CooperNWO305

I think he just meant Minnesota is nice country, which it is, very nice. But there’s nothing to say he would not use puns and jokes. He said “I don’t bite”. He seemed to be having a good time.

Why can’t he question a suspect? He’s called out legitimate issues. Again, you bring in Hahneman. It dilutes your arguments. If Fly brings in Vordhal and Braden then what? Are you banned from critiquing? What about all the other people who have their ideas? Hall gets a pass because John is in the social club inner circle.

You’re using misdirection and red herrings as well as your personal beef with Flyjack to move focus from Hall. One has nothing to do with the other. It has become like clockwork.

There has been some good research, but this belief that one has to fit their suspect to every little clue is unnecessary. I do love how his big nose is not an issue but Smith’s and Hahneman’s noses are. For now Gryder, Ulis, and Edwards have the majority of the publicly, and of course McCoy.

There is chatter from Mary J. about updating the list of Wiki suspects to remove some names. Like she has a say in that. Her sole contribution to the case is a series of memes and spinning up William Smith’s daughter. The social group still thinks that if they “feel” a certain way then they are in the right. Remember, you can call someone a POI and you are a stand up guy, but if you use the term suspect you aren’t. Even if the term POI is exactly the same thing. Apparently Skip Hall is Forest Gump and has been everywhere in the world and was a shrimp boat captain and is hands down the best suspect on the matrix. Again an example of no one being willing to question certain people and suspects.

I’ll be starting to work on a new blog entry on William J. Smith, and some updates to my website. I might do a YouTube video on him. Stay tuned. Some new info. May take a while, no rush.

Ok. The pics didn’t load for me the first time.

Who are the suspects that look like A? Or POIs or whatever term we are using.

My observation is that many people do not have enough case knowledge to feel confident questioning these claims that the B sketch was just a mistake, or an admin error as stated by Jude. I wonder who has even read or still reads the 302s besides Ryan, Fly, and myself. I assume there are more. I hope. I do find it amusing that now people are saying their suspect looks like Comp A when they used to be all about Comp B. How can you look like Comp A and Comp B? They are clearly very different people. I encourage people to ask questions and not just fall for the party line. 50 years later all of a sudden A is a better sketch. That’s not as bad as the Western Flight Path, but it’s still a big leap from what the FBI believed. Until I see something truly solid, then I have trouble believing everyone in the FBI made a mistake. The witnesses are all over the place on all sketches.

Add Rohit to the list too. He’s had some good insight.

To be fair, when have you acknowledged that you’ve been wrong? I don’t remember many times if at all. There is not a lot of people in the Vortex who acknowledge being wrong that often.

I’ve mentioned that the Facebook groups are more of a social community and that overshadows legit curiosity and research. Some of the people on there who I’ve seen who are willing to ask questions and not just take the party line are: Paul R. D. Mark S. John K. Shawn W. Dave U. This is not the complete list, but this group is worth following. I certainly don’t agree with everything they all say or even the delivery of one or two, but none of us agree on everything. They disagree with me I’m sure. These guys will at least offer counter arguments and keep the politics out of things. There are others out there too, but this group is a set that do not get a lot of publicity in the case.

Looks like the morality police are out again. Every couple of months William Smith’s daughter stirs the pot and then the fake accounts come out and comment and the morality police comes out with their shaming language, gas lighting, theatrics, red herrings, misdirection, guilt trips, and manipulation tactics. Like we are a bunch of second graders getting lectured by our teacher. The tree house group has hamstrung themselves by claiming you can only name someone who has a criminal record or was investigated by the FBI. As Liz R. says, why even be on the groups or in the case if that’s the deal. But using POI instead of suspect absolves you of all sin, and if you keep it on Facebook or at CooperCon you are absolved of sin too. What a joke. Try naming someone as a POI in a robbery or pedophile ring and see what happens. With minimal effort I could find skeletons on everyone. Also, EU naming random people for publicity is not the same as someone else doing actual research. My favorite is from John H. who must have bought the sob story on Smith and says the Oregonian should not have published an article. Here’s some news, they have 7 Pulitzers. Smith was in the news for years, but all of a sudden it was a 2 second clip in episode 4 of a Netflix show that exposed him or a History Channel documentary that most people never even saw? I should name all the people who have helped me with Smith or been curious or are now silent or actually now claiming they weren’t part of it I’m not here to change minds. But where is the curiosity? It’s gone. All people do in those groups is regurgitate and rehash the same info. Sad to say that the intellect is not there, except for a few people who are overshadowed. And the boys vs girls thing is not helping. Pat B. has some solid ideas and research, and it would be great to hear about her talk with Alice. Let her talk. We don’t see eye to eye on everything, and I don’t agree with her saying Smith’s daughter is a victim, but she brings a lot more than she takes. Anyhow, you all should start charging for membership and maybe have a rush or pledge class. The group spends more time backstabbing and back channeling then they do researching. So many lemmings falling for the latest tie analysis. How many times do you have to get burned to give it up? Or ranking top 5 suspects like it’s NASCAR and there are points for second place. By the way, it’s the newspapers and shows that start using the term suspects, it gets them more views. Anyone saying POI is better than suspect is a full on hypocrite. Have at it on Smith. I always know there is talk going on when I see the hits on websites. You guys are the best advertisers.

It sounds cooler that he boarded with an attache case versus “He boarded with an attache case and a shopping bag from Publix”.

When was Cooper’s green/pink whatever color bag first spotted? Was it by Nancy House when he came out of the lav? Anyone else make reference to it?

Ah the gaslighting. You and Cunningham would get along well.

No. This is not about Hahneman. What is the point of your cigarette statement? Ryan and Fly have been having issues for years. Ryan zeroes in on Hahneman when he’s really just a red herring. None of us agree on suspects. I want to hear about the cigarettes. What is the point? And yes you seem like a shill. I’ve watched this case long enough and have seen enough patterns. Fly has solid research. He and I have different suspects and we both have different versions of Clara. But we don’t argue. Using Hahneman every time to fight Fly is not a good approach in my mind. I’ve told Ryan this before. He’s had suspects too. Fly’s issue is that Hahneman is being misrepresented. At least give the facts. We are not here to argue suspects all day long.

What’s the reason? You’re likely one of the shills with a fake account. But go ahead and explain.

I can’t keep track of all the posts. What is the meaning here? What is the takeaway for the case?

I actually didn’t read the whole response. If he says it’s a joke then I believe him. My point is that he does have a sense of humor. Dry but still a good sense of humor.

Flyjack is not lying. I’ve seen many of the things he chooses not to share. He has no obligation to share, especially with a group as nasty as the Vortex can be. Whether his information would compel the FBI to act or make the public revaluate, is unknown at this point. I can attest for his sense of humor. I also know many people like him who are content doing things on their own and for the fun of it. I personally don’t share much of my information anymore. Someday I will. Mine is a different situation than Fly’s, but he is legit. It seems like Ryan is questioning Hahneman, which is ok. It seem that Fly is saying Ryan has been dishonest in some way or at a minimum has not told the full story. There are some arguments about debate style too.

How about: My father would never do that? He worked two jobs. Who would cook Thanksgiving dinner? I waited for headlights every night?

Looks like they solved the case over on Facebook. Some nice Valentines Day photos on there too. It’s a social group. Which is fine. It gives people something to do. I have my own groups I like. But for case discussion, not so good.

My issue with matrices in this case are that they are built and then referenced as close to gospel or as official measurements like a thermometer or something. It’s akin to me making a checklist and then using the checklist as a tool to justify my stance. “He came out number one in the suspect matrix”. Every matrix will be different. If you think he was special ops, then that guy is higher than someone who was just a regular guy, a pilot, etc. It’s an interesting tool, but if you get one or two things wrong, then it’s totally useless. And right now we don’t know what is right or wrong. In my opinion, using the matrix in conversation is a good tool to try and win an argument with people who are not too bright, but it is currently being used to create this false authority. In itself then the way it is being used is a fallacy of appeal to authority. It gives an appearance of favoritism when the creator of the matrix rates the suspect of one of his closest friends as number one. That’s just my observation. If I make a ruler with my own measurements and then use that ruler to measure, then there is an issue. Here we are giving objective measurements to something inherently subjective. A basic checklist for me would be eye color, general height, age, personality, some aviation background, resemblance to the sketch, etc. But then again any of those could be wrong and we would be looking in the wind. It’s a good framework to consider, but quoting it like people do is just not realistic. Ask 10 people to make a matrix and you’ll get 10 different spreads of suspects rankings.

LOL. The guy isn’t OJ Simpson. You have zero case credibility. You have had how many suspects? Changed your mind how many times? Now you’re going around sowing seeds of discontent about people in the Facebook groups who are actually legit researchers. You don’t belong on any show or suspect panel. But go ahead and deflect. For Ryan to choose you for his channel is not good for his credibility as an influential person in this case. You’re the Eddie Haskell of the DB Cooper case. You’re just a tool for people to use when they need you to go after people or agree with them. Sit this one out. Go back to Facebook. This is an adult conversation.