It has been clear for a long time that you are incapable of any honest discussion.

Seek help... You know that isn't true.. I now realize that I was giving you far too much credit,, you really don't understand a simple theory...

It isn't "a trip through water" it is tumbling along an abrasive sandy bottom... I don't like AI stuff but you do,,, this doesn't prove anything but makes it clearer.. AI Overview If currency bills were to tumble along a sandy river bottom, the physical abrasion from the sand and water would cause significant damage . The bill's material, a cotton-linen blend, would be worn away by the constant friction, leading to a loss of structural integrity and clarity. The abrasion process Friction: As the current pushes the bills, they would be scraped and scuffed by sand and other sediment. The rough, constant rubbing would gradually wear down the surface of the bills. Soaking and weakening: Currency is durable, but prolonged exposure to water weakens the fibers. The waterlogged bills would become more limp and susceptible to tearing and disintegrating. Physical impact: The bills would likely collide with rocks and other debris in the river, causing tears, nicks, and further damage to their structure. Discoloration: The bills would absorb contaminants and minerals from the water, resulting in discoloration and staining.

Good grief,,, that is projection... I left for almost a year and you added NOTHING... You have ZERO evidence that explains the erosion pattern on the money. You attack me personally to defend an unfounded opinion and reject the tumbling along the bottom theory shared by Palmer a Geologist..... Your approach to the hypothesis is as far from science as you can get.... you have become an impediment for the advancement of the case, worse than irrelevant.. This is the reason you have contributed nothing to this case in over a decade.. I have some amazing Cooper research and people like you are the reason I stopped sharing it years ago... and everybody else pays the price for that..

This is from the files... the lights of Portland which is well lit... Cooper didn't jump near Portland... but 20-25 miles North..

Tom ruled out the money rolling a long distance with the Washougal in mind,,, I agree with that... It would have to be less than a few miles. The best entry point is Frenchman's Bar.. You are just wrong... and prove my previous statements,, you can't articulate an argument so you use ridicule to end any discussion or inquiry.. The money most likely came from the River, it sunk to the bottom and would have been pushed along the bottom by the current.. the shape of the erosion on the bills is consistent with rolling or tumbling per Palmer... There is no proven explanation for the erosion pattern in situ so this is an excellent theory... IMO, the best theory.. The reason you and many others have stalled and will never accomplish anything in this case is because you don't have the reasoning skills to work through the evidence advance good theories and test them... You have a closed mind and are stuck in 2011 and use mental tricks to keep it closed. Georger 2025 mocks a legit theory to dismiss it... Georger 2010 would have figured out an experiment to evaluate it..

Projection... Put me on ignore and put yourself out of misery..

Sure, it is always possible,, somewhere in the files I remember a suspect was eliminated then un-eliminated... Eliminated is often subjective for the FBI,,, it is not definitive. The FBI may eliminate based on a subjective feeling based on limited evidence.. however if the FBI knows a suspect was in another location during Norjak that is definitive.. and I have never found any indication or written evidence that Hahneman was officially or unofficially eliminated. The error I found would eliminate him,, Remember, the FBI concluded that the only way they could get a conviction was if Cooper co-operated.. If a suspect did not co-operate they may not have the evidence to lay a charge.. So, the bar to prove a suspect is Cooper is really high..

So, what disagreement,,,,,, what do I have wrong? Can you articulate something I have wrong without personally taking a dig at me... like you usually do.

So, this is exactly why I started looking into him,,, Surely, they must have eliminated him for some legit reason... Nope. I found no legit reason,,, but I did find a massive error that would cause them to eliminate him. They showed an UNSUB sketch to witnesses... One pic of about 8 looks similar to that sketch... I have many images of him that look nothing like that sketch.. even some witnesses form his hijacking didn't like that sketch. I also have a Cooper Witness image that looks 95% like him... That doesn't make him Cooper, it means that he was prematurely dismissed.