FLYJACK
-
Content
5,477 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
32 -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by FLYJACK
-
Egg Harbour suspect identified.. Fred Angelo Catalano
-
Shelton suspect named.. Jason T. Langseth FBI did DNA test. Also got Duane Weber's items for DNA test..
-
When I uncovered the back chute card SN 60-9707 in the files, it was found on the plane and not belonging to the back chute left behind and returned to Hayden, there was speculation it was the SN for a pilot chute and got mixed up. That back chute card must have belonged to the chute Cooper used. Here, Cossey said there was no SN on the pilot chutes..
-
That is it.. can't be. That isn't evidence.. It is a 50 year old claim that he gave directions to somebody claimed to be a friend of Cossey.. So, there is no evidence Peca/Reca even knew Cossey let alone colluded with Cossey.. of course we know it is false because Cossey didn't supply the back chutes, Hayden did, Cossey just happened to have packed them 6 months earlier. But, what about the dates Reca/Peca was in Wa.. he left Mi and his family after the robbery,, when was that and when did he return to MI,, is there any proof or is it just another baseless claim.
-
Look a squirrel... Answer the questions,, what is the evidence to back up your claims.. Your claims are based on unfounded claims of others..
-
You must not have confidence in your claim. It should be easy to answer.. you spent more time dodging the question that it would take to answer. You keep making claims over and over but can never back them up.. Is that how a "mentalist" lies to people?
-
Hiding behind hyperbole .. You have made some claims and can't back them up, the questions are not difficult or a trick. When exactly was Reca/Peca in Seattle after fleeing his family in Mi (sometime after 1965), when did he return? What evidence do you have that Reca/Peca knew of Cossey, knew Cossey personally and colluded with Cossey about the chutes.. You have made these claims, where is the evidence? Why are you avoiding these simple questions?
-
I knew it wouldn't last.
-
See, if you challenge or are critical, he blames the messenger not the message.. It is somehow my fault Vordahl has unique profile that no witness would have missed. I went through the same thing with Ulis and his Sheridan narrative, when I challenged it with evidence he called me a troll so that he could ignore me and avoid criticism. Olemisscub admitted he can't make sense of those particles in the McCrone spreadsheet. These guys will keep going on Vordahl no matter what and fizzle out just like Ulis and Sheridan.. unfortunately we have to endure it until that happens.
-
He has me on "ignore" to avoid criticism.. and it prevents him from resorting to personal attacks..
-
An assumption.. not a fact. This is the same thing Ulis did and it afflicts many people with suspects,, You build a house of cards based on assumptions and conjecture while ignoring contradictory facts. They conflate a hypothesis with fact... with a bias,, cherry picking random pieces to form a confirmational narrative.. It is human nature.
-
0.00001 % The patent connection is way overplayed, that said I would have pursued it just to check,, but there is nothing there. If that profile image is accurate that eliminates him right there..
-
One of these particles is not like the others.. The other two are close but don't match perfectly.. They don't even match the patent exclusively.
-
Carl isn't reliable. Carl said he lost contact with Reca/Peca for that time period. His info is either from Reca/Peca and made up or Carl made it up. You have lots of claims but no evidence. So, Reca/Peca left Mi when,, in 1965? right after the robbery or when? later?, and he left his wife and kid in Mi to flee to Wa.. when did he eventually return to Mi? What abut his wife and kid in Mi, did they re-unite? if so, when? What years was Reca/Peca in Wa after leaving his family in Mi? and you still have presented no evidence he knew of Cossey, knew Cossey personally or colluded with Cossey about the chutes despite claiming it over and over. These aren't difficult questions.
-
Your inability to answer is telling.. Again, what date did Reca leave his family in Mi and move to Wa,, and when did he move back. and other than the unreliable tapes what evidence do you have that Reca/Peca knew of Cossey, knew him personally or colluded with him with the chutes.
-
The bomb could have been any type of pyro.. not limited to flares. I have seen vintage road flares about 8" long.. but there are many types of flares.
-
This is where Gryder mistakenly got the chute modification was moving the handle from left to right.. Cossey never said that, he said the pull was modified to out and up. Further, Cossey was describing his own chute not Hayden's chute the one Cooper used.
-
I have done research that is why I am asking you, you have no problem spoon feeding the forum endless Reca/Peca nonsense. I am just asking for some facts this time. Your inability to answer is telling.. Again, what date did Reca leave his family in Mi and move to Wa,, and when did he move back. and other than the unreliable tapes what evidence do you have that Reca/Peca knew of Cossey, knew him personally or colluded with him with the chutes. Simple..
-
Nonsense.. there is nothing in that patent that indicates these particles (if alloys) are exclusive.. There was lots of high tech stuff going on in the 60's, industrial, military, electronics, NASA and weapons.. The patent does not prove exclusivity. That is a fallacy.
-
Six to eight inches.. size could be a flare, dynamite, a firework or ??
-
Report on the state of Titanium circa 1966... it wasn't that rare.. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0801280.pdf Even the Boeing 727 used 650lb of Titanium...
-
At best, it may tell us something about a few of the particles.. that is my point. It is very limiting.. you think you can control for 500,000 particles.. most unidentified.
-
We disagree on the degree if usefulness in this case.. The particles are not like DNA.. which has one source,, the particle combinations and sources are virtually limitless and unknown. Controls are only as good as your ability to think them up.. There is no way to create adequate controls for over 100,000 identified and probably another 400,000 more unidentified particles deposited on a tie in the 60's over a 7 year period.. the controls you can come up with are extremely limiting and inconclusive. You keep repeating we need controls which is true,, but in this case it is not practical and has limited effect. Controls are effective when you know all the variables.. The biggest clue from this tie is the wide variety of particles.. it was not from a single environment.
-
How do you know, you can't.. controls are an assumption based on knowns. Controls here are very limiting.. there are too many combinations and potential sources.. You just can't create controls for a particle in the mid 60's.. you don't know what you don't know. This is the logical flaw Ulis has.. he claims he searched and the patent was the only source for those 3 particles.. His "control" is flawed because he assumes he has all the information needed, of course he doesn't. In regards to the tie particles in the 60's controls become subjective limited to assumptions.. they are not certain. Sure, desiring controls is ideal, but it just isn't practical in this case.
-
So far, I haven't found it as an ingredient for matches, Tom tested a period lighter and it was negative.. Controls are ideal but not practical.. there are over 100,000 particles on the stubs and those stubs don't even cover the entire tie,,, there may be 500,000 particles on the tie.. The particles and combinations are beyond any ability to implement controls.. far too many variables
