49 49
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

The stews also gave different descriptions on Cooper's height. And witness Robert Gregory told the FBI he thought Cooper was no more than five nine. So what is your point?

Yes...it is TRUE when you say you don't owe me or anyone else anything. I don't have a problem with that. 

But as the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have made extensive and complex postings here on the case, and you claim Hahneman is Cooper, even though he was caught, convicted, and jailed for another hijacking only a few months after Cooper....

And somehow no one in law enforcement figured it out, even though he was jailed for another ten years. This claim is right on the edge of what can be logically believed. Especially when we know the lengths, the manpower, the effort, the legwork, the sheer budget...that the FBI expended to find Cooper. Now you claim that he was right under their noses in Federal prison for ANOTHER hijacking....(wait for it now)...

With the same MO....and committed within a few months of Cooper...

And no one figured it out. Even though he sat in Federal prison for the next ten years. 

I am not trying to pick on you, but you understand most reasonable people will find that a bit difficult to believe. 

Brother, you need a witness or two. You need some testimony. You need some additional evidence, somewhere, someHOW. 

Your statements make no sense, the stews told the sketch artist the same thing, Cooper had a protruding lower lip. That makes it more reliable not less or the same as height estimates.. Your argument is backasswards. A protruding lower lip is something objectively seen, height is a subjective estimate. Do you understand your error?

I really don't like to have to unwind your messed up logic for you.

And I have said that Hahneman is the best suspect based on the evidence I have short of forensics putting him on the plane. Based on all the evidence I have, I believe he was Cooper. I have tried but can't put him on the plane, no suspect can be put on the plane.

Now, I would never expect others to accept Hahneman as Cooper without having all the info I have, but to reject him with VIRTUALLY NO INFORMATION is intellectually ignorant.

You know nothing about Hahneman or what the FBI believed or didn't or if what they believed is even accurate.

You also assume the FBI didn't make errors or wasn't influenced by outside sources.. I have evidence of both.

What you have expressed is a BIG FAT logical fallacy...  

You have made assumptions about something you have zero knowledge about to reach a predetermined conclusion. I despise this type of thinking, it ends valid intellectual inquiry.

Essentially, your lack of knowledge is your argument. This is amateur thinking.

You should ask yourself, if Hahneman pulled off a virtually identical crime, matched the unique description perfectly, was virtually erased from public discourse and FBI files and was falsely labelled a copycat then why wasn't he Cooper. 

That is where you start.

You don't start with he wasn't Cooper because the FBI didn't tell us he was. That is insane.

The FBI admitted that they had no case without Cooper's co-operation due to lack of evidence.

 

No, you aren't picking on me, you are only discrediting yourself and becoming completely irrelevent.

Your arguments are ignorant unfounded assumptions or completely backasswards.

 

Seriously, I have thousands of pieces of information, it would take me a month to pull it all together into a presentable form and I am just not interested.

So, keep your blinders on, ignore the evidence and bury your head in the sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

LOL I am not the one becoming irrelevant. You are the one who hasn't been able to produce a single witness, place your subject even remotely close to the scene of the crime, or produce one bit of hard evidence linking Hahneman to the Cooper hijacking. And he was a KNOWN SKYJACKER who did TEN YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON. 

If he was truly Cooper, any decent investigator would have been able to either link him to Cooper, or have him dismissed in short order. You also say this:

 

That is where it ends. If he matched the description perfectly (he doesn't look THAT much like the sketch, Flyjack) he would have been easily identified by the witnesses. His picture was plastered all over American papers and probably overseas as well. No one said, "Hey, that's the same guy. THAT'S Cooper..."

He wasn't erased from FBI files. That is getting into conspiracy theories, and I don't buy into that concept for Cooper. This was a crime for money, plain and simple. Now you are claiming it was all a cover up, a conspiracy. You want to claim that? You better have some evidence. 

 

I am not going to argue with a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
55 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I am not a moron. I'm the guy who has edited more than sixty books to date for other authors, and traveled around the Northwest for over a year investigating a suspect in the case. I hit the bricks. I did the interviews. I took the notes and sometimes the pictures and recordings. I did the hard work. I have the second-best selling book on Planet Earth regarding a suspect right now. Not a brag, just truth. I produced a 90-minute video detailing my results up to that point. I released a 55 page illustrated report to the public, and then sent that and other materials to the Seattle FBI in person. 

You have absolutely zip except you think the entire law enforcement community at the time of Cooper was either blind, stupid, ignorant, or involved in a conspiracy to cover up the true identity of the hijacker. Then you get angry when your patient readers here at this forum (finally!) ask you to put up at least some bit of evidence.

Here is what I think. You have little for evidence. You want to point to a cover up, but you have no proof of that. You want to pin the Cooper hijacking on Hahneman, a guy who was convicted of air piracy only months after Cooper jumped...and ignore the fact the Feds had him in custody for a decade afterward. Do you really expect people to believe the Feds just kept spending millions chasing Cooper elsewhere for that ten years when they could have easily (key word: EASILY!) discovered whether Hahneman was also Cooper? They had him in the Federal pen for a long time. He is not in any Cooper files to date. 

This is not brain surgery. And neither is it some deep state conspiracy to hide the truth. The reason Hahneman probably isn't mentioned in FBI files on Cooper is because....(wait for it now)....

They were able to establish almost right away that he either had an alibi for the crime, or witnesses dismissed him as Cooper. Probably BOTH. I mean...don't you think the FBI considered that possibility as well? They probably started wondering the very second he asked for parachutes and money and cigarettes, for chrissakes. 

You can call me all the names you wish. But it's time for you to put up or...well, you know how the rest of that goes. 

Hard work doesn't mean quality, the KC case is as weak as it gets. You know he wasn't Cooper.

 

Here is what I think, you are a moron... 

Why,

You make completely false assumptions and 100% bogus claims,,,,  because you don't actually know anything.

You make errors that I correct and you just keep going with same ones and add new ones. 

A never ending sewer.

I am not interested in correcting your garbage. It is far too time consuming and no upside for me.

 

YOU ARE JUST MAKING UP STUFF...

 

So, get lost. 

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I haven't made up a thing. Everything I have presented in this case has been an open book, and freely available to the public via the illustrated report and the video(s). 

To be fair, I don't think you have made up anything, either. You just haven't presented one shred of hard evidence, or any witness testimony, or a single document ANYWHERE that points to Hahneman as being Cooper. You are just pissed off I finally decided to call you on it. I never made any claims about Hahneman himself, because frankly...you haven't presented a thing to date that could even be checked about him, except for the known historical record. 

And that record says that he hijacked a flight to Honduras, asked for and received a bunch of cash, later jumped over Honduras, later turned himself in, and went to Federal prison for ten years. That is basically IT. And then you expect people to believe the Feds are sooo stupid that even though he copycats the Cooper caper, they don't even bother to check him out in all that time. Or you allude to some kind of conspiracy to cover up his involvement in Cooper...which I find ridiculous at best. 

The record also says that nowhere in that ten years was he ever charged with the Cooper crime, and (so far) not a single entry in any of the thousands of pages of FBI documents on Cooper is Hahneman even mentioned. Of course, with every new release, I imagine you keep hoping something will be mentioned. I would not hold my breath on that one. 

You are the one wasting everyone's time. If you are so sure Hahneman was Cooper, or that he was and that somehow a conspiracy was hatched to keep that from the public, then it's time for you to put up some verifiable evidence to the same...and stop lashing out and calling names when people like me ask reasonable questions. 

Making up stuff...  I was referring to your bogus comments about myself and Hahneman.

Your KC is an open book and there is nothing there. Lots of work but no results. Probably in running for the weakest suspect of all.

 

Understand this,, then take a hike.

I do not owe you anything. I am NOT going to give you my research. You are not worthy.

It is not my responsibility to educate you... Sorry, I am not researching this case for you, I am doing it for myself. Just because I won't give you my research doesn't mean I don't have any.

 

You can think whatever you want about Hahneman with your limited knowledge but you crossed the line when you manufactured false claims about me.

 

I did not bring up Hahneman, you did.. when you tried to dismiss the Cooper protruding lower lip evidence with your ridiculous backasswards logic about height.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
33 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I'm not 'taking a hike' or going anywhere anytime soon. What do you mean 'I brought up Hahneman'? Are you kidding me? He's YOUR suspect. You've been posting about him here at Dropzone for a long time now. And you get butt hurt when someone finally asks you to produce just a shred, just a smidgen of hard evidence? A single document, a crumb from a witness? And you go all defensive and start name-calling?

Pfft...if that is your attitude than why are you here? Who are you trying to convince that Hahneman was Cooper? Because after what has to be more than a year of postings...you still haven't presented a damn thing except conjecture and 'my guy looks like Cooper' stuff. Yet you insist you are absolutely sure that Hahneman was Cooper but so far you have next to nothing to prove it. You can't even put him on the west coast of the USA, let alone anywhere near Portland Airport. You have not a single witness, not a bit of testimony favoring your theory by anyone. You wrote off law enforcement efforts, even though Hahneman was convicted of hijacking a jet just a few months after Cooper. As if LEO were really stupid or something. The Feds aren't always right, but I don't think even they are THAT dumb. 

 

You are so clueless it is beyond belief...

It's like trying to reason with Sybil... she faked it..

You brought up Hahneman after I pointed out the protruding lower lip evidence, not me. Another fact you just deny...

I have said it over and over,, I am not here to convince anybody of anything. I have enough evidence to convince ME that Hahneman is the best Cooper suspect by a long shot. I have been trying but can't forensically put him on the plane. 

You have just repeated the lie that I think LEO is stupid..  I have never said that, you just make it up because you don't know what you don't know.

You claim you don't make up stuff then you make up stuff.. see a pattern here. CRAZYTOWN

You want to dismiss Hahneman but you can't because you don't have any facts so you make up a narrative, a proxy that is irrational. Blame me for not giving you proof then you can dismiss him...  that people, is insane.

 

You are a joke, your reasoning/logic, your research, your ignorant assumptions.. are incompatible with reality.

 

 

Go look for UFO's...  the Cooper case is not for you. 

 

Say what you want about Hahneman but stop lying about me.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

You are paranoia at its worst. At least right now. No one is lying about you. How could I do that? I don't even know who the heck you ARE. 

Although I have backed off a bit from the Cooper Vortex, I think your assessment that the Cooper case is 'not for me' is well...wrong. I make a nice second income from sales of Into The Blast, and except for few haters in Cooperland, the general public does sometimes send nice messages about our investigation. They appreciate we didn't hold anything back, that we made everything we discovered about Kenny Christiansen, as well as Bernie Geestman, and their friends and relatives...completely open and public. We did not hold stuff back and just expect people to take our word on these folks' guilt, or lack of it. We just tossed everything out there for people and let THEM decide, let THEM make their own conclusions. 

The only thing that really chaps me about your claims is that you want everything, and yet you offer nothing in return in the way of hard evidence. After a while it gets tiresome. Not just to me, but others. And then you have the nerve to say OUR investigation is baloney, and that we just made up stuff. LOL...had we done that...we would not be so silly as to publish the witnesses' real names, addresses, and sometimes even their email address. What the FBI saw...so did the public. This is transparency at its best. 

And here at AB of Seattle...we also know this is why some folks in Cooperland hate us. Not because of anything we have done to them personally, but because we just tossed it all out there for everyone to see...and when you do that...it sort of bypasses the closed-off group that is Cooperland...and goes straight to the public. But doing things that way has certain advantages. 

You have a very loose relationship with reality...  seek help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chute SN 60-9707 was described as a 24 ft from the card. 

Here a 24 ft chute was found but rejected as they believed the Cooper chute was 28 ft from Cossey. If Cossey was wrong about his NB6/8 being used it may have been a 24 ft SN 60-9707.

24ftchutefound.jpeg.4ec708084c99094afb8a82758d0bf19d.jpeg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I am about the most down-to-earth guy you will ever meet, Jerkweed. I work a regular job, have run a small US trade press for the last 15 years, have written four books, edited 60 more for outside authors, published a sci-fi magazine, and can do more work in a day than you can in a week. I have a perfect grip on reality, I assure you. 

Your Hahneman theory is not only devoid of evidence, you can't even provide a single witness to back up anything you have claimed about him. Or even a single document where the FBI mentions his name as being a potential suspect in the Cooper case. 

Instead of pointing fingers and trying to use put-downs and name-calling to make a point, why don't you provide just one shred of hard evidence showing Hahneman and Cooper have even the remotest chance of being the same person. 

You don't have shit for evidence. You never did. At least I was intelligent enough to release a public report with illustrations, a book, and several videos to back up my stuff. You have less than zero going. 

Come back when you're ready for the Big Boy League. You are strictly Amateur Night, Flyjack. 

No, you have contradicted yourself so many times I've lost track..

You twist what I have written to fit within your warped reality..

You ignore actual facts and assert assumptions.. most wrong.

You just make up stuff out of thin air.. straw-man nonsense.

You project your own failure on me.. you released your Cooper research and failed..

I don't care to release mine and it is driving you crazy. You seem threatened.

You are experiencing cognitive dissonance.. the process of enlightenment when you come to the realization that all your Cooper work is wrong. Instead of acknowledging that you have it all wrong, you are lashing out at me for not disclosing my research. Now, you claim with no evidence whatsoever that I have nothing..  << this is psycho stuff.

 

Be thankful some fools are willing to give some scratch for your nonsense, Ulis made money too, at least he finally admitted Peterson wasn't Cooper, I respect that.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

The chute SN 60-9707 was described as a 24 ft from the card. 

 

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

from the card

Are you sure there was another card? Unless I missed something from the more recent posts, I don't see what the difference is from before, when the different numbers indicated that the rig left on the plane and the one Hayden got back were possibly not the same rig. I recall those numbers coming from the documents that describe it as a 'second' canopy from the same rig, 'an integral part' of the parachute. That description sounds like they got the numbers by looking at the contents of the rig, which would have required them to open it. That description sounded to me like they were describing the pilot chute, and it was a typo saying it was 24 feet, rather than inches. Again, I recall those other numbers as coming from the document that didn't specifically mention a second (back chute) card. Did I miss something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dudeman17 said:

 

Are you sure there was another card? Unless I missed something from the more recent posts, I don't see what the difference is from before, when the different numbers indicated that the rig left on the plane and the one Hayden got back were possibly not the same rig. I recall those numbers coming from the documents that describe it as a 'second' canopy from the same rig, 'an integral part' of the parachute. That description sounds like they got the numbers by looking at the contents of the rig, which would have required them to open it. That description sounded to me like they were describing the pilot chute, and it was a typo saying it was 24 feet, rather than inches. Again, I recall those other numbers as coming from the document that didn't specifically mention a second (back chute) card. Did I miss something?

 

Yes,

Tosaw claimed in his book that Cooper removed the packing cards.

I think there were two cards found, but the inspection of Hayden's back chute will confirm.

Cossey's recall was the only source for the Cooper chute being his NB6/8, he never produced his records.

If he was wrong and the chute was the 60-9707 then it may have been already found.

 

read more here..

https://themountainnewswa.net/2021/07/29/db-cooper-fbi-documentation-on-the-parachutes-gets-another-review/

chute609707.jpeg.3ffef5bd0752ff0e5bb3369cf48f6165.jpeg

chuteinpestion2a.jpg.1364431f3841e919da046a45aa2846c8.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Eric Ulis didn't have any witnesses and was even shorter on evidence. I have plenty of both. Not enough to convict perhaps, but much more than the nothing you have presented so far on Hahneman. You get legit questions tossed at you...and freak out. B)

 

KC is a disaster, there is nothing there. He doesn't even fit the description. 

If your suspect isn't olive/swarthy/latin in appearance and features you have a real big problem.

Stick a fork in your case for KC, he is done. I think you already know that.

 

I am not pissed because of your question, I am pissed because of your lies and misinformation. 

You keep making assumptions that are just wrong and claims about me that are false. That would piss off anybody.

The question is legitimate, I asked it myself, if the FBI looked at Hahneman then why wasn't he uncovered.

That is were I started... Why wasn't Hahneman Cooper.. was he eliminated, if so why..

I thought there must be something obvious to eliminate him but as I uncovered information he became more likely not less.

I already mentioned that I found a gross error made by the FBI and I also found very high level intervention on behalf of Hahneman. I have proof of both. Also, McCoy's hijacking was at the same time, perhaps the FBI focussed on him as Cooper.

 

You make the assumption that he was eliminated. There is no evidence of that. If he was, we don't know if it was accurate. 

This case is extraordinary and something extraordinary occurred for Cooper to not have been uncovered by the FBI. 

 

Hahneman matches the Cooper profile and description virtually perfectly, better than any other suspect. Hahneman is redacted from FBI files while others (who have died) are not. Hahneman committed a nearly identical crime. FACT, the FBI made a gross error and there was very high level intervention on Hahneman's behalf.. and Hahneman was not a copycat, US official said his plans to HJ predated Norjak.

Based on that, a real investigator would ask why Hahneman was not Cooper.. an amateur would assume he wasn't with no evidence whatsoever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

That is interesting,,

Snowmman is reviewing the bills and money,, I went over that years ago and was smeared ridiculed and told to shut up.. yup, everybody got it wrong.

I already sorted this out.. Carr and Georger got this completely screwed up.

I do have all the 9998 bills in a spreadsheet and identified about 80 of them as TBAR bills. Yes, that took some time.

The money was in packets of 100's in random sequence. Evidence suggests it was in bank bands and then rubber banded into bundles.

The bundles were randomized and rubber banded, not the packets (of 100) but the bundles of packets. Carr and Georger got this wrong, the packets (100's) were not randomized in count, the bundles of packets were.

So, the money went to Cooper in packets of 100's (random sequence) then rubber banded in a random number of packets into bundles. Therefore, money found on TBAR was likely from one bundle of packets rubber banded, not three individual packets. 

 

The FBI list..  what a mess.

The FBI got the Micro with images of all the bills from the bank stash including bills that were not given to Cooper. The FBI was given the start and stop bill numbers for the 15 packets (of 100) that Cooper did not get and were told to deduct those and all in between. Now, the bank immediately made a new emergency stash including those 15 packets on the Micro that did not go to Cooper.. The FBI told the bank they were having difficulty making the Cooper list and asked for the Micro of the new bank stash to check the against the first one..  Confused yet.. The bank gave the FBI a range for those bills on the Micro which had an error in it. Somehow the FBI came up with their list from two Micro lists of two emergency bank stash's.. 

 

The FBI list is re-ordered to be alpha numeric, it is not in the sequence that was given to Cooper which was random. We don't have the actual bill order as it was given to Cooper.

Further, the FBI list is 9998 bills or two short. That is likely due to an error in deducting a start stop set of bills. 

Takeaway, the money went to Cooper in packets of 100's of non-sequential random $20 bills, each packet rubber banded into bundles of random packet counts. The TBAR money most likely arrived as one bundle of several packets not three individual packets. The FBI list was re-ordered and likely contains an error. It is very unlikely but theoretically possible that the TBAR money never actually went to Cooper but was part of the money not given to Cooper and put in the new stash.

The problem is the chain of custody and tracking was all done by the bank, not the FBI. We have no way to check and confirm that they were accurate. We know that the Cooper bills were on the Micro but we can't confirm 100% that the 1st Micro less the 2nd was accurate.

 

I am sure Georger will read this and distort it into some nonsense to cover for his decade old error.

 

Geoger does not have permission to use this post in whole or part.

 

 

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Georger claims bait money is never sent out in paper straps... he cites experts and protocol. Georger is manufacturing a premise to influence perception.

Richard Floyd McCoy ransom money in what,,,, paper straps.

mccoyransompackets.jpg.59cd04f10480e2948750ccfcd6fae033.jpg

 

Even though the evidence strongly suggests paper bands were used it isn't really material. Carr believed that the packets were randomized in count.

CKRET..

"November 29, 2007 · Report reply

The money was packaged in varying amounts, so one bundle would have $500.00 another $1,000.00, there was no uniformity to it. I have been searching for the evidence report from the lab but have not found it yet, lots of files to go through. When I get it you'll be the second to know."

Here he makes two errors, 1st he is referring to the packets of 100 as bundles and 2nd they were not random counts, they were in 100's..

Georger and Carr got this wrong a decade ago and this error plagues the case today.

The important takeaway is the individual packets (100 bills) were not randomized in count, the rubber banded bundles of individual packets was. That means the money went to Cooper in individual packets of 100's and those packets were rubber banded into random sized bundles.

What does that mean,, the TBAR money likely arrived as one rubber banded bundle of several packets (100 bills each).

And that means the idea that the money could have ONLY arrived on TBAR as three separate packets thereby limiting how it got there is BUSTED.

Welcome to 2017.... strapped packets were not opened and recombined.

Edited by FLYJACK
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I have the entire list of 9998 Cooper bills in a spreadsheet matching the alpha numeric list published by the FBI... that FBI list was re-ordered, it does not match the order as given to Cooper on the Micro. We do not have that original order.

I have checked all the start/stop numbers, they are not in there.

You guys have to remember there were two bank emergency stashes and two different Micros sent to the FBI..

The 15 packets left behind and not given from the initial bank stash given to Cooper was immediately incorporated into a second bank stash. The entire Micro for the second emergency stash was requested by the FBI as they were having trouble deleting the bills not given to Cooper based on the initial 15 pairs of stop/start numbers. The second Micro had a range of bills to be deleted and that had an error on one of the bills. 

Was that error material,, no way to know.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, RobertMBlevins said:

 

Yeah, they intervened for him while he was on his way in leg chains to Federal prison. Or maybe not. 

Now you are claiming that some deep state plot intervened and made sure he wasn't charged for the Cooper crime. That is the description of a conspiracy. And to top it off...this means the FBI would have to have spent millions of dollars over the next ten years at least...chasing other suspects when they already 'knew' Hahneman was their guy. Sending agents all over the US to waste their time. Interviewing people uselessly and submitting even more useless reports and files. 

Yeah, right...you are beginning to sound like Bob Knoss. You want to start talking conspiracies and claiming Hahneman's name was redacted from Cooper files? You better come up with some proof of that. 

As far as Hahneman matching the description, so did half the dark-haired, male population in 1971.

Robert, you can't win this, you need to understand you've already lost.

 

It is a fact, there was a very high level intervention on Hahneman's behalf... above the FBI. That doesn't mean the FBI as a whole knew Hahneman was Cooper, the FBI doesn't work like that. You keep making these irrational assumptions.

No, I don't think the FBI as whole knew Hahneman was Cooper or covered it up. The intervention would have been isolated at the very top from higher up.

You use the label "conspiracy theory" to discredit... It is meaningless drivel.. Most things are actually conspiracies.. The term "Conspiracy Theory" was invented as propaganda by the intel agencies to discredit critics. A conspiracy is an act to conspire, an act or agreement toward a common end. That can be applied to virtually everything. It is a propaganda term. Applying the label is meaningless.

Further, the other fact you ignore is that the FBI made a gross error for Hahneman, one that would eliminate him from NORJAK. However, I don't know if it was a legit error or FBI misinformation or if they did use it to eliminate him.

So, we know the FBI is not perfect, they make mistakes, they are also influenced by political factors.

Hahneman is redacted from FBI Cooper files.. long after he died, there is no reason to redact him as all other dead suspects are named. The FBI files are riddled with the names and investigative detiails of major suspects except Peterson because he just recently died and Hahneman who died 30 years ago.. 

The prints here were not confirmed Hahneman's, they were from the plane he hijacked. They compared those to NORJAK's. 

REDACTED.... 

norjakhahprintsnotmatch1.jpg.6828682514678511dc8dee0933d21a5a.jpg

I believe this is likely Hahneman's name redacted, he was identified and in custody before this time,, I filled in the redactions and it fits. Of course since it is redacted I can't prove it.

gregoryhahneman.jpeg.e098152339e62f68e40247a45cb48fd9.jpeg.8d65f7c452ac95013afd9475f3ed7ef9.jpeg

 

And no you are wrong.. as usual, half the male population did not match Cooper's description. Your incredibly biased mind is both exaggerating and only considering the sketch not the full description. You even stick to sketch A even though the FBI clearly stated that sketch B is the most accurate. Sketch A should be trashed.

The best clue and one everyone ignores is the description as dark/olive/swarthy complexion and Latin/Mexican/Indian appearance, descent and features.. and we haven't even got to the age, hair, lips,,,,

It just amazes me that almost everyone ignores this.. not really.

That alone eliminates KC and most Cooper suspects..

Pack your bags and head over to the UFO forum... you lost, all your KC stuff is null and VOID.

KC is not Cooper....  you know it. I know it, everybody with a pulse and a basic understanding of the case knows it.

 

BTW,, I am using you as a foil to get this info to everyone else, not to change your mind.

 

 

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Georger claims bait money is never sent out in paper straps... he cites experts and protocol. Georger is manufacturing a premise to influence perception.

Richard Floyd McCoy ransom money in what,,,, paper straps.

mccoyransompackets.jpg.59cd04f10480e2948750ccfcd6fae033.jpg

 

Even though the evidence strongly suggests paper bands were used it isn't really material. Carr believed that the packets were randomized in count.

CKRET..

"November 29, 2007 · Report reply

The money was packaged in varying amounts, so one bundle would have $500.00 another $1,000.00, there was no uniformity to it. I have been searching for the evidence report from the lab but have not found it yet, lots of files to go through. When I get it you'll be the second to know."

Here he makes two errors, 1st he is referring to the packets of 100 as bundles and 2nd they were not random counts, they were in 100's..

Georger and Carr got this wrong a decade ago and this error plagues the case today.

The important takeaway is the individual packets (100 bills) were not randomized in count, the rubber banded bundles of individual packets was. That means the money went to Cooper in individual packets of 100's and those packets were rubber banded into random sized bundles.

What does that mean,, the TBAR money likely arrived as one rubber banded bundle of several packets (100 bills each).

And that means the idea that the money could have ONLY arrived on TBAR as three separate packets thereby limiting how it got there is BUSTED.

Welcome to 2017.... strapped packets were not opened and recombined.

Flyjack, you've done good work and I agree with all this.

Too bad we don't have a list of start/end serials for the currency Cooper got. All we got are the start/end pairs for the packets he didn't get out of the approx. $230,000 (15 or 16 packets of 100 bills depending on which serials you use)

I believe there is reference to $230,000 somewhere? (or was that deduced as $200k + (15 * (100 * $20) ) implying $30k was removed, and cooper got $200k

I forget. I think that aligns with 15 * $2000 (which is $20 * 100 bills) being removed, from the microfiche list before the Hoover list was published. (of supposedly 10,000 bills, I've not counted that list yet)

 

The idea that strapped 100 count packets were ripped open and recombined before giving them to Cooper, is ridiculous. They didn't have time for that.Nor would it have been that important. As you've shown, it wasn't a fixed protocol. 

I believe Carr had a bias, and his bias affected a lot of his information he propagated.

Now, if there were rubber bands around multiple packets, when they were found, then it's interesting that apparently no trace of paper strapping was found. But then again, the idea that crumbling rubber bands were found, is debatable.

And no, I don't think there was a hurried micorfiche of individual bills done that night. The microfiche had already be done. All that happened was recording of the start/end serials of the packets Cooper got. (which we don't have documentation of, only indirectly through the "Hoover memo" list.

Edited by snowmman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

What info? Your personal belief that Kenny Christiansen wasn't Cooper? Like you would know? As if you have access to our files on he and Bernie Geestman? 

Unfortunately, we sort of got 'the info' out years ago regarding Kenny when we made the report on him available as a free download to the public for years, and did the videos and presentations to the Seattle FBI. I stopped counting the downloads after the first 100,000 or so. You are a day late and several dollars short. 

I do NOT know that KC isn't Cooper. You can stop quoting that because if I knew that for sure I would have said so by now. Your opinion on him and mine are far different.

If all my stuff on KC was null and void, the book would not continue to sell each month in good quantities ten years after its initial release, and people I never heard of would not be sending me emails with questions on the Cooper case, or Kenny himself. You have no idea. 

That one document you posted probably WAS regarding Hahneman. It says his prints don't match the ones they got from Flight 305. 

You want to keep going up the food chain at the FBI and the Feds regarding Hahneman and how he was mysteriously bypassed, protected, whatever you wish to call it regarding his involvement in the Cooper case? Then brother you better start producing a bit of evidence on that instead of just claiming it. 

The one big fly in the buttermilk, the one thing you can't explain or dismiss away with claims of conspiracy by your mysterious 'higher ups', (unnamed of course) is that the Feds dropped Hahneman in front of a Federal judge after he was caught, gave him a bunch of years in prison, and made him do ten of them before he was released. 

Your theory on him is a fixation. It is not based on investigation outside of the internet, or on even ONE witness you can name. You have fixated on the ridiculous idea that Hahneman could pull off a high-profile hijacking, steal nearly half a million bucks, jump out over the jungles of Honduras, finally turn himself him, go straight to jail (Do not pass GO, Do not collect $200) and somehow only YOU figured out he might be Cooper? And not with any evidence, not a shred. But by blaming this on 'higher ups' in the government without even bothering to back any of that garbage with a bit of evidence. If you worked for the Washington Post, they would tell you to verify your sources. Problem is...you don't HAVE any. 

Even Eric Ulis didn't do THAT. In fact, he is a better man than you, and a better investigator. Here is why: He figured out he was barking up the wrong tree and admitted it, and he is putting up the bucks for Cooper Con. You have done some good research on the chutes and the money, but these are things that won't lead you to the identity of Cooper. You are farting around with trivial stuff that in the end won't get you any closer to identifying him. 

Dude, I have the receipts and I have good reasons for not sharing them. I have thousands of pieces of information.

FACT,, Hahneman was redacted,,, you were what you call it.. WRONG, OUCH

Just because you and Eric were motivated to make your cases public doesn't mean everyone has to.

Besides, your attack on me and my research is irrelevant, what I say or do or release doesn't impact whether Hahneman was Cooper in any way. He either was or wasn't and you can't prove he wasn't. I tried and I can't prove he wasn't.

You have this irrational obsession claiming that because I don't release my research then Hahneman wasn't Cooper.... this is insane.

Your claim that he wasn't because the FBI would have figured it out and told everybody is conjecture, not fact. You do understand the difference.

The FBI looked at KC years before you and you sent your KC case to the FBI and they didn't do anything, by your logic that proves he wasn't Cooper. oops.. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.... I wouldn't eliminate any suspect based on the actions of the FBI. Even Eric shouted over and over that often in cold cases the guilty person was previously looked at by investigators...

Let's bring up Eric,, he finally eliminated Peterson based on Cooper smoking and Peterson not, that was a fact not speculation... get it.

How can Eric be a better investigator when he has got everything wrong. Like your narrative, Eric's narrative is based on conjecture..

I started looking at Hahneman to eliminate him but I found no facts that did.

If you have actual facts that eliminate Hahneman please let me know...

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Unfortunately for you, Mr Blevins.

The case for KC is extremely weak speculation but since KC DOES NOT match the basic description for Cooper, he is eliminated.

You brag about the FBI files being useless... 

Cooper was universally described as having a dark/swarthy/olive complexion and Latin/Mexican/Indian descent, features and characteristics...   that nails Hahneman exactly. That alone doesn't prove he is Cooper but...

It eliminates KC and most other suspects. NOBODY said suntan (in November).

Here are the receipts and I stopped part way though the files.. I think the point is clear.


FBI PART 8 P 18

Complexion: Olive, Latin appearance, medium smooth

FBI PART 8 P 21
average to well built, olive or swarthy complexion, medium smooth, dark brown or
black hair parted on left side, combed back 

FBI PART 8 P 177
Complexion: Olive, Latin appearance, medium smooth
 
FBI PART 8 P 179
ALL OFFICES ARE TO BEAR IN MIND WHEN CAPTIONED CRIME WAS COMMITTED ON NOVEMBER 11, 1971, UNSUB AKA D. B. COOPER WAS
DESCR!BED AS BEING A WHITE MALE, t1ID·FORTIES, 5• 10" TO 6' 0", 170 POUNDS, OLIVE COMPLEXION, AND LATIN APPEARANCE.

FBI PART 9 P 666
The intent of this change to the artist's composite is to more clearly show UNSUB's age and swarthy complexion.
 
FBI PART 9 P 862
WHITE MALE, AGE 40S, HEIGHT 5'10'' TO 6'0", ..
170 TO 180 POUNDS, COMPLEXION OLIVE, LATIN APPEARANCE, MEDIUM SMOOTH, HAIR DARK BROWN OR BLACK, 
 
FBI PART 9 P 919
ALL OFFICES ARE TO BEAR IN MIND WHEN CAPTIONED CRIME WAS ON NOVEMBER 11, 1971, UNSUB AKA. B. COOPER WAS DESCRIBED AS BEING A WHITE MALE, 5 ' 1 0 " TO 6 ' 0 “ , 170 POUNDS, OLIVE AND LATIN APPEARANCE.
 
FBI PART 10 P 1304
complexion olive, medium smooth
 
FBI PART 10 P 1531
DESCRIPTION OF THF. SUBJECT OBTAINED BY INTERVIEW WITH STEWARDESSES AS FOLLOWS;
WHITE, MALE, AMERICAN, OLIVE COMPLEXION, LATIN APPEARANCE
 
FBI PART 10 P 1683
OLIVE-TYPE
 
 
FBI PART 10 P 1683
said that the man appeared to be Latin descent
 
FBI PART 10 P 1752
OLIVE COMPLEXION, LATIN APPEARANCE
 
FBI PART 11 P 1922
FOLLOWING COMPOSITE TAKEN FROM INTERVIEWS OF WITNESSES WHO WERE IN A POSITION TO SEE UNSUB.

RACE, WHITE; SEX, MALE; AGE, MID FORTY'S; FIVE FT TEN TO SIX FT . , ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY TO ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY POUNDS, AVERAGE TO WELL BUILT, OLIVE COMPLEXION, LATIN APPEARANCE, MEDIUM SMOOTH COMPLEXION, DARK BROWN OR BLACK HAIR, NORMAL STYLE, PARTED ON LEFT, COMBED BACK; SIDEBURNS, LOW EAR LEVEL; EYES, POSSIBLY BROWN, 

FBI PART 11 P 1982
DESCRIBED AS WHITE, MALE, MID FORTIES, SEVENTY TO ONE EIGHTY, OLIVE COMPLEXION, OR BLACK HAIR, NORMAL STYLE, PARTED ON SMOKED RALEIGH CIGARETTES.

FBI PART 11 P 2036
Mr. MILNES said the hijacker was described as white, male, American, olive complexion, Latin appearance, black hair, normal hair style parted on left, age middle forties, six feet tall, 170 to 175 pounds, average build, brown eyes. He was wearing a black suit, white shirt, narrow black tie, black rain-type overcoat, black dress suit, and was carrying a dark briefcase.

FBI PART 11 P 2039
Race: Caucasian, believed to be of Mexican-American descent with possibly some American Indian blood

FBI PART 11 P 2047
UNSUB described as white male, mid-forties, five ten to six feet, one seventy to one eighty, olive complexion, latin appearance, dark brown or black hair combed straight back in normal
style, parted on left, smoked Raleigh cigarettes.

FBI PART 11 P 2056
that he has average eyes, of Latin appearance, with a sort of disinterested look
 
FBI PART 11 P 2135
CHEEKS TOO FLAT, SHOULD BE MORE ROUNDED TO GIVE MEXICAN-AMERICAN APPEARANCE.

FBI PART 11 P 2224
WHITE, MALE, MID 40's, 5'1011 TO 611 , 170 Tel 180 lbs., AVERAGE TO WELL BUILT, OLIVE COMPLEXION, LATIN APPEARANCE, MEDIUM SMOOTH, DARK BROWN OR BLACK HAIR, NORMAL STYLE, PARTED ON LEFT, COMBED BACK, SIDEBURNS, LOW EAR LEVEL, POSSIBLY BROWN EYES, DURING LATTER PART OF FLIGHT PUTr DARK, WRAP-AROUND SUNGLASSES WITH DARK RIMS. LOW VOICE, SPOKE INTELLIGENTLY; NO PARTICULAR ACCENT, POSSIBLY FROM MIDWEST SECTION OF THE U.S., HEAVY SMOKER OF RALEIGH FILTER TIP CIGARETTES, WEARING BLACK OR BROWN SUIT; WHITE SHIRT; NARROW BLACK TIE; BLACK DRESS SUIT;

FBI PART 11 P 1987
COMPLEXION: OLIVE, SWARTHY, THE LATIN TYPE

FBI PART 11 P 1841
COMPLEXION: OLIVE, LATIN APPERANCE, MEDIUM SMOOTH
 
FBI PART 12 P 2367
MID-FORTIES; OLIVE COMPLEXION; BROWN EYES
 
FBI PART 12 P 2442
average to well built, olive or swarthy complexion
 
FBI PART 13 P 3119
Complexion: Olive, Latin appearance, medium smooth
 
FBI PART 13 P 3159
which he feels more closely depicts the nose and cheeks of the unknown subject, whom he feels was of Mexican-American dissent with possibly Indian blood.

FBI PART 15 P 4092
COMPLEXION OLIVE, LATIN APPEARANCE,

FBI PART 18  P 5497
RACE WHITE, SEX MALE, AGE MID FORTIES, HEIGHT FIVE FEET TEN INCHES TO SIX FEET, WEIGHT ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY TO ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY POUNDS, BUILD AVERAGE TO WELL BUILT, COMPLEXION OLIVE, LATIN APPEARANCE, MEDIUM SMOOTH; HAIR DARK BROWN OR BLACK, NORMAL STYLE, PARTED ON LEFT, COMBED BACK, SIDEBURNS, LOW EAR LEVEL; EYES POSSIBLY BROWN.

FBI PART 19 P 5934
"Enclosed is an artist's conception of the hijacker who extorted two hundred thousand dollars from Northwest Airlines on November 24, 1971. This man is described as follows:

"Race-white; sex-male; age mid-forties; height-five feet ten inches to six feet; weight-170 to 180 pounds; build-average to well built; complexion olive, latin appearance, medium smooth; hair-dark brown or black; normal style, parted on left, combed back; sideburns, low ear level; eyes-possibly brown.

FBI PART 26 P 8545
He was unable to determine from the photograph the complexion of ______ but again emphasized the hijacker had a swarthy or Latin type complexion and it appeared to him might have such a complexion.

FBI PART 26 P 8574
OLIVE OR LATIN COMPLEXION·

Key witnesses generally agree that unsub had an "olive or Latin" complexion.- One witness indicated a Mexican-American or possibly Indian complexion and characteristics. In addition, unsub expressed a desire to go "anywhere in Mexico”.

FBI PART 26 P 8881
She thereafter remained in the cockpit where she prepared thirteen pages of notes concerning the hijacking and in which she described unsub as in his fifties. She later said he appeared to be of Latin descent.

FBI PART 26 P 8882
believed unsub was a Mexican-American. She bad a short encounter with the unsub prior to her deplaning at Seattle

FBI PART 27 P 9104
To date 475 suspects have been developed based·on appearance, as well as other features. Many of the suspects were developed because of their resemblance to the artist's composite of UNSUB. A 9reat number of these suspects have turned out to be in their 20s or early 30s, with light or fair complexion. According to witnesses, UNSUB's age is in the mid-40s and his complexion is olive or Latin in appearance. The artist's composite clearly· looks like a man in his late 20s or 30s and his complexion is difficult to determine
from the black and white sketch.

FBI PART 27 P 9390
In NORJAK case, • witnesses describe subject's complexion as olive, Latin appearance, medium smooth.

FBI PART 27 P 9327
In view of the fact that unsub in this matter had a swarthy complexion and was tentatively identified by several witnesses as possibly having Mexican ancestry, the following lead is being set out:

FBI PART 28 P 9541
lacks the Mexican or Indian characteristics that ____  noted in the hijacker. 

FBI PART 28 P 9559
further advised that the hijacker definitely had some Indian or Mexican blood in him. He would guess about one quarter Indian or Mexican blood. 

FBI PART 28 P 10037
FACIAL FEATURES: Should reflect a Mexican or Indian ancestry
 
FBI PART 29 P 10072
similar Mexican-type facial features 


FBI PART 33 P 12115
indicated that the unsub's complexion was somewhat swarthy indicating that he might have possibly been an American Indian or Mexican American.

FBI PART 34 P 13102
In view of the fact that UNSUB in this matter is possibly of American Indian decent, the following leads are being set forth pursuant to referenced communication:
Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, snowmman said:

Flyjack, you've done good work and I agree with all this.

Too bad we don't have a list of start/end serials for the currency Cooper got. All we got are the start/end pairs for the packets he didn't get out of the approx. $230,000 (15 or 16 packets of 100 bills depending on which serials you use)

I believe there is reference to $230,000 somewhere? (or was that deduced as $200k + (15 * (100 * $20) ) implying $30k was removed, and cooper got $200k

I forget. I think that aligns with 15 * $2000 (which is $20 * 100 bills) being removed, from the microfiche list before the Hoover list was published. (of supposedly 10,000 bills, I've not counted that list yet)

 

The idea that strapped 100 count packets were ripped open and recombined before giving them to Cooper, is ridiculous. They didn't have time for that.Nor would it have been that important. As you've shown, it wasn't a fixed protocol. 

I believe Carr had a bias, and his bias affected a lot of his information he propagated.

Now, if there were rubber bands around multiple packets, when they were found, then it's interesting that apparently no trace of paper strapping was found. But then again, the idea that crumbling rubber bands were found, is debatable.

And no, I don't think there was a hurried micorfiche of individual bills done that night. The microfiche had already be done. All that happened was recording of the start/end serials of the packets Cooper got. (which we don't have documentation of, only indirectly through the "Hoover memo" list.

A few years back I realized the dominant narrative did not make any sense.. how could the money go to Cooper, get randomized (count) and end up in 100's and the same order as given to Cooper as claimed by the FBI..  It can't.. So, I realized that Carr mixed up bundles and packets...  the packets of 100's were not a randomized count, the rubber banded bundles of random count packets was..

The FBI list has been re-ordered alpha numerically and without the original bill order we can't check their curation of the list. I have the about 80 Cooper bills noted in a spreadsheet and they are dispersed quite randomly throughout the 9998 bills. WE can't do much without the original bill order.

Another thing is the custody of the money vs the micro.. the bank was in control of them and we can't confirm that the micro matched the actual bills given to Cooper.. Theoretically, the bills can appear on the Micro but not be given to Cooper.. I don't think this is the case but we can't check it. For example, there was an airline extortion before NORJAK for $25,000, the person was caught in Portland and the money was never recovered. If, for example the money was taken from the bank stash then replaced but the micro wasn't updated then those bills would appear on the micro but no longer be in the stash.. 

The TBAR..

The evidence indicates money was given to Cooper in 100 bill packets of circulated $20 bills of random SN number sequence. The packets were likely bank paper strapped and those packets rubber banded into bundles of a random count of packets..

That means the rubber bands were at two places around the bundle. Now, the paper bands are not made of the same material currency is and it would deteriorate within months or less if there was abrasion along the bottom of the River. I believe Brian when he said there were rubber band fragments, we have no evidence for the location or any description of those fragments.. After the money lands on TBAR, the regular paper bank bands if still attached deteriorate quickly, and as the rubber bands holding the bundle deteriorate the packets separate slightly.. but there would still be rubber band fragments attached to the top and bottom packet. It all makes sense and is consistent with all the evidence. 

The FBI claimed it was one bundle, in the same order and form as given to Cooper.

This flips the dominant narrative that the money could have only arrived as three independent packets of 100,, this is inconsistent with form the money was given to Cooper. For this to happen then the packets must have been removed from their bundle after being given to Cooper. Further, if they were in bank bands there would be no rubber bands frags found,,

So, it is more likely the money landed on TBAR as one single rubber banded bundle of packets.

That completely changes the means by which it could have arrived. For example Ulis claims Cooper buried the money because three independent packets were found together. Others, claim the money had to arrive in a bag or container because the three packets were independent. Further, a single bundle would never go through a dredge intact. 

Once you realize the single bundle was more likely, it opens up the means of arrival. I believe it came from the River. It doesn't float. The money spot was often underwater in Spring and some Spring between 72 and 79 the money entered the River and tumbled along the bottom to the money spot under the water. At that time, the money spot was effectively the river bottom.

The money would be packaged something like this.. but $20's

1078480638_500000-prop-movie-money-bundles-in-duffel-bag-4copy.thumb.jpg.0ee7a8d86b51e88c64a411bcf281cc0a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

yup, that all makes sense.

Another thing to wade through is the description of money deterioration over time.

In a cold low oxygen environment, like the bottom of the river, the currency could have stayed in good condition for longer than people have described. Deterioration may not have started until it surfaced.

I believe the paper in use for currency doesn't fall apart if held in water, unlike lower quality papers.

rubber bands are similarily affected. Low oxygen, or specifically non-exposure to various gases, would help their lifetime also.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 minutes ago, snowmman said:

 

Did you catch Tom Kaye's diatom research...

It suggests the money entered the River in Spring and was buried soon after... 

Spring only diatom, no winter diatom's..

That would indicate a delay from NORJAK to entering the water, a Spring 72-79...

and a brief exposure to the River during that same Spring.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-70015-z

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2021 at 12:46 PM, RobertMBlevins said:

Although I have backed off a bit from the Cooper Vortex, I think your assessment that the Cooper case is 'not for me' is well...wrong. I make a nice second income from sales of Into The Blast, and except for few haters in Cooperland, the general public does sometimes send nice messages about our investigation. They appreciate we didn't hold anything back, that we made everything we discovered about Kenny Christiansen, as well as Bernie Geestman, and their friends and relatives...completely open and public. We did not hold stuff back and just expect people to take our word on these folks' guilt, or lack of it. We just tossed everything out there for people and let THEM decide, let THEM make their own conclusions. 

 

Robert - If I were to go online and buy a copy of "Into The Blast", would that book tell me that Kenny Christiansen bought his house for cash, or has that error been corrected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
11 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

You want to keep going up the food chain at the FBI and the Feds regarding Hahneman and how he was mysteriously bypassed, protected, whatever you wish to call it regarding his involvement in the Cooper case? Then brother you better start producing a bit of evidence on that instead of just claiming it. 

The one big fly in the buttermilk, the one thing you can't explain or dismiss away with claims of conspiracy by your mysterious 'higher ups', (unnamed of course) is that the Feds dropped Hahneman in front of a Federal judge after he was caught, gave him a bunch of years in prison, and made him do ten of them before he was released. 

Your theory on him is a fixation. It is not based on investigation outside of the internet, or on even ONE witness you can name. You have fixated on the ridiculous idea that Hahneman could pull off a high-profile hijacking, steal nearly half a million bucks, jump out over the jungles of Honduras, finally turn himself him, go straight to jail (Do not pass GO, Do not collect $200) and somehow only YOU figured out he might be Cooper? And not with any evidence, not a shred. But by blaming this on 'higher ups' in the government without even bothering to back any of that garbage with a bit of evidence. If you worked for the Washington Post, they would tell you to verify your sources. Problem is...you don't HAVE any. 

I should address this in more detail..

I don't need to produce anything for you...  or anyone, where do you get this rule from?

Hahneman turned himself in but had hidden the money and he wasn't talking. When he went to court he plead guilty to reduced charges. There is evidence that he worked on CIA contracts as a radio/electronics engineer, he had a high level security clearance... I think they cut a deal, he did 12 yrs. They had to give him some time in jail for his hijacking. Hahmenan and his high level connection had leverage here. The CIA was under scrutiny at the time for illegal activities and Hahneman would be bad publicity if his connections got out.

You keep saying I have no evidence, I do have evidence lots of it. Just because I won't share it doesn't mean I don't have it..  on what planet is that logical.

In fact, I have so much that it is overwhelming and it would take a massive amount of work to present it properly.

It would be investigator malpractice to drop a suspect based on assumptions... that is what you are demanding.

 

BTW,,, last year I solved a 45 year old cold case from my computer at home. It involves a celebrity and they were all set to make a documentary but COVID messed that up as it involves international travel to Japan.

Blevins, have you ever actually solved a famous crime???  has Eric??

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't read the article, thanks for the link.

first thoughts on the article:

looking at the picture, the bills should have been constrained by a paper strap, in multiple bundles secured by rubber bands, as the more likely packaging to cooper, but I think that doesn't change things much.

 
The idea that the bills were as shown, secured by rubber bands only, is very unlikely. The available documentation doesn't support that description. (mostly it comes from Carr pushing his bias, based on some undocumented info and conversations he had..but his point of view colored his descriptions of that info)

Additionally, testing the effect of a single bundle in water isn't interesting. A large number of strapped packets, with groups secured by rubber bands, in a bag, would behave differently.
 
There's nothing to suggest that the first arrival in water, was individual bundles, either from the sky or otherwise. Testing single bundles first, is an assumption/bias about bundles arriving in water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

49 49