olemisscub

did you ever post MULTIPLE witnesses saying that Hahneman was 6'? No. I literally posted 40 witnesses descriptions of Fisher and you ignored it. You could be totally lying for all we know.

And how are you going to spin it when we inevitably get the Vault drop where all the witnesses say it's not him? You'll be Dan Gryder at that point.

Not trying to be deliberately obtuse, I assure you. I'm just not seeing any similarities aside from the hairline.

It's the small consistent things we have with the witnesses though that make it extremely difficult for me to consider Hahneman from a physical standpoint. Even seeing Cooper for as short a time as some of them did, they remembered his lower lip as being unique. Other than his complexion, his lower lip seems to be his one defining feature. "Middle aged person, dressed in a suit, with dark complexion, and a sort of protruding lower lip". It was obviously memorable. You really can't deny that. We have Tina in 1973 remembering Cooper's lower lip and comparing it to a suspect (I have FOIA'd for this photo). Or his head shape. Cooper is always described consistently as having a long head, with wide forehead and narrowing as it goes down the chin. Bill's head is very symmetrical and more like a square than the inverted triangle look.

What did I LIE about? If I misstated something, that's an accident, not a LIE. Put out as much content as I do about a variety of things in this case and OTHER cases (copycats) and you're bound to get something wrong. Lie is a deliberate distortion. Believe me, I don't need to deliberately distort anything for Hahneman to be a terrible suspect. Literally would have no reason to lie about Hahneman. Seriously, how in the world do you expect people to believe that eyewitnesses could have viewed Hahneman and then come up with Comp A? You may think Comp A sucks, but the witnesses didn't think so just three days later. There is no planet, galaxy, universe, or dimension of space-time where people could interact with Hahneman and three days later be in agreement that Comp A was a good representation of Hahneman. Impossible. ESPECIALLY when we know what his own composite sketch looked like. It is intellectually indefensible IMO to suggest that Comp A could be derived from people interacting with Hahneman.

The only bias in all of this is you having the world's largest case of confirmation bias about your suspect. You're cherry picking like mad. That first description that you're clinging to also says he had good teeth, sharp pointed nose, and an oblong head. Oh, and it says "THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED". And again, aside from Eric Ulis, you somehow are the only researcher who has ever promoted a suspect who doesn't look a single thing like any sketch of Cooper ever created, yet looks remarkably similar to his own sketch, which was almost certainly drawn by the same artist.

No, I appreciate Fly's analysis on many things, but the Hahneman stuff is absurd. I don't bring it up to discredit him. And I don't just randomly bring up Hahneman. If someone brings him up in a livestream or on Reddit or wherever, I'll respond. Sure, I've picked on him a few times in the past, but if he's brought up, I'm going to discuss it.

I think you know deep down that you're suffering from Sunken Cost Fallacy at this point. Hahneman is a really, really poor match for Cooper. You have to cherry pick like crazy to make things fit for him from a physical standpoint.

Not looking like Cooper hasn't stopped you from chasing as a suspect one of the only middle aged white men in America in 1971 who doesn't even remotely look like any Cooper sketch ever created yet looks remarkably similar to his own sketch. Skip didn't have a scar fwiw. The majority of the photographs of him and his interview come from 1968 when the Warren Commission stuff occurred and he happened to have a cut on his face for whatever reason. It appears in no other photos of him. And yes, he's #1 on my matrix, just a smidge above Braden. So what? My matrix is a list of things that I consider that Cooper needs to have: smoker/drinker/complexion/opportunity/parachute training/aviation history/knew PNW and about a dozen other things. Sorry it seems to bother you so much. Your fella is on there and scored 5th out of 24, tying with Langseth. He'd be a fine suspect if he actually looked anything like Cooper and wasn't so wee. And I don't need your respect. I don't respect you either. You're wholly agenda driven for Hahneman. Your research is nothing but an attempt to prove your own biases and to be proven right. If Hahneman had a small nose, you'd be all aboard the small nose train. If he looked like Comp A, you'd be all aboard the Comp A train. It's transparent to everyone paying attention. You view this case as a competition, which is why you're such a dick to everyone who disagrees with you.

not sure why I'd put a sketch of Bill in my book

Ahhh yes, an “image” of Cooper is somehow better than the sketch drawn from scratch in front of all three stewardesses just three days later No, I don’t think I have a right to your research. I just think you’ve used this “project” as a means to keep yourself free from being challenged and as a means to try to feel superior to others. You accuse me all the time of not wanting a challenge, yet my opinions on this case are available to thousands of people, not just the six people who read this forum. I’m open for criticism anywhere on Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, here, and everywhere else on the Internet. You just hide here and bully people who disagree with you and criticize others by claiming “well they just don’t have what I have.” So which one of us is up for a challenge and which one of us is the intellectual coward? And yes, yes, go ahead and respond with “I don’t care what the unwashed masses think, this is for me, yada yada”. I’m curious how you’re gonna spin it when at some point, probably near the end of the year, we see a document, or several documents, from a vault release indicating that your boy Bill’s photos were shown to the witnesses and they say it’s not him. Surely you know that’s coming?

It's better than what you've got. TRUST ME.

Well actually I have new data that proves it was at 8:14.

Well, technically "they" do. It's what Larry Carr believed and as he was the only NORJAK agent whom ever looked into it in the modern era, then he is able to speak for the FBI on it, since it was his case. That's the way a law enforcement bureaucratic machine operates: A case agent's words represent the Bureau as it relates to that specific issue at the time they say it. I've asked Larry this specifically. He said "yes, feel free to put in your book that the FBI believes this now." It was the same way when I was a prosecutor on a case. If I said something to the media, then they're able to write in an article that "the DA's office believes" or whatever. So it's not some deliberate sleight of hand or falsehood on my part. And you'll just have to forgive me and the rest of us for continuing to believe that he jumped after 8:11 since you aren't going to share your revelatory information with us. You tend to do this a lot and it's kinda lame, haha. I have information about Hahneman that will shut you all up...but I can't share it because of a project. I have a photograph of Cooper...but I can't share it because of a project. I have information about the jump time...but I can't share it because of a project. Whether you're doing this intentionally or not, it's a very unfair tactic to use in an argument. It's a fallacy actually. It's an Appeal to Secret Knowledge.

No offense meant with this, but it's a bit unfair to use this in a debate or discussion about this topic. We're supposed to just take your word for it? How can I either disprove or trust a claim that can't even be substantiated? It's like this photo of Cooper you say you have. I'm a malleable sort. I'm not dogmatic. I'm able to be convinced of things and will change my mind upon new evidence. I suppose because of my youtube or whatever that I have a greater influence than others in this case, and that is a responsibility I don't take flippantly. I'd like to be stating accurate information. I'm not married to anything in this case. Why would I care if Cooper jumped at 8:13 or 8:11? If there is evidence for 8:11 I'd like to see it. Because right now we don't have the boys contacting NWA again to report the bump until 8:19 at the EARLIEST according to Soderlind's notes (which are plus/minus 3 minutes of his 8:22 timestamp). 8 minutes seems like a long time to wait to report the bump. My rationale has always been this: If they're on the horn reporting the oscillations for the first time at 8:11 and DON'T mention the bump, then it occurred AFTER they got off the horn. They start to make their diversion around PDX once they fly over Orchards at 8:14+/-. I'd have to think that if the pressure bump happened while they were in the middle of that maneuver that they'd have remembered that. So it must have happened before they began that maneuver. So I'm looking at 8:12 to 8:14. If you have some sort of proof for 8:11, I'm sure we'd all like to see that. Why would you hoard something like that on a 53 year old cold case?

This doesn't prove 8:11. Sure, it says Rat turns his head because of the "pressure bump", but it's still a likely conflation between pressure bump and oscillations IMO. You are correct that Anderson doesn't say the oscillations continued for a few minutes. Mistake on my part (see, it's not hard to admit mistakes). Regardless, Anderson clearly indicates that they weren't on the radio talking to anyone when the bump happened and they waited for a while to report it, so we don't know how long the oscillations did or did NOT continue. 20 seconds? 2 minutes? There is no way to know from the evidence currently available.

Yakima Indians still have an olive complexion despite centuries of living in the PNW. The plains Indians still have a dark skin tone despite centuries of living in the Dakotas. Italians in Chicago still maintain their skin tone. Would they get darker if they went and hung out in Italy for a summer? Sure. But so would I. As I said, increased exposure to sunlight will make anyone's skin tone darker, but we just don't know how dark Cooper was or wasn't to put it anywhere near 100% that he had just been in some tropical environment. Dark is subjective. I'll only go so far as to say that he was ABSOLUTELY olive colored because that specific term is found in three witnesses who interacted with him, Flo, Alice, and Lysne. I do follow your logic that it may have been on the darker side of olive due to his complexion because so noticeable, but maybe that was just his natural complexion. You're not looking at color photos of Hahneman though. Exposure of black and white photos varies greatly. I think you'd need to be really freaking dark for it to always show up in every black and white photo. Regardless, we agree on him needing to look darker than the average white man. How he obtained whatever shade of coloring he was is something you can try and infer, and that's fine because educated guesses are really all we have at this point with the limited evidence we have. I just wanted to point out that a person BORN with a dark complexion is unlikely to LOSE their coloring just by virtue of living in the PNW or some similar environment over a few months period. And again, I think we agree he was on the darker shade of olive because it was so noticeable, but the colorized sketches don't particularly look all that dark if we're being honest.

Ticket agents aren’t thinking about things like that.

While I agree he likely wasn’t living in the PNW at the time because it would be unwise for a hijacker to pull this heist near where he’s living, I’m not sure why are having to deduce that Cooper obtained his complexion anywhere other than genetics. If a Hispanic or Italian, or whatever type ethnicity may be born with that skin tone, is living in a non-sunny climate, their natural complexion isn’t going to fade away. No doubt their complexion can get darker in a sunny environment just like everyone else, but they aren’t going to lose whatever complexion they were naturally born with just because they are not in a sunny environment. Do all the Italians living in the Bronx lose their complexion in the winter? Of course not. Not trying to start some huge argument with you, just pointing out that I don’t think we can deduce that he had just been somewhere sunny just because he had an olive/dark complexion.

We’ve had a fair amount of olive suspects, although even that it is lacking too often. Yet, unless I’m missing someone, the only people ever discussed who come to mind where they could pass, or arguably could pass, as looking quasi-Latin or NA to a stranger are Hahneman, Hall, Catalano, Levario, and Burnworth.

It seems quite clear to me that he absolutely had some sort of ethnic flavoring. Every witness who gave a description of his complexion, which was the majority of the witnesses, said he had a dark complexion or specifically used the term olive. And you can't excuse it away by claiming low cabin lighting or something because Dennis Lysne said the same thing and he saw him inside the bright terminal. Plus, I consider Flo our best witness as for his appearance and she says "Latin descent". So there's just too much smoke coming from that fire to ignore it. Whenever I create Cooper's for my videos I always do my best to make sure he has some sort of quasi-ethnic flavor to him.

Jacque Voler. Choose a less obvious alias next time. Even Eric figured it out, so that's saying something.

Check your PM's AGAIN. You're the honest one here, right? Let the people know that you accused me falsely and that it was Ulis who banned you on his own accord.

Nope. I will send you a PM to prove it and I expect you to recant your accusation on this forum once you see the proof. You're the one claiming to be honest and all this. So I'll expect that from you.

edit: just not worth it. and I never banned you from a FB group