FLYJACK

So, who cares.. you have a history of conflating and distorting evidence and elevating assumptions to facts.. Tina showing Cooper how to use the stairs does not mean he used them correctly, he was alone when he used the stairs.. Your claim is bogus.

There is no debate. Not sure what School you went to but you should ask for a refund.

According to the files.. Tina showed Cooper how to operate the stairs right before takeoff.. Tina went to the cockpit about 4 minutes after takeoff and the stair light came on the first time. Minutes later Cooper calls saying he was having trouble getting the stairs open. Stair light was on. After that call Tina notices the stair light come on. 8:05 Cooper says everything ok. If the files are correct and Tina is correct.. Cooper operated the stair lever with Tina in the cockpit. Cooper was shown stair operation by Tina right before takeoff,, that doesn't mean he did it correctly later. She did not move the lever as the light did not go on until later. Tina saw the light come on the second time.. the light ONLY indicates the lever was moved from the up/lock detent it does not indicate the stairs were opened. For the light to go on twice the lever must have been returned to the up/lock detent in between. It is possible Tina is mixed up but she did say she saw the light come on in the cockpit so did not see Cooper operate the lever.. There is no way Tina or anybody would know if Cooper initially operated the stairs correctly.

Classic Ryan,, I never said that.. you just make up stuff all the time... Not all theories are created equal some ARE just better than others..

Plausible has a very very wide parameter. I am sure I could make up dozens of plausible scenarios... Ad hoc is not luck, he adapted. Fact is, he did change his demand to stairs lowered on takeoff after Reno was in play. Why did he do that? I have pieces of evidence that support my theory, you don't really.. The only criticism you had was a generalization that a skydiver wouldn't want to go over the ocean as if that means anything. It may be true but that doesn't make the theory false at all. I know how the lever operates.. The lever has nothing to do with my jump theory. We know Cooper was delayed in getting the stairs down. Ryan can't know that Tina or Cooper operated the stairs correctly initally. He is probably using something Tina said and claiming it as fact.

Where do you think he landed.. informed guess based on everything you know.. IMO, he jumped about 8:11 along the Sage path,, drifted 2-4 miles NNE... mostly open fields.

We'll see,,, Either Tina claimed she moved the lever or she saw Cooper move it.. Either way that doesn't prove it was operated correctly. The stairs have a gravity drop and hydraulic assist. Cooper told the pilots he couldn't get the stairs open. The light came on twice, he complained he couldn't get them open (assuming speed) and MAC made it out going 100 MPH faster.

You wouldn't have any way to know that, not even Tina would know that for sure. So, it isn't a fact it might be Tina's opinion.

What didn't happen..

So what you are doing is flipping logic on its head. You are using the negative condition to make positive assumption. aka you don't know so must be true.. this is irrational. If you use that standard then anything goes and many in the case do that.. You exaggerate and take things out of context. I am Canadian and I know where Tacoma and McChord is.. I have flown out of Seattle once and driven down South many times. Pilots said ground markers visible (somewhere),, that doesn't mean they were when Cooper jumped, the cloud cover was patchy.. and it doesn't mean he could ID them if he could see them. Cooper was delayed getting the stairs down, he could not see the ground/lights until he descended the stairs at 8:09.. To claim he intentionally timed that is not supported by anything. A pilot describing BG lights does not mean Cooper saw them or recognized them as BG or used them as an indication to jump.. He would not be able to see them, (if he did) until he descended at 8:09. Again, South is not a path, it encompassed 50% of the direction. That is your error. So, you claim I think he is an idiot who got lucky,, this is a great example RYAN's typical logic and straw-man tactics,, to use hyperbole or ridicule as an argument... newsflash, it isn't an argument. I have never said that, you are making it up just like you are making up these many assumptions. I said it was ad hoc, that isn't an idiot getting lucky. Do you understand that you are just making up stuff. There are good theories and bad theories, not all are equal... My theory fits into the evidence and rationalized some significant conflicts. Your theory is not supported by evidence, is contradicted and relies on many unfounded assumptions. The more evidence that supports a theory and fewer assumptions the better the theory. and your theory is not new, it goes way back, most Cooper beginners jump in excited with this type of thinking and make the same errors.

You make several unproven assumptions.. You don't know if he knows the area well. You don't know if he could see the ground. You fail to understand that he was delayed having trouble with the stairs. You assume he saw the lights and knew it was BG. You assume he knew the path beforehand. So, you have a theory, it doesn't fit well within the evidence and relies on many unfounded assumptions..

Define region he knew and how do you know that he targeted it? You have just made it up, there is no evidence to support it. NONE Obviously he knew the plane was travelling South..

Of course you are,, you always use generalizations to make assumptions.. Hahneman was slightly injured because he had a hard landing due to a tear in his canopy.. You just misapplied the cause to justify your idea that Cooper was slightly injured.. You made a false assumption I corrected it then you made another false assumption. and I don't disagree that Cooper may have sustained slight injuries,, I don't know because there is no evidence.

You have no idea what Cooper did with the lever. YOU are just making it up.. and ignoring the evidence. Nothing new for you. The button needs to be pushed and the lever held forward. The stair light went on twice, the light comes on when the lever is moved from the up/lock detent, it does not indicate the stairs are opened. So, Cooper must have moved the lever from the detent initially, then later moved it back to locked position then forward again causing the light to come on a second time. That plus the speed error indicates he DID NOT operate the stairs correctly initially.

Not necessarily, it depends where he landed. YOU assume all landings were equivalent. Hahneman had a hard landing because he had a tear in his canopy.

and it never occurred to anybody that Cooper could have gotten out at 2/3rds the speed.. Cooper not being able to get the stairs down was not because the plane was flying too fast,, it was because he didn't operate them properly initially.

Right, I brought it up before bit never got a final answer.. can one determine from the card or visually that the chute is a bailout rig vs main. Cooper initially asked for 2 rigs "fronts and backs" he was referring to one set (front and back) being one rig X2. He later clarified and said 4 total chutes, he didn't actually change his demand, he clarified. The 2 front and two back = 4 total chutes. Just by coincidence, Hahneman also asked for "fronts and backs" using the exact same terminology, but he asked for 6, he got 6 sets of fronts and backs = 12 total, not bailout rigs. So, initially 1 chute meant 1 set of a front and back together. Cooper asking for fronts and backs is earlier terminology for a main and reserve.. He was asking for mains and received bailout rigs. You'd think that if he knew they were bailout rigs that he would have demanded mains on the ground on Seattle.. he complained about the missing D rings,, so it is very likely he did not realize they were bailout rigs. Kaminsky's theory is not new, the idea that Cooper saw the lights or saw ground markers goes way back.. Kaminsky takes that to an unreasonable conclusion that Cooper targeted his jump zone. No way he knew where the plane would be and he was delayed having trouble with the stairs.. add to that Cooper was jumping with a bailout rig, his drift was potentially up to 5 miles. V23 itself was 10 miles wide. There is absolutely no chance Cooper targeting a predetermined jump spot. A 5 mile radius from the 8:11 time. Ignore Cunningham's absurd path time adjustment abomination. It took Cooper about two minutes after descending the stairs and pick a jump spot. He may have seen the city light glow, per pilots. We don't know if he could see ground markers due to broken clouds. We don't know if he could even recognize markers if he could see them. He jumped over mostly farms and fields with some patches of heavy brush and trees so easily survivable if he pulled. Conclusion, Cooper did not know he was using a non steerable bailout rig, he did not jump to a predetermined spot, after being delayed with the stairs he descended at 8:09 and looked for what he felt was a good spot and jumped 2 minutes later,, nothing to do with ground markers or lights. He did not have a target, he did not target PDX,, it was ad hoc.

Typically, you have assumed incorrectly.

This exemplifies Ryan's arrogant attitude and weaponization if his own misinformation and bias.. it carries over to the entire case. The FBI file said several missing teeth upper sides.. When I got that file I also had a 1972 image of Hahneman showing his upper front teeth and none were missing. So, I knew there had to be some explanation,, but could only speculate. Was it a witness error, did he get teeth knocked out, did he wear a partial, no idea. Hahneman was an executive, it didn't make sense he would appear toothless and I had that photo showing his teeth intact. Here is the difference between Ryan's research and mine.. He just accepted it as a fact then embellished it and said missing half his front teeth then it morphed to upper and lower... He lied because it fit his own bias. I kept digging for 6 years and it was difficult but I discovered that only one person reported the missing teeth out of about 50 witnesses and they said it was the upper "bicuspids". those are down the side in front of the molar. NOT easy to see at all and common for people who wear braces.. further, removal of the bicuspids to straighten upper teeth often results in teeth moving back and the upper recess. That can cause the lower to protrude. Hahneman does have a protruding lower. So, Ryan completely screws this up and doubles down, he uses something that is actually false to eliminate a suspect and discredit me that in reality matches Cooper's sort of protruding lower lip.. Ryan tries to discredit me using an assumption he has about Hahneman that in reality matches Cooper. It is a bizarro world to be attacked from such a position of ignorance.... and it carries over to the entire case.

The reason the sketch A v B things comes up is because Ryan has an opinion for A based on a generalization, not evidence. He elevates that opinion as the foundation/premise for another opinion.. Cooper had a small narrow nose and must look like A not B, absurd. He uses these compounded "opinions" to eliminate or even mock suspects he doesn't like. He makes the same structural error with his height opinion.. It has been noted and is obvious that these are composite sketches and Cooper may be close or not.. put sunglasses on a suspect and they all look similar.. Sketches are NOT made to eliminate, they are created to generate leads. That is why they created B, to generate better quality leads not due to that attribution error. Ryan actually claimed there would be no B sketch without that attribution error.. so B is invalid.. nonsense. My challenge to Ryan is with respect to the structure of his argument and use, it is flawed. His opinion or conclusion is really irrelevant.. his logic and reasoning is flawed for the sketches and other things. He uses that flawed reasoning to attack others, that is the problem. My issue with Ryan is that his logic and reasoning is often flawed and goal seeking, then he weaponizes those flawed conclusions to mock and ridicule others or to advance other flawed theories. He lashes out when challenged because he really has no evidence for his layers of opinions. He publicly lied about Hahneman's teeth repeatedly to discredit me, I pointed out that is was false and he just lied bigger,, he stopped discussing it but has not corrected the record. So, he is fine with disseminating false information. Everyone believes Hahneman was missing half his teeth because of Ryan.. and that I must be crazy for not accepting that would eliminate him.. People in the youtube chat mocked Hahneman as a suspect based on the teeth.. But, it isn't true, Ryan lied and everyone just accepted it. Ryan is an influencer but he is dishonest and flawed.. bad combo. It took me six years to sort that out and Ryan's lies will never get taken back in the minds of the public. Damage done. Ryan is more interested in winning than getting things right. His arguments are riddled with juvenile strategies and fallacies. He will endlessly mock Hahneman for not looking like sketch A (his opinion) and accuse me of bias even though I have the same position as the FBI on the sketches.. Ryan elevates an opinion to fact then uses it to eliminate.. it is the worst thing you can do while investigating a case like this, use an opinion to eliminate instead of facts. But he doesn't know what he doesn't know. I have many pics of Hahneman and he looks like three completely different people.. I even have one that looks surprisingly close to Sketch A except for the super skinny nose.. hair exact, round face shape and mouth very very close. So, Ryan's claim is bogus, it is just made up. So, I challenge anybody to deal with Ryan, Nicky or anyone publicly disseminating false information to discredit you... to support their personal opinion, bias or agenda. These people are digging themselves into big holes, they just don't realize it yet. but objectively, sketch B is better though it is still a composite sketch primarily created to generate leads.

That jump zone circle is not accurate.. a red herring. We don't know if Cooper could see the ground and identify markers. The cloud layer was spotty.. He could not see the city lights glow until he descended the stairs at 8:09, then he could have seen the glow. He jumped about 8:11. The problem with the beacon theory other than zero evidence is that he would have had no expectation of visible contact beforehand just like the path. The only thing we can assume is that he could likely make out the glow of "Portland" from 8:09 at the bottom of the stairs.. this was not predetermined. IMO, he doesn't know exactly where he is, but generally. Struggles with stairs but gets them open about 8:00 and descends at 8:09, gets his bearings and picks a spot to jump at 8:11. Another issue nobody has considered,, Cooper received bailout rigs, non-steerable.. did he know they were non-steerable bailout rigs when he jumped? If he thought they were steerable that would change things.

I have shared the image with people I trust,,, you are definitely not one of them.

Maybe,, I would prefer to switch Mitchell and Gregory because Gregory said he was late.. but who knows.

This is your game,, you just make up stuff..