CooperNWO305

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.

Olemiss: why erode your credibility by doing a video with Nicky on suspects? He changes suspects like the weather. Can’t keep his stories straight. I can’t think of a worse person to do a suspect roulette with. Why not have Pat B or someone else more legit with you? Better yet, put it all on paper side by side and have it reviewed by everyone. I’ve seen some good and bad on there. Hahnemann has been singled out, the info on Smith is not accurate, Hall and Vordhal get special treatment. Reveal the suspect matrix. You do have credibility, and will bounce back, but seems an odd choice.

Hahneman is a red herring. My opinion is that you bring him up as a weapon against Fly. Discredit Hahneman in the hopes of discrediting all of Fly’s “testimony”. We are all adults, we know that is a lawyer’s trick. We all have our suspects. By definition if you have one or think Cooper is unknown, then you disagree with everyone’s suspect. So let’s say Fly is wrong about Hahneman. Has he really been wrong about much at all else in this case? All he does is call out absolutes and give documentation. Using Hahneman every time is frankly a little underhanded. Why not just focus on the arguments at hand?

It’s not transparent to me. You’ve used that argument on me and WJS. It’s not like there are 10 sketches. There are 2 main ones. The FBI thought B was the best. Anyone who followed B would be following what the FBI and conventional thought believed. There would be no reason to follow A. EU liked A because he thought it matched Sheridan. That was shoved down our throats. Many people claim the sketches are useless. I don’t believe that myself, but some do. Saying Fly (a solid researcher, one of the best, probably the best) likes B because of a suspect is not fair. He follows the evidence. His theories for Hahneman focus very little on the sketch. From what I can tell, his issue is that you are focused on the A sketch, which goes against what the FBI believes. Not one agent, the FBI as a whole. I still don’t see how A beats B when you lay out all the info. So when the revisionist history keeps coming from multiple people about multiple parts of the case, it dilutes thing. Like EU’s big announcements. We can’t keep having all these new ideas that are really just ideas. I’ve asked you to tell both sides of the story on this case and suspects. The sketches is a good area to use that approach. Take Fly out of it. Tell the story. And not just on YouTube. Long videos get buried and people don’t watch as much as we’d like to think. Subscribers and viewers does not equal actual engagement.

The circle jerk is Facebook. DZ will remain a necessity as long as Facebook remains a social group dominated by a few cliques. Most of the posts are memes and pics and worthless statements, followed by comments saying “Great post. Wow. Can’t wait. You’re awesome. Great find. You solved it. I believe it”. Not to mention that both pages have pretty much duplicate posts. EU and Nicky’s page could go away. One is enough. Are you getting bullied here? We need more discussion over here. Join in.

Also. Fly rarely talks about Hahnemann. Ryan, to be fair, you are the one who brings him up. If Hahneman was proven to not be Cooper, all of Fly’s research still stands in its own. He doesn’t push Hahnemann. You have a beef with Fly and keep referring to his choice of Hahnemann as a suspect. Let it go. We all have our suspects. It’s the details of the case he focuses on.

The thought that Fly owes anyone anything is laughable. The Vortex can’t keep a secret. It’s full of back channel conversations and snakes. I’ve seen enough of his info to know he’s got it. I don’t see everything. For the six or so years I’ve been following him, I can say he’s consistent. As for the DZ only having a few people. Oh well. It’s Fly and sometimes me and Georger. The old group who used to have legit discussions is practically gone. We rarely hear from them. Bruce, Shutter, R99, etc. Facebook added a lot of people but only a small group of them have added anything useful. There are a few guys who questioned the Barb/Clara BS, but they were drowned out. The A sketch and thin nose and new flight path and drop zone would never have gone without discussion back then. Hall, Vordhal either. Nicky would have been banned and EU would have been shut down. Facebook is a social group. Very little legit discussion. Cunningham has been wrong so many times and argued every single point. The fact that his flight path was not questioned is ridiculous. Larry has been great for the case, but saying “The FBI believes…” is not accurate. It’s a loose play on words.

Vince Peterson’s daughter is demanding an apology from Eric. And of course there is discussion about the “new” tie particles like they just discovered the Holy Grail.

Complete joke. A narcissist in action on YouTube. I don’t use that term often. He has had 3 suspects, I’m sure number 4 is soon to come. Nicky only has had 3, so he has to catch up. There have been a few comments from VP’s daughter asking for an apology.

He must have said both are big, which means they aren’t. It’s good though there will be a show and that Mike one of the Army paratroopers on the case will be on. Good to see more people getting some screen time.

EU said on FB “this is big”.

It’s all pretty predictable now. YouTube video teaser. Some big announcement that is not that big. Use that to try and get newspapers to do an article, claim its local interest. Shove it down people’s throats. I guarantee that whatever company EU names that Milton Vordahl worked near or visited there and worked with the same elements. Or he fished near there. One funny thing is a lot of the people with suspects feel they need to tie all these new theories to their suspects. They don’t. I’ve seen a few people claim their guy looks like both composites. Right. There have been no control items. One clean Boeing tie. McCrone has not compared findings to their other tests/customers. We don’t know if it was even his tie before the hijacking. Regardless, all those particles could be found many places. Anyone with logistics or manufacturing experience knows that there are many stops along the way and particle mixing in the supply chain. A whole lot of nothing. The Cooper world is fragmented, and that’s maybe a good thing. The social group has lost members. Gryder has taken center stage. Edwards’s book is well known. We have Reddit. DZ. Multiple FB groups. The old timers don’t say much anymore, which is unfortunate.

Abbott and Costello. Perfect. :)

I usually know you hit a nerve when people on the FB group start talking about Hahneman. There was an anonymous post about him and then Chris B. one of the Vordhal people who is still sticking with him and Crucible made a comment about every witness except one saying Cooper was Caucasian. Total muddying of the waters. Cooper was swarthy. Dark. Hahneman and Smith both get the half truth stories. It reminds me of a Senate confirmation hearing where one side tells only what they want and it’s out of context. The social club is our version of MSNBC. EU apparently has some new info on where Cooper worked. Why anyone believes it is beyond me. It’s been 54 years, and the narrative on there keeps changing. B was a good sketch for Braden and Vordhal, but I guess not now. Somehow Chris C. knows what brand the sunglasses were and where he jumped. No one disagrees anymore. I guess if you look at the same thing over and over again then you want something for your time. Sifting through the transcript of Ryan’s YouTube, I see a lot on Hahneman. The mispronunciation of his name is grating. Him going after Hahneman is akin to ad hominem at this point. Very little is ever discussed about Hahneman, but you are attacked for researching him all of a sudden when you disagree with Ryan. Hahneman gets called out. 5’8 was fine when he liked Braden. B sketch was fine when he liked Vordhal. As usual Skip Hall gets praise too. Ryan has consistently said there is 0% percent chance Smith is Cooper. No suspect is 0%. It’s the same old misdirection and cherry picking. His reason for 0%? Well, because Smith’s daughter says so. But he never says she was 6 in 1971. Never. He claims she waited up looking for headlights and that if he was gone on Thanksgiving then who would have cooked dinner? Come on. And he worked two jobs? When, in 1971? Working two jobs is a red flag at anytime. In 1971 then you needed money. In 1990 then you needed money (they claim Cooper lost the $), or someone is working two jobs pretending to not be Cooper. It is actually getting to be like EU. “If I say it, then people will believe”. But it’s always prefaced with “I like so and so, but I disagree with them”. Well at least give the facts. EU does not speak for the whole group and neither does Ryan. No one does. But if someone is going to speak then at least acknowledge the facts or that you changed your stance once you changed suspects or the pros of Smith and Hahneman. It looks to me that some people get upset that others have a say in this case. The effort put into going after Gryder was amazing. If you disagree with the social club you get the wrath. But no one is really listening anyhow. And the group wonders why Dan Gryder gets the microphone and not them.

Is there some new info on the flight path, jump time, winds, etc. that I missed hearing about to conclusively put the jump or landing over Orchards? I remember that being the southern most point for some theories, but that was just a range.