Forums: Skydiving: Skydiving History & Trivia:
DB Cooper

 

First page Previous page 1 ... 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 ... 2184 Next page Last page  View All

mrshutter45

Oct 9, 2012, 2:14 PM
Post #36726 of 54589 (30830 views)
Shortcut
Post deleted by mrshutter45 [In reply to]

 


Amazon  (D License)

Oct 9, 2012, 2:34 PM
Post #36727 of 54589 (30818 views)
Shortcut
Post deleted by Amazon [In reply to]

 


mrshutter45

Oct 9, 2012, 3:16 PM
Post #36728 of 54589 (30811 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Amazon] Saving A Buck And Looking Like A Deer In Headlights [In reply to] Can't Post

Removed




georger

Oct 9, 2012, 8:43 PM
Post #36730 of 54589 (30755 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjack71] What Is Going ON! [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
All of these post which are quickly deleted?

I only came here tonight to make one post. As I have told you guys before I have NOT told everything I know.

Yrs ago an attorney contacted me out of the N.E. When I found that Tina had family in that area by way of this thread, I thought perhaps the attorney was connected. He and I exchanged a few emails. He originally told me his was contacting me was on behalf of a client who thought he or she might have known Cooper. Be aware that I am trying to be very careful how I word this post.

I shared with him what I knew about Weber, but he stayed silent about his client. He did discuss his contacts with me with his client (all I have is his word).

When I suggested he make arrangements for this client and I to meet and talk to each other. He made a weak response, but nothing ever transpired. I offered to go to the person and keep the meeting completely secret - just so the two of us could be reassured we had covered the ground needed...as it appeared there was someone else besides myself in this position - never ending unanswered question about the past.

The client of the attorney is elderly and does NOT live too far from me, but I never received an answer to my quest to meet the other person. This person supposedly resides in an area Duane was known to frequent, but he claimed there was no connection between Duane and his clients suspect.

Since I need to put everything I have in front of the FBI and if the attorney is monitoring this thread I need to know if he took the information to the FBI, but I want to talk to him again. If there is any connections between his suspect and Weber I need to know this.

I realize that Attorney/Client privilege does NOT allow him to disclose who his client is or was.
But, I am wondering if that Client/Attorney privilege extends to the FBI also.

Jo you have mail - sorry for the late reply.
G


RobertMBlevins

Oct 9, 2012, 8:50 PM
Post #36731 of 54589 (30752 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjack71] What Is Going ON! [In reply to] Can't Post

Farflung says in part:

Quote:
'Why would you need a detailed report if YOU were there? This makes is look like YOU were not there and therefore didn’t participate in the interview either...'

I explained everything on this a few pages back. The producers asked me if I wanted to listen in on the interview. I said no. The crew was afraid that if I were in the same room with Geestman that he wouldn't be cooperative. (Turned out not to matter) Later, producers Pete Berg and Marisa Kagan filled me in on what happened via emails. I also got a few other details from the cast of the show. They are Facebook friends.

In a nutshell, it went like this:

They would ask a question and the cameras would roll. Bernie would sit there and say nothing. Cut. Let's try that again. More nothing. Another question. Same thing.

This went on for a total of about three hours. They got about five minutes of film they could actually use. Kagan said later that Geestman didn't realize until he arrived that the cast had already discussed the best questions to ask. (Yes, I suggested a few of those questions) Geestman seemed surprised by most of them.

Georger says in part:

Quote:
'It's 'backyard psychology' on my part, but, I think he has found his 'magic lamp(s)'. They are:

(a) Housecleaning gig.
(b) Adventure Books Publishing of Seattle.
(c) Newsvine and the Internet.
(d) DB Cooper and the Internet.
(e) a few personal relationships.

and he's rubbing them for all they are worth, as much as he can...'

Right. Only a couple of our cleaning customers are even aware AB of Seattle exists, and none of them care about the Cooper case. You really have a fixation on our cleaning business. You mention it a lot. Why do we do it? Okay, I will be upfront on that just this once. We work maybe six hours a day, four or five days a week, no weekends, we take vacations when we wish, and it pays really, really good. The Christmas tip checks we receive equal more than we made in the previous month. We can't be laid off. If someone stops service, we select another customer from the waiting list. We never HAD a recession here, even at its worst we were extremely busy. I could go on.

'DB Cooper and the Internet'. Well, gee...that's real specific. I see posts all over the place with 'Georger' attached to them...mostly on Cooper articles. (Yeah, I know...you didn't actually post the nastier comments. They just stole your username.) I believe you, but you should see some of them. Very colorful, but not something I would want MY name associated with on the internet.

'Personal relationships?' Woo-hoo! Which ones? Who the heck are you? The Dictator of Who Can Be in My Life and Who I Can Speak To?


(This post was edited by RobertMBlevins on Oct 10, 2012, 1:31 AM)


georger

Oct 9, 2012, 11:19 PM
Post #36732 of 54589 (30727 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RobertMBlevins] Geestman vs Blevins ... [In reply to] Can't Post

 
This went on for a total of about three hours. They
got about five minutes of film they could actually
use. Kagan said later that Geestman didn't realize
until he arrived that the cast had already discussed
the best questions to ask. (Yes, I suggested a few
of those questions) Geestman seemed surprised by
most of them.

"If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..."
Marilyn Monroe


Crazy
Maybe Geestman was surprised at the questions,
because it was the craziest damned thing he'd ever
heard ?

Sometimes ordinary explanations are the truth ?

As opposed to extra-ordinary explanations not
even Einstein could think up?

Yes. You've told us how your mother compared you
to Einstein - please don't go over that again!

You see, youve detailed numerous times your
process or the Decoded staff's process in all of this,
from your point of view, the interview, transportation,
ammenities, et cetera. Your conclusions/bias from
the interviews conducted with Geestman.

What you haven;t said "one word" about, is anything
from Geestman's point of view. Do you have any
insight into that ?

You have said Geestman basically sat silent for
three hours. Did he ask for a drink or take out
a 'chaw' and slipped it between his lips, ask to go
to the bathroom ? Ask for a cigar? A better chair?
Ask to get up and walk around? Talk about the
weather? Talk about "that woman"? Surely he did
and said something ???

What did he say later, if anything?


(This post was edited by georger on Oct 9, 2012, 11:33 PM)


RobertMBlevins

Oct 10, 2012, 12:03 AM
Post #36733 of 54589 (30717 views)
Shortcut
Re: [georger] Geestman vs Blevins ... [In reply to] Can't Post

Edit: The Red Bull Guys have a good 2:25 video that appears now instead of the black screen. Turn up your speakers first before clicking on the link. It's pretty cool.

Georger comments:

Quote:
'Maybe Geestman was surprised at the questions, because it was the craziest damned thing he'd ever heard ?'

No. He had already requested six copies of Blast and received them in the mail. He knew what was being alleged, and why. Marisa Kagan told him everything anyway, i.e. Christiansen was being investigated for Cooper, and that he (Geestman) was suspected as being an accomplice. She said this after she sent him the pictures of he and Kenny together.

Quote:
'Sometimes ordinary explanations are the truth?'

Sure. If he HAD any explanations. The crew thought the whole scene was bizarre. He just SITS THERE and says nothing. And he drove all the way down from Port Angeles. Both parties (History Channel and Geestman) already knew he had been caught in a few lies. And about the phone call to his sister. I always point to the only important thing that came out of his appearance: He says Kenny could be the hijacker. But he was WITH Kenny at the time of the hijacking. Why did he say that? If Kenny wasn't the hijacker, he would KNOW that...because he was WITH Kenny. It's a simple point, but I think it's important.

Quote:
'As opposed to extra-ordinary explanations not even Einstein could think up?

Yes. You've told us how your mother compared you
to Einstein - please don't go over that again!'

My mother has never compared me to Einstein. And what 'extra-ordinary explanations' do you mean? If Kenny and Bernie pulled off the crime, we don't think it was all that complicated. I don't see any sense in going over all that again. Everyone knows our theory on it already.

Quote:
'You see, youve detailed numerous times your process or the Decoded staff's process in all of this, from your point of view, the interview, transportation, ammenities, et cetera. Your conclusions/bias from the interviews conducted with Geestman.

What you haven;t said "one word" about, is anything
from Geestman's point of view. Do you have any
insight into that?...'

Only two basic things. Geestman's lies when I interviewed him in Port Angeles, and his saying on Decoded that Kenny could be the hijacker. I only interviewed him the one time, early on in the investigation. Until I checked his story later, I didn't even consider him a suspect. He was consistent on the lies - all of them were an attempt to distance himself from any possible involvement in the hijacking, or any involvement in Kenny's financial transactions between April and October of 1972. We have his ass dead to rights on these lies. They are PROVEN. Foss Tugs, the documention on the house purchase, the testimony from his own sister about the 5K loan. And others.

Quote:
'You have said Geestman basically sat silent for three hours. Did he ask for a drink or take out
a 'chaw' and slipped it between his lips, ask to go
to the bathroom ? Ask for a cigar? A better chair?
Ask to get up and walk around? Talk about the
weather? Talk about "that woman"? Surely he did
and said something ???

What did he say later, if anything?...'

Crew and cast said he just SAT THERE. The director would say cut. They would try again. No response. They were very patient with him. He got lunch, that's all I know. He hasn't said a word since, although his sister's family called me about six weeks ago after seeing the show and reading Blast and confirmed Bernie was both a liar and a crook...and that his sister stands by her testimony for Blast.

I don't know if it matters, but Geestman has children in the Seattle area. Any of them, or Geestman himself, could get us to stop publishing the book and taking down the DB Cooper Info Page from our website simply by having a lawyer call us and threaten a suit. They haven't done so. I've sometimes wondered why.

Just in case anyone gets any ideas about that...I would call OUR lawyer if such a thing happened, and see where we stand before taking any action. And to tell you the truth, I've entertained the idea that it might not be so bad to go to court with Bernie. He would have to answer certain questions he ducked for Decoded. You know...

Quote:
'Luuuuucy! You got some 'splainin' to do!'


(This post was edited by RobertMBlevins on Oct 10, 2012, 12:59 AM)


Farflung

Oct 10, 2012, 8:20 AM
Post #36734 of 54589 (30666 views)
Shortcut
Why On Earth? [In reply to] Can't Post

For some strange reason this video reminds me of this thread:

http://www.bing.com/...8c68e3f0%7C%7C%7C%7C

Funny though, I can’t quite put my finger on why; perhaps it will come to me.


georger

Oct 10, 2012, 9:08 AM
Post #36735 of 54589 (30999 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RobertMBlevins] Geestman vs Blevins ... [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
'Sometimes ordinary explanations are the truth?'

Sure. If he HAD any explanations. The crew thought the whole scene was bizarre. He just SITS THERE and says nothing. And he drove all the way down from Port Angeles. Both parties (History Channel and Geestman) already knew he had been caught in a few lies. And about the phone call to his sister. I always point to the only important thing that came out of his appearance: He says Kenny could be the hijacker. But he was WITH Kenny at the time of the hijacking. Why did he say that? If Kenny wasn't the hijacker, he would KNOW that...because he was WITH Kenny. It's a simple point, but I think it's important.
I agree. It may be important.

"He says Kenny could be the hijacker. But he was
WITH Kenny at the time of the hijacking. Why did he
say that?"

Maybe he said that because it's true?

I see no contradiction. He's saying Kenny could have
been the hijacker, maybe referring to skills and KC's
background (or who knows what). Then he's saying:
'But I was with him' (so he isnt the hijacker). And he
leaves it for geniuses to figure out? Some crusty old
men would do that. Have you ever dealt with old
farmers, or retired Navy salts, or barge guys, old
river rats, old mountain men or school teachers,
retired ministers and rabis, ... not to mention "that
woman!".

Some people will just let you hang and stew in your
juices until you are worked up enough to throw
yourself off a cliff! Happens to insurance salesmen
all the time -

In other words, a lot of people would just let you
stand without an answer until your legs buckle, since
its you making the allegations and are all worked up
(about nothing) - a nobody coming out of nowhere
with a book, to suddenly challenge their lives!

So Geestman may be saying: 'Sure, Kenny could
have done it. But he didn't. I was with him.' And
three hours later with nothing added he's saying:
'Go fuck yourselves. Smart-asses'.

Keep track of the fact that if anything definitive ever
does surface to "prove" Kenny was not DB Cooper,
then everything you and Decoded did and said goes
up like a puff of hot air. Good works are no
protection in a random universe.

And some people just have more 'random' in their
lives than others. Geestman has made it this far.
It is you who are struggling and pounding every day
for attention!

Why do you think Geestman owed you or Decoded
an EXPLANTION about anything? It's a NO SALE.
Move on ...


(This post was edited by georger on Oct 10, 2012, 9:38 AM)


Robert99

Oct 10, 2012, 10:51 AM
Post #36736 of 54589 (30984 views)
Shortcut
Re: [georger] Geestman vs Blevins ... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why do you think Geestman owed you or Decoded
an EXPLANTION about anything? It's a NO SALE.
Move on ...

Blevins, Georger has given you some good advice.

Robert99


Farflung

Oct 10, 2012, 12:34 PM
Post #36737 of 54589 (30974 views)
Shortcut
Apologies Delayed Are Apologies Denied [In reply to] Can't Post

Have some manners and be polite RobertMBlevins. Your vulgar treatment of Bernie is self evident at this point. There was no need to ‘surprise’ Bernie with questions as you are not an agent of law enforcement, or an officer of a court. No matter how much you may believe this with claims of people ‘testifying’ to YOU. These are interviews done on a voluntary basis up to the point that a person is trapped, and then intimidated to stay in a sleazy motel room, with some cameraman hinting that he is with the LAPD.

The fact that you claim the ‘director’ yells ‘cut’ is all one needs to know about this work of fiction. Why on Earth, in the age of video, which is capable of recording German operas, which last for days, would anyone yell cut? Why would anyone stage an ‘ambush’ interview? Either it is spontaneous or it is staged, and Bernie’s interview is clearly staged. The quality of information in such a setting would be nothing but garbage. Once again, this explanation appears to come from some hackneyed television plot and holds no resemblance to reality. I have taken polygraph tests and knew each and every question- beforehand, answered YES or NO (no quibbling) and they took twenty minutes or less. You have somehow beat the masters in the industry, as I was never told if I lied but was given some number on a scale of 1 to 27 (I think) which indicated degrees of potential deception. It was also a very comfortable and sedate session.

Who was it that said Bernie stole his Foss logs (only for 1971)? Was it the same woman who raced in the Iditarod and was the first to drive four Clydesdales abreast? It was found that those claims were false. Did you see a copy of the police report which indicates the date of the ‘break in’ with a list of the ‘stolen’ property. I’m guessing no. But this should serve as fodder for at least four iterations of misunderstanding.

It’s time to apologize to all those you have trespassed, Bernie does not have much longer.
Attachments: Reparations.jpg (199 KB)






RobertMBlevins

Oct 10, 2012, 11:04 PM
Post #36740 of 54589 (30897 views)
Shortcut
Re: [georger] Geestman vs Blevins ... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
'Sometimes ordinary explanations are the truth?'

Sure. If he HAD any explanations. The crew thought the whole scene was bizarre. He just SITS THERE and says nothing. And he drove all the way down from Port Angeles. Both parties (History Channel and Geestman) already knew he had been caught in a few lies. And about the phone call to his sister. I always point to the only important thing that came out of his appearance: He says Kenny could be the hijacker. But he was WITH Kenny at the time of the hijacking. Why did he say that? If Kenny wasn't the hijacker, he would KNOW that...because he was WITH Kenny. It's a simple point, but I think it's important.

Georger says:

Quote:
I agree. It may be important.

"He says Kenny could be the hijacker. But he was
WITH Kenny at the time of the hijacking. Why did he
say that?"

Maybe he said that because it's true?

I see no contradiction. He's saying Kenny could have
been the hijacker, maybe referring to skills and KC's
background (or who knows what). Then he's saying:
'But I was with him' (so he isnt the hijacker)...'

WRONG. At the time Geestman was interviewed, he did not know that Helen Jones and her daughter placed Kenny and Geestman together over the week of the hijacking. And where did you see that Geestman admitted he was with Christiansen? He didn't, even when he was asked. Remember? ('I wasn't an accomplice to Kenny Peter Christiansen or anybody...') I'm currently checking on whether the cast specifically asked him if he was with KC the week of the crime. (See last paragraph for details)

In addition, the Revised Edition of Blast (with the chapter on Jones and her daughter) wasn't released until about three months post-filming. I spoke to Pete Berg about Jones' testimony on the day they were setting up to film Geestman. It was too late to get any of her testimony into the show, although looking back now, I should have insisted on it. But, the main crew was already ready to go at the Bonney Lake Library for my last segment, while a smaller crew over in Puyallup was already making arrangements for Geestman's interview later that day.

As far as the missing Foss Tugs logbook, it wasn't Margie Geestman who discovered it was missing. That was ME. She dragged out this box of logbooks, supposedly to show me how Bernie was double-dipping on payroll or something. I didn't see any evidence of that, although I am not a bookkeeper. What I DID notice was that the '71 log was gone. This seemed awfully coincidental since Bernie G had used Foss as an alibi for his whereabouts the year of the hijacking:

Quote:
'I was gone ten or eleven months out of the year with Foss...' (In 1971)


A senior exec at Foss Tugs has said this was not true.

Margie Geestman then volunteered that the logbook was probably taken by Bernie at the same time he took the other items. No, I didn't see a police report. I saw a front door that had been completely kicked off its hinges, and then sort-of repaired. There were now padlocks on that door, as well as one interior door...the one leading to a spare bedroom full of boxes of pics and documents. Maybe thirty boxes in total. She said the only thing missing after the break-in were several photo albums and a bunch of personal docs, some relating to ownership of the property. This happened within six weeks after Kenny died. (Remember: Geestman said on Decoded he visited Kenny while he was in the hospital and dying.) She had guns in plain sight. None were taken in the break-in, she said, and nothing else. She still had some photo albums, but now only had one picture of she and Kenny, which she had put into a special frame on the wall. (The one of Kenny and her standing together shortly before he died) Since the missing photo albums were mostly pics relating to Bernie somehow, it didn't take Margaret long to figure out who did the break-in. When I discovered the missing logbook, this only reinforced her belief that it was Bernie who broke into the house. My theory on it was that after Kenny died, Bernie drove up there in an attempt to take away anything he could find that linked he and Christiansen somehow, and he did a pretty good job on that. There may be a record with the FBI on this break-in. Margaret said that she spoke to a female FBI agent out of Spokane shortly after the break-in, and more than once. Not because of the missing logbook, (she didn't realize it was gone back then) but because of some missing property ownership papers. I have no other details on that.

I didn't 'lead' or 'coerce' the witnesses like some magical, hypnosis-driven, Svengali. Some gave important info before they even knew Kenny was a suspect in the hijacking. That allegation...that I led the witnesses somehow...is completely ridiculous. Don't you think I thought of that at the beginning? I went out of my way whenever possible to obtain info on Kenny and Geestman without tainting it by saying Kenny was a suspect. That would have been plain stupid. And these people were not the first people I've ever interviewed. Leading witnesses is dumb because then whatever you obtain from them in that manner is tainted and useless. So you don't DO that. You ask questions. You take notes and record the answers. Later, you check on those answers. And that's exactly what I did. On another side note, in her last interview, Margie Geestman admitted that Kenny could have been the hijacker, after months of denial. This makes her the SECOND person to say that, not counting the opinion-only of Bernie's sister. And she said that the day before Bernie said the same thing for Decoded.

It's possible that all the witnesses were either 'led' or they are all lying, and that I forged all the docs and pictures, and that they used a phony stand-in for Geestman on the show. It's also possible that when you see Mickey Mouse at Disneyland that it's the same Mickey Mouse you saw on Steamboat Willie. None of you have really been able to dispute the actual evidence against KC with any effectiveness. You like to pick on the occasional detail that has nothing to do with whether he was guilty (see: Scott reference) or just go after the messenger.

Georger says that if anything comes up that absolutely proves KC wasn't the hijacker, then the Decoded show and Blast were a big waste of time. True enough.

But it goes the OTHER way, too. I think that's a possibility some of you fear.

BTW: I am receiving responses now from the three cast members on Decoded about Bernie's interview, via Facebook messaging. I asked them to expand on what happened that day. When they give me permission to publish their responses, I will do so. Not here at Dropzone, but in a Newsvine article. It's more public that way.


(This post was edited by RobertMBlevins on Oct 11, 2012, 3:09 AM)


georger

Oct 10, 2012, 11:50 PM
Post #36741 of 54589 (30883 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RobertMBlevins] Geestman vs Blevins ... [In reply to] Can't Post

 
WRONG. At the time Geestman was interviewed, he
did not know that Helen Jones and her daughter
placed Kenny and Geestman together over the week
of the hijacking.

And where did you see that Geestman admitted he
was with Christiansen? .
Where? From you last night, you said quote:

"I always point to the only important thing that came
out of his appearance: He says Kenny could be the
hijacker. But he was WITH Kenny at the time of the
hijacking. Why did he say that? If Kenny wasn't the
hijacker, he would KNOW that...because he was
WITH Kenny. It's a simple point, but I think it's
important."

Re-read my post. Geestman may separating 'could
be' from 'was'. The abstract possibility from the fact
of being. In other words: 'had skills, worked for the
airlines, knew 727's, had parachuting in his
background, and had guts enough to do something
like the Cooper hijacking'. Versus: 'But I was with
him'. And the unsaid part: 'So you figure it out!'
In other words, he is showing contempt for you.

It's only a theory.

But when you ask: "where did you see that
Geestman admitted he was with Christiansen?"

The answer is: from you. Your words last night and
now above ... that's where.


(This post was edited by georger on Oct 10, 2012, 11:55 PM)


RobertMBlevins

Oct 11, 2012, 12:11 AM
Post #36742 of 54589 (30880 views)
Shortcut
Re: [georger] Geestman vs Blevins ... [In reply to] Can't Post

You are splitting hairs and using word games. Geestman knew why he was being interviewed. He knew History Channel had already caught him lying twice, and then trying to manipulate his sister over the phone.

He just didn't know that he had already been put together with KC the week of the hijacking. Unfortunately, neither did anyone who was at the shoot in Puyallup. Only Pete Berg and I discussed the tesimony by Helen Jones, and Berg was working the Bonney Lake Library shoot that day. This was the morning Jones drove up to the Bonney Lake Library looking for me.

This is also the only part where everyone, including me, dropped the ball on Decoded. I should have insisted they ask Bernie Geestman about Jones' and his ex's testimony that he was WITH Christiansen over the time of the hijacking. And that they should have slammed that question to him the very moment he said Kenny could have been the guy. Failure=YES.

This is why I've said the Seattle FBI should ask him this question, and interview Jones and her daughter.

It was a tough week at the office, as the saying goes. First, a weekend interviewing Jones and her daughter, then a drive up to Twisp to do the final interview with Margie Geestman, (500 miles and two mountain passes each way) and then showing up a final shoot in Bonney Lake.


(This post was edited by RobertMBlevins on Oct 11, 2012, 2:55 AM)


georger

Oct 11, 2012, 1:06 AM
Post #36743 of 54589 (30870 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RobertMBlevins] Geestman vs Blevins ... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You are splitting hairs and using word games. Geestman knew why he was being interviewed. He knew History Channel had already caught him lying twice, and then trying to manipulate his sister over the phone.

He just didn't know that he had already been put together with KC the week of the hijacking. Unfortunately, neither did anyone who was at the shoot in Puyallup. Only Pete Berg and I discussed Jones, and he was working the Bonney Lake Library shoot that day. This was the morning Helen Jones drove up looking for me.

This is also the only part where everyone, including me, dropped the ball on Decoded. I should have insisted they ask him about Jones' and his ex's testimony that he was WITH Christiansen over the time of the hijacking. And that they should have slammed that question to him the very moment he said Kenny could have been the guy. Failure=YES.

This is why I've said the Seattle FBI should ask him this question, and interview Jones and her daughter.

It was a tough week at the office, as the saying goes. First, a weekend interviewing Jones and her daughter, then a drive up to Twisp to do the final interview with Margie Geestman, (500 miles and two mountain passes each way) and then showing up a final shoot in Bonney Lake.

So now you are saying you statement below was
wrong? Kenny never actually said (your words):
"But he was WITH Kenny at the time of the
hijacking. Why did he say that?"


Quote: "I always point to the only important thing
that came out of his appearance: He says Kenny
could be the hijacker. But he was WITH Kenny at the
time of the hijacking. Why did he say that?"

Either he said he was with Kenny or he didn;t!

Its not splitting hairs. He either said it or not, as
you say it above ?


RobertMBlevins

Oct 11, 2012, 1:37 AM
Post #36744 of 54589 (30869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [georger] Geestman vs Blevins ... [In reply to] Can't Post

Georger says in part:

Quote:
'So now you are saying you statement below was wrong? Kenny never actually said (your words):
"But he was WITH Kenny at the time of the
hijacking. Why did he say that?"

Quote: "I always point to the only important thing
that came out of his appearance: He says Kenny
could be the hijacker. But he was WITH Kenny at the
time of the hijacking. Why did he say that?"

What in the name of Johnny Appleseed are you talking about? 'Kenny never actually said...' I never quoted Kenny Christiansen there. Geestman stated on Decoded he thought Kenny could be the hijacker.

Since there are witnesses who place Geestman with Kenny over the week of the crime, I asked why Geestman would volunteer that. Everything else about it you can read in my previous post.


(This post was edited by RobertMBlevins on Oct 11, 2012, 2:01 AM)


georger

Oct 11, 2012, 2:26 AM
Post #36745 of 54589 (30852 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RobertMBlevins] Geestman vs Blevins ... [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Georger says in part:

Quote:
'So now you are saying you statement below was wrong? Kenny never actually said (your words):
"But he was WITH Kenny at the time of the
hijacking. Why did he say that?"

Quote: "I always point to the only important thing
that came out of his appearance: He says Kenny
could be the hijacker. But he was WITH Kenny at the
time of the hijacking. Why did he say that?"

What in the name of Johnny Appleseed are you talking about? 'Kenny never actually said...' I never quoted Kenny Christiansen there. Geestman stated on Decoded he thought Kenny could be the hijacker.

Since there are witnesses who place Geestman with Kenny over the week of the crime, I asked why Geestman would volunteer that. Everything else about it you can read in my previous post.


"If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..."

Marilyn Monroe

I can read.

Your previous post literally says:

"He says Kenny could be the hijacker. But he was WITH Kenny at the time of the hijacking. Why did he say that? "

You are saying Geestman SAID it.

Dont jump down my throat. They are your words.

I guess you didnt say what you meant!
Or you miss spoke ...

Or this is all Blevins-speak ?

I can only go by what you say and do not say.
Its not splitting hairs. Its reading the English
language.

If you dont say what you mean ... whose fault is
that?

Never mind.

I understand you are now saying Geestmanw as not
aware that others had placed him with Kenny. But
you said in your post quote: Why did he say that?
After you had just said: He says Kenny could be the
hijacker.

Bottom line is, you need to say things more clearly
to eliminate any possible confusion. You probably
thought you did. You probably think we are all mind
readers too.

I think I now understand what you tried to say but
didnt say clearly.

Maybe you should forget about Marilyn Monroe and
concentrate on writing?


(This post was edited by georger on Oct 11, 2012, 2:34 AM)


Farflung

Oct 11, 2012, 8:17 AM
Post #36746 of 54589 (30817 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, That Makes Sense [In reply to] Can't Post

RobertMBlevins quibbles with:

As far as the missing Foss Tugs logbook, it wasn't Margie Geestman who discovered it was missing. That was ME.”

Oh, OK that makes the fact that only one set was stolen instead of all of them plausible, since it was YOU and not Margie that made the discovery. Because I was asking who discovered the missing log instead of the ridiculous inference that the ‘only’ one stolen was from 1971.

So since YOU are the person who discovered the lone ‘stolen’ logbook, you can answer some logical questions regarding that subject.


What years of logbooks were in the box(s)?

Did you go through all 30 (approximate) boxes searching for the absent logbook?

Did the 30 (approximate) other boxes appear to be rifled or searched?

What indication led you to believe those boxes were searched?

Margie lied about the Iditarod and the Clydesdales, did she lie about the logbook too?


RobertMBlevins oddly states:

No, I didn't see a police report. I saw a front door that had been completely kicked off its hinges, and then sort-of repaired.”

Why would you accept the premise of a ‘break in’ without asking to see a police report which would confirm the event? You were looking for logs to confirm ‘double dipping’, which has nothing to do with the hijacking, why not confirm the break in with a police report?

How many years was it between the ‘break in’ and when you noticed the ‘sort of’ repaired door? More than a decade?

What sort of Fly By Night insurance policy did Margie have which didn’t cover a compromised entry door? Padlocks on an obliterated frame offer little security and would impede an escape in the event of a fire. Not a wise choice regarding security or repairs.

Why wasn’t the door repaired in the preceding ten or more years?

Why would Margie contact the FBI about a home invasion? Or property papers? Neither appear to be Federal crimes.

Where is the report which confirms the FBI visit(s)?

Margie says the ‘ONLY’ things missing from the break in were some photos of Kenny, but YOU immediately discover the missing logbook. How reliable could her assessment about the ‘ONLY’ things missing be, when you blunder on something else missing in the first box you open? Doesn’t this strike some concern regarding the integrity of her recall?


My goodness, this certainly is a lot of loose ends from an investigation which included multiple visits and countless hours of ‘testimony’. If I was to identify a trend, it would be that official documentation is non-existent and single source inference becomes solid fact with little validation. There’s plenty more wrong with this tale but I only had a few minutes to review.










First page Previous page 1 ... 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 ... 2184 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Skydiving History & Trivia

 


Search for (options)