FLYJACK

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.

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.

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.

No it isn't... They knew from many witnesses that the age and complexion were off, it was B&W after all,, anybody with a brain could see sketch A was too young and didn't show the "swarthy" complexion.. Sketch A looks younger than the first sketch.. I said from the start that Flo was incidental not causation.. They even wanted to do a profile and a standing image.. There is no evidence that revising the sketch was SOLELY due to Flo... that is disproven by the evidence and reason.

So what.. Flo later said the sketches were no good.. there are contradictory statements, I said Flo is flakey. That doesn't specifically refer to KK5-1.. that is one of the summaries that are often inaccurate.. But even if it is so, that doesn't support your conclusion. It is irrelevant. The fact that sketch B was revised using input from all witnesses undermines your argument. If you really want to elevate Sketch A using some bizarre logic, go ahead... you stick with that, I hope you do.

I have to add Flo is flakey and Tina is deceptive. They were the primaries for Sketch A, we know it is bad and doesn't fit the descriptions. They did it in a rush. The nose is ridiculous, the mouth was changed, the hair wrong and the eyes were a guess. Age, complexion and androgynous look,, absurd. Take all those out and you have very little.. the sketch is useless. I am surprised that sketch was even produced, it is clearly inaccurate. The process for sketch B was far more comprehensive and accurate. If anybody wants to stick with sketch A,,, good luck with that.

The singular artist conception is sketch A... You are trying to read Farrell's mind... it does not indicate he thought Flo was referring to Bing,, he was referring to A. He was comparing KK5-1's age to sketch A.. It doesn't even matter what Farrell thought.. You are creating an argument from a premise then added speculation which does not lead to your conclusion. Your conclusion is not supported. The fact is the production of sketch B was very comprehensive vs A... (above you said completed in a few weeks) The stews and the FBI said it was the most accurate likeness. If they are going to revise the sketch under the premise to make the age and complexion more accurate why wouldn't they incorporate all input from witnesses.. Answer is they wouldn't.. Your argument makes no sense. You expect them to get feedback from witnesses ONLY for age and complexion and nothing else.. Hey witnesses look at the revised sketch we have done,,, but we don't want to hear about any issues other than age and complexion... don't change anything else.

You are imagining it,, he is comparing Flo's KK5-1 to sketch A and commenting that the difference is that KK5-1 looks older.. that is confirmed by the other witnesses who also say too young.. The totality of the witness complaints caused sketch B to be done. It does not say or imply that Farrell got the sketches mixed up.. and Sketch B was not finalized in a week,, it took months...

and with sketches vs images... I have many pics of Hahneman and in them he looks like 3 or 4 completely different people.

I always thought the first sketch looked like Jack Lord.. The original Hawaii Five-O was very popular at the time. Jack often wore sunglasses in the show, different styles. The document shows that Flo was referring to the first sketch and not sketch A when she mentioned KK5-1. Sketch A was done quickly primarily in the meeting with the stews. That is where it ends. Farrell referred to Flo's KK5-1 comment in the context of looking older vs Sketch A, that is clear in this paragraph of the 302.. So, there is no indication that Farrell got the images mixed up. He was comparing Flo's KK5-1 to sketch A which confirmed that A looked too young. The 302 also notes other witness complaints about sketch A being too young. So, it wasn't just Flo's KK5-1 but many witnesses that prompted them to redo the sketch older and in colour to show the complexion. The sketch B process was far more comprehensive than sketch A... The stews and the FBI said that sketch B was the most accurate likeness.. Farrell noting Flo's KK5-1 is incidental not causative. I don't see any evidence that he misapplied the KK5-1 comment, it appears he was applying it to sketch A in the context of age. There is nothing to change the Stew/FBI indications that sketch B was the most accurate. IMO, for many reasons sketch A is garbage and should be ignored, that bad sketch may be responsible for the case being unsolved.

Maybe it does get sent.. maybe not.. nobody knows.. and it doesn't matter. Either way the result is the result. Do you think they would update the sketch and only use age and complexion feedback from witnesses,, ignore all other input. If they are updating the sketch they are taking all feedback. They used KK5-1 as a basis, so what, it resembles that guy in the hat image some liked. Stews said B was better and the FBI said it was better. What do you know that they don't...

You are creating a red herring.. several actually. The sketch was redone regardless of Farrell's error. We know, they wanted to address complaints including age and complexion, they involved many witnesses over time with back and forth feedback.. Farrell's potential error is irrelevant for the final product.. You are imagining causation. You really think they would ONLY incorporate witness suggestions ONLY restricted to complexion and age.. That is nuts.

Not buying it. I just posted where the stews said B was better. The FBI said B was better. They went through a comprehensive feedback process of creating an updated sketch so everything is incorporated in it. KK5-1 is irrelevant... Even if it was an error by Farrell it doesn't change the result. There is no causation. Sketch A is ridiculous, it looks nothing like the witness descriptions. It is garbage. IMO, it was rushed and the stews.. Flo is flakey.. Tina is being deceptive.

Back to the map... The original map is several pieces.. if you look here you can see a join. The horizontal line with the hash marks.. WASH is cutoff and the "20:10" notation is partially under the attached piece. This matches the 1971 maps. So, the marks and times were written on it the separate map pieces, then they were attached together before the path was drawn.. and because Boeing made a colour negative and copies of the map,, and the join appearance it is likely that this "yellow" laminated map is a colour print, not the original.

I don't believe that is true about Farrell and the Cary sketch,, it isn't causative. They were doing an updated sketch with many witnesses regardless. It is coincidental. They got complaints about sketch A and pursued a more accurate representation. If the contradictions were equivalent, you could argue the earlier is more reliable,, but then why not argue the original sketch is more valid than sketch A.. it looks closer to sketch B... Sketch A is the outlier. The process was more comprehensive for sketch B vs A and the FBI concluded it is the best/accurate likeness they could get. But, sketch A seems to have been dominated by the stew interview in Minn... perhaps one stew dominated... a quick job,, it is ridiculous.. way too young, nose way too small, hair wrong, eyes irrelevant, androgynous.. Sketch B involved more witnesses over more time and back and forth... The process was different. They are not equivalent. There are no redeeming qualities in sketch A. IMO, It should be ignored.

Sketch A is no good.. it was bad from the get go and threw off the case tainting the public with a bad image.. even the very first sketch is closer to sketch B. It doesn't even look human. The nose is far too small, toss that out,, the hair is wrong, toss that, the lips were criticized and changed, the eyes are unreliable as he wore sunglasses most of the time. Take out those things and not much left. FBI, Sketch B best likeness. Sketch B more accurate.. Stews.. B better.

Flo later said the sketch didn't really look like him.. and so did Hal Williams.. never did look just like him (He may be referring to sketch A?) https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/11/25/All-in-black-during-the-day-of-polyesters-and-plaids/3918375512400/

I watched it,,, overall good job, I disagree on a few points.. Sketch B is the most accurate. If Farrell got the date/image wrong it is irrelevant. It is LIZ - KNEE not LIN ZEE and HA NA MAN not HIGH NA MAN IMO, Tina did see Cooper's face.. she was being deceptive about not seeing his face. It wasn't only Cooper's complexion that was described as latin.. features were also. The FBI used 5' 8" as min height but on occasion went under that for a compelling suspect. I think the "yellow" map may be a colour print of the original from Boeing, Could this be referring to the original map.. the lamination has turned yellow and if it is a print (from above FBI file) the original marker may have been "dark" green. If not what map is this??

Nope.. wrong answer

and when Tina described Cooper's face for the Bing sketch then later claimed she never saw his face straight on... What does that indicate??

In the Unsolved Mysteries episode Flo said the composite never really looked like him. The hair does not.. the face does not.. So, confidence in the sketch is sketchy... Cooper was unmemorable.

Name one incorrect number.. Of course what you will do is reiterate your completely unfounded theory that the plane went straight over TBAR to be at DME 23 PDX at 20:18,, and shortening the path would almost work but it only reduces the ground distance by 8 NM and unfortunately there is no evidence for the alternate flight path.. then you have to ignore other evidence. So, don't bother.

No, you tell me right now what you think I got wrong... You just made the claims, back them up.. If I got something wrong then I'll fix it, but you don't get a free pass to trash my post with no explanation. You have a history of this,, What number is used incorrectly??

It wasn't Chaucer, it was my post.. and it is correct. How can people take you seriously if you can't read. Instead of your typical bloviating with generalities.. and dodging anything specific.. Where is it wrong. Go ahead,, Conclusion is 20:18 at 23 DME needs a 20 k higher average speed and that does not fit the evidence. What you have done for over a decade is created your own path to fit the 20:18 error. Ground distance along the path from 14 DME SEA to 23 DME PDX is measured in NM. The air speed varied between about 170-150 knots. The wind about 35 k..

I can't explain the extra space between the marks before 20:05 or the ones too short about Portland south.. but there are two things... If you take the point 14 DME SEA (19:40) and 23 DME PDX,, The distance measured along the path is 137 NM At 20:22 it is 42 min. 137/42 = 3.262 * 60 = 195.72 NMH average ground speed At 20:18 it is 38 min. 137/38 = 3.61 * 60 = 216.6 NMH average ground speed Air speed after takeoff was about 170 and ground was about 205.. a 35 headwind,, that is another story. We know plane slowed for Cooper's jump.. From 20:05 to 20:15 the timing marks based on distance are very accurate to the minute, perhaps that section was requested. 2005 - 2015 = 31.42 NM 31.42 NM / 10 = 3.142 3.142 * 60 = 188.52 ground speed Cooper's jump speed was noted and tested as about 150 air speed.. 188.52 ground was about 153 air speed. less 35 wind This is consistent. Going back to the 20:18 vs 20:22 time at DME 23 PDX.. For 20:18 the average ground speed of 216.6 is too high especially considering they slowed the plane down.. that means they would have to travel faster than 216.6 initially. However,, an average ground speed of 195.72 is right in the sweet spot. It is an combination of the initial 205 speed and the 188.52. They slowed the plane to 188.52 ground or about 153 air speed, matching Cooper's exit speed. The 20:18 time requires the plane to be going far too fast (20 k faster) to cover that distance. 20:22 fits. Any slight variation in wind along the path or slight key in delay of times does not compensate for the 20 k excess speed at 20:18, it is the outlier.