DB Cooper

[olemisscub 466]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Nope.

If you claim the FBI got it right then you would be claiming Cooper was 5' 8" plus.. The FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for suspects and occasionally going lower for compelling suspects.. 

So, you actually disagree with the FBI...

The height thing is one of the most misunderstood things in this case.. and people seem to take unwarranted and over confident positions..

 

Things to consider,,,

Suspect height recall for witnesses is not that accurate. Nobody actually measured Cooper's height.

The inside of an aircraft can distort perceptions of height.

When Flo wrote 6' 1" in cockpit she had only seen Cooper seated after he had passed her the note and identified himself as a hijacker.

Tina said Cooper was seated almost the entire time. We know he stood up briefly in her presence, how close?.  

Outside the plane, Al Lee claimed Tina was 5' 6".. Tina's passport says 5' 8".. women tend to exaggerate their height, I assume Tina is 5' 8" and Al Lee's estimate shows how inaccurate estimating can be. 

Flo said Rataczak told the her to remove their shoes.. no indication if any stews actually did.

The initial official Cooper description lower bound was 5' 9" then amended to 5'10" to overweight Tina's testimony.. because she saw Cooper standing. The FBI was over relying on Tina, right or wrong.

Bill Mitchell and Robert Gregory had Cooper at 5' 9" though Cooper was seated. Men are more accurate estimating another man's height than women are.

 

and when people read notations of height for people (for example passport or draft card) it is almost always self reported and doesn't include shoes. That and Tina's height are probably why the FBI went as low as 5' 8"... Somebody listed at 5' 8" somewhere could be 5' 9" in shoes.. If Tina was 5' 8" she could have been 5' 8.5" in those shoes..

Also, self reporting on things like passports and draft cards usually does not include fractions.. people round up or down or concatenate.  I am exactly 5' 8 3/4" bare foot.. in most shoes I am 5' 10".. I would claim my height was 5' 8" or sometimes 5' 9" on documents dropping or rounding the fraction.. 

So, we have variables under stating peoples recorded heights on one side and variables impacting witness estimates on the other... 

 

Cooper's initial description by the FBI was 5' 9" to 6' incorporating Mitchell and Gregory.. 

IMO, the sweet spot is 5'10" plus or minus and inch in shoes. An individual's recorded height could be an inch or so less if without shoes.. Point is, these are witness recall estimates with variables and individual heights are usually under reported.. without shoes. Comparing apples and oranges.

 

 

You’re basically 5’9. Do you think you could possibly estimate someone is 6’1 when they’re really the same height as you are? Likewise, there’s no way if you saw me or Dave that you could possibly mistake us for being your height. We’d be notably taller than you. And if Tina was willing to estimate Cooper as much as 4 inches taller than her, then in her mind he was notably taller. 

Concerning Cooper seated, if anything, this would lead people would led people to underestimate his height. When people saw Cooper seated he was “slouching” (Gregory) or “bending over” (Tina). You just can’t get a very accurate measure of someone seated. 

Look at the people who we know saw Cooper standing. The only one who didn’t go at least as high as 6’ is Lysne, and we know he’s not a good witness, by his own admission. Not interested in debating an inch or two, but literally all 3 stews went up to six feet tall. Reckon anyone has ever thought you were six feet tall or even six one? Hard to imagine.

If a compelling suspect was 5’9, I’d be a bit leery, but I wouldn’t dismiss them outright. 5’8? I just can’t go there. It’s why I could never go all in on Braden. Highly unlikely people could have thought he was 6’. I already have a hard time imaging someone 5’9 being estimated at 6’ by multiple people. 5’8? No way.  

And for future reference, heights and weights on those WWII draft cards would not have been self reported, at least not for the most part. Your height and weight mattered to the military. They measured you in your barefeet. This is why you see so many draft records that have heights like “6’1 1/4” or “5’10 3/4”. 

 

Oh, and Flo actually had already seen Cooper standing when she was sent to the cockpit. She checked him in at the aft stairs as he boarded. 

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

 

You’re basically 5’9. Do you think you could possibly estimate someone is 6’1 when they’re really the same height as you are? Likewise, there’s no way if you saw me or Dave that you could possibly mistake us for being your height. We’d be notably taller than you. And if Tina was willing to estimate Cooper as much as 4 inches taller than her, then in her mind he was notably taller. 

Concerning Cooper seated, if anything, this would lead people would led people to underestimate his height. When people saw Cooper seated he was “slouching” (Gregory) or “bending over” (Tina). You just can’t get a very accurate measure of someone seated. 

Look at the people who we know saw Cooper standing. The only one who didn’t go at least as high as 6’ is Lysne, and we know he’s not a good witness, by his own admission. Not interested in debating an inch or two, but literally all 3 stews went up to six feet tall. Reckon anyone has ever thought you were six feet tall or even six one? Hard to imagine.

If a compelling suspect was 5’9, I’d be a bit leery, but I wouldn’t dismiss them outright. 5’8? I just can’t go there. It’s why I could never go all in on Braden. Highly unlikely people could have thought he was 6’. I already have a hard time imaging someone 5’9 being estimated at 6’ by multiple people. 5’8? No way.  

And for future reference, heights and weights on those WWII draft cards would not have been self reported, at least not for the most part. Your height and weight mattered to the military. They measured you in your barefeet. This is why you see so many draft records that have heights like “6’1 1/4” or “5’10 3/4”. 

 

Oh, and Flo actually had already seen Cooper standing when she was sent to the cockpit. She checked him in at the aft stairs as he boarded. 

Just not convinced.. perhaps you fail to recognize the flaw in your argument. It isn't a 4" difference, 6' is a two inch difference.. Somebody reported as 5' 8" or 5' 9" would be 5' 10" in shoes..

Tina estimated 5' 10" - 6' ... that is a range. Cooper could have been my height plus shoes = 5' 10" and be within Tina's range but you have already rejected based on Tina, that doesn't make any sense...

I am 5' 10" in average shoes but have reported my height as 5' 8"...  my DL had 5' 8" rounded down until I decided to round up to 5' 9", but that doesn't include shoes..  Both passport and DL is self reported.. So, that is a delta of up to 2 inches... due to rounding and shoes.

My research showed that draft cards back then were self reported and filled out by an official, unless somebody can find otherwise. The physical which occurs later is precise and the official military record for the individual, not the draft card. Most draft cards did not use fractions.. usually people round up or down.. and passports are self reported and do not include fractions.

Decades ago you had a physical at the Dr, and got your height without shoes.. that was your height and used for self reporting, people didn't add in shoe height. Some might have exaggerated height for some personal reason but it wasn't common.

I know Flo checked Cooper in but she did not know he was hijacking the plane at that time. Her recall is therefore less reliable,, 

You are applying too much accuracy to the witness estimates. I'll agree a safe assumption is that Cooper was taller in shoes than Tina but how tall was Tina exactly? We know her passport shows 5' 8"  self reported and Al Lee said she was 5' 6"...  

Witness estimates did start at 5' 9" with shoes..

You have previously stated that Cooper couldn't be under 5' 10",, what does that even mean? in shoes? If so you have to deduct 1-2 inches for self reported height variation without shoes or rounding.. 

You are assuming a precision that isn't there.

Bottom line, the FBI used 5' 8" lower bound for suspects reported heights as the lower bound..  Take the witness estimates and deduct 1-2" to compare to self reported height records for suspects.

I'll go with the FBI on this.

Edited January 5 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

Respect your opinion on all that, but personally I’m gonna stick with a preferred range of 5’10 to 6’. If I’m just doing bullet points on a suspect’s description, a 5’11 suspect is going to get that particular box checked but a 6’2 or 5’8 suspect won’t. But that’s just me. 

[FLYJACK 654]

16 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Respect your opinion on all that, but personally I’m gonna stick with a preferred range of 5’10 to 6’. If I’m just doing bullet points on a suspect’s description, a 5’11 suspect is going to get that particular box checked but a 6’2 or 5’8 suspect won’t. But that’s just me. 

What does that even mean. Do you even understand what you are saying...

We are comparing two entirely different datasets,,

Self reported heights without shoes vs witness estimate ranges with shoes..

Some dude 6' in shoes could self report as 5' 10/11" ...  Do you not understand..

Your range of 5' 10" - 6' in shoes would usually be reported as 1-2" less or potentially 5' 8" to 5'10"

If a suspect was self reported as 5' 9" they would be in your range in shoes... but you have rejected,, 

You have to expand the range to account for self reporting variations.

You got this wrong and are conflating two different datasets, the FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for suspects reported height. That is a fact. 

Edited January 5 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

12 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

What does that even mean. Do you even understand what you are saying...

We are comparing two entirely different datasets,,

Self reported heights without shoes vs witness estimate ranges with shoes..

Some dude 6' in shoes could self report as 5' 10/11" ...  Do you not understand..

Your range of 5' 10" - 6' in shoes would usually be reported as 1-2" less or potentially 5' 8" to 5'10"

If a suspect was self reported as 5' 9" they would be in your range in shoes... but you have rejected,, 

You have to expand the range to account for self reporting variations.

You got this wrong and are conflating two different datasets, the FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for suspects reported height. That is a fact. 

The only one of us who got any “fact” wrong was you with saying Flo didn’t see Cooper standing before she wrote 6’1. I can’t be “wrong” by saying that my preferred range for suspects is 5’10-6’. That’s an opinion. 

I’m well aware of how shoes affect things. That’s precisely why I said I won’t outright discount someone who is 5’9. Shoes will make that person appear 5’10. Same logic applies to someone who is 6’2. They’re gonna look 6’3 in shoes. That’s far too tall. 

[WalterRaleigh 8]

On 1/1/2024 at 8:30 AM, CooperNWO305 said:

One more point. On the name  In the notes Gunther says Dan Collins. I need to check and see if Paul Cotton is in the notes. In the book it is Dan LeClair and Paul Cotton  My theory is that Gunther may have gotten a potentially real name and changed it some or was keeping  it from the FBI. My main theory is that Smith wanted to use Dan Clair and may have even given that name or said LeClair. I realize some people don’t like that approach. In 1982 it would have been very hard to match up anything like we can today. We also don’t have all the notes. We may never get those. 

As crazy as it seems, the "Collins" surname points to the Jo Weber theories about Duane. Not trying to throw gas on the fire, just an amusing observation.

[FLYJACK 654]

20 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

The only one of us who got any “fact” wrong was you with saying Flo didn’t see Cooper standing before she wrote 6’1. I can’t be “wrong” by saying that my preferred range for suspects is 5’10-6’. That’s an opinion. 

I’m well aware of how shoes affect things. That’s precisely why I said I won’t outright discount someone who is 5’9. Shoes will make that person appear 5’10. Same logic applies to someone who is 6’2. They’re gonna look 6’3 in shoes. That’s far too tall. 

Big misfire, I didn't get anything wrong. You misunderstood. 

This is what I wrote and I was 100% correct.. I knew she checked him in but he wasn't drawing attention because he hadn't identified himself yet as the hijacker.

"When Flo wrote 6' 1" in cockpit she had only seen Cooper seated after he had passed her the note and identified himself as a hijacker."

Thanks for misrepresenting my comment and trying to discredit me.. 

and you are wrong because the FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound.. and you have frequently stated Cooper was not under 5' 10"..

What do you know that the FBI doesn't?  That is rhetorical, I know the answer..

Edited January 5 by FLYJACK

[ParrotheadVol 70]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

The inside of an aircraft can distort perceptions of height.

Is this a fact or opinion? The reason I ask is because Blevins used this argument for years and no one agreed with him. I took him to task on it on several occasions.

I've always been of the opinion that it would either be easier to judge height inside of an airplane or that it wouldn't be different at all. Is there anything that we can point to that suggest that this is the case?

[olemisscub 466]

29 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Big misfire, I didn't get anything wrong. You misunderstood. 

This is what I wrote and I was 100% correct.. I knew she checked him in but he wasn't drawing attention because he hadn't identified himself yet as the hijacker.

"When Flo wrote 6' 1" in cockpit she had only seen Cooper seated after he had passed her the note and identified himself as a hijacker."

Thanks for misrepresenting my comment and trying to discredit me.. 

and you are wrong because the FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound.. and you have frequently stated Cooper was not under 5' 10"..

What do you know that the FBI doesn't?  That is rhetorical, I know the answer..

Never change, Flyjack. Enjoy your night.

Edited January 5 by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 654]

30 minutes ago, ParrotheadVol said:

Is this a fact or opinion? The reason I ask is because Blevins used this argument for years and no one agreed with him. I took him to task on it on several occasions.

I've always been of the opinion that it would either be easier to judge height inside of an airplane or that it wouldn't be different at all. Is there anything that we can point to that suggest that this is the case?

The smaller space distorts perceptions vs outdoors or a big open space..... if you've flown on a similar sized plane you'd understand how tight it is. I recently flew to Tokyo and tried to estimate passenger heights and it was very difficult using physical references in the plane. Norjak had a luggage rack above Cooper's seat approximately 5' 5" so he could not stand straight up from the seat, he'd have to duck.. The rear bulkhead door was shorter than a normal door... average door height is 80 inches, the rear bulkhead door was 76"...  People would appear taller going through that door,,

This is an early 727-100

This would be 5' 9"

 

1.51m = 5' this 727 luggage rack is a different design. The Norjak rack was about 5" higher above the seats.

 

The rear seat was removed for the sled test.

Edited January 5 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

12 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Never change, Flyjack. Enjoy your night.

I don't care if you get the height wrong. You just run with that.

But, don't try to discredit me with your lies because you can't handle criticism.

[northern flight path 2]

6 feet isn't just a measurement.. it's language. it means tall

I'm 5'9" and no one has ever called me tall, with or without shoes. I'm either called average or short. Certainly no one has ever estimated me at 6 feet. Never. I wish they would

This is over the course of my entire life. It's very difficult for me to imagine 3 or more people thinking I could be as tall as 6 feet within the course of a few hours.

[olemisscub 466]

3 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I don't care if you get the height wrong. You just run with that.

But, don't try to discredit me with your lies because you can't handle criticism.

NO ONE IS TRYING TO DISCREDIT YOU. You ever look around and wonder why literally NO ONE who you berate and bully has ever cried that you were trying to “discredit them?” You’re the only person who thinks like that. I handle criticism fine. YOU are the one who has to be right about EVERYTHING. 

This is a fucking hobby. It’s supposed to be fun, but you make it very, very unfun with your constant combativeness. 

I have a different opinion than you about the perceived height of some asshole from 52 years ago. So what? Is that worth all this negativity that you throw around? 

Enjoy the final word because we all know you just have to have it and are incapable of just letting things go and being amicable. 

For real, you don’t have to be so uncool everytime someone disagrees with you. 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

2 minutes ago, northern flight path said:

6 feet isn't just a measurement.. it's language. it means tall

I'm 5'9" and no one has ever called me tall, with or without shoes. I'm either called average or short. Certainly no one has ever estimated me at 6 feet. Never. I wish they would

This is over the course of my entire life. It's very difficult for me to imagine 3 or more people thinking I could be as tall as 6 feet within the course of a few hours.

What does that have to do with the Cooper case.

Are you 5' 10" in shoes? If so you are within Tina's range but Olemiss would eliminate you based based on Tina's estimate... yes, it makes no sense.

Cooper was seated almost the entire time.

Male witnesses had Cooper from 5' 9"

The FBI used 5' 8" as a lower bound for reported suspect heights,, 

Self reported heights are 1-2" less than in shoes..

 

Why is this so hard to grasp... 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

8 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

NO ONE IS TRYING TO DISCREDIT YOU. You ever look around and wonder why literally NO ONE who you berate and bully has ever cried that you were trying to “discredit them?” You’re the only person who thinks like that. I handle criticism fine. YOU are the one who has to be right about EVERYTHING. 

This is a fucking hobby. It’s supposed to be fun, but you make it very, very unfun with your constant combativeness. 

I have a different opinion than you about the perceived height of some asshole from 52 years ago. So what? Is that worth all this negativity that you throw around? 

Enjoy the final word because we all know you just have to have it and are incapable of just letting things go and being amicable. 

For real, you don’t have to be so uncool everytime someone disagrees with you. 

 

Yes you did, you can't take criticism so you had to claim I got the Flo thing wrong to hit back..

I didn't get it wrong,, you misrepresented what I said to try to discredit me.. you have done it before. It is your MO.

I don't care if you have a different opinion, you can't back it up, you have no argument..

If the FBI used 5' 8" as the lower band, what do you know that they didn't ,,

Answer,,  NOTHING,, your opinion has no merit, might as well just make everything up out of thin air.

Ironically, you initially claimed you agreed with the FBI but in reality it is the FBI that you disagree with not me..

Edited January 5 by FLYJACK

[northern flight path 2]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

What does that have to do with the Cooper case.

Are you 5' 10" in shoes? If so you are within Tina's range but Olemiss would eliminate you based based on Tina's estimate... yes, it makes no sense.

Cooper was seated almost the entire time.

Male witnesses had Cooper from 5' 9"

The FBI used 5' 8" as a lower bound for reported suspect heights,, 

Self reported heights are 1-2" less than in shoes..

 

Why is this so hard to grasp... 

 

Well we are discussing his height and estimations of height. My apologies

Shoes are relative because we all wear them. As I said shoes or no shoes I have never been estimated at 6 feet. Even if the other person was wearing shoes

 

[FLYJACK 654]

23 minutes ago, northern flight path said:

Well we are discussing his height and estimations of height. My apologies

Shoes are relative because we all wear them. As I said shoes or no shoes I have never been estimated at 6 feet. Even if the other person was wearing shoes

 

You need to put it the context of Cooper during the hijacking..

Did you hijack a plane? 

I am 5' 10" in shoes but have never been called 5' 7"..

The witnesses range had Cooper from 5' 9"..  would two male witnesses estimate a guy who is actually 6 feet as only 5' 9".. the bias is to overstate height.

 

Witness height recall estimates are not that accurate.. witnesses use cues like body shape, race, age and presence to estimate age..  when they lack a comparison object they rely on overall impression during recall..  nobody measured Cooper's height.

That isn't the same as somebody standing next to you and guessing your height.

Reported heights in passports or DLs are self reported and usually do not include shoes..  So a suspect with a DL height of say 5' 9" would be 1-2" taller in shoes..

That is probably one of the reasons the FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound.. 

So, if the FBI used 5' 8" for suspects unless somebody knows something they didn't I'll go with that..

 

 

Edited January 5 by FLYJACK

[Cola 26]

1 hour ago, northern flight path said:

6 feet isn't just a measurement.. it's language. it means tall

I'm 5'9" and no one has ever called me tall, with or without shoes. I'm either called average or short. Certainly no one has ever estimated me at 6 feet. Never. I wish they would

This is over the course of my entire life. It's very difficult for me to imagine 3 or more people thinking I could be as tall as 6 feet within the course of a few hours.

 

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

What does that have to do with the Cooper case.

 

1 hour ago, northern flight path said:

Well we are discussing his height and estimations of height. My apologies

Shoes are relative because we all wear them. As I said shoes or no shoes I have never been estimated at 6 feet. Even if the other person was wearing shoes

 

Flight path, you don't owe an apology.!!!  Your post was the most insightful post I've seen on height tonight.

You right --

"6 feet isn't just a measurement.. it's language. it means tall" - this is very true.

99.5 % of height estimates are estimates of individuals in shoes.

Fly's correct in asserting that the Agency needed to account for a reduction in sole  height for their range of considering suspects. I'd never considered that or  questioned the self reporting aspects of discoverable heights.  

Edited January 5 by Cola

[FLYJACK 654]

4 minutes ago, Cola said:

 

 

 

Flight path, you don't owe an apology.!!!  Your post was the most insightful post I've seen on height tonight.

You right --

"6 feet isn't just a measurement.. it's language. it means tall" - this is very true.

99.5 % of height estimates are estimates of individuals in shoes.

Fly's correct in asserting that the Agency needed to account for a reduction in sole  height for their range of considering suspects. I'd never considered that or  questioned the self reporting aspects of discoverable heights.  

You are correct... they don't need to apologize and I am not claiming Cooper had to be under 5' 10" but that a suspect reported under 5' 10" can't be discounted solely based on height..  Olemiss had previously claimed many times Cooper could not be under 5' 10".. 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

Not sure how accurate this site is, historical weather for Portland. Nov 24 1971

Portland at 8-8:30 PM no precipitation, very light precip at 9 PM. Temp was 45 deg. Ground wind was from the South but shifting slightly through the day and from SE at 7PM to SSW at 10PM.. Weather data showed the data for the direction of ground wind was very similar at elevation but speed increased at elevation. Temp was 45 deg.

If accurate for Portland at least.. there was was no precipitation when Cooper jumped and wind was more from the South, not the West.. 

https://weatherspark.com/h/d/757/1971/11/24/Historical-Weather-on-Wednesday-November-24-1971-in-Portland-Oregon-United-States

Edited January 5 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 37]

8 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Not sure how accurate this site is, historical weather for Portland. Nov 24 1971

Portland at 8-8:30 PM no precipitation, very light precip at 9 PM. Temp was 45 deg. Ground wind was from the South but shifting slightly through the day and from SE at 7PM to SSW at 10PM.. Weather data showed the data for the direction of ground wind was very similar at elevation but speed increased at elevation. Temp was 45 deg.

If accurate for Portland at least.. there was was no precipitation when Cooper jumped and wind was more from the South, not the West.. 

https://weatherspark.com/h/d/757/1971/11/24/Historical-Weather-on-Wednesday-November-24-1971-in-Portland-Oregon-United-States

FlyJack, I know you will continue to deny this, but all records show that the wind direction at 10,000 feet, both measured and forecast, was from the southwest (225 degrees true) during the evening of the hijack.  And the airliner was at 10,000 feet.

The ground winds don't mean anything since the airliner wasn't on the ground.

I would suggest that the Weather Underground site might be a better source for the ground weather since it uses the government weather data.   

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, I know you will continue to deny this, but all records show that the wind direction at 10,000 feet, both measured and forecast, was from the southwest (225 degrees true) during the evening of the hijack.  And the airliner was at 10,000 feet.

The ground winds don't mean anything since the airliner wasn't on the ground.

I would suggest that the Weather Underground site might be a better source for the ground weather since it uses the government weather data.   

I asked many times for you to show me your data and you never do... 

I have the data... I am asking for you to show me your data.. because it doesn't say what you think it does.

The wind was shifting and the balloon data does not say what you claim. There are balloon measurement and forecasts... A balloon is sent up 2x per day and can drift hundreds of miles and even land within a few hours..  That balloon could have been hundreds of miles away from Cooper's jump location when he jumped...

A forecast isn't necessarily accurate. 

The data I just posted is measurements at the airport, Weather Underground is the same.

On ground winds, you are correct ground isn't elevation. However, in the balloon data for the two locations the measurement for ground direction was very close to direction at elevation. The difference was speed increased at elevation.. So, we can use ground wind as a proxy for direction at elevation. It wasn't always exact but very close. 

So, show me your data and prove me wrong.. 

My point is that the wind was shifting back and forth between SSE and SSW throughout the day in the area,, and there is no actual data for Cooper's jump location and time..

In other words, the wind direction Cooper encountered when he jumped could have been anywhere between SSE snd SSW... 

You are claiming a level of precision that does not exist.

 

The weather underground data looks the same but in a different format..

https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/KPDX/date/1971-11-24

Measured ground wind Portland at 7PM SE.. at 10PM SSW...

 

Edited January 5 by FLYJACK

[Cola 26]

14 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

The smaller space distorts perceptions vs outdoors or a big open space.....

Agreed- with caveats.

I think this a fair assumption for "the general population" that the interior of a plane is an unusual space and yes it distorts visual perceptions of height, at perspective* relative to more common spaces. (*proximity)

However, there is an experience level here in the stews. I believe this effect would not hold as strongly with the stews. I have to think that the stewardesses spending years in the cabin would naturally adjust for this visual distortion. Also this visual distortion is lessened by proximity. The stewardesses were in the closest proximity to Coops when they interacted with him any visually distortion would have a lower effect with a closer perspective.  

If we stand nose to nose/ face -to- face on a plane the perspective is the same as if we stood face to face in a common area. The visual distortion is lessened with proximity.

I give the stews more weight on height estimates. 

 

 

I have wanted to see us become more organized than reactive with our post. I think we should continue to work through height over the next 2 weeks, and kill this one once and for all in the forum. Let's get everything out there on height now rather than in a year, a year and a half, hashing out height again in a swarm of post.

I'll post what I have on height from the records on Monday and anyone that wants to join kick in, or critique, it feel free.

After height maybe we can move onto something else or ideally schedule topics bi weekly or monthly to hash out.

 

I like the affirmation EU use to say in closing his daily DB. something like..

No one gets to say 100% what the fact are, only Cooper dose.

Meaning, more or less each of us can be completely convinced in our opinion of some minor detail or angle but only Coops will verify the facts and our assertions. 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, Cola said:

Agreed- with caveats.

I think this a fair assumption for "the general population" that the interior of a plane is an unusual space and yes it distorts visual perceptions of height, at perspective* relative to more common spaces. (*proximity)

However, there is an experience level here in the stews. I believe this effect would not hold as strongly with the stews. I have to think that the stewardesses spending years in the cabin would naturally adjust for this visual distortion. Also this visual distortion is lessened by proximity. The stewardesses were in the closest proximity to Coops when they interacted with him any visually distortion would have a lower effect with a closer perspective.  

If we stand nose to nose/ face -to- face on a plane the perspective is the same as if we stood face to face in a common area. The visual distortion is lessened with proximity.

I give the stews more weight on height estimates. 

 

 

I have wanted to see us become more organized than reactive with our post. I think we should continue to work through height over the next 2 weeks, and kill this one once and for all in the forum. Let's get everything out there on height now rather than in a year, a year and a half, hashing out height again in a swarm of post.

I'll post what I have on height from the records on Monday and anyone that wants to join kick in, or critique, it feel free.

After height maybe we can move onto something else or ideally schedule topics bi weekly or monthly to hash out.

 

I like the affirmation EU use to say in closing his daily DB. something like..

No one gets to say 100% what the fact are, only Cooper dose.

Meaning, more or less each of us can be completely convinced in our opinion of some minor detail or angle but only Coops will verify the facts and our assertions. 

 

The tight interior of a plane doesn't give you the normal proportional structures to evaluate a person height... bigger seats, lower ceiling, shorter doors, dimmer lights.. seated..

Think it through.. nobody took a measuring tape to Cooper during the hijacking.. people usually use other known objects to evaluate height. Banks put a measurement beside the door to get an accurate height for robbers.

All witnesses were later asked to recall his height, what do they pull during recall.. an impression, not a measurement.. and studies show that people use things like age, dress, build, race to form an impression. Often witnesses just pick an assumed average height based on that impression.. They don't actually remember the height. It is an impression based on many factors.

Recall is completely different from looking at somebody and coming up with a height.

Nothing is certain but the bias for recall is to over estimate height inside a plane..

The only thing we can use for Cooper is that he was taller in shoes than Tina...  so how tall was Tina exactly? 

 

I have been looking at weight.. and build. It seems that Cooper's weight and build suggest he was at the lower end of the height range rather than the high end.. but people weighed less back in 1971.. and were on average an inch shorter than today.. In the 60's the average American male was 5' 8" today 5' 9"...

I don't think we have enough info to narrow down Cooper's height with any certainty..

Since the FBI used 5' 8" as the lower bound for suspects (reported height) and I can't see any argument otherwise,, I'll go with that.. though IMO, close to 5' 10" in shoes is the sweet spot. It fits the weight and build as well.

and the FBI on occasion went below 5' 8" for compelling suspects...

Edited January 5 by FLYJACK

[Cola 26]

20 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

I’m not sure if you’re new to the case or just new to posting here. You may not be aware of all the background of my post. 
 

Being an “expert” and having three suspects that you’ve continuously pushed is not an evolution. Changing your views depending on the day is not critical thinking or honing your skills. A seismic shift in thinking has really not been warranted in this case since maybe the Colbert files came out. 

Touche... I conceded.

I'm not 100% up with the background on your post.

I'm all for members exploring and making mistakes on candidates. When I talk of critical thinking - honing skills I'm thinking of my own experience, I get better, my thinking evolves - seeing the good, bad and ugly in here.  

I can appreciate members exploring new candidates. I can appreciate exploring bad candidates. I even appreciate members who are overtly pushing flawed candidates or flawed deductions.(ie Reca, Barb, McCoy) I've watching others like you,Fly... battle it our over the years and this has pushed my own thinking allowing me to weigh aspects of the case.

I like NB, for me I have him down as additive. In my book he's a dogged sleuth, a go-get-ter for how he dived in to Vordahl. We want enthusiastic members in the vortex, people that are willing to roll up their selves put energy into the case to push it ahead. He's young enough that he may see this to its conclusion. 

 

Seismic shifts -  Agreed there do not appear to have been any seismic shifts from my view also. seismic personalities, yes! love em, they keep it spicy.

 

Expert it is a comparative term...expert to what, to whom.

I'm not sure what qualifies as an expert. Is it never falling for a candidate? Is it never expressing a flawed deduction? Is it memorizing and referencing 95+% of the case details? Is it the critical thinking, understanding and interpretation vs recall? Is an expert qualified by the case only or must they also know the copycats?

How many top of the game expert experts are out there? 4-5

How many experts are there?= 15-20 maybe

Maybe there are 100 lurkers that have it fairly well dialed in. Who knows?