FLYJACK

FBI.. 5'8" height is not sufficient to eliminate a suspect. FBI searched Elsinore records from 5'8"

No, Gregory was not the obnoxious drunk... Ryan us using wild speculation and misunderstanding the evidence. Gregory sat in the aisle seat, he said he believed row 18 but it was likely 16 and alone in that row... not 17. but, he never moved up when the passengers were asked. Mitchell said the drunk moved up. Further, the key passengers were interviewed that night, they would have noticed a drunk.. No, Gregory was not the drunk. Ryan doesn't know what he is talking about and misleading everyone again. The evidence shows Gregory was not the drunk...

A single breasted overcoat unbuttoned worn loosely should expose the suit lapel's.. Some overcoats are worn with arms not in sleeves.. just over the shoulders.. Sitting in a plane, how would he have worn it?? loose, over shoulders?? But we don't know enough about that overcoat/topcoat/raincoat,,, did he ever remove it, did he put on the chute with an overcoat on??

Cooper was wearing a skinny tie and small collared shirt, both out of style.. However, his suit had wide lapels.. in style, just barely.. Most of the 50's and 60's suits were small lapel's.. Cooper's suit was either a year old or from the 40's/early 50's.. In the 50's besides small lapel's suits became patterned, more colourful and textured... 60's were small lapel. Most likely it was old,, late 40's era and not nearly new.

G, the reference was the other test, the Boeing test in the 60's when they only opened the airstairs in flight... no weight, not the sled test.

Doc, Doc, Doc... I am compiling all this stiff right now... The Boeing test did not have a person on the stairs or jumping.. they only lowered the stairs. They wouldn't have open very far with no weight on them, no pitch, bump, oscillations. This can't be compared to a jumper.. their weight pushing stairs down and releasing. Rataczak was told to expect a pitch and there was.. The 8:09 little bob on the FDR was Cooper getting to the bottom of the stairs, maximizing drag with his weight opening the stairs.. the stairs were opened earlier but not opened as far with much less drag and no pitch. Pitch was caused by Cooper at the bottom of stairs not when stairs cracked open earlier. The FDR mark indicates Cooper was at the bottom at 8:09, no later marks. If this mark was not Cooper maximizing drag then what was it and wouldn't there be another mark later. The only question is how long was he at the bottom of stairs from 8:09 before jumping.... causing the physical bump. expect a slight pitch..

Ryan doesn't know what he is talking about.... go ahead explain Ryan's argument,, it is a blend of opinion, ignorance and misinformation. Not that you should agree that he was Cooper.. but Ryan's argument doesn't eliminate him

I think Randy233 is claiming he wasn't Cooper because he smokes one brand.

This is the typical analysis by Ryan... completely wrong and disastrous for this case. He jumps to conclusions, makes assumptions then attacks me from a position of ignorance.. then I have to respond to his misinformation. The FBI file said missing several upper side teeth.. It took me years to get to the bottom of it and it turns out it is not dispositive at all. Notice he attacks me personally,, and he actually doesn't know the facts. He was missing two upper bicuspids, (down the side), one person out of 50 noticed it and it is common for people with braces, it was unbelievable that the person even noticed it. I have an image of his front upper teeth and they look normal.. Ryan recently lied and said he was missing half his teeth.. then upper and lower, both false. Why, to discredit me and support his own bias. This is why I have no respect for Ryan's analysis he has run this playbook many times,, it is amateur research and bad for the case. Ryan is not a serious person. He won't change.

Bla, Bla Bla,, Same made up nonsense... heard it all before. You do have a strange fixation.. it is irrational. You cherry pick the low level arguments for sketch A and COMPLETELY ignore the important ones. You don't even acknowledge anything that contradicts A.. You clearly have a bias. Ultimately, sketch A is your opinion and you can have it.. but, your reasoning is incomplete and flawed. Same with Skip, Orchards, Cooper's height, Cunningham's map, Cossey's NB6... low level thinking. This case is saturated with that. You stick with sketch A and all these other things... you will get nowhere and mislead many people.. All I ask is for you to stop lying about me and be accurate with the case evidence. Is that too much.

You are making it up Ryan, you keep lying about me and if you keep doing it you will regret it.. Clearly, you need to lie because you have no arguments. I am not talking about trash talk, you are a Professional and it is beneath you. Georger accused me of getting run off DZ,, my father had suddenly died and I dropped out for while... you accuse me of running away, my step brother suddenly died in an accident. So, you are a liar,, you are making up stuff to try to discredit me because you are incapable of formulating a rational argument. You are trying to smear with complete fabrications. You are acting like a child not a professional lawyer..

Brand loyalty is high but people often have several brands they are loyal to. In the context of this case.. We don't know that Cooper's regular brand was Raleigh or his only brand, he could have switched for the hijacking.. I have confirmed Hahneman smoked at least 3 different brands. A hijacker getting 2000 free smokes is going to order a premium brand,,, it says nothing about their regular brand... many brands are virtually identical and differ with the marketing. Another variable is availability.. The point is, the argument that Cooper smoked Raleighs and Hahneman demanded B&H is somehow negative is absurd and poor reasoning.

It was a joke.. I actually have a wicked dry sense of humour that not everybody gets.. that got me in trouble in the early days. I have never left for anything forum related, I have left many times but for personal stuff.... there were some sudden deaths in the family that caused me to leave. You have many times falsely attributed motive, claiming knowledge you don't actually possess. As a lawyer you should know better. There is no debate here. You don't know that Hahneman is not Cooper. You have got things wrong before, what if your opinion is wrong, does the world stop for you. I have gone through this kind of thing in this case many times,, I would research something against the group or conventional thinking get ridiculed and trashed even threatened and most of the time I would end up being correct usually accepted years later. Not always, sometimes things don't pan out.. we all go down rabbit holes sometimes. You learned your lesson with Vordahl, a disaster,, Does Nicky still push him.. or is that thing finally done. I rejected him early because there was no connection to the case, the tie particles, RemCru and the patent was misunderstood.. I was correct. I didn't trash you guys, I knew it would eventually run its course like most suspects do. They all hit a wall... Everyone prematurely eliminated Hahneman based on assumptions, misleading and minimal info, even the FBI did. He was labelled a copycat and everyone ignored him.. I haven't seen anything that eliminates him.. He is an excellent suspect based on MY research and your opinion or anyone else's is irrelevant. I am not pushing him on anybody. I am responding to what I know to be false information or irrational claims. You used these to discredit him, they do not at all. The B&H ciggs he demanded.. as if smokers only smoke one brand. We don't even know if Cooper only smoked Raleigh's. A hijacker would demand a premium brand. He talked more on a roughly 15 hour hijacking vs Cooper's 5. He also lied alot. He used the back stairs for passengers not the front, an improvement over Cooper so the crew couldn't escape. He mentioned his last employer,, he lied. He wore glasses, they were bifocals and he soon put on dark prescription sunglasses. Alice thought Cooper had prescription glasses that would mean Cooper also wore glasses. A potential clue everyone but me has missed. The missing teeth. it was not easily noticed, they were two upper side teeth reported by one person. I found a pic of his front upper teeth and they look fine. Those teeth are the ones removed for braces,, very common and very hard to notice.. Also, when those teeth are removed the front upper teeth move back slightly with the upper lip making the lower lip appear to protrude. You posted a grab from the FBI file and mocked Hahneman as a suspect with it,, turns out it wasn't what you thought because you rushed to judgement to support your preconception. I spent six years digging into it and discovered that it was NOT dispositive at all. So, when you lied and told the world he was missing half his teeth and then he was missing upper and lower teeth I was forced to correct the record.. you were spreading misinformation, not opinion but FALSIFIED evidence that you already had and you still take no responsibility for it and have not corrected your error. He put on gloves.. he was obfuscating his prints, like Cooper probably did but not using gloves, Cooper may have used glue, abrasion or chemicals.. Thin lower lip. Murphy has an almost identical thin lower lip.. the first Cooper report was "thin lips" that was the argument you used for sketch A, the earlier the report the more reliable you claimed, not now. He has the right shaped mouth, thin upper and protruding lower. Told crew identity in baggage,, he lied. Asked for newspapers... so what, it was a 15 hour deal and he was delaying for a night jump. A fat nose, not really about the same as Murphy's, it looks fatter in bad overexposed pics like the passport photo. Perhaps a wider base but narrower bridge. I have a really good pic and his nose is not fat. But he does look very different in different pics. A bulbous nose, it isn't, that is from the AI image based on a really bad photo. He used a gun, Yes and he claimed to have bomb in his briefcase, he threatened to shoot it.. there was no bomb. He tried to obtain a gun in the fall of 71, if he was Cooper and he did get a gun maybe that gun would have been used for NORJAK.. the gun he used for his hijacking he obtained just before. The passengers were notified of the hijacking, that created a different dynamic.. yes, hard to not notify passengers when you use a gun. The crew asked Cooper about notifying the passengers he did not demand it, Cooper was passive in that transaction and it is much easier without a gun. Height, you keep making him shorter than he was in shoes.. he was between 5'9" and 5'10" in shoes and he slouched like Cooper... his weight and build matches Cooper which indicates Cooper was at the lower end of the range, not 6'.. the FBI said in the FBI files to NOT eliminate suspects down to 5'8" based on height.. Ryan seems to know something the FBI didn't but won't even acknowledge this fact.. You claim these things to discredit him even mocking,, none of these is negative and some are a plus.. it is an irrational position to use these things to discredit.. which is why I suspect something else is going on. You are desperately trying to convince everyone Hahneman is the worst suspect in world with no evidence for it,, an absurd claim,, knowing what I know it is insane.. something is up... I can sense it. Do you have an undisclosed suspect that resembles sketch A, are you supporting your buddies? There is something, your claims are so irrational there must be some explanation.. You have some bizarre fixation about sketch A.. Your defence of Skip Hall is irrational.. Those forehead and eye lines are severe, he has 3 noticeable bumps on his face,,, no connection to the case. Your non criticism and passive defence of Cunningham's altered FP is irrational. It is wrong and the Vortex has accepted bogus evidence and you enabled it. You lied about Hahneman evidence, spread false information to damage him and me and you've made incomprehensible claims and arguments to discredit him.. Orchards, you claimed it was settled and falsely claimed the FBI now believes Cooper landed in Orchards.. I know the evidence well and there is nothing to support Orchards, it is speculation. That is why I don't respect your analytical ability... and you keep calling me a liar because I won't give you my research... that game doesn't work with me.

That was a joke.. amateur.. Your comment is not serious and full of lies. Does it make you feel better.. because it looks desperate and childish.

both..

For anybody who reads this now or in the future.. I have new data completely independent from Soderlind's analysis and it matched his time at 8:11.. DB Cooper jumped at 8:11, a few seconds before or after. The data isn't precise to the exact second. Late 8:10's or early 8:11's... This data is absolutely clear. Cooper did not jump after 8:11. Ryan and others 50+ years later are claiming Orchards as a fact, the burden of proof is on them.. and they can't do it.. there is no evidence indicating Orchards. To begin, they need to use the real FP map.. not Cunningham's altered one. Ryan even lied to claim the FBI now believes Orchards for cred.. no Larry's opinion doesn't speak for the FBI. The jump time is important but doesn't identify any suspect. It does give a better LZ and that includes North of the Lewis R.. I would share my data but I really don't like some of these dishonest people. Some others have seen it.

You keep repeated that but it still doesn't make it true... It has become clear you are a rank amateur at this.. I admit I thought you were smarter.. All you do is disseminate false info, really bad irrational arguments, baseless accusations.. and personal attacks. The FBI said sketch B was the best likeness. Tina never saw his face straight on.. Flo said none of the sketches were very good. The Cooper image I have looks closer to B.. YOU never interview 3 witnesses together.. they influence each other.. B is closer to the very first sketch making A the outlier. B matches Murphy... who was liked by witnesses well before B was even created. Sketch A's nose is absurd. I almost think the stews intentionally got it way off. Sketch B was best likeness,, A should be ignored. You have an obviously irrational draw to sketch A, I would guess that you have an undisclosed suspect you are softening the ground for.. I have notice that you use the tactic to accuse others of what you are actually doing... Confirmation Bias is you..

His FBI file said several upper side you posted an image of the file and used it to mock Hahneman.. Then you said he was missing half his teeth,, clearly an exaggeration.. I corrected you.. with the fact that it was the bicuspids and only one witness. then you said upper and lower... still false... So, are you actually interested in getting the facts right... it sure doesn't appear that way. I am not rustled in any way,, I know the facts and am just pointing out to others that you can't be trusted to get them right. Anyone in hearing your distortion would reasonably form a false opinion. You don't take responsibility you attack me. I would think a legit Cooper researcher would want to get the facts right.. To disseminate false info that can be reasonably used to eliminate a suspect is a pretty serious error.

Is that it... seems overly simplistic. Mine is about 200 items, far more complex and detailed.. You always claim I am lying when you don't actually have that knowledge.. kind of weird.. I do agree that it gets tough as some things are unknown for suspects and that makes it less valid skewing some suspects.... Let me do Hahneman... Smoker? Y 1 Drinker? Y 1 (wife said he drinks only 1 highball to loosen up) Aviation Background? Y 1 727 knowledge? U 0 not directly that I know he did fly a-lot and expressed extensive knowledge for his hijacking. Parachute training? Y 1 Olive/Dark complexion? Y 1 Neutral Accent? Y 1 Age 40-50? Y 1 Pilot? U 0 he was on an air crew and claimed to be a pilot he did give very detailed flying instructions for his hijacking. Opportunity? Y 1 Familiar with PNW? Y 1 Would know McChord? Y 1 Any reason for odd chemicals to be on your clothing? Y 1 Demolition training? Y 1 Height 5'10 to 6'? this is your bias, The FBI used 5'8" and explicitly said not to eliminate based on height to 5'8" Y 1 We have 13 out of a potential 15,, good enough to get him into law school

It wasn't a misstatement.. You said he was missing half his teeth, then you said upper and lower.. recently you said noticeable... sounds really serious. If I didn't know the facts that would be extremely damaging to Hahneman.. His FBI file doesn't say that. That is a lie... an intentional distortion. I found an image of his upper teeth showing and there are no missing upper teeth visible. It was two missing upper down the side that are commonly removed for braces, it was the upper bicuspids. One witness out of about 50 who apparently knew teeth really well commented on it. So, you misled everyone by distorting the evidence. You lied to discredit him because you had already formed that narrative. Ironic, since you claim to be unbiased and want to get the facts right.. It is how you roll... you are more interested in supporting a personal narrative rather than the facts.. You never corrected the record. You actually doubled down. What impact does your dissemination of misinformation have on the case,, what else have you got wrong and disseminated as "evidence"...

Nice, did Nicky write that for you. Childish. No, my matrix is nothing like that. Nope, none of those things. Most of those are false or irrelevant. I notice you have learned nothing. and some of those things really make no sense to try to discredit Hahneman. But if that is how you create a matrix,, I can see how Hall is #1...

TBH, that is a difficult question.. I can't put him on the plane so there is some room for doubt but I haven't found anything legitimate that eliminates him and while there are a few differences from Cooper they are are not dispositive.. and I have found many many more things that do match, things only I know. However, I am still trying to put him on the plane.. I am working on something to do that. I hope I can... then I don't have to deal with this nonsense. What I do know is that all your complaints, distortions and faux analysis that ridicule him are not serious, not dispositive and not honest.. nothing you have presented is dispositive. Many of your claims are irrelevant or just inaccurate. Dude, you lied about his evidence. What serious researcher lies about the evidence.

It isn't a fail, split them and join them, better to put Hahneman in sunglasses. That is fat Hahneman..

This is an excellent example of your abysmal analytical skills... Hall has two large bumps near his mouth and severe forehead lines, he has severe eye wrinkles.. you try to minimize claiming it is because he raises his crooked eyebrows.. In many pics and that video he shows those severe lines clearly, to claim that those would never be noticed is absurd.. And then you claim Hahneman has no wrinkles because you can't see them in that image,, he does have forehead wrinkled four mild ones according to witnesses. And to accuse me of missing that sums up your ability to just make up nonsense. So you are wrong X3 in one post,, feel better. Anything else you want to be wrong about..

Many witnesses said Murphy was the best likeness to Cooper in sunglasses and a hat.. thin Hahneman and fatter Hahneman vs Murphy.. pretty close... What did Ryan say,, the worst suspect match in the world or something like that.