olemisscub

L to r it looks like Kool, Marlboro Menthol, Lucky Strike, L&M, Kent, Salem, Parliament, Pall Mall, Raleigh, Marlboro 100’s, Bel Air, Embassy, Viceroy No Benson and Hedges and I hope you found McCartney’s Hofner bass. Keith Richards’ Les Paul would be cool too. Randy Rhoads’ guitar is also still missing.

Do we need to though? They sold Raleigh's. That's all we need to know isn't it?

From Broer. This is from a video taken inside PDX in Dec 71

Can't see any reason to negate them coming from PDX. Broer's recent research shows that Sky Chef had a coffee shop, cocktail lounge, and the Port West restaurant all in the same area....right next to the NWO counter. Seeing as how we'll never know where the matches came from given the number of potential places he could have picked them up, it's really a moot point. Same goes for the ICS matches. Far too ubiquitous of an item to point us in any direction.

The first Comp A came out 11/27/71. Those two passenger statements are referencing Comp A. That quote from the stewardess is from Alice Hancock commenting on the Initial Sketch.

I gave this a lot of thought when I was making my matches video. My general rule of thumb is that in the case of a conflict, I go with the earlier reference. We've got Tina saying "HE had ANOTHER book of matches...". Had Tina given him a matchbook from the plane, I don't see any reason for her to even say this to the FBI and to go into detail describing it. Additionally, Cooper was clearly a heavy smoker and soon ran out of matches from ICS. To think he didn't have additional matches doesn't make too much sense to me. Also, the rest of that bit in Tosaw's narrative goes against her 302 as well. He says the first matchbook was put into the ashtray yet Tina in her 302 says it was the seat pocket. Tosaw says that Cooper retrieved it from the ashtray yet Tina says that she is the one who retrieved it from the seat pocket. Finally, we have the FBI themselves using the Sky Chef matchbook in an attempt to backtrack Cooper. So it was clearly their understanding that Tina was telling them that Cooper brought the matches on board with him. Obviously if she had given him those matches then they wouldn't have undertaken such an effort.

Yep. Found this a while back for my book. May have mentioned it in my matches video too. Not sure. Full article: https://i.ibb.co/fVFmrGCt/The-Oregon-Daily-Journal-1968-05-23-31.jpg fwiw, Broer just posted in EU's group that there was a Sky Chef opened in Mexico City in 1971 at the Mexico Palace Hotel.

Tina almost certainly only saw what Cooper handed to her. I have one of the Sea-First bank bags. It is filled with 20 bundles (paper not cash of course) precisely as Cooper was given. The bundles sit at the bottom of the bag. There is a huge amount of neck left. Because of this extra amount of material, it’s actually awkward to get a decent look inside the bag even when sitting on your own lap. It’s highly unlikely Tina saw inside the bag given the angle where she was standing/sitting once the money was brought on board. This isn’t a debatable issue. The money was in bundles. The debate is over how many packets were in each bundle

I agree that he wouldn't just make that up, but that doesn't necessarily make it true though. We've got Himmy and other agents throughout this case reporting things that they no doubt believed to be true but demonstrably were not true. I can see this going both ways, but I think at the moment I'd lean toward them not randomizing bundle sizes. Allow me the honest opportunity to persuade you. Here's my thinking. 1. Baker was an ASAC in Portland. As we know, NORJAK wasn't a Portland case. Himmy fancied himself a NORJAK agent, but we know he wasn't. What Baker knew about NORJAK would have almost certainly come from what Himmy told him. Being on good terms and speaking frequently with guys like Carr, Detlor, and Fuhriman, I've learned a great deal about the way the FBI offices operate. The agents who are supervisors, ASAC's, and SAC's, are administrators. They apparently get on that track very early in their careers. I remember asking Larry if he ever tried to get an ASAC gig and he explained that he wasn't trained as an administrator so he never would have been an ASAC. It's why someone like Himmy spent 30 years with the Bureau and retired as an SA. I say all that to say that an ASAC in Portland in 1980 would not have any special knowledge of NORJAK beyond what an SA with the most knowledge of the case told him. Since this concept of them randomizing bundles is nowhere to be found in the files, I think he got that from Himmy. And well, Himmy clearly didn't know shit about the money. Let's look at what he wrote in NORJAK. "At the urging of the FBI, $20 bills were used for the ransom". We know that's nonsense. The bulk of the ransom pack was $20's, so that's why Cooper got $20's. No other reason. This notion that the FBI wanted to weigh Cooper down is demonstrably untrue. He also seems to insinuate that the money came from multiple banks. 2. If the bundles were being randomized to look hastily assembled, then who gave that order? Who told the bankers to do that? It would have almost certainly had to come from the FBI. Well, we know from the files that the FBI were very, very standoffish at that point. There is no evidence that the FBI had any input into how the ransom items, money or parachutes, were gathered. NWO told the FBI to stand down and they did. We can see evidence of this standoffishness with regard to the money in Milnes' 302 about seeing the bag arrive at the NWO office. All he does is give a description of the bag as it appeared to him upon its arrival. He never touched it or handled it, nor did any of his agents. Plus, we have them interviewing Grinnell and asking HIM how the money looked. The FBI needed it on the record because they didn't know how it was packaged since they weren't involved in any way with the money exchange. 3. So if it wasn't the FBI telling the bankers to do this, then who would have said to do such a thing? Harrison? If he had done so, I'm sure that would have mentioned in his lengthly write-up about the event. 4. Who would have overseen the execution of this "randomizing of the bundle sizes"? It would have been Bill Grinnell. This is from the transcript of the audio recording of Cunningham's interview with Mr. Grinnell: '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' CC: OK. And you actually saw, at least of, some of the money being placed inside the bank bag. WG: Yes. CC: Do you recall if the Cooper money being randomized? You said normally money is placed in bundles of five packets. WG: Mm-hmm. CC: Sort of like bricks. WG: Yes. CC: Do you recall if Cooper’s money was five packets and then others were three and then others were four, or do you remember them being uniform? WG: I didn’t see them close enough to know for sure at that stage because when we had the money prepared, we then started splitting up, and I went out to the police car, the plains clothes car, the local police department was providing to be able to head out to the airport. It’s possible, but I can’t say for sure. CC: Do you…so, when we talk about “preparing” the money, it was ready to go and they just needed to grab it and throw it in the bag, right? Or were there other steps that were needed to be done before it made it into the bag? WG: There were other steps being done, and I don’t know if that’s because he requested it, or because someone at the bank was like, “OK, let’s do it this way.” Um, I doubt there was anyone who was in any position to see anymore than what I was seeing. That’s not to make me be the hero, but I was the guy who was moving back and forth and telling everyone “We need to get such and such out here.” CC: When you say there were extra steps or multiple steps in preparing the money, what exactly were those steps? Did it need to be counted? Did it need to be wrapped a certain way? What types of things needed to be done to the money before it could be placed in the bag, do you recall? WG: As I remember, and this would be going backwards a little bit from when this event happened…the bank recognized that there could be a situation where we would have a client or a reason to have money to be made available in a situation like what was happening, and so there was a separate safe within the vault. There were some different bags set up with different denominations in just of a kind of “here’s what we would expect if there was ever a need, a kidnapping or something, what if they want $20,000? What if they want $200,000? What if they want a million?” So we had a place in the vault, and I don’t remember specifically, but I think it was a second safe within the main vault where we had some of that money pre-packaged if there was a need. As much as we could make it ready, we did. His request caused us to pull the money out of the bigger bag, and as long as we could verify it, so we could say, “Yeah, we verified that it left the bank, so it wasn’t anybody stealing anything out of the bag.” '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' While Grinnell's interview doesn't totally rule out there being some intentional randomization occurring since he wasn't standing there eagle-eyed watching every bundle go into the bag, he does seem to indicate that he was in charge of the operation at that point. Thus, any orders given to the girls in the vault to randomize the bundles would have almost certainly come from him. His testimony gives us no reason to think such a thing was occurring. He doesn't mention such a thing in his 71 interview nor his 2023 interview. 5. Randomizing bundles doesn't lend itself to a very clean or efficient accounting and increases the likelihood of a miscount. I imagine they'd be far more concerned about giving the hijacker an accurate amount of money over some concern that they need to dupe him into thinking the money was hastily assembled. If the money was in $10,000 bundles, then you just grab 20 bundles, throw them in the bag, and you have a clean accounting. It just seems like an unnecessary effort to have tellers pulling a packet out of one bundle and shoving it into another bundle. I think the weight of the circumstantial evidence points toward there NOT being a randomization of the bundles. PRO: - ASAC Baker's quote in 1980. CON: - The man supervising the operation at the bank gave no indication whatsoever that they were executing such a plan in his 1971 interview nor in his 2023 interview. Hard to imagine you would omit that your bank was engaging in this effort to dupe the hijacker. - It's not mentioned anywhere in the files. - Such a directive/suggestion very likely would have come from law enforcement and we know their only involvement with the money was providing transportation. - Baker was an administrator. He was commenting on a case that wasn't his office's case and that was 9 years old at that point. How would he have information from outside the evidence contained in the files? His source was probably Himmy and I think Himmy has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source in regards to the Cooper case. Just my two cents.

There’s never a bad time for a McCoy debunking video, but I’m glad that I (and you as well it seems) correctly predicted it would be McCoy. These videos take days to make and it was finished in the nick of time. Got it published about an hour before the show aired.

That’s hilarious Couldn’t hurt though. Had he done that with VP I could’ve told him in three minutes that the guy had blonde hair, blue eyes, fair skin, and was missing a freaking finger. Not that it would’ve dissuaded him though.

No doubt this one is more your speed

Your mutual foray into dumping on me is transparent to literally everyone. If both of your suspects had a smaller nose or looked more like Comp A than Comp B, neither of you would be saying a damn thing to me about it. Everyone can see it. I couldn't care less whether the evidence led me to conclude that Cooper had a small nose or if it led me to conclude that his nose looked like it had been smashed with a frying pan like Reca's nose. What agenda could I possibly have other than it just being my genuine opinion? This attack on me is so transparent. You two are foot stomping and gnashing teeth and tearing your clothes because what I'm saying goes against your suspect and for no other reason. Remarkable that I don't get any pushback from either of you on my belief that Cooper needs to look ethnic. It's only on things about his physical description that go against your suspect. I wonder why that it is...

Nope. I vociferously begged for mercy from you already. Timestamped:

Not many. McCoy, of course, was a pilot. Frank Sibley was an actual 727 pilot. Those are the only ones I can think of. That profile is mostly OK, but it gets quite a few things wrong fwiw, is sometimes contradictory, and goes against what the FBI themselves stated that they believed on a few occasions. It says Cooper didn't offer to tip the stews with ransom money, but used his own money. We know that's not true. It says Cooper smoke eight cigarettes in eight hours. Cooper had seven cigarettes and was only on the plane for just over five hours. They extrapolate that he was a one-pack a day smoker because of this. They're neglecting that he actually smoked all seven in under three hours. There is no indication that he was smoking at any point after they landed in Seattle. It says he jumped with the dummy chute and they imply he should have known it was a dummy chute if he knew parachutes, yet I think it's reasonable and safe to say that he did not jump with the dummy chute intending for it be a reserve chute. The FBI themselves state elsewhere that they think he just tossed it out of the back. It says he became "somewhat childish in his actions and comments while counting the money." Yet Tina says Cooper never counted the money and also I think they are taking Flo's "childish" comment out of context. It says that he was not an experienced criminal because of how he acted when he received the ransom money but then it says he exhibited an "unusually calm manner throughout the whole hijacking." It says that the hijacker was "not well prepared for the hijacking", but makes no mention of the mystery bag being a foil to such an idea. It says that the hijacker engaged in a small argument with one of the passengers. Not true. A few weeks ago I asked John Douglas if they ever had him create a Cooper profile and he said he didn't. Would have been interesting to see his. Although honestly, Cooper's profile is just really hard to pin down given how little he said, how few people saw him, and what he left behind.

Pop the champagne. We agree on something. Joseph Henry Johnston is probably the closest template for Cooper out there IMO. And no it's not Frank. I don't think this new suspect is Cooper, but the researcher has put a lot of effort into him, so I'll be glad to support his suspect reveal. This suspect is the closest match to Bing I've ever seen. I didn't think it was possible to get someone to be a closer match to Bing than Burnworth, but here we are.

Don't want to lead you astray here. In videos I'm not always able to articulate my thoughts fully or I say things rather clumsily. There is an FBI profile created by Charlie Farrell in 72. I've got an entire chapter in my book devoted to the Farrell/Cooper profile. I'll link Farrell's profile in full below. What I was meaning in the video is that there is no agreed upon profile of Cooper among the Cooper "community" when analyzing suspects, nor is there anything remotely close. Cooper is a bit of a Rorschach test when it comes to suspects. You can interpret the evidence in any way you see fit in order to shoehorn a particular suspect into being Cooper. This is the great difficulty with Cooper. There is some evidence that could lead you to think he's super smart and also evidence that could make you think he's a bumbling crook. He's a true enigma. A good example of this is that I wouldn't fall out of my chair if I found out that a brilliant guy like Roman was the hijacker but I also wouldn't fall out of my chair if it turned out that some dope like LD Cooper was the hijacker. I've gone back and forth many times and what I expect Cooper to be, but my current understanding of the case makes me lean toward him just being a low-rent crook with a capacity for divergent thinking and a big set of balls. I do think he had some sort of aviation background though. We can see with Paul Cini what it looks like when someone without an aviation background tries to do this. It's ugly. As for other profiles of Cooper, the one suggested by Dr. David Hubbard, author of “The Skyjacker”, isn't bad. He was a psychologist who interviewed close to one hundred hijackers during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Hubbard’s experience and training led him to assess Cooper's profile thusly: “As an individual, he was a personal failure who had lost the capability of earning a living in our society. In actual fact, Cooper was an early middle-aged mentally deteriorated ex-aircraft pilot. He had flown in the Vietnam War, and undoubtedly had taken part in the airdrops in which the tailgate of a 727 was used for dropping materiel." Not sure I agree with him about Cooper having flown in Vietnam (he seems a little old for that), but the rest is pretty close. Cooper-Profile.pdf

Precisely. Flyjack could have been the Michael Jordan of some sport or competition if he focused his pathological competitiveness on something else besides Cooper.

I've never called anyone a POI. They're suspects as far as I'm concerned. And there's no "real evidence" for ANYONE in this case. If there were, they'd probably be Cooper.

Yes, and what was the point of it? You were trying to find something else about Hall. You were going to claim that his hair was too thin to be Cooper. But then I PROVED that his hair was thin by choice in that photo. Now you're crying about it.

Nope. You proved nothing of the sort. You provided more webpages of just people in the modern era referencing it. I wanted contemporary sources.

I don't have a responsibility to do anything regarding this goofy notion of yours.

Yep. Not enough to eliminate him. The fact that this is all you have on Hall shows his strength as a suspect. Dave is bitching about people not attacking Skip. Well...what is there really to attack him on? I think his nose is somewhat too large for my liking and he doesn't look homely. Sure, when he raises his eyebrows he has forehead wrinkles. They are much less apparent when he's not. None of that is really enough to eliminate him IMO when he has so many positives working in his favor.

BAHAHAHAHAH how?? A crap photo? You were acting like Skip Hall was virtually bald. He clearly wasn't. There are photos of him from the late 70's with a legitimate Afro.

You haven't provided ANY evidence that a lowlife aircraft hijacker in 1971 would have known about the verbiage "Minnesota Nice". None.