DB Cooper

[olemisscub 466]

On 4/7/2023 at 10:19 AM, FLYJACK said:

 

Nicky will stick to Vordahl to the bitter end...  is already hedging and will look for a complete exit opportunity at some point. He was brought forward prematurely before a full investigation was completed.

You're still stuck in the old mindset of proprietary ownership of suspects. I've literally never claimed Vordahl was Cooper. Have I gone to the news media about him like Eric with VP? Have I added him to the Wiki page? Nope. I brought him forward as a person of interest to check into. I think if there is any truth in the TiSb alloy, then he's so far the best suspect that can yet be derived from that lead. If it turns out to be a bogus lead, then so be it.

I have several other suspects who I'm communicating with family members about. I've even sent one of these to you privately. If I was the "Vordahl guy" then why would I be constantly investigating other suspects? If I was convinced Vordahl was Cooper and was making that claim, why would his webpage have so many disclaimers at the bottom of it stating his issues as a suspect? If you had a Hahneman page, I doubt you'd have a section where you discussed his numerous flaws as a Cooper suspect.  

This is a new era in the Vortex, at least that's how I approach it. Your aggressiveness toward others indicates that you view this as a competition. I genuinely don't care if Vordahl is Cooper or not. I'm not suffering from the sunken cost fallacy like Colbert with Rackstraw or Blevins with Kenny. I just want to know who Cooper was, so the more suspects that can be investigated the better.

A researcher IS allowed to bring up MULTIPLE new suspects. Again, you are operating under the traditional rules of the Vortex where if someone brings forth a suspect then they must be proclaiming their undying allegiance to that suspect. That's bullshit. It's not a productive way to be. There are two other new suspects out there who haven't been made public that I'd also like to make a page on my site for at some point soon. Am I going to be "that guy" for three different people to you?

I've created 83 new topics on the Facebook group since December 6th. Only ONE was about Vordahl, and it was literally me posting about the fact that I found out there was a Rem-Cru bowling team called the "Duckpins" and Vordahl and his wife were the low scorers of the group. 83 new topics about the Cooper case and only mentions Vordahl, and was a goofy post about bowling. So I'd genuinely appreciate it if you'd stop conflating (there's that word again) the behavior of previous suspect pushers with me. There's no need to come at me with such hostility as you discuss Vordahl.

This isn't a contest to me. I'm basically exercising in the gym shooting hoops by myself and you run up, snatch the ball from me, dunk it and then flip me off. It's bizarre and just unnecessary. 

Seriously. Knock that shit off with me. That may be your experience with others in the past, but that's not how I roll. 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

You're still stuck in the old mindset of proprietary ownership of suspects. I've literally never claimed Vordahl was Cooper. Have I gone to the news media about him like Eric with VP? Have I added him to the Wiki page? Nope. I brought him forward as a person of interest to check into. I think if there is any truth in the TiSb alloy, then he's so far the best suspect that can yet be derived from that lead. If it turns out to be a bogus lead, then so be it.

I have several other suspects who I'm communicating with family members about. I've even sent one of these to you privately. If I was the "Vordahl guy" then why would I be constantly investigating other suspects? If I was convinced Vordahl was Cooper and was making that claim, why would his webpage have so many disclaimers at the bottom of it stating his issues as a suspect? If you had a Hahneman page, I doubt you'd have a section where you discussed his numerous flaws as a Cooper suspect.  

This is a new era in the Vortex, at least that's how I approach it. Your aggressiveness toward others indicates that you view this as a competition. I genuinely don't care if Vordahl is Cooper or not. I'm not suffering from the sunken cost fallacy like Colbert with Rackstraw or Blevins with Kenny. I just want to know who Cooper was, so the more suspects that can be investigated the better.

A researcher IS allowed to bring up MULTIPLE new suspects. Again, you are operating under the traditional rules of the Vortex where if someone brings forth a suspect then they must be proclaiming their undying allegiance to that suspect. That's bullshit. It's not a productive way to be. There are two other new suspects out there who haven't been made public that I'd also like to make a page on my site for at some point soon. Am I going to be "that guy" for three different people to you?

I've created 83 new topics on the Facebook group since December 6th. Only ONE was about Vordahl, and it was literally me posting about the fact that I found out there was a Rem-Cru bowling team called the "Duckpins" and Vordahl and his wife were the low scorers of the group. 83 new topics about the Cooper case and only mentions Vordahl, and was a goofy post about bowling. So I'd genuinely appreciate it if you'd stop conflating (there's that word again) the behavior of previous suspect pushers with me. There's no need to come at me with such hostility as you discuss Vordahl.

This isn't a contest to me. I'm basically exercising in the gym shooting hoops by myself and you run up, snatch the ball from me, dunk it and then flip me off. It's bizarre and just unnecessary. 

Seriously. Knock that shit off with me. That may be your experience with others in the past, but that's not how I roll. 

 

Correct, you weren't as deep into the particles as Ulis..

You are smarter than Ulis but made similar errors.. I questioned the tie particle connection from the start.

but you did a presentation at CC, you did many podcasts on Vordahl, you have a web page on Vordahl.. you defended him and attack me for taking rational positions....

A guy who has ZERO chance of being Cooper..

There are very good reasons I don't have a Hahneman page..

I am not against investigating theories even if they don't pan out, I have done that myself.. part of the process.

But, you still won't quite admit the facts.. I am not being hostile, I am being rational. 

Can we assume you have now dropped him? It sounds like you have but won't admit it. If not that is fine..

My issue is people repeatedly elevating terrible suspects prematurely and polluting the environment with nonsense... it hurts the case and the credibility of the community. The Cooper case has become a joke to outsiders, a new suspect every week....

I have taken an intelligent approach to this case to get to a potential resolution, you are undermining it.

and I don't play basketball...

 

You are the one who is in a hole and you don't know what I have.. you make it up to discredit me, is that how you roll.

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 37]

13 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

I'm curious why you would say that. One, there is a crew member saying that indeed it was in there, and as someone who routinely flies in aircraft with open doors or open tailgates, I can say that air from outside does come in.

You are correct in that...

is precisely the time it would happen. (How long of a time frame was that?)

Those three turbine engines at the rear of the fuselage, and only a few feet from the aft stairs, ensure that there are no dead air spots in that area.  Remember that the exhaust from jet engines such as those on the 727 can upset cars that are several hundred feet from the rear of the aircraft.  Videos of such things happening are available on the internet.

Except when Cooper was on the aft stairs, which was probably less than two or three minutes total, they were barely open and that further reduces the possibility of air from the exhausts entering the cabin. 

You can't pack air into the cabin so any that entered had to drive out of the cabin an equivalent amount of air.  During the sled tests, FBI agents had loose papers at the rear of the cabin and reported that they were not being disturbed by airflow even when people were on the aft stairs.

Such aircraft as the C-130, C-141, and others with large door openings at the rear of the fuselage plus jump doors on each side of the fuselage are a different matter.  Actually, I have seen C-141s drop tanks and other such large equipment.  But I strongly doubt that any air that came into the cabin/cargo area was from the engine exhausts. 

[Robert99 37]

12 hours ago, georger said:

You can calculate the time the door was open with stairs down using Sluggo's time chart, or the PI Transcript.

Not sure when and where the seats were removed but it may have been in Reno? (Eckley doesnt say anything about "seats" in her statement - guess R99 invented that so he could refute it. )

Georger, why don't you check into Eckley's story?  There is information in the George Harrison papers about when the hijacked aircraft was returned to service.

[georger 197]

1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

Georger, why don't you check into Eckley's story?  There is information in the George Harrison papers about when the hijacked aircraft was returned to service.

April Fools.

[olemisscub 466]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

You are the one who is in a hole and you don't know what I have.. you make it up to discredit me, is that how you roll.

 

At a certain point you can’t keep falling back on this argument as a crutch, Jacque. “You don’t know what I have” is a terribly unfair tactic to win an argument or stop debate. You’re promoting a position that cannot be attacked. 

What if every response to your Vordahl attacks were ducked by me saying “ok dude, you just don’t know what I have.” You see how lame that is? 

Let me guess, your top secret dossier explains why Hahneman appeared four inches taller to witnesses and still had a mouth full of teeth on Nov 24, 1971? 

I know you’re going to defend the fact that Hahneman was missing SEVERAL visible teeth on BOTH sides of his mouth with some nonsense, but everyone reading this is going to realize how you’d be the first in line to attack a suspect (justifiably) who was described as having several visible missing teeth.

 

[FLYJACK 654]

8 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

At a certain point you can’t keep falling back on this argument as a crutch, Jacque. “You don’t know what I have” is a terribly unfair tactic to win an argument or stop debate. You’re promoting a position that cannot be attacked. 

What if every response to your Vordahl attacks were ducked by me saying “ok dude, you just don’t know what I have.” You see how lame that is? 

Let me guess, your top secret dossier explains why Hahneman appeared four inches taller to witnesses and still had a mouth full of teeth on Nov 24, 1971? 

I know you’re going to defend the fact that Hahneman was missing SEVERAL visible teeth on BOTH sides of his mouth with some nonsense, but everyone reading this is going to realize how you’d be the first in line to attack a suspect (justifiably) who was described as having several visible missing teeth.

 

 

It isn't a crutch, that is your imagination, not fact,, you are writing a book, others are as well. I can't give out my suspect specific or case specific info publicly when I am working on my own project.. DON'T BE STUPID, In what world does that make sense. What is accomplished, I prove to you something I already know... when you lie about me and try to discredit me with a claim that you have no ability to know.

THAT IS HOW YOU ROLL.. 

I am not attacking Vordahl, I am proving YOUR claims about the tie linking Vordahl to Cooper are false. You have no defence, there is no response to that fact. I never expected one because there isn't one.. 

I haven't made provably false claims..  

You really think I don't know Hahneman's height(s) or the Cooper witness estimates. 5'9"-5'10" in shoes isn't exculpatory.. You clearly think it is and that is good, many people do and they are all wrong. I am not going to waste time with an irrational position.

 

 

[olemisscub 466]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

You have no defence, there is no response to that fact. I never expected one because there isn't one.. 

 

Kinda like Hahneman missing multiple visible teeth on both sides of his mouth? That’s an absolute kill shot. That should be unrecoverable for a suspect. 
 

This fact should completely expunge Hahneman from contention as Cooper the same as it would any other suspect, but alas you’re going to shrug that off the same way you shrug off every single criticism of Hahneman thrown in your direction: it’s explained in your file. Is that right? 

[DWeber 2]

3 hours ago, olemisscub said:

At a certain point you can’t keep falling back on this argument as a crutch, Jacque. “You don’t know what I have” is a terribly unfair tactic to win an argument or stop debate. You’re promoting a position that cannot be attacked. 

What if every response to your Vordahl attacks were ducked by me saying “ok dude, you just don’t know what I have.” You see how lame that is? 

Let me guess, your top secret dossier explains why Hahneman appeared four inches taller to witnesses and still had a mouth full of teeth on Nov 24, 1971? 

I know you’re going to defend the fact that Hahneman was missing SEVERAL visible teeth on BOTH sides of his mouth with some nonsense, but everyone reading this is going to realize how you’d be the first in line to attack a suspect (justifiably) who was described as having several visible missing teeth.

 

What is the source for this information regarding the teeth? Hahneman FOIA request?

[olemisscub 466]

2 minutes ago, DWeber said:

What is the source for this information regarding the teeth? Hahneman FOIA request?

Yes. I’ll post the complete FOIA for Hahneman in a few minutes so everyone can see how ridiculous a suggestion it is that he was Cooper. 

[olemisscub 466]

Ok, here are the Hahneman FOIA files. Making Stewardesses cry, putting guns to heads and stomachs, a noose around the Captain's neck, scaring passengers, making no attempt to keep the passengers unaware, wearing gloves, making passengers exit out the rear stairs, telling people your parents nationalities, telling people where your father was buried, claiming that you had 2,000 confederates waiting for you at your DZ,  having a stewardess tell the FBI that you are mentally impaired.

It's JUST. LIKE. the Cooper hijacking. 

Hahneman-FOIA.PDF

[FLYJACK 654]

56 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Kinda like Hahneman missing multiple visible teeth on both sides of his mouth? That’s an absolute kill shot. That should be unrecoverable for a suspect. 
 

This fact should completely expunge Hahneman from contention as Cooper the same as it would any other suspect, but alas you’re going to shrug that off the same way you shrug off every single criticism of Hahneman thrown in your direction: it’s explained in your file. Is that right? 

You aren't as bright as I thought you were..

The FBI included 5'8" as the lower bound for vetting suspects but you seem to think you are smarter than the FBI...

The teeth are not exculpatory either,, I don't have the facts to explain the discrepancy but I can come up many possible reasons for it.

[FLYJACK 654]

18 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Ok, here are the Hahneman FOIA files. Making Stewardesses cry, putting guns to heads and stomachs, a noose around the Captain's neck, scaring passengers, making no attempt to keep the passengers unaware, wearing gloves, making passengers exit out the rear stairs, telling people your parents nationalities, telling people where your father was buried, claiming that you had 2,000 confederates waiting for you at your DZ,  having a stewardess tell the FBI that you are mentally impaired.

It's JUST. LIKE. the Cooper hijacking. 

 

There is nothing exculpatory in there, some differences and some the same. I have explained much of this before as the environment was completely different, the actions of crew and the FBI was not the same.

You think it is going to be identical.. 

For the record, that was my FOIA  got, I had to wait 2 years for it..  I was withholding it from the public though I shared summaries with some people,, 

 has decided to undermine my case out of spite,, in fact he may have just ended us finding the solution. I kept it quiet to be able to advance case knowledge.

That is how messed up this guy is. He knows I am working on a project and decided to try to screw me.

 is a fraud,, he has nothing in this case, wasted a year on a non-suspect Vordahl so he tries to ruin my project. 

Fortunately, I do have far more info..

 trashes me for not sharing my info then pulls this stunt proving why YOU DON'T SHARE INFO WITH FRAUDS..

[FLYJACK 654]

I have some fascinating PM's from no doxxxing aka olemisscub,,,

no doxxxing fed me unsolicited info about Ulis, talked about NickyB and trashed the Facebook group.. might be some other things in there.. I never reached out to him he kept sending me stuff.

Maybe I'll post those..  Nobody should ever trust this guy.. He talks trash behind your back,, 

[olemisscub 466]

For the record, I filed a FOIA for that. This is nothing that YOU shared with me.  

Please explain to everyone in the Vortex how me posting that FOIA has ruined your case? 

Seems like you can dish out criticism but can’t take it. Look at how violently angry you are reacting. 

This isn’t YOUR research. These are 50 year old files. 

[FLYJACK 654]

11 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

For the record, I filed a FOIA for that. This is nothing that YOU shared with me.  

Please explain to everyone in the Vortex how me posting that FOIA has ruined your case? 

Seems like you can dish out criticism but can’t take it. Look at how violently angry you are reacting. 

This isn’t YOUR research. These are 50 year old files. 

True, you did a FOIA for the document that I got done and had to wait two years for,, you got in weeks because of me not years. You benefitted from my work.

I can take criticism, if it is valid.

I already explained this to you in private, it is not something for the public.

You know I am working on something big and you are jeopardizing it.. you are also undermining advancement of the case because you are nasty and selfish..

Now would it be OK for me to post your private messages to me here. There is some really interesting stuff in there..

Edited April 8, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

8 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

True, you did a FOIA for the document that I got done and had to wait two years for,, you got in weeks because of me not years.

I can take criticism, if it is valid.

I already explained this to you in private, it is not something for the public.

You know I am working on something big and you are jeopardizing it.. you are also undermining advancement of the case.

Dude, nothing you are working on is undermined by that FOIA. Stop. Your work, if legitimate, will either stand on its own or it won’t.
 

I don’t hoard info. The Vortex should be full of collaborators. I have now filed FOIA’s for over ten hijackings. I will post those in PDF format on Ulis’ Facebook page as I get them. 

[FLYJACK 654]

5 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Dude, nothing you are working on is undermined by that FOIA. Stop. Your work, if legitimate, will either stand on its own or it won’t.
 

I don’t hoard info. The Vortex should be full of collaborators. I have now filed FOIA’s for over ten hijackings. I will post those in PDF format on Ulis’ Facebook page as I get them. 

That is not true.. it does jeopardize further advancements.. You have no idea what I have gone through to get that file produced. There was a prior FOIA that was rejected. I also had an opportunity to bring big money into the case and you screwed that..

Now would it be OK for me to post your private messages to me here. There is some really interesting stuff in there..

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by FLYJACK

[wmw999 2,121]

12 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Now would it be OK for me to post your private messages to me here. There is some really interesting stuff in there..

No, it wouldn’t. While not specifically called out in the forum rules, it’s nevertheless not acceptable unless agreed to by the sender. Doxing is also not specifically against the forum rules, but is also not acceptable.

Wendy P. 

[georger 197]

HAPPY EASTER - EVERYONE.

[Math of Insects 96]

15 hours ago, georger said:

HAPPY EASTER - EVERYONE.

Way to ruin Flyjack's big surprise, Georger.

[georger 197]

8 hours ago, Math of Insects said:

Way to ruin Flyjack's big surprise, Georger.

I have no idea what you mean ?  But ... I have been wondering where things go from here? Forums fractured. No consensus or direction from anyone ???  .............................. ? Edwards seems to be the only one still on task working the case? Applause to Dr Edwards. 

Edited April 10, 2023 by georger

[SeventyWonderful 18]

I found an article online about comic book Dan Cooper here.  The author visited CFB North Bay in 1966, which is the center of operations for NORAD in Canada. There are also USAF personnel stationed there and at other bases throughout Canada because of NORAD.

I haven't seen that discussed much, but I wonder if the hijacker had been USAF stationed in Canada during the Cold War, or perhaps had ties to someone who had been.

[JAGdb 71]

1 hour ago, SeventyWonderful said:

I found an article online about comic book Dan Cooper here.  The author visited CFB North Bay in 1966, which is the center of operations for NORAD in Canada. There are also USAF personnel stationed there and at other bases throughout Canada because of NORAD.

I haven't seen that discussed much, but I wonder if the hijacker had been USAF stationed in Canada during the Cold War, or perhaps had ties to someone who had been.

Over the years, it's been discussed quite a bit.  I believe, but am not 100% certain that the Citizen Sleuths uncovered it originally about 10 or so years back. ( Carol  Abraczinskas).  

Basically, there are two camps...coincidence or not a coincidence.  I am more in the latter camp.

In addition, recently, I believe it was Olemiss, who found even an older publication that uses the character Dan Cooper in an aviation short story or something. (This one was not Canadian based.)

Now, it's possible that the comic wasn't the main influence, it could have been the older publication....or of course neither.

[georger 197]

1 hour ago, JAGdb said:

Over the years, it's been discussed quite a bit.  I believe, but am not 100% certain that the Citizen Sleuths uncovered it originally about 10 or so years back. ( Carol  Abraczinskas).  

Basically, there are two camps...coincidence or not a coincidence.  I am more in the latter camp.

In addition, recently, I believe it was Olemiss, who found even an older publication that uses the character Dan Cooper in an aviation short story or something. (This one was not Canadian based.)

Now, it's possible that the comic wasn't the main influence, it could have been the older publication....or of course neither.

Only a wacko hijacks an airplane because of some comic ?

Very likely DBC knew nothing about this comic, amd he wasnt seeking hero status. He was just 'some guy' with a specific plan and a need; said he had a grudge. Grudges are political. Everything else is just coincidence and social invention, which might even shock the real DBC. DBC never claimed to be the son of God or the Messiah! Only Eric Ulis and his ilk claim that because it serves Ulis' personal agenda. It is Ulis and others who are seeking fame, not DBC. If you can keep that in mind you can keep your head straight in this Ulis social media invention for the consuming public ... you pay your dime and you make your choice just like at the Ulis Cassino. 

Edited April 10, 2023 by georger