DB Cooper

[olemisscub 466]

9 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

But in May of 1972 the A sketch was readily available.  I'm not seeing this the same way as you are, so I guess I'm the same as Flyjack. I don't see the checkmate.  Can you comment on the pictures I posted?  If Flo liked KK5-1, then why stick with the A sketch and not do the B sketch?  Wouldn't her picking out KK5-1 lead them to do a new sketch and not necessarily her not liking the initial?

In Flyjack's defense, there has been some shady stuff going on the past year, mainly with Vordahl.  So to think there is an agenda is not some off the wall thought.  I've stated that I think you've distanced yourself from the Vordhal stuff, but to be blunt, you were kind of Nicky's handler for a long time, and what he did reflected on you.  You'll break out of that with your non-fiction book, but it is what it is.  There are still fake FB accounts out there, and people joining groups twice.

I'm finding it best to be careful about who I team up with.

You're misunderstanding the timing. Hopefully this chart clears it up. 

[olemisscub 466]

5 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

I said from the start that Flo was incidental not causation..

And I entirely disagree. She was the cause of them overhauling the sketch instead of merely aging him and coloring him. If you genuinely think that your two best witnesses said a sketch "looked 100% like him" and that they liked the sketch "very much", then you don't create a completely new likeness, you merely make adjustments to it. They thought one of their best witnesses hated it, so they decided to start fresh. It's not complicated. 

[FLYJACK 654]

44 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

And I entirely disagree. She was the cause of them overhauling the sketch instead of merely aging him and coloring him. If you genuinely think that your two best witnesses said a sketch "looked 100% like him" and that they liked the sketch "very much", then you don't create a completely new likeness, you merely make adjustments to it. They thought one of their best witnesses hated it, so they decided to start fresh. It's not complicated. 

Of course you disagree...

Flo being the ONLY cause is 100% speculation, there is no evidence for it.

Flo later said the sketch was no good.

Tina said she never saw Cooper's face.

Sketch A was produced quickly.. and with multiple witnesses together.. not good.

Other witnesses said it was too young..

Anybody with a brain could see it was too young.

The FBI knew sketch A did not reflect the complexion accurately.

The FBI wanted to do a profile and standing image..

Flo's KK5-1 never even mentioned the complexion...

A comprehensive process was used to create sketch B..

Sketch A looks ridiculous and does not fit witness descriptions.

Stews and the FBI said sketch B was most accurate.

 

So, the sketch revision was NOT solely from Flo's KK5-1 comment. That is just ridiculous. It was incidental.

You are cherry picking info to support a bogus conclusion.

Edited December 7, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

9 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Of course you disagree...

Flo being the ONLY cause is 100% speculation, there is no evidence for it. I've provided ample evidence. The literal plain English reading of the 5-20-72 document bares that out. 

Flo later said the sketch was no good. Only AFTER saying she liked it. She also apparently distanced herself from Comp B since Dracula sketch looks nothing like Comp B. Besides, her eventual opinions about Comp B are irrelevant to my thesis. 

Tina said she never saw Cooper's face. Irrelevant to my thesis. 

Sketch A was produced quickly.. Irrelevant. My thesis isn't about whether Comp A is good or not. Bing looks strange as hell. I've not argued otherwise.  

Other witnesses said it was too young.. then you age the sketch up that all 3 stews liked, you don't create a new one from scratch unless you think one of your prime witnesses hates the sketch.

Anybody with a brain could see it was too young. then you age the sketch up that all 3 stews liked, you don't create a new one from scratch unless you think one of your prime witnesses hates the sketch.

The FBI knew sketch A did not reflect the complexion accurately. then you colorize the sketch that all 3 stews liked, you don't create a new one from scratch unless you think one of your prime witnesses hates the sketch. 

The FBAI wanted to do a profile and standing image.. Irrelevant to my thesis.

Flo's KK5-1 never even mentioned the complexion... Irrelevant to my thesis.

A comprehensive process was used to create sketch B.. Irrelevant to my thesis. Why do you think this is an attack on Composite B?

Sketch A looks ridiculous and does not fit witness descriptions. Irrelevant to my thesis, which isn't about whether Comp A looks good or not. 

So, the sketch revision was NOT solely from Flo's KK5-1 comment. That is just ridiculous. It was incidental. The plain English reading of 5-20-72 clearly states that they think one of their primary witnesses thinks the sketch sucks. The very next sentence is a recommendation for an overhaul of the sketch. Highly unlikely they go to the effort of creating a totally new likeness if knew that their primary witnesses all liked the sketch. 

 

 

 

[olemisscub 466]

34 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

you were kind of Nicky's handler for a long time

He's a grown man in his mid-30's. He has personal agency to do whatever he wants. I looked into a suspect with him. Doesn't mean I'm his handler nor that I ever was. 

I just counted 6 other people whom I'm also currently assisting with their suspects. I'll continue to introduce suspects to the Vortex whom I think deserve to be investigated, same as I did with Braden and Vordahl. Just this past year I've introduced Leigh Seller and also Orville Lyons and James Roman (I spoke publicly at CooperCon about all three). There's another suspect being introduced soon in a book that I've greatly assisted on. If I find a suspect compelling, I'll gladly promote them as warranting further investigation by members of the Vortex.

[FLYJACK 654]

Those points are all relevant.

First, that doc is not proof that Flo's comment was 100% responsible. Your claim is false.

All the other points are relevant..

There are conflicting statements from Flo and Tina.. that makes them unreliable. You cherry pick summary comments.

If the sketch looks ridiculous, it is reasonable that the FBI would want to update it.

Flo's KK5-1 comment didn't indicate the complexion... they redid the sketch in part to reflect the complexion in colour.. that had nothing to do with Flo's KK5-1..

That alone is what you call checkmate. Flo wasn't the sole cause of the revised sketch.

Incidental not causation... 

The other points are also relevant but I am not interested in going in circles.

 

Believe what you want, put it in your book,,, I don't really care. Your argument is not supported by the evidence, reason or logic.

Edited December 7, 2023 by FLYJACK

[georger 197]

24 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

 

The problem I have with Flo is her stability - her reliability to be a neutral witness. She obviously had a strong reaction early in the hijacking  - words were not coming out of her mouth! - she was sent to the cockpit and didn't come out ? Later she has another 'strong reaction' and cannot or does not agree with other witnesses attempting to describe the hijacker. ??  Or, does she? Flo seems to have strong attitudes and reactions?

I wonder if the experienced artists working with these witnesses might have had an opinion about who was the 'best most reliable' witness, based on experience, and who was not ? Im not sure Flo fully qualifies as a 'reliable' witnesses. She might be the most outspoken witness!  But not fully reliable ? 

Edited December 7, 2023 by georger

[CooperNWO305 146]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

You're misunderstanding the timing. Hopefully this chart clears it up. 

Weird that she goes from KK5-1 to Bing.  Very different people.  Maybe she was just all out of sorts from the hijacking.  That's the Vortex.  One thing we can agree on is that wwe may never all agree.  I'd love to see some DNA come back and see how everyone argues about that. :)  I hope I'm still alive.

[olemisscub 466]

3 minutes ago, georger said:

The problem I have with Flo is her stability - her reliability to be a neutral witness. She obviously had a strong reaction early in the hijacking  - words were not coming out of her mouth! - she was sent to the cockpit and didn't come out ? Later she has another 'strong reaction' and cannot or does not agree with other witnesses attempting to describe the hijacker. ??  

I wonder if the experienced artists working with these witnesses might have had an opinion about who was the 'best most reliable' witness, based on experience, and who was not ? Im not sure Flo fully qualifies as a 'reliable' witnesses. She might be the most outspoken witness!  But not fully reliable ? 

Well, regardless of whether they thought she was reliable or not, the Cary sketch was created with KK5-1 as a template because the FBI mistakenly thought she chose KK5-1 in opposition to the Bing sketch. 

[FLYJACK 654]

17 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Well, regardless of whether they thought she was reliable or not, the Cary sketch was created with KK5-1 as a template because the FBI mistakenly thought she chose KK5-1 in opposition to the Bing sketch. 

That isn't true,,

They chose to start with KK5-1 because it looked older than Sketch A.

They even stated that was the primary difference. The age.

Edited December 7, 2023 by FLYJACK

[georger 197]

6 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Well, regardless of whether they thought she was reliable or not, the Cary sketch was created with KK5-1 as a template because the FBI mistakenly thought she chose KK5-1 in opposition to the Bing sketch. 

How much training did these stews have about how to handle a hijacking? Any? Alice would have been the most experienced.

[olemisscub 466]

17 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

That isn't true,,

They chose to start with KK5-1 because it looked older than Sketch A.

They even stated that was the primary difference. The age.

Just to get this straight. It's your belief that even if they KNEW that Flo had no major complaints with Bing, they STILL would have sent KK5-1 to Roy Rose instead of just saying "recommend you adjust the sketch to make him look mid 40's"?

[olemisscub 466]

Colorized and aged with a wider nose and pointier chin as per eyewitness suggestions. 

[FLYJACK 654]

2 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Just to get this straight. It's your belief that even if they KNEW that Flo had no major complaints with Bing, they STILL would have sent KK5-1 to Roy Rose instead of just saying "recommend you adjust the sketch to make him look mid 40's"?

Farrell looked at KK5-1 and sketch A,, the primary difference was age. They knew age was not reflected well.. 

That is where they started.

[olemisscub 466]

20 minutes ago, georger said:

How much training did these stews have about how to handle a hijacking? Any? Alice would have been the most experienced.

I asked that stewardess that. She said they spent an afternoon during their stewardess training focus on how to handle hijacks. Essentially, they were told to just keep the hijacker happy and keep passengers calm. She said they were taught where to put a bomb on the plane that would cause the least amount of damage. Said they were told to wrap any explosive device in blankets and shove it against a particular place (I've forgotten).

She said that later on in the early 80's they did a more extensive training and their teachers were guys from Mossad. 

[FLYJACK 654]

4 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Colorized and aged with a wider nose and pointier chin as per eyewitness suggestions. 

I think you are muddying the waters and polluting public perception with the endless photoshops and AI versions of sketches and images..

We have the original descriptions and sketches created by the actual witnesses.

Last I checked you weren't a witness. 

You are not adding value, you are distorting evidence.

[olemisscub 466]

18 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I think you are muddying the waters and polluting public perception with the endless photoshops and AI versions of sketches and images..

We have the original descriptions and sketches created by the actual witnesses.

Last I checked you weren't a witness. 

You are not adding value, you are distorting evidence.

 

[FLYJACK 654]

16 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

 

Are you 12 ...

[Chaucer 103]

There are half a dozen sketches that all look like different people. If anyone muddied the waters and polluted public opinion it was the FBI with so many sketch variations.

Also, it's a 52 year old, unsolved, closed case. Who gives a shit what Cub does with the sketches?

Edited December 7, 2023 by Chaucer

[FLYJACK 654]

18 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

There are half a dozen sketches that all look like different people. If anyone muddied the waters and polluted public opinion it was the FBI with so many sketch variations.

Also, it's a 52 year old, unsolved, closed case. Who gives a shit what Cub does with the sketches?

Essentially we have only two images from the FBI that were used.

Those are the evidence.. the photoshops and AI stuff is not.

Polluting the public sphere with these concocted things distorts the real evidence..

Photoshop is a useful tool and has a place but credible researchers have a responsibility to preserve the original evidence..

Distorting and diluting the actual evidence is not helpful.

IMO, flooding the public space with these distortions is unprofessional and juvenile.

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

25 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Are you 12 ...

Lighten up, Francis 

[FLYJACK 654]

5 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Lighten up, Francis 

Don't act 12..

Your response to criticism is to post a childish joke.

Edited December 7, 2023 by FLYJACK

[CooperNWO305 146]

Let’s go to the A sketch. Bing. Prior to the B sketch starting to be made, how many witnesses do we have commenting on the A sketch? Witnesses/passengers/stews. Not getting into who is a better witness. What do we have? Even a Nancy House who could not help would have some input I hope. If I showed her a pic of OJ Simpson she would at least say it’s not him. I hope. 

[Chaucer 103]

12 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Essentially we have only two images from the FBI that were used.

Those are the evidence.. the photoshops and AI stuff is not.

Polluting the public sphere with these concocted things distorts the real evidence..

Photoshop is a useful tool and has a place but credible researchers have a responsibility to preserve the original evidence..

Distorting and diluting the actual evidence is not helpful.

IMO, flooding the public space with these distortions is unprofessional and juvenile.

 

 

 

Eh, bad take.

Cub isn't distributing his photoshopped sketches on street corners. He's sharing them among people in the Vortex. And he isn't presenting them as if they are the equivalent of the originals or even substitutes. 

And again, it's a 52 year old closed case. Like, it's not a big deal. 

IMO, you are being way too uptight about it. 

[FLYJACK 654]

14 minutes ago, Chaucer said:

Eh, bad take.

Cub isn't distributing his photoshopped sketches on street corners. He's sharing them among people in the Vortex. And he isn't presenting them as if they are the equivalent of the originals or even substitutes. 

And again, it's a 52 year old closed case. Like, it's not a big deal. 

IMO, you are being way too uptight about it. 

First , why do you always have to slide in a personal dig.. is it hard wired into your personality.

 

but you are just wrong,,,

He posts them on forums, facebook I assume, youtube and his website... maybe his upcoming book? They will be forever on the internet.. 

It pollutes the perception and influences people... this is just a fact.

If he wants to be a credible researcher and author, he should be more careful with the evidence, perhaps a disclaimer on the image..

If he wants to influence people's perceptions then by all means post them everywhere.

I have done some photoshopped images for my own research,, if I posted them publicly I'd get trashed for it.

Edited December 7, 2023 by FLYJACK