FLYJACK

A profile would have been helpful... even 3/4 view. Matches Cooper's lower lip profile.. none of the rest of the image.

"The tie clip, though it has been pictured as being on both the left and right sides of the tie, is believed to have originally been inserted from the left side." When will this nonsense die.. "believed" by who? A photo had the clip on the left side of the tie,, that was somebody putting it back on the wrong side. Men's shirts have buttons on the right, the clip only works from the right side.. It can't clip the shirt from the left side.. unless Cooper wears a woman's shirt. Further, Tom's UV particle image indicates the clip location was on the right,,

Of course it was after the process started.. they initiated the process with the goal of updating AGE and COMPLEXION.. they also wanted to do a profile and standing image. Profile would have been nice. Your argument was that the Cary sketch was based on an error by Farrell, that is false. It was based on input from most witnesses. But we are making progress, you are walking it back from ONLY reason to PRIMARY reason... There were many reasons to revise the sketch.. because Farrell applied Flo's KK5-1 comment to sketch A that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't know she was referring to the first sketch. Flo had selected a facial ID image that she claimed better reflected AGE,, they believed it did vs sketch A and since it differed primarily in AGE, it was perfectly reasonable to use it.. If Flo had never made the initial KK5-1 comment they would have still revised the sketch and used input from witnesses... the sketch B would still exist. BTW, there are few other important things we don't know about the sketch process,, did Rose know about Flo's KK5-1 in the production of sketch A. He must have if she picked it out from the facial catalog, was it used or altered by the stews input?? Did it play any part in the production of sketch A. If it did play a role but the final image came out too young then everything makes sense and your speculation is over.. IMO, Rose must have in some way incorporated it in the sketch A process.. but the final image came out too young.. Would Rose completely ignore Flo's KK5-1 comment?? The FBI did say the primary difference was age.. We don't have proof but this must have happened,, Rose must have had Flo's KK5-1 comment for the production of sketch A.. but the final came out too young.. that is why Farrell mentions it and they use it for sketch B. That is why they said KK5-1 differed from sketch A primarily in AGE. Solved that, no wiggle room. I'll be here all week try the veal. Boomski.. Flo's KK5-1 comment had to be known to Rose while doing sketch A.

This is why you get Sketch B (Cary)... not from Flo... They incorporated ADDITIONAL modifications witnesses suggested during the process of updating AGE and COMPLEXION. The result.. sketch B was more accurate than A..

I didn't just accuse you,, you did it.. every single time. Admit it instead of writing some floundering excuse. You can't write a post without a personal attack...

You said we wouldn't have the "Cary" sketch... yes we would. It wasn't trashed, an initial sketch B was created which was a blend of KK5-1 and A.. That was refined over months of input from witnesses... to the final sketch B in Jan 1973.. Remember, they said the primary difference between KK5-1 and sketch A was age, so KK5-1 is a reasonable starting point.. whether Farrell believed Flo was referring to Sketch A or not... KK5-1 would be a reasonable starting point BECAUSE they believed the primary difference was age. An attribution error by Farrell would be irrelevant. The shape of the lower face is very close between Sketch A and the initial sketch B.

You are making assumptions with no evidence.. The FBI wanted to do AGE and COMPLEXION... Flo's KK5-1 had nothing to do with complexion. CHECKMATE Flo's KK5-1 was not the ONLY reason for the revised sketch. Why is this so hard for you to grasp. KK5-1 was used as the base for sketch B because they thought age was the primary difference from sketch A.

It wasn't a joke,,

The checkmate is that Flo's KK5-1 was about age,, the sketch was redone for age and complexion and others criticized age. It is absolutely clear that the sketch was not ONLY based on Flo's KK5-1 comment.

First , why do you always have to slide in a personal dig.. is it hard wired into your personality. but you are just wrong,,, He posts them on forums, facebook I assume, youtube and his website... maybe his upcoming book? They will be forever on the internet.. It pollutes the perception and influences people... this is just a fact. If he wants to be a credible researcher and author, he should be more careful with the evidence, perhaps a disclaimer on the image.. If he wants to influence people's perceptions then by all means post them everywhere. I have done some photoshopped images for my own research,, if I posted them publicly I'd get trashed for it.

Don't act 12.. Your response to criticism is to post a childish joke.

Essentially we have only two images from the FBI that were used. Those are the evidence.. the photoshops and AI stuff is not. Polluting the public sphere with these concocted things distorts the real evidence.. Photoshop is a useful tool and has a place but credible researchers have a responsibility to preserve the original evidence.. Distorting and diluting the actual evidence is not helpful. IMO, flooding the public space with these distortions is unprofessional and juvenile.

Are you 12 ...

I think you are muddying the waters and polluting public perception with the endless photoshops and AI versions of sketches and images.. We have the original descriptions and sketches created by the actual witnesses. Last I checked you weren't a witness. You are not adding value, you are distorting evidence.

Farrell looked at KK5-1 and sketch A,, the primary difference was age. They knew age was not reflected well.. That is where they started.

That isn't true,, They chose to start with KK5-1 because it looked older than Sketch A. They even stated that was the primary difference. The age.

Those points are all relevant. First, that doc is not proof that Flo's comment was 100% responsible. Your claim is false. All the other points are relevant.. There are conflicting statements from Flo and Tina.. that makes them unreliable. You cherry pick summary comments. If the sketch looks ridiculous, it is reasonable that the FBI would want to update it. Flo's KK5-1 comment didn't indicate the complexion... they redid the sketch in part to reflect the complexion in colour.. that had nothing to do with Flo's KK5-1.. That alone is what you call checkmate. Flo wasn't the sole cause of the revised sketch. Incidental not causation... The other points are also relevant but I am not interested in going in circles. Believe what you want, put it in your book,,, I don't really care. Your argument is not supported by the evidence, reason or logic.

Of course you disagree... Flo being the ONLY cause is 100% speculation, there is no evidence for it. Flo later said the sketch was no good. Tina said she never saw Cooper's face. Sketch A was produced quickly.. and with multiple witnesses together.. not good. Other witnesses said it was too young.. Anybody with a brain could see it was too young. The FBI knew sketch A did not reflect the complexion accurately. The FBI wanted to do a profile and standing image.. Flo's KK5-1 never even mentioned the complexion... A comprehensive process was used to create sketch B.. Sketch A looks ridiculous and does not fit witness descriptions. Stews and the FBI said sketch B was most accurate. So, the sketch revision was NOT solely from Flo's KK5-1 comment. That is just ridiculous. It was incidental. You are cherry picking info to support a bogus conclusion.

No it isn't... They knew from many witnesses that the age and complexion were off, it was B&W after all,, anybody with a brain could see sketch A was too young and didn't show the "swarthy" complexion.. Sketch A looks younger than the first sketch.. I said from the start that Flo was incidental not causation.. They even wanted to do a profile and a standing image.. There is no evidence that revising the sketch was SOLELY due to Flo... that is disproven by the evidence and reason.

So what.. Flo later said the sketches were no good.. there are contradictory statements, I said Flo is flakey. That doesn't specifically refer to KK5-1.. that is one of the summaries that are often inaccurate.. But even if it is so, that doesn't support your conclusion. It is irrelevant. The fact that sketch B was revised using input from all witnesses undermines your argument. If you really want to elevate Sketch A using some bizarre logic, go ahead... you stick with that, I hope you do.

I have to add Flo is flakey and Tina is deceptive. They were the primaries for Sketch A, we know it is bad and doesn't fit the descriptions. They did it in a rush. The nose is ridiculous, the mouth was changed, the hair wrong and the eyes were a guess. Age, complexion and androgynous look,, absurd. Take all those out and you have very little.. the sketch is useless. I am surprised that sketch was even produced, it is clearly inaccurate. The process for sketch B was far more comprehensive and accurate. If anybody wants to stick with sketch A,,, good luck with that.

The singular artist conception is sketch A... You are trying to read Farrell's mind... it does not indicate he thought Flo was referring to Bing,, he was referring to A. He was comparing KK5-1's age to sketch A.. It doesn't even matter what Farrell thought.. You are creating an argument from a premise then added speculation which does not lead to your conclusion. Your conclusion is not supported. The fact is the production of sketch B was very comprehensive vs A... (above you said completed in a few weeks) The stews and the FBI said it was the most accurate likeness. If they are going to revise the sketch under the premise to make the age and complexion more accurate why wouldn't they incorporate all input from witnesses.. Answer is they wouldn't.. Your argument makes no sense. You expect them to get feedback from witnesses ONLY for age and complexion and nothing else.. Hey witnesses look at the revised sketch we have done,,, but we don't want to hear about any issues other than age and complexion... don't change anything else.

You are imagining it,, he is comparing Flo's KK5-1 to sketch A and commenting that the difference is that KK5-1 looks older.. that is confirmed by the other witnesses who also say too young.. The totality of the witness complaints caused sketch B to be done. It does not say or imply that Farrell got the sketches mixed up.. and Sketch B was not finalized in a week,, it took months...

and with sketches vs images... I have many pics of Hahneman and in them he looks like 3 or 4 completely different people.

I always thought the first sketch looked like Jack Lord.. The original Hawaii Five-O was very popular at the time. Jack often wore sunglasses in the show, different styles. The document shows that Flo was referring to the first sketch and not sketch A when she mentioned KK5-1. Sketch A was done quickly primarily in the meeting with the stews. That is where it ends. Farrell referred to Flo's KK5-1 comment in the context of looking older vs Sketch A, that is clear in this paragraph of the 302.. So, there is no indication that Farrell got the images mixed up. He was comparing Flo's KK5-1 to sketch A which confirmed that A looked too young. The 302 also notes other witness complaints about sketch A being too young. So, it wasn't just Flo's KK5-1 but many witnesses that prompted them to redo the sketch older and in colour to show the complexion. The sketch B process was far more comprehensive than sketch A... The stews and the FBI said that sketch B was the most accurate likeness.. Farrell noting Flo's KK5-1 is incidental not causative. I don't see any evidence that he misapplied the KK5-1 comment, it appears he was applying it to sketch A in the context of age. There is nothing to change the Stew/FBI indications that sketch B was the most accurate. IMO, for many reasons sketch A is garbage and should be ignored, that bad sketch may be responsible for the case being unsolved.