olemisscub

This is perhaps the single goofiest, as well as totally pointless, theory ever put forth by an investigator with credibility. He was making small talk. Nervous. Smoking a cigarette. Go look up any list of US states by beauty. I'm sure Minnesota is listed in the top half of all of them. There is lots of pretty scenery in Minnesota. He was just making small talk and being polite. Implying that Cooper MAY have been engaging in some sort of pun whilst in the middle of a hijacking where his life and freedom were at stake is goofy.

I've said many times that his nose and attractiveness are his biggest flaws.

So the witnesses WOULD NOT have missed some bumps and forehead lines, yet you expect us all to believe that they WERE such poor eyewitnesses that they thought ANY of the sketches were an accurate portrayal of Hahneman? The Cooper eyewitnesses would have to be the worst eyewitnesses in all of human history for you to be right on this, so you nitpicking Skip Hall is laughable. No one has to even nitpick Hahneman to eliminate him visually. Skip isn't Cooper, but he's INFINITELY better than Hahneman.

So you find an OP-ED from 2017 simply claiming it started in the 60's and that's your proof that it predates the 80's? And we're the amateurs? I'd think an honest researcher such as yourself would use contemporary evidence from before Nov 24, 1971 to refute Georger's claim and not the word of a dude writing into a newspaper in 2017. Newspapers dot com doesn't have jack squat about "Minnesota Nice" before the 80's. If you can provide some actual proof of your assertion that it predates NORJAK, I'm sure we'll all admit to being wrong (something you continue to be pathologically incapable of doing).

I just ran a very unscientific test of all the 1969 L series 20's on ebay and compared them to ransom list to see how many numbers I could get. no digits - 1 two digits - 2 three digits - 12 four digits - 4 So, the top one is only interesting because of possible metathesis or scrivener's error and knowing that I can get 4 digits in on about a fifth of the random bills on ebay makes the bottom one not so impressive. Regardless, it's definitely interesting that he turns up randomly a month after he's eliminated. It's not as if the police chief in Astoria knew he had been investigated for being Cooper. Him being picked up in the AM doesn't really change much aside from him not being able to be the drop-off accomplice. Perhaps originally it was going to be a two-man job or perhaps Cooper was the accomplice and he stole Johnston's idea and did it himself when Johnston failed to show back up that night. We live and breathe coincidences in the Vortex and I spend a fair amount of time on the Facebook groups naysaying the people who talk about "this thing in the file can't be a coincidence!" (Samdal asking about jumping out of a 727, McClellan's plane, Ben Leibson's rental house, etc), but Johnston makes me somewhat uneasy. An older burned out ex-con who is an unlicensed pilot and also has limited skydiving experience is really what I'm after when I'm thinking about the kind of person who would devise this heist. Most likely it's a nothingburger, but so far he's the "coincidence" that I think is least likely to be a genuine coincidence that has come from the files.

Yes, I caught that today. What I was looking at said PM. But apparently he's written up in the Longview Journal on the 24th which stated that he was arrested "earlier today", so that clinches it. Definitely going with AM now. Regardless, those serial numbers are too close for comfort. Something stinks with him.

Canadians don't have the royal "we"? We as in humanity. The Cooper community. The Cosmos. And just to be clear, when we inevitably get the stews rejecting Hahneman's photo, you're going to claim their memory was faulty...while simultaneously claiming their memory was good enough to make Comp B four of five months AFTER they are shown Hahneman's photo?

Tina - "100% like him" Flo - "Likes drawing very much" Alice - "Could not pinpoint any characteristic about the sketch she didn't like" Bill - "Everything from nose up is good. Mouth also good." Spreckel - "if face were widened one sixteenth of an inch it would be an excellent likeness" Hal - "artist's conception very good overall" Gregory - "resemblance good" Labisonniere [arguably its harshest critic] - "hijacker had an overall appearance in some ways similar to artist's conception."

Yet we have several HUMAN suspects who look like it.

Half a century later you're suggesting that Comp A is a bad sketch despite not a single eyewitness having a major problem with it. Its only criticisms were essentially tweaks. All of them saw Cooper. None of us did. What gives you the right to say that it is a "bad" sketch? How do you know that? Tina - "100% like him" Flo - "Likes drawing very much" Alice - "Could not pinpoint any characteristic about the sketch she didn't like" Bill - "Everything from nose up is good. Mouth also good." Spreckel - "if face were widened one sixteenth of an inch it would be an excellent likeness" Hal - "artist's conception very good overall" Gregory - "resemblance good" Labisonniere [arguably its harshest critic] - "hijacker had an overall appearance in some ways similar to artist's conception."

It’s really not as complicated as I think you’re making this. There is nothing nefarious going on. I used to dismiss Comp A because I THOUGHT (like the FBI did) that Flo hated it. Once I realized that she said that she “liked it very much” and that Tina said it was “100% like him”, I began to believe it had serious value. Both sketches have value to me now. If you’ve seen or heard where I’ve began dismissing Comp B as lacking value, I’d like to see it. Three days later the best witnesses liked Comp A. 9 months to a year later they all liked Comp B. No reason for me to be attacked for suggesting that the one closest to the event is more likely to be accurate. That’s just common sense. I’m planning on having this person who wrote a law book about eyewitness testimony on my show next month. I can’t imagine he is going to say that an eyewitnesses memory of a face is going to be better 9 months after an event as opposed to a week later. But they definitely represent different humans. So which human does Cooper look like more. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. You’re making an appeal to authority by saying “the FBI says it’s the best” and that B shouldn’t be questioned because of that. Sure, of course they say that. When they made that pronouncement they still were operating under the assumption that Flo didn’t like Bing and here now this new sketch is getting rave reviews. So, of course they’re going to say B is the best: they thought Revised Comp B was the first sketch that had achieved a consensus from their best witnesses…but it wasn’t.

There’s really no need for me to deal with this vitriol anymore. No one should. This is a hobby, not a bloodsport dude. Be well.

That may be, but at least one of us is man enough to admit when they’re wrong. You’re too much of an intellectual coward to admit when you’re wrong.

Yes, this is an issue I have with Flyjack's belief that Cossey thought they were HIS bailout rigs. Why would Cossey volunteer his OWN personal rigs for such a thing in the first place? It makes much more sense that he told them about Hayden's rigs than to volunteer anything he actually owned. No doubt Cossey had the same belief that Emrick had: "I'm not giving anything of real value to this effort because I probably won't ever see them again."

You're continuing to fill in imaginary gaps to try and be correct on this. What Cossey said to Tosaw lines up precisely with what the evidence suggests. We KNOW that the dudes at NWA called Boeing Field for some reason, which is what led them to Hayden. This is 100% fact. Cossey says he told them he recently packed two chutes and to call Boeing Field. COSSEY was WHY they called Boeing Field. If Cossey did what you are suggesting and told them to get all 4 chutes from Issaquah, then why did they ever call Boeing Field looking for two backpacks?? How is that at all incongruent? It's congruent with Cossey's statement to Tosaw, but also congruent with what Al Lee told Tosaw. Stop inventing things to fill in imaginary gaps.

You’ll cross your arms and stomp your feet at this, but I think in retrospect Tosaw’s narrative makes the most sense now that I’ve reread it. Cossey WAS contacted. But it wasn’t by the FBI, it was NWA. Lee said that when they got the request for parachutes they were all scratching their heads trying to figure out where to come up with parachutes and one of the guys on the NWA staff knew of Cossey. NWA is who contacted Cossey that night. Cossey told them about Hayden, which led them to call Barry Halstad at Boeing Field, who then contacted Hayden. Cossey is probably who also told them to get in touch with Emrick.

this is literally what you did with your fictional Cossey statement.

Couldn't have been. Three rows ahead of the hijacker were moved. Five passengers relocated. Flo stood by at Row 15. He'd have been behind Flo. Doesn't work.

It's still a hell of an outlier. 5'8 for Cooper seems unlikely.

Yes, I prefer actual data.

I'm not completely convinced Gregory was in 17 (more likely Spreckel was in 17C or 16C) for the same reason you are saying. If Gregory didn't move up when the passengers asked, then he's not in 16 either. It appears that everyone behind row 14 was asked to move up if Flo went and stood at row 15. They said they moved the closest four rows up. So he's not in 17 or 16, and we know for damn sure he wasn't in 18. So the closest he was sitting is row 15. Nevertheless, what other "elderly" man was sitting anywhere near Bill? And perhaps he was no longer drunk by the time they landed. Saying he had to go pee isn't evidence that he was still drunk. If it wasn't for Bill saying "elderly", I might still stick with Labisonniere. His 302 sounds a bit more drunk and off than Gregory's. And it's only "wild speculation" when you disagree with it. It's deduction. Wild speculation is inventing out of whole cloth a Cossey statement to the FBI that never happened because you want your own invented narrative on something to work.

Seems like Tina would have mentioned him taking his overcoat off if he did. But maybe not. I guess if you are sitting a certain way it would expose the lapels, particularly if you are slouching. Odd that Gregory doesn't mention the overcoat though.

My question would be this: How was Gregory able to see how wide the lapels of his suit jacket were whilst Cooper was wearing an overcoat? And Gregory doesn't even mention an overcoat, yet seemingly goes into great detail about Cooper's clothing. So I'm not quite sure what to make of that.

FWIW, I've ID'd everyone in this photo for my book. Some mistakes in that one that you posted.

Bill would have probably seen it first. In his 302 he makes reference to seeing it. He was moved up to the front by the time Nancy saw Cooper coming out of the lav. Unclear when Tina would have seen it first, but it shows up near the end of her 302, so possibly she didn’t see it til later on. No one else is recorded seeing it other than those three.