olemisscub

The FBI's interviews with the Corps of Engineers indicated that the dredge theory was impossible due to the condition of the money.

This is a thought I just had. Brian found 3 individual packets presumably from a single bundle. So this rolling along the bottom action is violent enough to sheer 75% or more of the money away yet not violent enough to separate the packets from the bundle. Rubber bands aren’t vice grips. Packets can shift easily within a bundle, especially when probably 75% or more of the bill has been removed. I’m still of the opinion that it got there by natural means, but I just can’t buy into the fact that this money disintegrated to this extent yet remained together BEFORE coming to rest. It makes so much more sense that they were already at rest when the disintegration began to occur. Any sort of violent action undertaken against a bundle can easily cause the packets to shift. If tumbling is violent enough to sheer off the edges to this extent then it would probably be violent enough to separate the packets from the bundle. I had totally forgotten that I did this several years ago already. I took a bundle of three packets, double rubber banded on each side, as their standard practice was, then I rolled it into a wall. The packets were shifting pretty easily. Seriously, look how much of the bill is left. Rubber bands aren’t gonna hold packets together when 1) violence is the cause of the disintegration, and 2) that’s all that is left of the bills BEFORE it comes to rest. I believe the bills were already at rest when whatever process caused them to disintegrate occurred, otherwise I just can't see the packets staying so close together throughout all of this supposed rolling violence. Video.mov

When it comes to Tena Bar, I'm usually Mr. "No Hablo Ingles", but I occasionally can get interested. Do you have any examples of tumbling in water having such an effect? Would like to see that. Also, I'd always assumed that the shards were the remnants of whatever flaked off the bills that hadn't disintegrated yet. If tumbling caused the removal of the edges, then shouldn't those edges be on the river bottom? That's my only concern with your theory. Explain the shards and provide an example of what tumbling on a river bottom does.

What has led you to this belief about it being consistent? Have you found other examples?

The question is how does it get from the bottom of the river to where it ended up

The FBI files indicate, from discussion with the Corps of Engineers, that the dredges used on the Columbia were all pipe dredges that would have ripped the bills into oblivion. Only a clamshell dredge would work for your scenario, and those weren't used.

He’s talking about digging a firepit. Slim had his arms full of wood for the fire. Brian didn’t so much dig into the sand but rather smoothed it out with his hand. Cattle had escaped and ran through the beach a few days earlier. The sand on the bar was pockmarked and uneven from the hooves of the cows. The Ingrams don’t have anything to do with the money other than finding it. This is just scurrilous bullshit from the Rackstraw grift.

You know something I've literally never said to you? "You're trying to discredit me!!!" That's what wimps say when people criticize their opinions or thoughts. You act like the biggest bully in the Vortex but in reality you're just a weakling who can't take any criticism. Anytime someone disagrees with you they are trying to "discredit" you. EVERYTHING is not a personal attack on you, Flyjack. Why would I even need to "discredit" you? As if you're a threat to me or something?

Ah yes, yet again, the only FBI documents that exist are the ones that YOU agree with. I literally showed you documentation where CASE AGENTS were writing that they put 5'10 as the baseline. That's cool that you've got a document saying 5'8 was the baseline. Ok. That doesn't negate other documents from case agents claiming that they eliminate suspects under 5'10.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You are the LEAST diplomatic person in the history of the Vortex. Are you kidding me? You are one of the biggest villains in the Vortex because of what a colossal asshole you are to EVERYONE who disagrees with you. You HAVE to be right about everything. You cannot ever concede a point to anyone. This is how you respond to "diplomacy".

You clearly care a GREAT deal otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time watching my videos hoping to find something to critique.

Hilarious that you claim my opinion that Cooper was around 6 feet tall isn't supported by the evidence when 3 of our 4 witnesses to him standing put him as tall as 6 feet. THAT IS THE EVIDENCE. What other evidence is there to base his height on other than people who saw him standing up??? But let's ignore them and claim that they weren't great witnesses to his height despite seeing him standing and instead rely on Robert Gregory and Bill Mitchell, two men who never saw him standing. Makes perfect sense....but only if you're trying to turn this person into Cooper.

But you DO know how tall Cooper was, right?

Hear ye, hear ye! By order of His Most Esteemed and Infallible Majesty, Lord High Arbiter of Internet Truths, Sir Keyboardius Maximus, it is henceforth decreed that all thoughts, musings, hypotheses, and inconvenient counterpoints not originating from His Supreme Forumness Flyjack shall be stricken from the realm. All Cooperites shall now adopt his opinion as sacred gospel, no matter how much his opinions and cherry picked sources are informed by his suspect confirmation bias. May his posts forever remain uncontested under pain of receiving a 1,000 word rebuttal wherein he states what an idiot you are for forming opinions contrary to his. Long may he reign.

I sometimes wonder if you even know what an opinion is. You personally think Skip Hall should be eliminated because he had forehead wrinkles. I think that's idiotic. But that's your prerogative to form that opinion based on your extensive research on this case. I have the prerogative based on my research to personally eliminate people for any reason. Cooper being under 5'10 is an OPINION of mine. I'm not law enforcement. I'm not actually eliminating anyone. I'm expressing an opinion of mine as to what I'm looking for in my ideal suspect.

Don't have an argument for my opinion? I literally just showed you MULTIPLE INSTANCES where ACTUAL case agents stated that their lower limit for entertaining Cooper suspects was 5'10 or 6'. I provided the receipts to back up my opinion. I don't have to speculate that they eliminated potential suspects for being 5'8 or 5'9 or even 5'10 and for no other reason. I literally just showed you. Again, let's look at the Boeing File Review: Your brain is so steeped in your own Hahneman confirmation bias that literally every single belief you have in this case is tainted by it. Everyone sees it. It is no coincidence that the things you most vociferously take issue with me on are my opinion about Cooper's nose, his height, and which sketch is more likely to be an accurate representation of Cooper. If Hahneman had a small nose, could pass for Comp A, and was 6 feet tall, you would have NO issue with my opinions on those matters. NONE.

And I will continue to refuse to believe this until you prove it. I'm guessing you need to hoard evidence that MANY passengers thought Hahneman was 6 feet for your "documentary" because that's totally something that is pertinent and worthy of keeping under your hat... I'll concede the point if you provide the receipts, but this just sounds like BS to me until proven otherwise.

Number one, I don't have to explain anything. I'm not the FBI. I'm not bound by their metrics or beliefs or intuitions or opinions. I can PERSONALLY eliminate a suspect based on whatever I want, the same as you do. Number two, this memo you always reference where it says there is a lower bound of 5'8 clearly wasn't something they applied because several agents eliminated suspects for being that short. So appealing to authority on this issue doesn't work. I personally think Cooper was about six feet tall based on witness statements and lo and behold, so did case agents like Ron Nichols. Go look at the Boeing File Review eliminations. They eliminated multiple individuals literally for no other reason than them being 5'8 to 5'10. Then we've got multiple occasions in the files such as these instances, including one document where they say the lower limit is 5'10.

Two witnesses who never saw him standing.

And I'd wager a great sum of money that if 4 people saw you standing that none of them would think you were 6 feet or taller. Yet with Cooper we have 3 of the 4 witnesses who saw him standing going as tall as 6 feet tall or taller. According to statistics, 81 percent of eyewitnesses get height within 2 inches. It's statistically improbable that the witnesses who saw Cooper standing would ALL be that far off. Shoes can only do so much. As Nicky pointed out, a person's proportions likely also go into how our brains calculate height. To think that a person who is 5'8 (I don't care what sort of Al Pacino shoe lifts they are wearing) would be mistaken for 6'0 or 6'1 is an absurd notion to me. Their overall body types are different looking.

I don’t think it’s anything more complicated than Scott being extremely taciturn as an individual. Rat is the complete opposite. Rat wouldn’t have just taken it upon himself to do that given that he was outranked in the company by Scott, so Scott must have just deferred that role to Rat.

Honest question: Why do you think the FBI cares enough about NORJAK to be playing games? Also, I'm pretty sure we have the complete unredacted transcripts. Himmelsbach's grandson had a copy with Ralph's stuff and Cunningham scanned the entire thing. Nothing remarkable at all behind the redactions. Just info about other flights in the area, etc. Not sure why that was redacted in the first place.

I change regularly. I go with however the evidence persuades me. I'm not married to any particular viewpoint. Why would I be? Why would I care if Cooper jumped at 8:11 or 8:15. It doesn't matter to me. I'm very malleable actually. I just need to see enough evidence to persuade me. As for the time of the jump, it's not evidence that is making me lean a certain way now, it's the lack of evidence. My understanding of Anderson's interviews was that they waited a while after the pressure bump then called to report it. So why isn't this call documented? Why isn't it in Soderlind's notes? Why isn't in Lowenthal's notes? Or the other NWO notes? I would think that would be an important freaking thing to document: the crew telling you "hey I just think he jumped." Yet we DO have them documenting the hell out of the "oscillations" call. Every single notetaker from NWO documented the oscillations call. But nothing at all about a pressure bump call. We have the FBI transcript from the oscillations call and it has a parenthetical inserted that says Rat lost his ear piece when he turned to look at the cabin rate of climb indicator because of an "increase in pressure." How would they know to include that parenthetical unless Rat or NWO told them that's what was occurring when his ear piece popped out? Unlikely they would insert that unless they knew. Case agents wouldn't have just made that up. Additionally, in that transcript Rat appears to be a bit shaken up. It reads as if he just experienced the pressure bump and was taken aback for a second. He's at a loss for words (for once). We've been told that the oscillations were only seen but not felt. Rat wouldn't have been reacting that way if he was just reporting on something they were seeing in the gauges. He seems shocked as if he just felt something. Rat's reaction makes it seem like the pressure bump occurred WHILE he was in the middle of reporting the oscillations. If so, then Cooper jumps at 8:11 or 8:12. The Vortex has dramatically complicated his jump time. I'm guilty of it obviously. But the lack of any reporting about a post 8:11 "second call" is really hard to overlook. Sometimes absence of evidence IS evidence.

Surprising to see you put so much faith in the FBI considering that you believe in the western flightpath. Those same documents, all of which are on my website, support the idea that they were strictly following V-23. I’m not arguing against an 8:11 time, as I’ve begun to independently see the merit of that time. I’m just surprised that you would appeal to authority on the jump time but not on the location of the plane.

Everything you do in this case is tainted by your belief that lil Bill Hahneman, the biggest fruitcake of the canonical copycats, was Cooper. You’re not an objective researcher. You already have a conclusion in your head and so any analysis you do on the evidence of this case is colored through that perspective. And I’m not wrong. They could have easily made Honduras without refueling on a regular 727 and they DEFINITELY could have found somewhere to refuel outside the U.S. Bottom line is that Hahneman wasn’t afraid of refueling in the U.S. It was even his own suggestion. Yet you’ve spent the past five pages arguing a theory that relies on Cooper being so afraid of refueling in America that he throws his plan in the trash and jumps ASAP. The Cooper in your theory is not Hahneman. Hell, even if they DID have to refuel to make it to Honduras from DC, then why didn’t the uber genius Hahneman hijack in Atlanta or Miami or New Orleans to begin with?