FLYJACK

What is wrong with you,, MATH wrote it, I even quoted it in my post... Neither of you actually read.... so you dream up some unhinged nefarious motive for posting a fact.. You see why I can't take you seriously.. MATH wrote.. "You feel that is evidence of a document we have yet to see, and which is not mentioned, cited, or enumerated in any other paperwork associated with the case. " So, I posted the reference to an FBI file... BTW.. Chaucer did a similar thing,, when I didn't accept his Columbia R landing theory but agreed with the FBI version he became completely unhinged and attacked me personally.. all I did was agree with the facts.. Ask him to release his Rataczak video, he spends about 45 minutes trashing Rataczak's character and credibility.. it is insane, he took it down. I think you are emotionally invested in a theory and it has distorted your judgement.. you see things that aren't there and form opinions that are invalid, not supported by any evidence.. The Vortex has taken another soul..

You are wrong,, I posted that clip because MATH claimed there was no reference to an FBI file.. clearly wrong. Falsely accusing me of something dishonest for posting a fact.. You owe me an apology.. and you see why I am pissed and disappointed with you two.. Seriously, you two are in the Ulis/Blevins zone and I mean it. You see things that aren't there and MATH can't see things that are there.

I posted it to prove that MATH doesn't know the subject they are arguing.. that is it. Anything else is in your warped imagination. Seriously, you seem irrational.

You have lost it.. you are paranoid. You accuse me of something then back it up.. I was pointing out MATH's false claim, proving he doesn't know the subject.. He also claimed there were only a couple mentions, which is false.

No, what did I do? Please enlighten me... Math said there was no reference to a file,, there was. he was wrong.

This is Ryan's bias.. Older competitive tennis players who eat organic do not smoke... and Vordahl was claimed to be left handed.. Cooper, a right handed long term smoker is Vordahl's silver bullet.. done, finished. Math just seems incapable of comprehending the facts.. just can't even get the facts right.. so attacks my cred for having the audacity to agree with the case facts.. To be correct they need the Himmelsbach book to be wrong, Himmelsbach himself to be wrong. McPheters to be wrong, the FBI files to be wrong and amazingly absorbed the Himmelsbach book, Calame and Rhodes to be wrong even though they had more details than the Himmelsbach book.. they somehow absorbed Himmelsbach false info.. Their arguments are even contradictory,, an illogical mess. It is an incredulous feat... and you two have ZERO evidence, just a useless and baseless opinion you can't back up. If I wanted those I'd listen to Ulis or Blevins. Both of you are intellectually dishonest. IMO, you both have lost all your credibility with me.

100% Clueless. This indicates that witness was Tina..

It isn't me.. I gave you guys lot of facts you didn't have.. It doesn't matter you two reject everything for an unfounded and meaningless opinion.. then I get called team cover up.. absolutely insane. Opinions in this case are a dime a dozen, if you can't back them up it is a waste of everyone's time. If you apply that standard that means NO evidence in this case is valid... and I am not interested in any discussion that doesn't apply the basic rules of critical thinking. Both of you have have asserted the same opinion contrary to the evidence but with conflicting arguments... those arguments are invalid, they have no facts, they are made up nonsense. But it is all my fault. Stop wasting my time,,

The comment from "Math" was insane.. no facts, no evidence, just incoherent gibberish.. Team cover up, what is this straw-man crap. I have no interest is participating in a discussion with irrational people. None. You two have the info, you reject it without any evidence whatsoever... you both have made incoherent/false arguments completely pulled from thin air... This is Blevins/Ulis level idiocy and a waste of time.

You thought wrong,, your comment was a pile of crap. It demonstrated your ignorant thinking process.

Beyond ridiculous.. Both of you have lost your minds, you have ZERO evidence to support your opinions.. good luck. I am not participating in this garbage.

I just expected more from you... You have no valid side on this.. All you have is a baseless opinion.... in this case they are worthless. If that really is your standard then nothing in this case can be valid, everything is open to opinion only and you have zero credibility.. We might as well be discussing Xenu... My purpose and goal is to get to the truth.. replacing evidence with baseless opinions is counter productive and a waste of time.. Stuff like this makes me question why I still even post here.

Stop it, you are acting like Ulis now. OJ could be innocent too... How does it get into The Real McCoy from the NORJAK book, when details are completely different. How does it get into the FBI files years after the NORJAK book and Himmelsbach's retirement. Did the FBI read NORJAK and insert it.. How does McPheters know this information? Did he take it from the book.. Your conflation argument is dead. Your argument that we have all the documents is dead. There is ZERO evidence it was an error in NORJAK and all references come from that error. That can't be your standard so I assume it is some unconscious bias at work...

Ok, I figured this out... "Math", my point about multiple conflations being necessary was in the context of a rebuttal to olemisscub's argument.. For his argument to be valid, it requires multiple conflations.. I was not making a universal statement. I was pointing out the weakness in his argument. Your argument contradicts his argument.. and requires its own analysis. Evaluating all the evidence we have, it is apparent that a document we have not seen has Tina claiming Cooper had yellowish stains on the first two fingers of his right hand.. since Tina lit his cigarettes and was next to him this is not unbelievable. Clearly, she witnessed him smoke and with which hand. I have always believed that they knew or strongly suspected if he was right or left handed but held that back.. This document is the source of multiple claims about Cooper having cigarette stains on his right hand. Is it possible that the document has an error.. it is possible but extremely unlikely. The FBI docs do have errors they are not conclusions but a gathering of information. For this to be an error it would be inconsistent with the typical errors in the files.. it would have to be a mis-attribution rather than a typo or misunderstanding which it typical. Also, there is no evidence that it is false,, none whatsoever. Without any contrary evidence we have to take it as valid.. if we don't and dismiss it then anything and everything in this case is open to be dismissed without evidence. So, my conclusion is that it is legitimate based on the known evidence but remain open to the possibility that it could be an error if some new evidence is found. This case is closed and any further deviation from the judgement may be punishable by a fine or imprisonment or both in accordance with the laws of the Vortex.

UPI article.. Interesting,, here is a reference in a book by FBI agent Mike McPheters.. he is referring to Eugene Cooper.. From The Real McCoy.. Tina saw yellowish discolorarion on the first two fingers of his right hand,,, that is much more specific.

What if I don't agree.. my position is the correct one,,, possible but unproven false. You don't have any evidence it is false, it is your opinion based on only an assumption. Another instance.. "Himmelsbach thinks other clues to Cooper being an ex-convict were the 'atrocious foul language' he used in talking to a stewardess and the way he smoked his cigarettes. Cooper was a heavy smoker and was indifferent to the fact that the smoke curled through his fingers and left nicotine stains, a trait Himmelsbach said is common among prison inmates." It wasn't an error by the the other author,, Himmelsbach believed it. For it to be false the only explanation would be that there is a doc in Cooper's file that we haven't seen with cig stains falsely attributed to Cooper. But there is no evidence for that. THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION IS TAKEN FROM FILE REGARDING WITNESSES' DESCRIPTIONS OF HIJACKER DAN COOPER: WHITE MALE AMERICAN, MID-FORTIES, 6', 170 TO 175 POUNDS, OLIVE COMPLEXION OR MEDIUM TO SWARTHY COMPLEXION, BLACK HAIR, BROWN EYES, AVERAGE TOWELL-BUILT, CIGARETTE STAINS ON RIGHT HAND.

I don't believe we have enough info to draw that conclusion.. it is possible but there is no evidence that either is false and both have to be proven false. You are using an assumption to prove two independent corroberating pieces of info are false. It just doesn't work that way. In my view, it is possible but your argument is extremely weak.. If we go down that road then nothing in this case can be accepted...

Huh, no idea what your point is. It would require two independent errors at different times and context. The first conflation would have to be the claim in the Himmelsbach book between the suspect he talked about in the book and Cooper, re cig stains. The second conflation would have to be years later in the FBI files and completely independent from the first.. nothing to do with Himmelsbach he was long gone from the FBI at this point, another suspect Eugene Cooper would have to be conflated with Cooper... both cases unrelated would have to have falsely attributed cig stains on fingers/hand of a (different) suspect to Cooper. It is significant because you have two independent claims that Cooper had cig stains... The argument that both were false attribution has no evidence, it is pure speculation,, it may be true anything is possible but it is an opinion with no evidence. It is not unusual for a smoker to have stained fingers.. The fact that there were two independent corroborating claims make it harder to write off as a conflation and error. The reason it matters is twofold,, stains indicate a long term smoker and stains were on the right hand.

You are missing the fact that years after the Himmelsbach book the FBI files also state that hijacker Cooper had cig stains... not just the other suspect "Eugene". It is not simple and linear.. So, you need two independent conflations...

Waste of time.. Edward's is wrong..he has never even acknowledged the fact that the guy actually flying the plane said he was hand flying at the time and felt Cooper.. Edward's book and hypothesis is that Cooper jumped further South,, ignoring Rataczak enables confirmation bias..

This isn't a discussion about which is better.. But, I'll add you to list... the plane was hand flown at that time.. Rataczak said so. The path was erratic. Rataczak felt Cooper and the plane dip. The plane was being flown dirty, unlikely to be done on autopilot. Based on tests and experts the pilot would not feel somebody leaving the stairs if the plane was on autopilot. They would if it was manually flown.. not only did Rataczak say he was hand flying the plane he also said he felt Cooper... Claiming the plane was on autopilot after knowing Rataczak said he was hand flying the plane is an attempt to discredit Rataczak.. This is simple stuff,,, Solerlind erred or got bad info.

I don't disagree, I was calling out the fact that some so called Cooper case experts continue to ignore the fact that the guy actually flying the plane.. Rataczak, said he was hand flying the plane and felt the plane dip when Cooper was on the stairs.. He also said that the call to Soderlind was in the suburbs of Portland. That destroys the claim that Cooper jumped over the Columbia or south of that...

Rumour was Elvis used black shoe polish,, it was temporary and tended to smell...

Witnesses said Cooper's hair was dark, greasy possibly dyed.... There was Men's hair dye circa Norjak.. One example from 1967.

There are no coincidences..