Forums: Skydiving: Skydiving History & Trivia:
DB Cooper

 

First page Previous page 1 ... 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 ... 2113 Next page Last page  View All

EVickiW

Nov 1, 2013, 2:35 PM
Post #48026 of 52823 (11611 views)
Shortcut
Re: [uberalles] Bones in the woods....... [In reply to] Can't Post

uberalles wrote:
georger wrote:
MarkBennett wrote:
"RobertMBlevins wrote:

Oh, you left off the part about the other witnesses. Some people did give descriptions on Cooper and they weren't stews. That isn't meant to be facetious. You did leave that off, though.

I did leave off the other witnesses. My point was the other witnesses were in the same situation as you when you estimated the height of Brett Boone. It was trying to piece together after the fact a description that's more likely to be faulty.

I was proposing that Tina, when she left the plane to retrieve the parachutes and money was instructed to make a note of the hijackers height, weight, hair, etc., and unlike the other witnesses would not be trying to put together a description from memory.

The other passengers descriptions are not discounted, but I would give them less weight than Tina's, especially since hers was so close to that of Flo's, who would also be trained to make note of that information.

By the way, the shortest description was "no more than 5'9". Kenny was 5'8". How far below that 5'9" are you willing to go?

In addition to basic physical facts, there are mannerisms. How
did the guy act? Did he smile a lot, grimace, smirk, frown a lot,
etc. I am told Kenny had distinct mannerisms.

For the life of me I dont know why we are spending all of this
time on KC. We might just as well be comparing a 'chicken'!
Rather than persons with the greatest statistical deviation
from the mean ... why not find somone that approaches the
mean?

Moreover Mr. Blevins' arguements dont approach the mean!

I watched an interview a while back of the sketch artist who did the original sketches... he said the witnesses all mentioned a protruding lower lip... Perhaps like what a kid would do who is not getting his way? Not something you would fake, but something that you would do under pressure w/o thinking about it??

Hey....I know somebody with a "pouty" lip. (pic attached)
Attachments: collage mel wilson (2).jpg (90.8 KB)


skyjack71

Nov 1, 2013, 7:36 PM
Post #48027 of 52823 (11526 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BruceSmith] Respect of Tina Mucklow. [In reply to] Can't Post

BruceSmith wrote:
Quote:

Are you the paragon of sound mind and health? Gawd Almighty Jo - look at your posts! What can you offer to Tina as balm for her wounds?

I never offered Tina anything. I show her the respect she is due and will continue to do so.

I did NOT show up on her door.
I did NOT harass her Sister & Bother-in-law. I have not made repetitive phone calls or followed her with a camera.


I was successful for several yrs keeping her location Secret & her phone number private. What you & Galen did was a complete violation of her rights. She did NOT ask to be on that plane or to be thrust into the public eye.

She was a 22 yrs old in 1971. Have you FOR ONE MOMENT thought about the woman & have you shown her one ounce of respect.

UnsureYou invaded her privacy like you were a WRITER for a SMUT magazine.

MadUnsureUnimpressedYou say untrue things about her because your own mind is twisted. That can be proven by some of the things you have written. All you want to do is expose her & destroy what is left of her life. Tina did NOT deserve the treatment you or other have thrust upon her. YOU intruded into her life & exposed her to the public in a slanderous way.

She has tried to be polite. You kept on PUSHING & you take anything you can find about her life and making it sound pathectic. YOU BRUCE SMITH are the ONE who is pathetic. You BRUCE Smith are the one with the mental problems & low self esteme & personality problems. YOU respect no one.

Tina is strong and she leads a good life, but look at your own life. WHAT DO YOU have to SHOW for yourself? Nothing! Should I tell the thread about HOW you live? Should I humiliate you in public? You are ABRASIVE and you don't care about who you hurt to get what you want!

Even Blevins with all of his supposed subjections about Tina - is respectful. He hasn't put himself in her FACE and invaded her privacy

I have offered Tina nothing - I gave her privacy which was PROTECTED for many yrs...until Vultures like you and Galen obtained her information. I feel responsible for that, but someone would have done it someday.

Why did it have to be someone whose only objectivity was to EXPLOIT her with the things you have written - with absolutely NO proof and MOST important - FOR WHAT PURPOSE? You have persecuted this woman to no end on paper and in person. No wonder she hides away. Now you subjectively are claiming she was disfunctional and institutionalized because of Cooper.

YOU RESPECT NO ONE IN THE COOPER CASE - YOU USE PEOPLE AND YOU EXPLOIT PEOPLE....this will come back to HAUNT you! You know you do not have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of - so you say whatever it is you want to say to sensationalize everything you write.

I hope you are PROUD of yourself. Frankly I think you are one sick lab rat. Since you aren't loveable - you certainly aren't a puppy!


RobertMBlevins

Nov 1, 2013, 7:56 PM
Post #48028 of 52823 (11521 views)
Shortcut
Re: [georger] Bones in the woods....... [In reply to] Can't Post

Georger says in part:

Quote:
'In addition to basic physical facts, there are mannerisms. How
did the guy act? Did he smile a lot, grimace, smirk, frown a lot,
etc. I am told Kenny had distinct mannerisms.

For the life of me I dont know why we are spending all of this time on KC. We might just as well be comparing a 'chicken'! Rather than persons with the greatest statistical deviation from the mean ... why not find somone that approaches the mean?

Moreover Mr. Blevins' arguements dont approach the mean!...'

What arguments? I was talking about the descriptions provided by witnesses, not Christiansen. The case against KC is only PARTIALLY reliant on a possible match to the descriptions. The vast majority is actually based on witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, some documents, pictures, etc.

On most of the known suspects, it is very difficult to establish whether that person should be eliminated, left on the list, or actually be found as Cooper.

One thing that sets KC apart from other suspects is THIS: It can be EASILY confirmed one way or another whether he was Cooper or the whole case is simply a bunch of coincidences. Problem is, no one in law enforcement has done that yet. (I don't think we can count statements from 2007-08 where a couple of FBI agents dismissed him nearly two years BEFORE any real evidence against him emerged.)

It's a simple matter. You bring in the four female witnesses, speak to them in one room. Put Bernie Geestman in the other. Question the women first, then Bernie. Use the KC report as a reference when questioning. Have an available clip of Bernie's statements on Decoded.

You'll know the truth on Christiansen within a few minutes. Simple.


(This post was edited by RobertMBlevins on Nov 1, 2013, 7:58 PM)


skyjack71

Nov 1, 2013, 8:15 PM
Post #48029 of 52823 (11512 views)
Shortcut
Re: [uberalles] Bones in the woods....... [In reply to] Can't Post

uberalles wrote:

I watched an interview a while back of the sketch artist who did the original sketches... he said the witnesses all mentioned a protruding lower lip... Perhaps like what a kid would do who is not getting his way? Not something you would fake, but something that you would do under pressure w/o thinking about it??

The artist Rose also mentioned this and was unable to project an image to suit the witnesses. It could have been a mannerism to keep a cheap prosthetic in his mouth. I do not have pictures of Duane doing this - he could sure throw that lower lip into a a pout, but always posed for a picture.

It was a one sided pout.


georger

Nov 1, 2013, 8:18 PM
Post #48030 of 52823 (11506 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RobertMBlevins] Bones in the woods....... [In reply to] Can't Post

RobertMBlevins wrote:
Georger says in part:

Quote:
'In addition to basic physical facts, there are mannerisms. How
did the guy act? Did he smile a lot, grimace, smirk, frown a lot,
etc. I am told Kenny had distinct mannerisms.

For the life of me I dont know why we are spending all of this time on KC. We might just as well be comparing a 'chicken'! Rather than persons with the greatest statistical deviation from the mean ... why not find somone that approaches the mean?

Moreover Mr. Blevins' arguements dont approach the mean!...'

What arguments? I was talking about the descriptions provided by witnesses, not Christiansen. The case against KC is only PARTIALLY reliant on a possible match to the descriptions. The vast majority is actually based on witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, some documents, pictures, etc.

On most of the known suspects, it is very difficult to establish whether that person should be eliminated, left on the list, or actually be found as Cooper.

One thing that sets KC apart from other suspects is THIS: It can be EASILY confirmed one way or another whether he was Cooper or the whole case is simply a bunch of coincidences. Problem is, no one in law enforcement has done that yet. (I don't think we can count statements from 2007-08 where a couple of FBI agents dismissed him nearly two years BEFORE any real evidence against him emerged.)

It's a simple matter. You bring in the four female witnesses, speak to them in one room. Put Bernie Geestman in the other. Question the women first, then Bernie. Use the KC report as a reference when questioning. Have an available clip of Bernie's statements on Decoded.

You'll know the truth on Christiansen within a few minutes. Simple.

What arguements?

The #4255 arguements you have made since joining this thread - those arguements! CrazyCrazyCrazyMad

That's almosts 4 posts per day for 1146 days minus the roughly
45 days youve had for time outs.


(This post was edited by georger on Nov 1, 2013, 8:27 PM)


skyjack71

Nov 1, 2013, 8:26 PM
Post #48031 of 52823 (11494 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjack71] pouts [In reply to] Can't Post

Pouts and/or actions to retain a prothestic particial Duane had a permanent one during our marriage, but I have some photo of an express he made although not as exagerated as it was when he was pissed or mad.
Attachments: BW upclose Grouch.jpg (1.97 KB)


georger

Nov 1, 2013, 8:30 PM
Post #48032 of 52823 (11488 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjack71] pouts [In reply to] Can't Post

skyjack71 wrote:
Pouts and/or actions to retain a prothestic particial Duane had a permanent one during our marriage, but I have some photo of an express he made although not as exagerated as it was when he was pissed or mad.

Discounting his wooden leg and meat hook for a right hand, of course! Glass eye? False teeth? Kidney bag? Girdle. Elevator shoe on right foot? Reverse knees!

Thats a match if I ever saw one! Laugh

The only people to ever seriously question the physical
description of Cooper are: Jo Weber, RobertMBlevins,
Greycop, Myers-Dvorak, Jerry Thomas, and ...
Geoffrey Gray!

I think I see a pattern there.Laugh


(This post was edited by georger on Nov 1, 2013, 9:22 PM)


skyjack71

Nov 1, 2013, 9:20 PM
Post #48033 of 52823 (11464 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjack71] pouts [In reply to] Can't Post

Startled but not the pout! A Christmas morning!
Attachments: BW upclose Grouch.jpg (1.97 KB)


georger

Nov 1, 2013, 9:24 PM
Post #48034 of 52823 (11452 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjack71] pouts [In reply to] Can't Post

skyjack71 wrote:
Startled but not the pout! A Christmas morning!

All animals pout!
Attachments: 4363_z.jpg (130 KB)


RobertMBlevins

Nov 1, 2013, 9:32 PM
Post #48035 of 52823 (11446 views)
Shortcut
Re: [georger] Bones in the woods....... [In reply to] Can't Post

georger wrote:
RobertMBlevins wrote:
Georger says in part:

Quote:
'In addition to basic physical facts, there are mannerisms. How
did the guy act? Did he smile a lot, grimace, smirk, frown a lot,
etc. I am told Kenny had distinct mannerisms.

For the life of me I dont know why we are spending all of this time on KC. We might just as well be comparing a 'chicken'! Rather than persons with the greatest statistical deviation from the mean ... why not find somone that approaches the mean?

Moreover Mr. Blevins' arguements dont approach the mean!...'

What arguments? I was talking about the descriptions provided by witnesses, not Christiansen. The case against KC is only PARTIALLY reliant on a possible match to the descriptions. The vast majority is actually based on witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, some documents, pictures, etc.

On most of the known suspects, it is very difficult to establish whether that person should be eliminated, left on the list, or actually be found as Cooper.

One thing that sets KC apart from other suspects is THIS: It can be EASILY confirmed one way or another whether he was Cooper or the whole case is simply a bunch of coincidences. Problem is, no one in law enforcement has done that yet. (I don't think we can count statements from 2007-08 where a couple of FBI agents dismissed him nearly two years BEFORE any real evidence against him emerged.)

It's a simple matter. You bring in the four female witnesses, speak to them in one room. Put Bernie Geestman in the other. Question the women first, then Bernie. Use the KC report as a reference when questioning. Have an available clip of Bernie's statements on Decoded.

You'll know the truth on Christiansen within a few minutes. Simple.

What arguements?

The #4255 arguements you have made since joining this thread - those arguements! CrazyCrazyCrazyMad

That's almosts 4 posts per day for 1146 days minus the roughly
45 days youve had for time outs.

Typical. Go after the poster, rather than the content of the post itself. I saw back there where you now include Geoff Gray on your attack list. First you quote the hell out of him, (falsely, according to Gray's email to me) then one time you said he stopped answering your phone calls, (not a big surprise I think), and now you run numbers on me even though YOUR posting level is now approaching 8,000 entries. Someday I'll do a calculation on how many of them are simply Blevins-Insult replies. I would guess roughly more than fifty percent over the last two years at least.

You are good at numbers, I'll give you that. But you got it wrong on the amount of 'down time'. It was actually 60+30+10 days=100 days. Every time this happens, I just go camping anyway. Smile Proof? See pics.


(This post was edited by RobertMBlevins on Nov 1, 2013, 9:40 PM)
Attachments: 13amazonpic.jpg (90.4 KB)
  bobpic1.jpg (156 KB)
  robertdimensionspic.png (457 KB)
  robertstaffpg1.png (374 KB)


BruceSmith

Nov 1, 2013, 9:38 PM
Post #48036 of 52823 (11441 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjack71] Respect of Tina Mucklow. [In reply to] Can't Post

I never offered Tina anything. I show her the respect she is due and will continue to do so.

I did NOT show up on her door.
I did NOT harass her Sister & Bother-in-law. I have not made repetitive phone calls or followed her with a camera.


I was successful for several yrs keeping her location Secret & her phone number private. What you & Galen did was a complete violation of her rights. She did NOT ask to be on that plane or to be thrust into the public eye.

She was a 22 yrs old in 1971. Have you FOR ONE MOMENT thought about the woman & have you shown her one ounce of respect.

UnsureYou invaded her privacy like you were a WRITER for a SMUT magazine.

MadUnsureUnimpressedYou say untrue things about her because your own mind is twisted. That can be proven by some of the things you have written. All you want to do is expose her & destroy what is left of her life. Tina did NOT deserve the treatment you or other have thrust upon her. YOU intruded into her life & exposed her to the public in a slanderous way.

She has tried to be polite. You kept on PUSHING & you take anything you can find about her life and making it sound pathectic. YOU BRUCE SMITH are the ONE who is pathetic. You BRUCE Smith are the one with the mental problems & low self esteme & personality problems. YOU respect no one.

Tina is strong and she leads a good life, but look at your own life. WHAT DO YOU have to SHOW for yourself? Nothing! Should I tell the thread about HOW you live? Should I humiliate you in public? You are ABRASIVE and you don't care about who you hurt to get what you want!

Even Blevins with all of his supposed subjections about Tina - is respectful. He hasn't put himself in her FACE and invaded her privacy

I have offered Tina nothing - I gave her privacy which was PROTECTED for many yrs...until Vultures like you and Galen obtained her information. I feel responsible for that, but someone would have done it someday.

Why did it have to be someone whose only objectivity was to EXPLOIT her with the things you have written - with absolutely NO proof and MOST important - FOR WHAT PURPOSE? You have persecuted this woman to no end on paper and in person. No wonder she hides away. Now you subjectively are claiming she was disfunctional and institutionalized because of Cooper.

YOU RESPECT NO ONE IN THE COOPER CASE - YOU USE PEOPLE AND YOU EXPLOIT PEOPLE....this will come back to HAUNT you! You know you do not have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of - so you say whatever it is you want to say to sensationalize everything you write.

I hope you are PROUD of yourself. Frankly I think you are one sick lab rat. Since you aren't loveable - you certainly aren't a puppy!

Reply:

What I find so interesting about you and Tina, Jo, is that you were the first researcher I know to find her. So, who is the "Robbbie Clampertt" person who gave you an anonymous email that led you to Tina's county of divorce and then to her home in Oregon?

How come you were contacted in such a fashion? Instead of blasting me, why not tell us about you and your connections, eh?

So, who wanted you to find Tina Mucklow back in , what, 2004? Who is Robbie Clampertt? Who needs us to find Tina? Who does Clampertt work for, and why?

Further, why does Jane Mucklow Dormuth take your phone calls and linger on the phone with you "all evening," as Lee jokingly said the last time we hung out on his front stoop.

Jo, you are often a loud and obnoxious woman, but you are deeply connected to the principals in the case. But who is it that assist you to obtain such entry, and why? That is still a mystery to me. Perhaps one day you will enlighten us.

In the meantime, it seems you are fully engaged in your job here at the DZ to discredit me and my work, and in general cause a ruckus, generating a smokescreen that obscures so much in the case.

So, the ball's in your court, Jo. Tell us the truth of you and the Mucklows.

Or maybe we will discover the truth of you in other ways. Hmmm? Either way, you are under suspicion. Something is not right with you and your extraordinary relationships in the Norjak investigation.

I'm not jealous. Rather, I feel like you are spinning me, deceiving me. Remember, I know and have written about your lying to me on your story of first hearing about Cooper - Duane's sick bed or on the trail in 1979 near Lake Camas. Can't have it both ways, Jo.

You constant obfuscation, the "tease" that 377 so accurately describes, needs to be cleansed.


(This post was edited by BruceSmith on Nov 1, 2013, 9:48 PM)


RobertMBlevins

Nov 1, 2013, 9:49 PM
Post #48037 of 52823 (11433 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BruceSmith] Respect of Tina Mucklow. [In reply to] Can't Post

Bruce: No one is trying to discredit your work. Personally, I support your book, you as a person, and the efforts you have made in the case.

Do I agree with all of your interview methods, and some of the things you've said about people when they didn't cooperate in some of your interviews?

No.

I remember warning you a while back after you posted that article on your interview with the Dormuths' that some of the things you said about a retired FBI agent were not nice, had nothing to do with the article, and would make others hesitant to do interviews with you later. No one is perfect, and if you have an interviewing flaw, that is probably it.

I think if you simply correct that policy, you'll be fine. Look at the truth for a second. How far do you think the average reporter is going to get if he goes personal on people because they don't cooperate fully with the interview? The better way is to be polite, come prepared, record everything and take notes, and then go from there. Remember that publishing only the facts and being nice earns respect. This way, you don't burn bridges and alienate people. This way, you might also get a SECOND shot at them.

For example, you claim that Rataczak said this or that. How does anyone know that for sure? Did you record the interview? Did you publish a list of questions and the answers given?

If not, then it's back to Journalism 101 for you.


(This post was edited by RobertMBlevins on Nov 1, 2013, 10:11 PM)


skyjack71

Nov 1, 2013, 9:54 PM
Post #48038 of 52823 (11429 views)
Shortcut
No Animal [In reply to] Can't Post

I posted the same pic Twice - sorry.
No pattern - tonight I CURSED GOD!
I was angry! That is totally unlike me.

I just let it all out - and not even God heard me! Just the walls of the house and if the neighbors had heard me I am sure the Sheriff would have showed up!

Nothing I do lately is RIGHT! Nothing, not even the simple things....Good thing there is NO one but me to worry about....

Sleep - what is that?
Dreams - don't remember any lately!
Fun - too much pain for fun.
Eating - when I am hungry.
Cooking - forgot how.
TV - not often.
Out to Eat - one person to a table.
Laugh - only LOL's on thread
Cry - Well, I did tonight

To you guys this is just a mystery, but to me because I lived with this man for 18 yrs - I know who and what he was. I have NOT made up one word of the things I have told. I explored the possiblities of other things to find explanations for Duane's actions and words - and other subjects with you guy.

All I hear coming back at me from every direction is COOPER COOPER COOPER & more COOPER. NOT one of you really want the truth because if the case was solved then you would have to find something else to do.

Of course, some of you will never accept the truth when it is put in front of you on a silver platter.

I have relatives I only saw once a yr or every 5 yrs at large reunions - there were many faces. Those I only met once or twice - I would not know if I walked into them on the street. We would not recognize each other...from a table 42 yrs ago.

Would we recognize each other from a photo not taken at the reunion or at the banquet table? Probably not! Even if we had engaged each other in a conversation about something one of our relatives did that was funny or rememberable...would we remember each other?

A casual conversation at a banquet table - would you remember me or would I remember you 42 yrs later?
Not hardly - even if we shared photos taken on that banquet night and we had only met on that night - how many of you would recognize someone you met 42 yrs ago - at a banquet table.

Cooper is just one of those faces at the banquet table 42 yrs ago...only 3 of persons in the room knew there was a bomb. Would any of us be able to pick out the man who had the bomb in a line up - 42 yrs later or identify a picture of him 42 yrs later. NOT HARDLY!

The last 17 yrs have been futile and without prints or dna or something that puts a subject ON THAT PLANE no Subject will be declared as Cooper!

What do we want? What are we wanting? God doesn't give us all the answers. Sometime we have to settle for What Ever!


(This post was edited by skyjack71 on Nov 1, 2013, 10:01 PM)


BruceSmith

Nov 1, 2013, 10:18 PM
Post #48039 of 52823 (11415 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RobertMBlevins] Respect of Tina Mucklow. [In reply to] Can't Post

RobertMBlevins wrote:
Bruce: No one is trying to discredit your work. Personally, I support your book, you as a person, and the efforts you have made in the case.

Do I agree with all of your interview methods, and some of the things you've said about people when they didn't cooperate in some of your interviews?

No.

I remember warning you a while back after you posted that article on your interview with the Dormuths' that some of the things you said about a retired FBI agent were not nice, had nothing to do with the article, and would make others hesitant to do interviews with you later. No one is perfect, and if you have an interviewing flaw, that is probably it.

I think if you simply correct that policy, you'll be fine. Look at the truth for a second. How far do you think the average reporter is going to get if he goes personal on people because they don't cooperate fully with the interview? The better way is to be polite, come prepared, record everything and take notes, and then go from there. Remember that publishing only the facts and being nice earns respect. This way, you don't burn bridges and alienate people. This way, you might also get a SECOND shot at them.

For example, you claim that Rataczak said this or that. How does anyone know that for sure? Did you record the interview? Did you publish a list of questions and the answers given?

If not, then it's back to Journalism 101 for you.

Thanks for the etiquette lesson, Robert, and the mentorshhip on robust, professional journalism. But need I remind you, you are the guy who prints "The Truth of DB Cooper" on the cover of his book, right underneath the rectangular, ram-air parachute descending in broad daylight and under sunny skies?

If you got your own house in order, first, Robert, I might be more inclined to listen to your unsolicited advice.

As for your comment that "no one is trying to discredit your work," Robert, are you crazy? That is what you, Jo and Georger are trying to do.

Either you are stupid, Robert, or have great faith in the power of the Big Lie.


(This post was edited by BruceSmith on Nov 1, 2013, 10:22 PM)


BruceSmith

Nov 1, 2013, 10:27 PM
Post #48040 of 52823 (11395 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjack71] No Animal [In reply to] Can't Post

skyjack71 wrote:
I posted the same pic Twice - sorry.
No pattern - tonight I CURSED GOD!
I was angry! That is totally unlike me.

I just let it all out - and not even God heard me! Just the walls of the house and if the neighbors had heard me I am sure the Sheriff would have showed up!

Nothing I do lately is RIGHT! Nothing, not even the simple things....Good thing there is NO one but me to worry about....

Sleep - what is that?
Dreams - don't remember any lately!
Fun - too much pain for fun.
Eating - when I am hungry.
Cooking - forgot how.
TV - not often.
Out to Eat - one person to a table.
Laugh - only LOL's on thread
Cry - Well, I did tonight

To you guys this is just a mystery, but to me because I lived with this man for 18 yrs - I know who and what he was. I have NOT made up one word of the things I have told. I explored the possiblities of other things to find explanations for Duane's actions and words - and other subjects with you guy.

All I hear coming back at me from every direction is COOPER COOPER COOPER & more COOPER. NOT one of you really want the truth because if the case was solved then you would have to find something else to do.

Of course, some of you will never accept the truth when it is put in front of you on a silver platter.

I have relatives I only saw once a yr or every 5 yrs at large reunions - there were many faces. Those I only met once or twice - I would not know if I walked into them on the street. We would not recognize each other...from a table 42 yrs ago.

Would we recognize each other from a photo not taken at the reunion or at the banquet table? Probably not! Even if we had engaged each other in a conversation about something one of our relatives did that was funny or rememberable...would we remember each other?

A casual conversation at a banquet table - would you remember me or would I remember you 42 yrs later?
Not hardly - even if we shared photos taken on that banquet night and we had only met on that night - how many of you would recognize someone you met 42 yrs ago - at a banquet table.

Cooper is just one of those faces at the banquet table 42 yrs ago...only 3 of persons in the room knew there was a bomb. Would any of us be able to pick out the man who had the bomb in a line up - 42 yrs later or identify a picture of him 42 yrs later. NOT HARDLY!

The last 17 yrs have been futile and without prints or dna or something that puts a subject ON THAT PLANE no Subject will be declared as Cooper!

What do we want? What are we wanting? God doesn't give us all the answers. Sometime we have to settle for What Ever!



Reply:

Jo, Lee Dormuth told me that you were married to the skyjacker, DB Cooper. Why isn't that enough for you?

What do you want, Jo. Satelitte trucks on your curb? A ticker-tape parade down the road to the Ariel tavern?

Plus, Himmelsbach invited you to dinner at his place in Woodburn. Free, no less.

Doesn't sound too shabby to me, Jo.


(This post was edited by BruceSmith on Nov 1, 2013, 10:28 PM)


skyjack71

Nov 1, 2013, 10:35 PM
Post #48041 of 52823 (11420 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BruceSmith] Respect of Tina Mucklow. [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Bruce Stated:

What I find so interesting about you and Tina, Jo, is that you were the first researcher I know to find her. So, who is the "Robbbie Clampertt" person who gave you an anonymous email that led you to Tina's county of divorce and then to her home in Oregon?


JO, States"

WELL, BRUCE - how does it feel to be on the other end of the Negative REMARKS? Don't even answer that - because YOU do not even have a heart!

YOU CAN'T GET YOU FACTS CORRECT! The tipster gave me her phone number and her address.... and the source was NOT traceable. I have a suspicion about who it was but it was a shot in the dark.

The person who found the Divorce record is NONE of your BEE's WAX, and it was NOT the person same as the person who provide the contact information.

MY GUY who was doing some reseach for me FOUND the Divorce record. A completely different set of circumstance and at different time. DO you KNOW how long had the info on Tina before I broked down and contacted her? NO and you don't give a DAMN!

I never knew who the tipster was, but I had my gut feelings...and that was all. Wording, terminology, way things are phrased - that tells you a lot about a posters or author of an email. Maybe it was SNOWMMAN! Damn that doesn't work - I didn't KNOW Snowmman back in 2003 or 2004.

My conversation with anyone regarding you was brief and you didn't hang out - you were asked to leave. Then you made insulting remarks about them and about me in this thread and else where.

Yea, I am loud and obnoxious, but I am also Crazy, Delusional and Off My Rocker - but you are a sick LAB rat.

I do not feel I am connected to the principals in the case. I just ask questions - and I do NOT get in their face like YOU!

YOU discredit YOURSELF! YOU do not need any help with that! Now you are insinuating I am connected to individuals in the investigations - MAYBE I am nice and MAYBE I do NOT BULLY my way in the door!

As for lieing to you - maybe it is the way YOU hear things? HOW many interviews have you TWISTED?

Individuals like you TWIST things for YOUR own benefit - but THAT IS GOING TO CATCH UP WITH YOU? Maybe the principals will get a copy of your posts regarding me and Tina. YOU WILL NOT profit off of those of us who have done NO wrong!

YOU will not profit off of those who you have transgressed against.


(This post was edited by skyjack71 on Nov 1, 2013, 10:58 PM)


BruceSmith

Nov 1, 2013, 10:41 PM
Post #48042 of 52823 (11412 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjack71] Respect of Tina Mucklow. [In reply to] Can't Post

skyjack71 wrote:

Bruce Stated:

What I find so interesting about you and Tina, Jo, is that you were the first researcher I know to find her. So, who is the "Robbbie Clampertt" person who gave you an anonymous email that led you to Tina's county of divorce and then to her home in Oregon?


JO, States"

WELL, BRUCE - how does it feel to be on the other end of the Negative REMARKS? Don't even answer that - because YOU do not even have a heart!

YOU CAN'T GET YOU FACTS CORRECT! The tipster gave me her phone number and her address.... and the source was NOT traceable. I have a suspicion about who it was but it was a dart in the dark.

The person who found the Divorce record is NONE of your BEE's WAX.
Perhaps that was provided to get the damn snoops out of the way!
It SURE as Hell wasn't the Tipster!

I never knew who the tipster was, but I had my gut feelings...and why I had those gut feelings was the other messages I received from the same source.

My conversation with anyone regarding you was brief and you didn't hang out - you were ordered to leave. Then you made insulting remarks about them and about me.

Yea, I am loud and obnoxious, but I am also Crazy, Delusional and Off My Rocker - but you are a sick LAB rat.

I do not feel I am connected to the principals in the case. I just ask questions - and I do NOT get in their face like YOU!

YOU discredit YOURSELF! YOU do not need any help with that! Now you are insinuating I am connected to individuals in the investigations - MAYBE I am nice and MAYBE I do NOT BULLY my way in the door! Maybe I put their welfare before my own!

As for lieing to you - maybe it is the way YOU hear things? HOW man interviews have you TWISTED?

Individuals like you TWIST things for YOUR own benefit - but THAT IS GOING TO CATCH UP WITH YOU? Maybe the principals will get a copy of your posts regarding me and Tina. YOU WILL NOT profit off of those of us who have done NO wrong!

YOU will not profit off of those who you have transgressed against.

WOW!. Somebody gave you Tina's phone number and address? Yikes! Who and Why?

Ball's back in your court, sweetie.


(This post was edited by BruceSmith on Nov 2, 2013, 12:18 AM)


RobertMBlevins

Nov 1, 2013, 10:52 PM
Post #48043 of 52823 (11406 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BruceSmith] Respect of Tina Mucklow. [In reply to] Can't Post

BruceSmith wrote:
RobertMBlevins wrote:
Bruce: No one is trying to discredit your work. Personally, I support your book, you as a person, and the efforts you have made in the case.

Do I agree with all of your interview methods, and some of the things you've said about people when they didn't cooperate in some of your interviews?

No.

I remember warning you a while back after you posted that article on your interview with the Dormuths' that some of the things you said about a retired FBI agent were not nice, had nothing to do with the article, and would make others hesitant to do interviews with you later. No one is perfect, and if you have an interviewing flaw, that is probably it.

I think if you simply correct that policy, you'll be fine. Look at the truth for a second. How far do you think the average reporter is going to get if he goes personal on people because they don't cooperate fully with the interview? The better way is to be polite, come prepared, record everything and take notes, and then go from there. Remember that publishing only the facts and being nice earns respect. This way, you don't burn bridges and alienate people. This way, you might also get a SECOND shot at them.

For example, you claim that Rataczak said this or that. How does anyone know that for sure? Did you record the interview? Did you publish a list of questions and the answers given?

If not, then it's back to Journalism 101 for you.

Thanks for the etiquette lesson, Robert, and the mentorshhip on robust, professional journalism. But need I remind you, you are the guy who prints "The Truth of DB Cooper" on the cover of his book, right underneath the rectangular, ram-air parachute descending in broad daylight and under sunny skies?

If you got your own house in order, first, Robert, I might be more inclined to listen to your unsolicited advice.

As for your comment that "no one is trying to discredit your work," Robert, are you crazy? That is what you, Jo and Georger are trying to do.

Either you are stupid, Robert, or have great faith in the power of the Big Lie.

Actually, none of the above you list is true. Okay. I will pick one of the choices. I'm just stupid, I guess.

AB of Seattle has supported your book from the start.

The cover of the Blast book means not a whit. I knew the chute was wrong. I didn't care. And 'True Story of DB Cooper' in the title was Porteous' idea. When I questioned him on it, he said this:

Quote:
'Just in case we're right...'

What the hell. He was the main author. And really, I don't care one way or another. The book has consistently remained among the top books on Aviation at Amazon for years. Sometimes higher up, sometimes low. But sales are steady. The Kindle version was recently edited to include a link to the KC report at our website. That is called marketing, and more importantly, REACHING people.

I care not a shit what people think who post on this thread when they get weird or abusive. It's the General Public I try to reach, and this is going quite well I assure you.

You, on the other hand, offer up your book in Word format to anyone who asks, even though any legit publisher in New York or anywhere would not like you doing that. This is because if they accept your ms they will also want to EDIT it professionally and generally speaking, these guys don't like it when you hand out free copies of the rough ms unless they are subs to other publishers. It's amateurish and unprofessional. It reeks of desperation, frankly speaking. You believe that by handing out the Word doc to anyone will increase your chances of being picked up legitimately, when actually the OPPOSITE is true. But...it's your book so do what you wish and good luck to you. Of course, by you doing that in the Word version, should any legit version be published, you've allowed the internet to make any changes they wish (since you provide the ms in Word) and post OTHER versions. It's a nightmare no major publisher would wish to face. IMHO, you should not have done that, but it's not my call.

You don't have to take my word for all these things, but before you judge me too harshly, let me say this: I have now edited more than SIXTY outside books for other authors, and brother...that proves I'm not a slouch and do know something about what I'm doing. Cooper isn't the only thing in my life, you know. Smile


(This post was edited by RobertMBlevins on Nov 1, 2013, 11:01 PM)


georger

Nov 1, 2013, 10:53 PM
Post #48044 of 52823 (11404 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RobertMBlevins] Bones in the woods....... [In reply to] Can't Post

RobertMBlevins wrote:
georger wrote:
RobertMBlevins wrote:
Georger says in part:

Quote:
'In addition to basic physical facts, there are mannerisms. How
did the guy act? Did he smile a lot, grimace, smirk, frown a lot,
etc. I am told Kenny had distinct mannerisms.

For the life of me I dont know why we are spending all of this time on KC. We might just as well be comparing a 'chicken'! Rather than persons with the greatest statistical deviation from the mean ... why not find somone that approaches the mean?

Moreover Mr. Blevins' arguements dont approach the mean!...'

What arguments? I was talking about the descriptions provided by witnesses, not Christiansen. The case against KC is only PARTIALLY reliant on a possible match to the descriptions. The vast majority is actually based on witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, some documents, pictures, etc.

On most of the known suspects, it is very difficult to establish whether that person should be eliminated, left on the list, or actually be found as Cooper.

One thing that sets KC apart from other suspects is THIS: It can be EASILY confirmed one way or another whether he was Cooper or the whole case is simply a bunch of coincidences. Problem is, no one in law enforcement has done that yet. (I don't think we can count statements from 2007-08 where a couple of FBI agents dismissed him nearly two years BEFORE any real evidence against him emerged.)

It's a simple matter. You bring in the four female witnesses, speak to them in one room. Put Bernie Geestman in the other. Question the women first, then Bernie. Use the KC report as a reference when questioning. Have an available clip of Bernie's statements on Decoded.

You'll know the truth on Christiansen within a few minutes. Simple.

What arguements?

The #4255 arguements you have made since joining this thread - those arguements! CrazyCrazyCrazyMad

That's almosts 4 posts per day for 1146 days minus the roughly
45 days youve had for time outs.

Typical. Go after the poster, rather than the content of the post itself. I saw back there where you now include Geoff Gray on your attack list. First you quote the hell out of him, (falsely, according to Gray's email to me) then one time you said he stopped answering your phone calls, (not a big surprise I think), and now you run numbers on me even though YOUR posting level is now approaching 8,000 entries. Someday I'll do a calculation on how many of them are simply Blevins-Insult replies. I would guess roughly more than fifty percent over the last two years at least.

You are good at numbers, I'll give you that. But you got it wrong on the amount of 'down time'. It was actually 60+30+10 days=100 days. Every time this happens, I just go camping anyway. Smile Proof? See pics.

I think I see a pattern here!

You do half+ the posting - posts critical of your posted claims
goes way up! The Laugher Curve.

Its not personal. Its just factual.


uberalles

Nov 1, 2013, 11:28 PM
Post #48045 of 52823 (11370 views)
Shortcut
Parachutes in the Trees and Missing Airmen [In reply to] Can't Post

More details from JR on the Wreak Site. The following incident occurred EAST of the Cooper DZ, same time of year and this time the storm was real. What happens when you jump out into a Douglas Fir pine forest ??

________________________________________________________

29 November 1945 USN PV-1 BuNo 49459 5 PAX Whidbey NAS to Miramar NAS, CA

The same winter storm that downed the USAAF C46A also downed this aircraft in the Mount Saint Helens area of southern Washington State. Flying into icing conditions about 10 miles east of Cougar, the pilot ordered the two passengers to bail out. One of the passengers, Army 1LT Warren Lawson, successfully bailed out and walked into Cougar on 2 December. However, he could not say for sure what happened to the other four. The other passenger, a young sailor, was found by loggers dead, still hanging in his parachute from a tall fir tree on 3 January 1946. The sailor had died from exposure. That same day another parachute was found less than a mile away but no sign was found of the occupant. An intensive ground search was conducted for over a month in deep winter cold but no further trace of the other three crewmen was found.

In August, 1962 a Forest Service ranger found a crude snow shoe made from a military style survival life raft about 10 miles east of Cougar near Swift Reservoir. A search of the area found no other evidence or human remains. This was reported to the State CAB and the US Navy. However, no further investigation was conducted. On 5 August 1963, a Forest Ranger found the crash site of the PV-1. It was located about 10 miles east of Cougar, 8 miles north of Swift Reservoir and approximately 1.5 miles from a logging road.

On 8 August, a team of 8 US Navy personnel from NAS Whidbey Island accompanied by the county sheriffs and a representative from the State CAB investigated the crash site. What appeared to be a camp site was found on a hill about 100 feet east of the crash site. It appeared that two or more of the survivors may have found their way to the crash site and salvaged what they could in an attempt to survive the winter cold. Remnants of the survival life raft, paddles, a flashlight, torn cloth and clothing, a camera and an empty wallet was found. Two parachutes were found in the wreckage. However, no human remains were ever found. Investigators theorized that it is possible that two of the crew may have rode the plane down and survived the crash. After several days waiting for rescue, they may have attempted to walk out and perished in the forest.


skyjack71

Nov 1, 2013, 11:34 PM
Post #48046 of 52823 (11364 views)
Shortcut
Re: [georger] pouts [In reply to] Can't Post

georger wrote:
skyjack71 wrote:
Startled but not the pout! A Christmas morning!

All animals pout!

Smile
awwwlll ! HE IS SO CUTE - I WANT TO PET HIM - BET THE FUZZ ON HIS FACE FEELS LIKE VELVET. I hope that is not just a photo you pulled from anywhere internet and that it really is an animal on the farm. I would KNOW that face anywhere!
LaughLaugh


georger

Nov 2, 2013, 12:11 AM
Post #48047 of 52823 (11352 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjack71] pouts [In reply to] Can't Post

skyjack71 wrote:
georger wrote:
skyjack71 wrote:
Startled but not the pout! A Christmas morning!

All animals pout!

Smile
awwwlll ! HE IS SO CUTE - I WANT TO PET HIM - BET THE FUZZ ON HIS FACE FEELS LIKE VELVET. I hope that is not just a photo you pulled from anywhere internet and that it really is an animal on the farm. I would KNOW that face anywhere!
LaughLaugh

best line of the evening! Congrats!! LaughLaugh


(This post was edited by georger on Nov 2, 2013, 12:12 AM)
Attachments: 4363_z.jpg (130 KB)


skyjack71

Nov 2, 2013, 12:17 AM
Post #48048 of 52823 (11347 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BruceSmith] Respect A WORD U Don't Know! [In reply to] Can't Post

BruceSmith wrote:
Remember, I know and have written about your lying to me on your story of first hearing about Cooper - Duane's sick bed or on the trail in 1979 near Lake Camas. Can't have it both ways, Jo.

NO I don't remember you writing anything about Duane's final wks. IF anything YOU WROTE IN ANY book contradicts what I said in this thread regarding Duane's trip to the hospital and what transpired up until is death is convoluted in anyway - to reflect other than was was intended - YOU WILL PAY DE GAL! YOU will NEVER EVER GET A BOOK published unless it is says FICTION.

I won't read your FRICKING book - all I want to know is IF what you wrote is ACCURATE regarding Myself and anything I have said. THERE-fore send me a text with only what refers to me.

Remember if the story about the trip to the hospital as told it in this thread by me has been change to REFLECT YOUR obtuse point of VIEW in your book - you WILL be charged, There will be nothing to GAIN other than the FACT there was a legal action against you for FRAUD and SLANDER and perhaps CRIMINAL mischief in some of the incidents. WE are all in agreement on this - YOU will be publically humiliated and made to clean up what is YOUR opinion and not FACT. THIS mean removing any statements of "personal opinion" from the book regarding individuals that is offensive and inaccurate information as already publically stated by the individuals in this thread and other media sources.

I have NO idea what you claimed or how you interperted anything about when I took Duane to the Hospital for the last time - as far as I know it HAS not changed - nor have I lied about any part of it. I might not remember all the details but I remember enough to get the point across. It is respectful when you write a book about REAL people AND REAL facts that you communicate with the individual and ask THEM if it is ok and for them to proof the things you claim they said.

PERHAP YOU MISUNDERSTOOD - or your interpertation is twisted to suit your own needs. YOU DO A LOT OF THAT! USUALLY BECAUSE YOU LIKE TO CHANGE THINGS TO SUIT YOUR MINDSET. YOU DEAL with REAL people YOU deal with REAL facts.

YOU WILL not be allowed to profit or gain notoriety by twisting words and interviews of any person. You will be served papers regarding this matter in a few wks.

The trail in 1979 - since I do NOT know exacly what you are referencing regarding the stops Duane and I made I cannot make judgement on. You did go back to the area with me and encase you didn't already KNOW! MEN on the GROUND!


(This post was edited by skyjack71 on Nov 2, 2013, 12:40 AM)


BruceSmith

Nov 2, 2013, 12:25 AM
Post #48049 of 52823 (11341 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjack71] Respect of Tina Mucklow. [In reply to] Can't Post

skyjack71 wrote:
BruceSmith wrote:
Remember, I know and have written about your lying to me on your story of first hearing about Cooper - Duane's sick bed or on the trail in 1979 near Lake Camas. Can't have it both ways, Jo.

IF any thing YOU WROTE IN ANY book contradicts what I said in this thread regarding Duane's trip to the hospital and what transpired up until is death is convoluted in any way - to reflect other than was was intended - YOU WILL PAY DE GAL! YOU will NEVER EVER GET A BOOK published unless it is say FICTION.

I won't read your FRICKING book - all I want to know is IF what you wrote is ACCURATE regarding Myself and anything I have said. THEREfore send me a text with only what refers to me.

Remember if the story about the trip to the hospital as told it in this thread by me has been change to REFLECT YOUR obtuse point of VIEW in your book - you WILL be charged, There will be nothing to GAIN other than the FACT there was a legal action against you for FRAUD and SLANDER in some of the incidents. WE are all in agreement on this - YOU will be publically humiliated and made to clean up what is YOUR opinion and not FACT. THIS mean removing any your statements of "personal opinion" from the book regarding individuals and subject matter already publically stated in this thread and other media sources.

YOU WILL not be allowed to profit or gain notoriety by twisting words and interviews of any person. You will be served papers regarding this matter in a few wks.


The trail in 1979 - since I do NOT know exacly what you are referencing regarding the stops Duane and I made I cannot state. You did go back to the area with me and encase you didn't already KNOW! MEN on the GROUND!


Okay, Jo, so you're going to sue me. Do I have that correct?

But the bigger question is how you got Tina Mucklow's phone number and address, and why somebody gave it to you.

You infer you couldn't source the identity of the tipster but you have an idea who it might be.

So, please tell us who it was and why they gave you this information. Thanks.

As for the law suit, you'll have to get in line behind Blevs; he was first. Somebody else wants to sue me, but I forget who. Sigh, I should take better notes regarding my legal difficulties...

BTW: Are you going to sue me first or Galen? I understand you want to sue him, too. I told him that a few days ago and he asked me:

"Why the hell does she want to do that? What have I done?"

I'll look forward to chatting with your attorney. Perhaps we can take a deposition from you and find out who gave you Tina's contact information and get you to declare exactly when and where you first heard about DB Cooper. You are pretty wishy-washy about that tidbit.

Just saying.

See you in court, sweetie.


(This post was edited by BruceSmith on Nov 2, 2013, 12:33 AM)


skyjack71

Nov 2, 2013, 12:56 AM
Post #48050 of 52823 (11326 views)
Shortcut
Re: [georger] pouts [In reply to] Can't Post

Awwwl! Now you know why I liked your post - made me remember the Giddy pic! Never posted before.

Looks a lot like your GUY!
Attachments: Blk & Wht.jpg (12.8 KB)
  Giddy.jpg (167 KB)


First page Previous page 1 ... 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 ... 2113 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Skydiving History & Trivia

 


Search for (options)