FLYJACK

Yes, the time frame is big issue.. there is no evidence the RemCru TiSb alloy was produced after 1953.. but since the tie particles don't even match the patent there is no evidence to claim the source was even RemCru/Crucible. That means there is no link between Cooper's tie and Vince Petersen or Milton Vordahl.. No link, no suspect.. The 1953 filed patent has the alloys listed and the 1965 patent is a process patent that doesn't show alloy production but only refers tangentially to a wide Sb range.. Ulis grossly exaggerated the patent significance claiming it was "commercial DNA" and those tie particles could have only come from that patent and RemCru... this is completely false.. we know Ulis does this, he has done this for years. There are only three TiSb (17%) particles on the entire tie that don't even match each other.. The other problem is the seen vs the unseen, we can see patent's, we can't see all the other potential sources of those particles so the bias is toward what we can see.. to argue it must be the patent/RemCru because we can't identify another source is a logical error. The patent with 17% Sb alloy is a coincidence, the rest of the particle elements do not match that 1953 alloy. Vince Peterson is a terrible Cooper suspect.. everybody knows it,, he doesn't even tick the basic boxes. Vordahl ticks more boxes but also has ZERO chance of being Cooper. He doesn't fit the Cooper profile and there is no link from the tie to RemCru to Vordahl and at 58 Vordahl was athletic, a competitive tennis player and into organic foods... no way he is a smoker at 58. Without the tie particle connection there is no evidence to support Vordahl being Cooper. He is just another random guy. Ulis is great salesman but a terrible sleuth.. his recurring exaggerations of evidence undermine the credibility of the case and participants.. he has led people over the cliff again. People keep falling for it and still praise Ulis... crazy. It only takes a few minutes to figure out the patent does not actually match the tie particles. Facts never stop an Ulis narrative, he will deny, obfuscate and keep going... and I hope he does. Nicky will stick to Vordahl to the bitter end... is already hedging and will look for a complete exit opportunity at some point. He was brought forward prematurely before a full investigation was completed.

I am not the ignorant one. You guys have pumped a false narrative. Never trust Ulis. The early 1953 patent breaks down the compositions, the table for TiSb has various %'s of SB including 17.. remainder Ti... there is zero mention of the 6-8% Ni in the tie particles.. or the other different trace elements. That patent isn't even close. 6-8% Ni is a significant amount and would be mentioned. In other alloys listed they mention Sb as low as 1% and it notes other trace elements with far less. To not mention 6-8% of Ni confirms that alloy is not the same as the tie particles and you know it is very difficult to prove a negative but we can here. Then you shift the argument and throw spaghetti at the wall admitting I am right.. all that matters is they were alloying TiSb in the 60's.. it is really difficult and nobody else we know of did.. etc.... the patent was filed 1953, 12-20 years before the tie existed. Then you walk it all back,, who the hell knows if it came from RemCru.. sure maybe it did, maybe it didn't, nobody knows, you say.. You start out insulting me then end up essentially saying that it doesn't matter anyway.. well it does. Well, we don't know where those particles came from but we know it is unrelated to those patents and that is the premise for linking Petersen and Vordahl to Cooper.. without that you have nothing, just a random guy that ticks a few boxes. Your argument has been to rule in a metallurgy environment specifically RemCru,, all I can say and have said is that patent is unrelated to those particles based on the facts. Could they have come from a metallurgy environment, maybe, we don't know and will probably never know.

Not that I know of.. but it doesn't matter the tie particles don't match the patents. the 1953 patent TiSb alloy doesn't include the 6-8% Ni on the particles...

Both Vince Petersen and Milton Vordahl advocates use the TiSb patent and Crucible/RemCru connection as the foundation for the argument they were Cooper.. Neither patent proves or matches the few TiSb particles found on the tie.. it does not include 6-8% Ni.. it only has a similar Sb%... a random coincidence. It actually proves that there is no match and these tie particles have ZERO connection to the patent and ZERO connection to RemCru therefore these suspects have ZERO connection to Cooper. NONE Completely busted... Ulis and the Vordahl guys have falsely accused people and undermined the credibility of the Cooper case.... a complete waste of time. and I warned people about following Ulis, he has a track record of elevating assumptions and conjecture to fact... triple check anything he claims.. and his claims about the patent are 100% false..

Larry Finegold 1980... "It's difficult now to separate fact from fantasy," "I'm no longer sure what I saw - and I was trained by the FBI. I think I got a good, solid look at Cooper's face. Now I don't know."

Story about an author with Cooper FOIA's in 1980.. That has to be either Gunther or HA HA HA.. If it was Gunther that would be how he got much of the case info for the book..

This data from the patent filed in 1953 about 12 years before the tie existed does not match the TiSb tie particles.. The particles had 6 - 8% Ni... these do not. In fact, I went through all of the data and there is no match anywhere,, that patent has nothing to do with the TiSb particles on the tie. Instead of including it excludes the tie particles. It is just a random coincidence that the Sb is around 17%. This has been a red herring, the tie particles have no relationship to this 1953 filed patent or the later patent which has no related data.

IMO, Cameron was embellishing the entire thing for PR.. Even his walk back was embellished..

The argument is that Ti was rare,, I don't think it was as rare as people think.. The tie was sold circa1964-65... it had 7 years to accumulate those particles from many environments.. There are so many particles it is impossible to sort them out. Some could be from a shop, from the plane, after the plane, from finger print powder, from dentistry, from explosives exposure, from electronics, military etc... All I know is the patent being the only source for the TISb is bogus.. it is like finding fried chicken on the tie and claiming it was worn by Colonel Sanders.. I have also looked at a broken sodium lamp,,, or fireworks.. It is impossible to sort out, too many possibilities and environments. Then, we don't know if Cooper was the person wearing it when the particles were deposited...

.. CoolLavishAlabamamapturtle-mobile.mp4

yes, I found something on that when I was looking into Ti and Antimony.. I have to look for it again. The engine blades are Ti...

That is a mic drop... Good one Georger, I always suspected contamination from the engine contributed to some of the particles...

Also, Cooper carried the briefcase to the lav flat supported by his left hand, right hand inside the case. Having the dominant right hand inside the briefcase makes sense if the bomb was real. If the bomb was fake there would be no need to keep a hand in it when moving to the lav. Cigarette stains on the right hand indicate right handed.. (that is why Ryan rejects it) Evidence suggests Cooper was right handed but it is not conclusive. I found a 6th reference to the cigarette stains on the hand.. mentioned in a video. Also, Nicky had looked at the cigarette stain and concluded it was legit.. based on corroboration by 3 FBI agents. That was before he had Vordahl as a suspect,, now what will he do,, reject it?? a logical conflict. The VORTEX will crush you. If the stains are true, and there is ZERO contrary evidence, Cooper was a right handed long term smoker,, Tom Kaye's research suggest the tie wearer lit matches with his fingers, again indicating long term smoker. Two big problems with Vordahl, the TiSb patent was for a process not for an alloy, the patent doesn't even mention TiSb at 18% being actually produced.. it was a range 2-3% up to 18%... that is typical for how patents are written to cast wider options, not that it was actually produced at 18%. The patent is a big fat red herring. The Ti patent has been misrepresented.. But the silver bullet for Vordahl is that he was 58, athletic, a competitive tennis player and into organic foods,, I am a high level tennis player, and with organic foods no way he was smoking at 58. Did Ryan and Nicky even notice this obvious problem.. Have they dug a hole they are too proud to climb out of?? Vordahl was advanced prematurely... at least he wasn't as bad a suspect as Vince Petersen..

The NORJAK book never mentioned the right hand.. never mentioned Tina.. both later mentioned. The source of the cigarette stains was not the NORJAK book.. So, we have another source,, or an unbelievable coincidence.

Sure, it could be paper matches,, The point is lighting matches with your fingers is unique, a potential Cooper characteristic not previously noted and indicates a long term smoker.. As for Cooper pee, maybe that is something for urinalysis..

There is one other thing to consider everybody has overlooked.. Tom Kaye noticed a stain on the tie knot area and he determined it was from match residue,, he believes Cooper lit matches with his fingers... probably wooden matches.. could the stains on the fingers of the right hand be from or contributed to by lighting matches?? If so, he is right handed. Regardless, it seems Cooper lit wooden matches with his fingers... unique.

Somewhat diplomatic,, but there is no conflicting information, you made a lot of assumptions and leave out the key evidence.. We know Tina smoked at least one filter tipped cigarette, so Cooper smoked 7 at most on the plane.. is that evidence that he couldn't have stains on his fingers.. NO, not at all. Having a filter is irrelevant, the stains depend on how the cigarette is held,, Himmelsbach was alluding to this.. yellow stains indicate long term smoking. Right handed vs left handed is another can of worms. The evidence supports right handed but it isn't explicit.. I believe the FBI knows or has a strong indication but held it back.. #1 Himmelsbach book mentions Cooper smoking stains.. #2 Himmelsbach interview mentions it AND adds a bit,, So, Himmelsbach believed it, it was not an error by the book author. #3 Years later,, the FBI files mention Cooper having a stain on this right hand, witness info from another file.. #4 McPherson confirms he was the one investigating Eugene Cooper and reiterates the Cooper stain relationship to HIS suspect. #5.. Calame and Rhodes claim Cooper's stain witness was Tina and described it as "yellowing" this description is more advanced than the Himmelsbach book. So, it didn't come from there, it had another source, the initial book author speculation is debunked. So, we need all these errors from different sources to line up for it to be false.. anything is possible, but we have ZERO evidence that is the case. There are at least 5 instances which vary in detail, how does that happen. Coincidence right.. I asked for evidence and only got wild speculation and bogus theories.. So, is there a factual, legitimate and evidence based argument to explain the 5 instances above,, not a speculative opinion. Without actual contradictory evidence we have to take it as factual.

What is your point, it is all true and responses to your (both) attacks or nonsense comments,, BOTH of you accused me of things that were false... I never attack people without cause, but if I am attacked I will respond. All of those things are true.. try putting them in context maybe you will learn something about yourself. Ulis/Blevins always take positions based on a narrative or opinion and ignore any existing or new evidence that deviates.. they make up excuses out of thin air when confronted for facts. KC had a tan you know.. You two are doing the exact same thing.. you started with an opinion based on partial facts, new facts were dismissed, excuses made and your opinion was intact still based on nothing. So, how do Calame and Rhodes name Tina and yellowing when Himmelsbach's book never said that??? Let me guess,, they made it all up as well. Everybody is making up evidence,, Now we need at least 3 errors or coincidences.. but you two have a baseless opinion. If you two have actual evidence then I would listen and consider it, otherwise we are done.

What is this a back handed apology.. You attack me personally then apologize. I appreciate the apology, I assure you I was only posting that clip to prove MATH's statement was incorrect. I don't care if people disagree with me, I prefer it.. that has been since day 1 and in the long run I am usually proven correct. I try to look beyond their conclusions to understand the logic people use,, maybe I can learn something I don't know or haven't thought of.. but I see nonsense here in this instance.. you are entitled to have any opinion but I always look at the reasoning process and there is nothing there,, you had formed an opinion with less info than I had, you have no evidence, not even a rational explanation. I only said I assume it to be true unless contrary evidence comes up.. that is the correct and rational position.. but I was attacked, MATH goes passive aggressive to discredit me.. So, something else is going on here, I can't say I know for sure but both of you have taken irrational positions. Ironically, your arguments conflict.. but you both attack me. Ultimately, I am disappointed that the high level of critical thinking discourse needed for this case isn't there, at least on the forums, you two exposed it. Not because you have an opinion I don't share but because you can't back it up and feel it is legit. You two attacked me for not accepting your opinion.. and if this is an example of the low standard for having an opinion then anything goes in this case and there is no valid discussion on anything and I am not interested in participating. It is Ulis/Blevins zone.. Besides, the way you both disparage, discredit and disrespect me with lies and distortions, you clearly don't care for my contributions, so I don't care to share anything more. Cooper could have been a 5' 4" 85 year old Japanese woman with a wooded leg,,, I have no evidence but the info we have was an error.. prove me wrong.

I am not the one who is confused. You made false statements. I am not implying the source, the FBI files are. Calame and Rhodes identified Tina. and I never ridiculed the idea that the book could be the source. There is no evidence, no argument and it doesn't make sense when you account for all 5 references. You made false claims and engage in a passive aggressive campaign to discredit me for some reason,,, You two have no evidence, no rational argument, just a baseless opinion and attack me personally,,, you both have an irrational need need to dismiss the evidence for some reason. My position is the correct one, given the evidence we have (at least 5 references) it has to be assumed true until we get information the contrary... The incorrect position is that the evidence is false with no facts to show that to be so,

Right, that was my point. MATH falsely claimed there was no reference anywhere to a file,, I posted that reference. What is your problem.

If it was redundant that would irrelevant.. But, it wasn't redundant,, it is the portion that references the info from a file.. in response to MATH's error. You are not rational, you have manufactured assumptions and made false attribution..

Wrong,, you are making assumptions.. how do you know what MATH SAW or understood,, are you MATH? The reference was to Eugene Cooper,, I was posting the clip that specifically said the Dan Cooper info was from a file.. that clip says that the info came from a file,,, get it, that is why I posted it. Of course we all want more info and sources,, I am not critical of that,, We don't have all the info and to claim that since we don't have it so it doesn't exist isn't a rational argument.

You falsely accused me of something nefarious, you had no evidence it was made up in your own paranoia.. and you won't admit it. All I did was post a fact.. that you didn't like.

What a dodge,, you misfired and can't admit it. MATH claimed there was no reference anywhere to a file... there is, I posted it that is all. So, you are wrong.. and make assumptions to justify attacking my motives for posting a fact. Then, you shift to another subject.. and try your failed argument again. You claim that we don't have the source file so it can't exist. This isn't a rational argument. Calame and Rhodes added information beyond Himmelsbach book, how is that, it came from Tina and it was "yellowish" stains on the first two fingers.. MATH said we have only a couple references,, we have FIVE and I think there is at least one more in an interview but gave up looking for it when you two went cray cray... You need to discredit the facts to support Vordahl and you crossed the line when you tried to discredit me for supporting the evidence.. it is clear. There is no discussion here.. you have a narrative, run with it.