FLYJACK

Yes, I did talk to Tom, you lied about that as well.. I quoted Tom here exactly where he suggested on the citizensleuths website the torquing may be from the rolling/tumbling.. So, he is not against the money rolling/tumbling along the bottom. He believes intuitively the money eroded in situ but doesn't know the mechanism.. We agreed that some rolling/tumbling experiments should be done.. So, mocking something or somebody you disagree with is your MO... you never have a rational argument... You are dismissing me, Tom, Palmer and the FBI... for considering that theory.. I think you are the one with a problem..

Knowing you for a decade or so,, You are unable to make cogent arguments and resort to lies and personal discrediting attacks to win... Your arguments are confirmations of your own long held opinions/bias... You praise anybody who posts something you already believe.. You seek your faded relevance and never actually process new information or arguments.. You goal seek affirmations.. A good example,, you ridiculed me for theorizing that the money rolled along the bottom of the River causing the rounding... Palmer and the FBI also concluded that,, Kaye suggested the torquing of the bills was possibly from rolling/tumbling... instead of evaluating the theory you ridicule it because it doesn't fit your predetermined bias. You are incapable of processing information, you just attack it.. You do no new research and rest on the stuff you did a decade or so ago... You no longer contribute anything which causes you to attack those that do..... it makes you feel relevant... but you aren't. You are still the only one who doesn't understand the difference between a packet and a bundle...

Point is YOU LIED about it,,,, your opinion is irrelevant..

Really, you are a serial liar Georger and have contributed nothing to this case in over a decade.

Like what.. You lie as well,, you told everyone I was driven off DZ.... I left for a time when my father suddenly died.. you just make it up.. You people are the lowest of the low... You claimed Tina meant rubber bands she was contacted,,, NO, you lied... Please put me on ignore...

"Sincerely curious",, no you aren't,, you don't have anything so you flip the question onto me. You have eliminated him already not me,,,, so you must know something I don't.... apparently not. Claiming some evidence that doesn't exist isn't very honest.. we'll see if any new evidence comes up.. I realize it is very difficult to eliminate so called suspects.. even bad ones.. especially in a 50+ year old case.. So, I don't expect an answer.. I am making a point..you attack me for NOT agreeing with you and eliminating him, you said I have a psychological issue, sunk cost, bias,, etc.. You are experiencing a cognitive dissonance, you know I am a good researcher but can't accept that we have different conclusions,, Instead of acknowledging that you may be wrong with far less info, you attack me publicly to convince yourself you are right.. If you want to eliminate him prematurely that is great,, just don't attack me for not sharing that opinion.. If he is not Cooper,, then why are you so obsessed with attacking me over it.. why care. To you, I would be just wasting my time..

It isn't a certainty that he could see the ground lights where he jumped but he wouldn't be able to see anything if he could until he was down the stairs.. He may have just jumped blind...

I know you have this thing for Cooper in Hong Kong... but everyone seems to just assume Cooper could see the ground... That isn't likely,, possible if there was a break but it was low visibility and overcast.

Leaving Seattle the ground could not be seen...

My track record in this case and outside is excellent... I get things right because I apply logic and don't trap myself in absolutes.... The constant attacks by you and and your cohorts distort peoples view... Cunningham, you and Nicky all lied about me regarding leaving the DZ,,, which is irrelevant to anything anyway.. like a bunch of high school gossip girls making up stuff... You even said I have a psychological issue... because I won't admit Hahneman isn't Cooper... that is insane.. You twist my positions and strawman them like a Mississippi lawyer would.... and I am not working on this case for you or any others,, not for likes or to make friends, what others think is completely irrelevant.. nobody has the info I have and I am doing this for myself.. It would not be reasonable for others to agree with me based on their knowledge. No, I don't have anything wrong because I apply logic and don't make absolute claims.. I never claimed I can prove Hahneman is Cooper, I could find something tomorrow that eliminates him... You claim Cooper can't be under 5-10.. I never claimed he can't be 6 feet.. see the difference. Probably not, you can't even comprehend self reported height vs observed height.. We just have a different process for investigating things,,, my bias is to be open and use assumptions to advance theories to be explored... You use assumptions to form opinions that get elevated to fact and end inquiries.. My approach advances the case, yours stifles it. If you have evidence that legitimately eliminates Hahneman. Let me know... what you have presented so far is opinions and distortions.. and I don't hold your opinions as very credible.. You have to understand, you don't own this case and you aren't the arbiter of truth,,, you are extremely flawed and I don't think you have what it takes to solve this thing. You tried to sell us Vordahl.... I am not selling anybody.. and I keep forgetting that Hahneman scores near perfect on your own suspect matrix (due to your flawed height thing),,, you just ignore that and underscored him throughout... The worst thing anybody can do in this case is to follow the crowd... and rely on self imposed "experts"..

You have lied,,, even that recent post is full of of lies.. My bias is following the evidence I have,, which isn't apparent to you because you have a fraction of the knowledge that I have.. You have trashed Hahneman for years and have spread misinformation that has convinced people Hahneman can't be Cooper,, and I actually don't mind that. He isn't flawed, that is your opinion,, there is no evidence that eliminates him.. you have never produced anything other than your own lies, distortions and opinions.. When I began looking at him I expected to find a smoking gun that eliminates him and move on,, it doesn't exist.. Instead I found evidence that makes a stronger case,,,

That DB moniker is an old argument... for the others I have evidence that over rides that where applicable.. Using DB is a legit criticism but it isn't dispositive on its own..

There are some others that I suspect... to varying degrees.. but that one is unique.. My position is just that you can't reject it based on your own "assumption" that Cooper would not send a letter... you can be neutral or skeptical but to have an absolute position of rejection based on an assumption and not any evidence is irrational and undermines the investigative process.. Of course, if it was from Cooper it would tell us he survived and may lead to his identity. To reject and mock the letter ends that legitimate line of inquiry..

No way you have ever lied about or tried to discredit Drew like you have done to me...

Those are lies,, and not all I have, those are just recent... Why would you write that stuff,,, it isn't true.. what purpose does is serve to write those things... it makes YOU feel right.. but they aren't true. You accuse me of confirmation bias to rationalize your own cognitive dissonance.. Ironically, it is your own confirmation bias.. if you discredit me, you feel right.. It has never occurred to you that you don't actually know everything and you might be wrong... Your fault is that you make assumptions and employ absolutes.... you weaponize this self imposed absolutism.. unfortunately you are shooting yourself..

I don't know what is in your head.. I could only guess,, it is something you need to figure out yourself. but, something isn't right.. you go out of your way to discredit me personally, you distort and lie about me.. you attack me for stuff that you don't attack others,,, you attack me for positions that the FBI also has... it is irrational. I get that you disagree on things but your response to those disagreements comes from some internal issue..

You make the assumption that you know what is in Cooper's head... you don't.. But more-so,, your claim is false, he was NOT entirely cautious. Cooper took back the matchbook and notes but handled the chute/card, left the drinking cup, tie, cig butts and handed Tina money which could have had prints... The FBI investigated the significant letters and you dismiss them as ridiculous.. Drew believes Cooper wrote that same letter and you never trashed him or attacked the letters... You have a bias Ryan.. it has elevated your discourse to be hyperbolic and vindictive sacrificing rational analysis.. Fact is,, there is no evidence to dismiss those letters NONE... I have evidence for some that leads me to believe a few may be legit... without that evidence you should be neutral not dismissive... just like you got Gunther wrong by assuming... In addition to other evidence, that particular letter states a grudge that aligns with Cooper..

Sure,, for starters read this you just posted... It has lies and half truths/contextual distortions,,, which I will bold... you start with "Let me guess" to give a veneer of deniability but you are making this post to discredit and you do have intentionally distorted my positions... It would take me some time to go through this mess and straighten it out, but I don't really care to unwind this mess. Everything in bold is false, made up or inaccurate. Finding things that match a suspect is the whole idea.. Let me guess, you found some writing of Hahneman's where he uses the word "lackey"? This is your MO with Hahneman. You go around finding bread crumbs in various things connected to the Cooper case that are similar to Hahneman and think they all came from the same cake. For example, that's the only reason you give the obviously fictional Gunther stuff any semblance of credibility. Hahneman had a scar on his left hand and so does the guy in Gunther. That must mean the book is real because Hahneman had a scar and Hahneman was Cooper. Alice Hancock said Cooper's sunglasses looked like prescription sunglasses. That must mean Alice is the best witness for the sunglasses because Hahneman wore prescription sunglasses and Hahneman was Cooper. Bill Mitchell said Cooper looked 5'9. That must mean Bill is the best witness to Cooper's height because Hahneman was 5'9 and Hahneman was Cooper. Alice Hancock and Hal Williams said Cooper had wavy hair. That must mean that they are the best witnesses to hair because one of Hahneman's witnesses said he had wavy hair and Hahneman was Cooper. *Disclaimer* Hancock and Williams are not to be trusted, however, on Cooper's height since Williams said Cooper was 6'1+ and Alice said 6'1. Robert Gregory said Cooper had marcelled hair. Gregory also said Cooper looked a quarter Mexican. That must mean he is a very astute witness because Hahneman could be described as having marcelled hair and looking part Mexican and Hahneman was Cooper. Gregory also is to be trusted because he described Cooper's glasses as "horn rimmed" and horn rimmed glasses is one way Hahneman's glasses were described. Same goes for his estimate on height. The old timer said Cooper was 5'9. He's a damn good witness. *Disclaimer* Gregory is not to be trusted, however, on Cooper's facial features because he specifically commented on the long pointy noses of Don Burnworth and John List saying they looked like Cooper's. He also commented specifically on Sheridan Peterson's very large lower lip as looking like Cooper's. Please ignore him on those things, everyone. Flo Schaffner said Cooper looked like he was from Latin descent and that Cooper looked like Donald Murphy. That must mean she's a good witness because Hahneman was of Latin descent and could have some resemblance to a particular photo of Murphy and Hahneman was Cooper. *Disclaimer* Actually, it's best you just ignore literally everything else Flo said. The FBI didn't value Flo's testimony because she was having a trauma experience...or so I've been told. So yeah, she's useless except on her Latin descent comment and her Donald Murphy selection.

Typical,, You don't know that,, it is an entirely irrational assumption.. I can see being neutral on them, most are clearly not Cooper... but to reject them all en masse with zero evidence.. not bright. It is extremely flawed logic to use assumptions to eliminate.. You are the poster boy for that.. You just lie and make up stuff to defend your nonsense... I don't know what goes on in your head that you think that is ok... or productive for the case.

There is this obsession with "so called" Cooper suspects to be extraordinary people,, a bad ass special ops,, a metallurgist who worked on the Manhattan project, an assassin, CIA spy or mercenary etc...... Cooper was a forgettable loner, above average intelligence but a bitter chronic underachiever whose grudge was to accomplish something substantial in life... Something nobody else had done based on his ability after lifelong rejection from a corrupt system that rewards undeserving people.... Cooper was not unique or special or remarkable in life...

Nice, obfuscation,,,, and riddled with errors, assumptions and manufactured nonsense.. childlike.. an irrational screed... No, you called the letter "stupid" out of ignorance... now you try to distract from that. At minimum you should be neutral on it.. but using "stupid" justifies your own rejection of the letter.. which is fine even though you have no justification. That is your MO in this case.. I don't think you have the analytical skills for this case maybe you should stick to working for criminals..

"stupid letters" Is that official or something you just made up to dismiss it. I am about 95%.... YUP Prove me wrong..

I believe this was written by Cooper and this is his grudge.... and don't ask me for proof,,, that is a secret.

Though I don't believe Merwin Dam has any relevance.. The streetlights are not the only lights,,,

NO, Martin D18... I don't really discuss guitar stuff here because it is a Cooper forum but the second one is now public... I found Neil Young's first guitar from high school, an orange 6120 Gretsch he sold in 1965 to go acoustic... He regretted it and always wanted it back.. he replaced it in Buffalo Springfield with another orange Gretsch,,, Randy gave him my number and he called me, I gave him all the details and proof, he obtained it within hours,,, He is playing Mr Soul on it for his current tour.. FB Video.. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1EGihHxWw9/