DB Cooper

[olemisscub 463]

3 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

What a dodge,, you misfired and can't admit it.

MATH claimed there was no reference anywhere to a file...  there is, I posted it that is all.

 

This is idiotic. He SAW the FBI file you posted on Friday. He made REFERENCE to it when he said: "There are a couple of mentions of cigarette-stained fingers, with the first one being made 15-years after the event." What else was that a reference to other than the freaking Merlin Cooper reference? He was off by two years, but it was clear that's what he's referring to. 

He's asking the exact same question that I'm asking. What is the provenance of this statement? Is that so much to ask? If a file suddenly showed up saying that Cooper had missing upper teeth in the FBI files in 1988, wouldn't you want to know where that originally came from? Which witness said it?

[olemisscub 463]

1 minute ago, FLYJACK said:

You falsely accused me of something nefarious, you had no evidence it was made up in your own paranoia..

and you won't admit it.

All I did was post a fact..  that you didn't like.

You posted a REDUNDANT fact. But you decided to post it in a different format for some reason. 

[Math of Insects 95]

Right. Since you appear confused, Flyjack: No one is disputing the single example you posted (with two different appearances) from the files, exists.

It is from 1988.

Himmlebach's book is from 1986. (That's the 15 years I was referring to.)

You have been implying that the source of this must be from somewhere within an unseen cache of yet-to-be-released earlier FBI files, because "anything is possible."

You were gently corrected on the issues of the released files, but dismissed the correction and demeaned the person who offered it.

You have ridiculed the idea that the source of this could be the primary-source book published two years before this FBI file mention, and ignored the fact that every subsequent mention of this fact is demonstrably traceable to that book and/or its author.

And you've been needlessly aggressive and disrespectful, over something that can hardly be worth the energy it takes to work up the dramatic outrage over.

I don't know if you took a bath on an NCAA playoff bet or if you simply fear the impression that others might share the trait of careful thinking, and yet still end up with different conclusions than you. But I do know that when grown men and women act out like this, it's rarely because of confidence in their position or themselves. 

If this is the hill you want to die on, I certainly can't stop you. But personally I think that going down like the Black Knight in Monty Python is beneath you, and makes other assertions you might make bear less weight.

Happy Monday to you, I'm off to visit the rest of the world outside this thread. You might consider the same...




 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Math of Insects

[FLYJACK 654]

1 minute ago, olemisscub said:

This is idiotic. He SAW the FBI file you posted on Friday. He made REFERENCE to it when he said: "There are a couple of mentions of cigarette-stained fingers, with the first one being made 15-years after the event." What else was that a reference to other than the freaking Merlin Cooper reference? He was off by two years, but it was clear that's what he's referring to. 

He's asking the exact same question that I'm asking. What is the provenance of this statement? Is that so much to ask? If a file suddenly showed up saying that Cooper had missing upper teeth in the FBI files in 1988, wouldn't you want to know where that originally came from? Which witness said it?

Wrong,, you are making assumptions.. how do you know what MATH SAW or understood,, are you MATH?

The reference was to Eugene Cooper,, I was posting the clip that specifically said the Dan Cooper info was from a file..  that clip says that the info came from a file,,, get it, that is why I posted it.

Of course we all want more info and sources,, I am not critical of that,,

We don't have all the info and to claim that since we don't have it so it doesn't exist isn't a rational argument.

 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

7 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

You posted a REDUNDANT fact. But you decided to post it in a different format for some reason. 

If it was redundant that would irrelevant..

But, it wasn't redundant,, it is the portion that references the info from a file.. in response to MATH's error.

You are not rational, you have manufactured assumptions and made false attribution..

[olemisscub 463]

1 minute ago, FLYJACK said:

 

The reference was to Eugene Cooper,, I was posting the clip that specifically said the Dan Cooper info was from a file..  that clip says that the info came from a file,,, get it, that is why I posted it.

 

Yes, Merlin Gene Cooper. And the one you already posted says it came from a file too. 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

Just now, olemisscub said:

Yes, Merlin Gene Cooper. And the one you already posted says it came from a file too. 

 

Right, that was my point. MATH falsely claimed there was no reference anywhere to a file,,

I posted that reference. What is your problem.

[olemisscub 463]

Just now, FLYJACK said:

Right, that was my point. MATH falsely claimed there was no reference anywhere to a file,,

I posted that reference. What is your problem.

My problem is the ugliness and negative vibes you present to people who disagree with you. It's not healthy. Everyone can get along in this community. Not much was ever able to get accomplished in the Vortex because of the toxic nature of the actors on the two boards. That was a terrible thing. This can be a cooperative effort. It's not a contest to see who finds Cooper. At least that's not how I view it.

Again, I go back to the way that you must read people's messages. Either you have a personality flaw or you have scar tissue from a decade of posting on toxic message boards. I'm going to assume it's the latter. If I disagree with you I'm not attacking you or questioning your research skills. It's a disagreement among colleagues and friends, that's how I view the Vortex. I think you take this too seriously. At the end of the day, it's just a hobby. I don't need all this negativity. I think you've heard my voice enough to know that I'm not some ultra aggressive dickhead, so I don't know why your go-to response to me questioning you or disagreeing with you is to take it as a personal insult.

If you posted that second Gene Cooper reference solely because of its better clarity, then I apologize for assuming otherwise. 

[FLYJACK 654]

12 minutes ago, Math of Insects said:

Right. Since you appear confused, Flyjack: No one is disputing the single example you posted (with two different appearances) from the files, exists.

It is from 1988.

Himmlebach's book is from 1986. (That's the 15 years I was referring to.)

You have been implying that the source of this must be from somewhere within an unseen cache of yet-to-be-released earlier FBI files, because "anything is possible."

You were gently corrected on the issues of the released files, but dismissed the correction and demeaned the person who offered it.

You have ridiculed the idea that the source of this could be the primary-source book published two years before this FBI file mention, and ignored the fact that every subsequent mention of this fact is demonstrably traceable to that book and/or its author.

And you've been needlessly aggressive and disrespectful, over something that can hardly be worth the energy it takes to work up the dramatic outrage over.

I don't know if you took a bath on an NCAA playoff bet or if you simply fear the impression that others might share the trait of careful thinking, and yet still end up with different conclusions than you. But I do know that when grown men and women act out like this, it's rarely because of confidence in their position or themselves. 

If this is the hill you want to die on, I certainly can't stop you. But personally I think that going down like the Black Knight in Monty Python is beneath you, and makes other assertions you might make bear less weight.

Happy Monday to you, I'm off to visit the rest of the world outside this thread. You might consider the same...
 

I am not the one who is confused. You made false statements.

I am not implying the source, the FBI files are. Calame and Rhodes identified Tina.

and I never ridiculed the idea that the book could be the source. There is no evidence, no argument and it doesn't make sense when you account for all 5 references.

You made false claims and engage in a passive aggressive campaign to discredit me for some reason,,,

You two have no evidence, no rational argument, just a baseless opinion and attack me personally,,, you both have an irrational need need to dismiss the evidence for some reason. 

My position is the correct one, given the evidence we have (at least 5 references) it has to be assumed true until we get information the contrary...  

The incorrect position is that the evidence is false with no facts to show that to be so,

 

[FLYJACK 654]

36 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

My problem is the ugliness and negative vibes you present to people who disagree with you. It's not healthy. Everyone can get along in this community. Not much was ever able to get accomplished in the Vortex because of the toxic nature of the actors on the two boards. That was a terrible thing. This can be a cooperative effort. It's not a contest to see who finds Cooper. At least that's not how I view it.

Again, I go back to the way that you must read people's messages. Either you have a personality flaw or you have scar tissue from a decade of posting on toxic message boards. I'm going to assume it's the latter. If I disagree with you I'm not attacking you or questioning your research skills. It's a disagreement among colleagues and friends, that's how I view the Vortex. I think you take this too seriously. At the end of the day, it's just a hobby. I don't need all this negativity. I think you've heard my voice enough to know that I'm not some ultra aggressive dickhead, so I don't know why your go-to response to me questioning you or disagreeing with you is to take it as a personal insult.

If you posted that second Gene Cooper reference solely because of its better clarity, then I apologize for assuming otherwise. 

What is this a back handed apology..

You attack me personally then apologize.

I appreciate the apology, I assure you I was only posting that clip to prove MATH's statement was incorrect.

I don't care if people disagree with me, I prefer it.. that has been since day 1 and in the long run I am usually proven correct. I try to look beyond their conclusions to understand the logic people use,, maybe I can learn something I don't know or haven't thought of.. 

but I see nonsense here in this instance.. you are entitled to have any opinion but I always look at the reasoning process and there is nothing there,, you had formed an opinion with less info than I had, you have no evidence, not even a rational explanation. I only said I assume it to be true unless contrary evidence comes up.. that is the correct and rational position..  but I was attacked, MATH goes passive aggressive to discredit me.. So, something else is going on here, I can't say I know for sure but both of you have taken irrational positions. Ironically, your arguments conflict..  but you both attack me.

Ultimately, I am disappointed that the high level of critical thinking discourse needed for this case isn't there, at least on the forums, you two exposed it. Not because you have an opinion I don't share but because you can't back it up and feel it is legit. You two attacked me for not accepting your opinion.. 

and if this is an example of the low standard for having an opinion then anything goes in this case and there is no valid discussion on anything and I am not interested in participating. It is Ulis/Blevins zone..

Besides, the way you both disparage, discredit and disrespect me with lies and distortions, you clearly don't care for my contributions, so I don't care to share anything more.

Cooper could have been a 5' 4" 85 year old Japanese woman with a wooded leg,,,  I have no evidence but the info we have was an error.. prove me wrong.

Edited April 3, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 463]

14 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Besides, the way you both disparage, discredit and disrespect me with lies and distortions, you clearly don't care for my contributions, so I don't care to share anything more.

 

“insane” "lost your minds" “worthless credibility” "not rational" “baseless opinions” “waste of time” “beyond ridiculous” “a pile of crap” “incoherent gibberish” “straw man crap” “idiocy” “absolutely insane” “100% clueless” “illogical mess” intellectually dishonest” “paranoid” “warped imagination” “irrational” “your own paranoia” "Ulis/Blevins level"

 

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

“insane” "lost your minds" “worthless credibility” "not rational" “baseless opinions” “waste of time” “beyond ridiculous” “a pile of crap” “incoherent gibberish” “straw man crap” “idiocy” “absolutely insane” “100% clueless” “illogical mess” intellectually dishonest” “paranoid” “warped imagination” “irrational” “your own paranoia” "Ulis/Blevins level"

 

What is your point, it is all true and responses to your (both) attacks or nonsense comments,, BOTH of you accused me of things that were false... 

I never attack people without cause, but if I am attacked I will respond.

All of those things are true.. try putting them in context maybe you will learn something about yourself.

Ulis/Blevins always take positions based on a narrative or opinion and ignore any existing or new evidence that deviates.. they make up excuses out of thin air when confronted for facts. KC had a tan you know..

You two are doing the exact same thing.. you started with an opinion based on partial facts, new facts were dismissed, excuses made and your opinion was intact still based on nothing.

So, how do Calame and Rhodes name Tina and yellowing when Himmelsbach's book never said that???  Let me guess,, they made it all up as well. Everybody is making up evidence,,

Now we need at least 3 errors or coincidences.. but you two have a baseless opinion.

If you two have actual evidence then I would listen and consider it, otherwise we are done.

Edited April 3, 2023 by FLYJACK

[SeventyWonderful 18]

On 3/23/2023 at 12:34 PM, olemisscub said:

Good stuff. Several of the Cooper copycats were referred to by passengers as using phony tough guy expressions like something from a TV show or a movie. 

Here's one such instance:

Wow.  It seems like Our Mister Cooper was an absolute peach compared to what these people had to contend with.  Yikes.

[SeventyWonderful 18]

I'm a cataloging librarian in real life.  A large portion of my job is redescribing legacy records by cleaning up the mistakes that may have cropped up in them over the years.  The basis for this type of work is to trust but verify the information in front of you.  You trust that the person who worked on the record before you did their best but you check the information provided for accuracy.  When you're presented with conflicting information that can't readily be resolved, you put a note on the record describing the situation and you keep going.  This makes it easier for somebody coming along later with more resources at their disposal to work on it some more.  Nothing about record keeping is worth getting upset over.  It's record keeping.  Inaccuracies are absolutely 1000% guaranteed to surface.  Future generations might have a better perspective of the matter at hand or have better resources at their disposal; however, source material may be lost in the interim.  Very smart people may make mistakes.  It's frustrating sometimes but that's the nature of the beast.  It comes with the territory.  That's what makes the discussions interesting.

That's what it sounds like with the report of Cooper's nicotine stained fingers.  You've got thousands of pages of primary source material saying that he had no distinguishing features with no marks nor scars.  Then you have the leading investigator saying he had nicotine stained fingers without much in the way of citations.  He was there, we weren't.  He may well have had access to information that hasn't been released to the public or hasn't been preserved.  On the other side, he may have been mistaken.  He didn't cite his assertion.  His ghost writer may have been mistaken.  He may have had a suspect in mind and was consciously or unconsciously tailoring his narrative to fit.  He may have relied on a case summary with erroneous information.  All this has been brought up in recent posts, right?

Now looking at the rest of the evidence, I do question whether Cooper really did have nicotine stained fingers on his right hand for a couple of different reasons.  

If he really had stained fingers it either means that he smoked like A LOT and didn't wash his hands, or he smoked filterless cigarettes.  He didn't do either on the plane.  He smoked eight filtered cigarettes in five hours while sitting in a tense situation.  That's less than a pack a day which really shouldn't be enough to stain his fingers to the degree described.

It also seems no one was able to see much of his right hand.  On the plane he kept his right hand hidden inside the briefcase for the most part.  Tina sat on his left side.  He smoked with his left hand.  Florence may have seen his right hand some more but she doesn't mention that anywhere else either.

Is the question of the nicotine stained fingers on his right hand part of a bigger discussion as to whether Cooper may be have been left handed (or ambidextrous)? It certainly seems possible that he could have been.  He picked the right hand side of the aisle to sit.  This would make his dominant (left) hand free closest to the aisle of the plane, which would be in a better position to fend off any potential threats (assuming the bomb is fake).

He also kept his right hand inside of the briefcase in order to keep up appearances that he could detonate his bomb at any time.  Again, assuming the bomb was fake, this would have been a ruse to create the illusion of control.  He could use his non dominant (right) hand for that purpose while keeping his dominant (left) hand free.

While keeping his right hand inside the briefcase (with the stained fingers supposedly) he smoked with his left hand, the one without the nicotine stained fingers.  That further calls the report of the stained fingers on his right hand into question.  The only left handed famous person I can think of who smoked is Paul McCartney.  He's pictured smoking with his left hand half of the time.  The other Beatles were right handed and are only occasionally pictured smoking with their right hands.  

Could he perhaps have had a burn mark instead from an earlier injury?  Perhaps it tied in with with mixture of the particles on his tie...if such a scar existed in the first place.  I've read somewhere online that he may have had a scar on one of his hands, but don't have the slightest idea if that's true or why it wasn't included in the FBI reports.

 

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, SeventyWonderful said:

I'm a cataloging librarian in real life.  A large portion of my job is redescribing legacy records by cleaning up the mistakes that may have cropped up in them over the years.  The basis for this type of work is to trust but verify the information in front of you.  You trust that the person who worked on the record before you did their best but you check the information provided for accuracy.  When you're presented with conflicting information that can't readily be resolved, you put a note on the record describing the situation and you keep going.  This makes it easier for somebody coming along later with more resources at their disposal to work on it some more.  Nothing about record keeping is worth getting upset over.  It's record keeping.  Inaccuracies are absolutely 1000% guaranteed to surface.  Future generations might have a better perspective of the matter at hand or have better resources at their disposal; however, source material may be lost in the interim.  Very smart people may make mistakes.  It's frustrating sometimes but that's the nature of the beast.  It comes with the territory.  That's what makes the discussions interesting.

That's what it sounds like with the report of Cooper's nicotine stained fingers.  You've got thousands of pages of primary source material saying that he had no distinguishing features with no marks nor scars.  Then you have the leading investigator saying he had nicotine stained fingers without much in the way of citations.  He was there, we weren't.  He may well have had access to information that hasn't been released to the public or hasn't been preserved.  On the other side, he may have been mistaken.  He didn't cite his assertion.  His ghost writer may have been mistaken.  He may have had a suspect in mind and was consciously or unconsciously tailoring his narrative to fit.  He may have relied on a case summary with erroneous information.  All this has been brought up in recent posts, right?

Now looking at the rest of the evidence, I do question whether Cooper really did have nicotine stained fingers on his right hand for a couple of different reasons.  

If he really had stained fingers it either means that he smoked like A LOT and didn't wash his hands, or he smoked filterless cigarettes.  He didn't do either on the plane.  He smoked eight filtered cigarettes in five hours while sitting in a tense situation.  That's less than a pack a day which really shouldn't be enough to stain his fingers to the degree described.

It also seems no one was able to see much of his right hand.  On the plane he kept his right hand hidden inside the briefcase for the most part.  Tina sat on his left side.  He smoked with his left hand.  Florence may have seen his right hand some more but she doesn't mention that anywhere else either.

Is the question of the nicotine stained fingers on his right hand part of a bigger discussion as to whether Cooper may be have been left handed (or ambidextrous)? It certainly seems possible that he could have been.  He picked the right hand side of the aisle to sit.  This would make his dominant (left) hand free closest to the aisle of the plane, which would be in a better position to fend off any potential threats (assuming the bomb is fake).

He also kept his right hand inside of the briefcase in order to keep up appearances that he could detonate his bomb at any time.  Again, assuming the bomb was fake, this would have been a ruse to create the illusion of control.  He could use his non dominant (right) hand for that purpose while keeping his dominant (left) hand free.

While keeping his right hand inside the briefcase (with the stained fingers supposedly) he smoked with his left hand, the one without the nicotine stained fingers.  That further calls the report of the stained fingers on his right hand into question.  The only left handed famous person I can think of who smoked is Paul McCartney.  He's pictured smoking with his left hand half of the time.  The other Beatles were right handed and are only occasionally pictured smoking with their right hands.  

Could he perhaps have had a burn mark instead from an earlier injury?  Perhaps it tied in with with mixture of the particles on his tie...if such a scar existed in the first place.  I've read somewhere online that he may have had a scar on one of his hands, but don't have the slightest idea if that's true or why it wasn't included in the FBI reports.

 

Somewhat diplomatic,,

but there is no conflicting information, you made a lot of assumptions and leave out the key evidence..

We know Tina smoked at least one filter tipped cigarette, so Cooper smoked 7 at most on the plane.. is that evidence that he couldn't have stains on his fingers.. NO, not at all. 

Having a filter is irrelevant, the stains depend on how the cigarette is held,, Himmelsbach was alluding to this.. yellow stains indicate long term smoking.

Right handed vs left handed is another can of worms. The evidence supports right handed but it isn't explicit.. I believe the FBI knows or has a strong indication but held it back..

 

#1 Himmelsbach book mentions Cooper smoking stains..

#2 Himmelsbach interview mentions it AND adds a bit,, So, Himmelsbach believed it, it was not an error by the book author. 

#3 Years later,, the FBI files mention Cooper having a stain on this right hand, witness info from another file..

#4 McPherson confirms he was the one investigating Eugene Cooper and reiterates the Cooper stain relationship to HIS suspect.

#5.. Calame and Rhodes claim Cooper's stain witness was Tina and described it as "yellowing" this description is more advanced than the Himmelsbach book. So, it didn't come from there, it had another source, the initial book author speculation is debunked. 

So, we need all these errors from different sources to line up for it to be false.. anything is possible, but we have ZERO evidence that is the case.

 

There are at least 5 instances which vary in detail, how does that happen. Coincidence right..

I asked for evidence and only got wild speculation and bogus theories.. 

 

So, is there a factual, legitimate and evidence based argument to explain the 5 instances above,, not a speculative opinion.

Without actual contradictory evidence we have to take it as factual.

Edited April 3, 2023 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

There is one other thing to consider everybody has overlooked..

Tom Kaye noticed a stain on the tie knot area and he determined it was from match residue,, he believes Cooper lit matches with his fingers... probably wooden matches..  could the stains on the fingers of the right hand be from or contributed to by lighting matches?? If so, he is right handed.

Regardless, it seems Cooper lit wooden matches with his fingers... unique.

 

 

[georger 194]

9 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

There is one other thing to consider everybody has overlooked..

Tom Kaye noticed a stain on the tie knot area and he determined it was from match residue,, he believes Cooper lit matches with his fingers... probably wooden matches..  could the stains on the fingers of the right hand be from or contributed to by lighting matches?? If so, he is right handed.

Regardless, it seems Cooper lit wooden matches with his fingers... unique.

 

 

Interesting but speculative. You overlooked another old method. The method of bending over one paper match in its cover and rubbing it with one quick motion on the strike strip, with match still attached in the cover! Is done with a couple of fingers of one one hand while still holding the matchbook. An art. You have to be a pro to do it and not many people can without catching themselves on fire.. There is probably a movie of it somewhere ,,,  keep gaming this. You will find other tricks you can claim Cooper did. Maybe with no hands. Whatever confirms your confirmation.

How did Cooper pee? Any special tricks/lessons there that apply to DB Cooper based on things that only you can see?

Edited April 4, 2023 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

4 hours ago, georger said:

Interesting but speculative. You overlooked another old method. The method of bending over one paper match in its cover and rubbing it with one quick motion on the strike strip, with match still attached in the cover! Is done with a couple of fingers of one one hand while still holding the matchbook. An art. You have to be a pro to do it and not many people can without catching themselves on fire.. There is probably a movie of it somewhere ,,,  keep gaming this. You will find other tricks you can claim Cooper did. Maybe with no hands. Whatever confirms your confirmation.

How did Cooper pee? Any special tricks/lessons there that apply to DB Cooper based on things that only you can see?

Sure, it could be paper matches,,

The point is lighting matches with your fingers is unique, a potential Cooper characteristic not previously noted and indicates a long term smoker..

As for Cooper pee, maybe that is something for urinalysis..

Edited April 4, 2023 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

The NORJAK book never mentioned the right hand.. never mentioned Tina.. both later mentioned.

The source of the cigarette stains was not the NORJAK book..

 

So, we have another source,, or an unbelievable coincidence.

[haggarknew 4]

          As per stained hands...                 I am not sure of the source of this information. Hager and I had conversations concerning the stains. I don't know where's Hag heard about the stains, I was under the impression that Hager might have read about it? It's possible that Hag heard about the stains on one of the Cooper internet sites operating at the time?         Seeing as how many people were pipe smokers at the time, shouldn't we consider the possibility that the stains might come from that?  Also , being the seventies, might the stains have come from cannabis? Just thought I would throw out some other possibilities . 

[Coopericane 44]

On 4/3/2023 at 5:36 PM, FLYJACK said:

Right handed vs left handed is another can of worms. The evidence supports right handed but it isn't explicit.. I believe the FBI knows or has a strong indication but held it back..

What pieces of evidence for Cooper being right-handed do we have? Lysne thought he paid with his right hand, and it's the one he kept inside the briefcase. Anything else? I couldn't find anything about the hand he used to pass the note or cut the shroud lines with. What about the tie? Did how it was worn indicate anything about Cooper's handedness?

I ask because I agree it seems that Cooper was right-handed, but I don't see enough evidence yet to be too confident... and as someone becoming more intrigued by Vordahl this may be the exculpatory evidence I have been dreading (or looking for, haha). Where does the claim of him being a leftie actually come from? A friend? A family member? Multiple persons?

[olemisscub 463]

9 hours ago, Coopericane said:

Where does the claim of him being a leftie actually come from? A friend? A family member? Multiple persons?

Just me talking speculating out of my ass because there is a video of him eating left handed and with what appears to be a cigarette resting in an ashtray near his left elbow in the same video. But then again, in the same video he is seen drinking right handed. Odds are that both Cooper and Vordahl were right handed since 90% of people are. 

My speculation about Cooper being left handed is mostly just derived from him keeping his dominant hand inert most of the time, resting in the briefcase. Just seems logical that you'd want your dominant hand to be free to reach into the aisle or whatever. I don't think there is any dispositive evidence one way or the other on which he hand he used. Sometimes the FBI files for hijackers will state their handedness. For example, the FBI files regarding the hijacker for Flight 175 in May 72 state that he (who turned out to be Hahneman) was right handed. 

[FLYJACK 654]

14 hours ago, Coopericane said:

What pieces of evidence for Cooper being right-handed do we have? Lysne thought he paid with his right hand, and it's the one he kept inside the briefcase. Anything else? I couldn't find anything about the hand he used to pass the note or cut the shroud lines with. What about the tie? Did how it was worn indicate anything about Cooper's handedness?

I ask because I agree it seems that Cooper was right-handed, but I don't see enough evidence yet to be too confident... and as someone becoming more intrigued by Vordahl this may be the exculpatory evidence I have been dreading (or looking for, haha). Where does the claim of him being a leftie actually come from? A friend? A family member? Multiple persons?

Also, Cooper carried the briefcase to the lav flat supported by his left hand, right hand inside the case. Having the dominant right hand inside the briefcase makes sense if the bomb was real. If the bomb was fake there would be no need to keep a hand in it when moving to the lav.  

Cigarette stains on the right hand indicate right handed.. (that is why Ryan rejects it)

Evidence suggests Cooper was right handed but it is not conclusive.

I found a 6th reference to the cigarette stains on the hand.. mentioned in a video. 

Also, Nicky had looked at the cigarette stain and concluded it was legit.. based on corroboration by 3 FBI agents.

That was before he had Vordahl as a suspect,, now what will he do,, reject it?? a logical conflict. The VORTEX will crush you.

If the stains are true, and there is ZERO contrary evidence, Cooper was a right handed long term smoker,, Tom Kaye's research suggest the tie wearer lit matches with his fingers, again indicating long term smoker.

 

Two big problems with Vordahl, the TiSb patent was for a process not for an alloy, the patent doesn't even mention TiSb at 18% being actually produced.. it was a range 2-3% up to 18%...  that is typical for how patents are written to cast wider options, not that it was actually produced at 18%. The patent is a big fat red herring. The Ti patent has been misrepresented..

But the silver bullet for Vordahl is that he was 58, athletic, a competitive tennis player and into organic foods,,  I am a high level tennis player, and with organic foods no way he was smoking at 58. 

Did Ryan and Nicky even notice this obvious problem.. 

Have they dug a hole they are too proud to climb out of?? 

Vordahl was advanced prematurely... at least he wasn't as bad a suspect as Vince Petersen..

Edited April 5, 2023 by FLYJACK

[georger 194]

NEW - Cabin Coated with engine exhaust residue - Required Cleaning After Engine Exhaust Exposure as per NWA employee.

 

SUSAN ECKLEY – FORMER NWA EMPLOYEE  [NWA Facebook Page]

“ My crew took that aircraft back to Mpls with a stop in Spokane with handful of passengers.  It would have been grounded this day in age. Crew would have option not to go, also. Forced back then.

Aircraft was inspected only an hour or so by Feds. There was black smoke residue inside aircraft from exhaust, flying with aft stairs down during incident. Cleaned on stop in Spokane, finally. Northwest didn’t want to put aircraft out of commission as they would lose a dime.   

I was also visiting Spokane tower on 4hr layover and heard beginning of incident. Asked to leave of course.

We had no idea we would be going to Seattle and returning that aircraft to Mpls.  Never heard a words from the company after. “

 

Kaye is aware of this Facebook post but apparently says it is of no value.

Analysis:

Aviation and Global Atmosphere:  Chapter 3:  Aviation Produced Aerosols and Cloudiness

3.2.3.  Soot and Metal Particles

https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/035.htm

Edited April 5, 2023 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

5 minutes ago, georger said:

NEW - Cabin Coated with engine exhaust residue - Required Cleaning After Engine Exhaust Exposure as per NWA

 

SUSAN ECKLEY – FORMER NWA EMPLOYEE  [NWA Facebook Page]

“ My crew took that aircraft back to Mpls with a stop in Spokane with handful of passengers.  It would have been grounded this day in age. Crew would have option not to go, also. Forced back then.

Aircraft was inspected only an hour or so by Feds. There was black smoke residue inside aircraft from exhaust, flying with aft stairs down during incident. Cleaned on stop in Spokane, finally. Northwest didn’t want to put aircraft out of commission as they would lose a dime.   

I was also visiting Spokane tower on 4hr layover and heard beginning of incident. Asked to leave of course.

We had no idea we would be going to Seattle and returning that aircraft to Mpls.  Never heard a words from the company after. “

 

Analysis:

Aviation and Global Atmosphere:  Chapter 3:  Aviation Produced Aerosols and Cloudiness

3.2.3.  Soot and Metal Particles

https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/035.htm

That is a mic drop...

Good one Georger, I always suspected contamination from the engine contributed to some of the particles...