FLYJACK

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.

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.