FLYJACK

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..

Wow, the FBI must be reading this forum I was just talking about these codes and that we needed the other two.. Here they are.. New York Times,, 9999992649? Seattle Times,, 3245343434

No, the airplane dipped 3 to 5 degrees.. not the stairs There are certain people in this case that keep repeating the error that the plane was on autopilot.. Why is it important,, because it was noted that the pilot wouldn't feel Cooper on autopilot,, Rataczak did feel Cooper because he was hand flying the plane. If he felt Cooper he had a better idea where Cooper jumped,, if he didn't feel Cooper and it was on autopilot certain people try to claim Rataczak didn't know and maybe it was turbulence.. By claiming (falsley) that the plane was on autopilot certain people are using that to move the drop zone.. The fact is Rataczak was hand flying the plane and it is very important.

I understand the Himmelsbach book on its own.. my point was that,, with it also in the FBI files years later (Cooper w cig stain) when a different suspect is discussed there is a double ninja inverse time travelling conflationary epoch involved for BOTH to be false. The same error twice in a different time and context?? I can almost accept the Himmelsbach book being a conflation.. Himmelsbach also mentioned it in interviews but we have corroboration in the FBI files and that makes it harder to dismiss. Possible but harder.

Rataczak was hand flying the plane, HE SAID SO.. STOP claiming it was on autopilot. Bill Rataczak: “I did fly it and I found out that Jack Waddell was absolutely right when the stairs came down that flight that airplane lowered about 3 to 5 degrees and I was hand flying it at that time you don’t want to see my flight path because it looked like connect the dots, but we weren’t concerned about that because we knew we were in a safe altitude and air traffic control was watching"

It is possible but I can't agree that we have all the info necessary to draw that conclusion.. it is always a leap to claim a conclusion based on a negation.. (what we don't have) you need more info, a stronger argument to use negation. If it was only Himm's book I might agree.. but two independent conflations or coincidences is tough to dismiss.

Original pages? How do we separate out duplicates.. almost all the file pages we have so far are repeated.. some many times.

Can't be, I remember Carr, I think it was him, giving an estimate for the volume of the files at the FBI and it was something huge.. I'd have to go find the exact quote but my impression was that what we have is a fraction.. based on volume.

We only have a fraction of the files...

I don't know, we don't have enough info, we don't even know if it came from Tina. The FBI was withholding info. It is hard to understand out two independent conflations years apart.. The one in Himm's book, maybe,, but how do we get the other one as well.

The tie clasp... This was discussed years ago but needs a refresh.. the more recent images of the tie have the clip on the left side. But, earlier images show it on the right side. The clip has been removed many times and was put on the wrong side.. In this UV image, based on the particles the clasp was on the right side. Also, men's shirts have the buttons on the right side, the clip can't hold the tie to the shirt if on the left side, it has to be on the right. So, whether the wearer is right handed or left handed the clip has to be on the right and doesn't indicate the handedness of wearer. Right side..

Not exactly sure what your point is.. The argument is that Himmelsbach in his book and in interviews conflated a suspect A (cig stains) with Cooper... possible and, years later in the FBI files suspect B (cig stains) was also conflated with Cooper... I find that difficult to imagine... two independent (sig stain) conflations years apart.. Anything is possible but it doesn't surprise me that Cooper would have cig stains..

because there would need to be a three way conflation and through time.. or Himm's book had a conflation and years later another independent conflation in the FBI files.. What is the likelihood of two independent conflations years apart.. We have a fraction of the files, we don't know what we don't know.. Anything is possible..