Forums: Skydiving: Skydiving History & Trivia:
DB Cooper

 

First page Previous page 1 ... 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 ... 2261 Next page Last page  View All

RobertMBlevins

Nov 1, 2013, 12:07 AM
Post #47976 of 56511 (36858 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BruceSmith] Bones in the woods....... [In reply to] Can't Post

Bruce Smith says in part:

Quote:
'And so to preserve her honor and dignity, I am challenging your superficial assumptions and writings. (On Tina Mucklow) I find them insulting...'

Really? Aren't you the same guy who insulted the shit out of Tina's brother in law and his wife (brother is a retired FBI agent) in your 'trying to make contact with Tina' article, (because he wouldn't cooperate with you)...and then later tried to accost Tina at her house in Springfield, Oregon...and were rejected?

LOL. Give me a break. You haven't learned yet how to treat possible interviewees with 'honor and dignity,' so you really have no right speak on that one way or another. I like you Bruce, I really do. But your interview technique has been simple enough. If people do what you want and cooperate with you, then you write nice things. If not, you come down on them in a personal way. As if they owe you something and failing to get the answers you think they should provide, you trash them in other ways.

You see, I found out you can get much more from people and convince them to open up by being nice. If they lie, you check on it later. You don't trash them personally with things that have nothing to do with the article, just because they said no. That's what you did with the Dormuth family out of Shelton, even though I warned you it was a bad idea.

So don't preach to me about 'interview techiniques' please. Or 'honor and dignity' with some of the folks you've interviewed. For a guy who has actually worked on a newspaper as you have, this skill in you is seriously lacking.


(This post was edited by RobertMBlevins on Nov 1, 2013, 12:14 AM)


BruceSmith

Nov 1, 2013, 12:11 AM
Post #47977 of 56511 (36853 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjack71] Bones in the woods....... [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Although you are not completely correct - you are at least showing some compassion why Tina keeps away from the public eye. Remember the terrible things Bruce did and the terrible things he has written about her. If EVER got the chance I would love to slap the hell out of Bruce for Tina, but with my luck and old bones I would break something.
Quote:

You want a piece of me Jo? Come and get it.

As for Tina, I find your Pollyanna bromides about this woman to be revolting. Something very serious has happened to this woman, and think trying to find out what occured to her is both honorable and responsible journalism.

Hiding her, or attempting to control access to her, is not helping her in my judgement. What! You should be the only one to have access to the Muklows and Dormuths?

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?


(This post was edited by BruceSmith on Nov 1, 2013, 12:17 AM)


BruceSmith

Nov 1, 2013, 12:15 AM
Post #47978 of 56511 (36847 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RobertMBlevins] Bones in the woods....... [In reply to] Can't Post

RobertMBlevins wrote:
Bruce Smith says in part:

Quote:
'And so to preserve her honor and dignity, I am challenging your superficial assumptions and writings. (On Tina Mucklow) I find them insulting...'

Really? Aren't you the same guy who insulted the shit out of Tina's brother in law and his wife (brother is a retired FBI agent) in your 'trying to make contact with Tina' article, (because he wouldn't cooperate with you)...and then later tried to accost her at her house in Springfield, Oregon...and were rejected?

LOL. Give me a break. You haven't learned yet how to treat possible interviewees with 'honor and dignity,' so you really have no right speak on that one way or another. I like you Bruce, I really do. But your interview technique has been simple enough. If people do what you want and cooperate with you, then you write nice things. If not, you come down on them in a personal way. As if they owe you something and failing to get the answers you think they should provide, you trash them in other ways.

You see, I found out you can get much more from people and convince them to open up by being nice. If they lie, you check on it later. You don't trash them personally with things that have nothing to do with the article, just because they said no. That's what you did with the Dormuth family out of Shelton, even though I warned you it was a bad idea.

So don't preach to me about 'interview techiniques' please. Or 'honor and dignity' with some of the folks you've interviewed. For a guy who has actually worked on a newspaper as you have, this skill in you is seriously lacking.

Still avoiding the questions I ask, eh, Robert.

Some people just like being character assassins.


(This post was edited by BruceSmith on Nov 1, 2013, 12:16 AM)


mrshutter45

Nov 1, 2013, 4:40 AM
Post #47979 of 56511 (36816 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RobertMBlevins] Got Sugar? [In reply to] Can't Post

Robert, just about every criminal case with a description is under "extreme duress". if it was that bad the cops wouldn't even bother asking them anything. you are sugar coating the hell out of the thing. they are trained to deal with problems. you are once again using worse case scenario's to it's fullest.

"So I don't want to hear any more stuff about 'cool under pressure' or 'calm, collected"

guess what, you going to hear about it. how were they able to fly the plane under such pressure? how was the stews able to control the passengers while being under "extreme duress" I don't believe the passenger's had a clue what was going on. the "deer in the headlights" picture can mean many things. this was just after the whole thing was over. how hard was it raining when she had to retrieve the chutes, got sugar?

let's look at reality shall we? nobody gave any indication Cooper was bald on the top of his head. even the passengers that were not under "extreme duress". they were able to control the situation, they were able to describe the bomb (in detail) they were able to fly the plane all the way to Reno without harming anyone. if
you found out tomorrow that KC wasn't Cooper, what do you think your position will be about this case? will everything you try and prove as fact continue?

"heavily religious girl"
I mentioned this before. Tina was already a very religious person. do you know for a fact that this caused her to join a convent? something a "heavily religious" person just might do? perhaps she put the whole thing behind her. can you prove she doesn't remember anything? or is it possible that she could care less how much this means to anyone else. how can you conclude her friend list is small? you really have no clue what her personal life is about.
hey, why don't you drop a few bucks and get her background?

Just because someone claims they don't remember anything doesn't mean they don't. that is proven in courts everyday. your track record hasn't been up to par from what I've read over the years. you have been mistaken
or completely wrong about a lot of things. I can turn the tables on you statistic wise, just like you do with everything else. what ever happened to talking with KC's doctor? did you send the letter to Rataczak? how about your document search, hows that coming along? still nothing on your website talking about the NPR doing an investigation on KC. this should be good news?. I find it strange that a writer who has a website doesn't promote this, or the NPR breaking into it? you have dozens of emails a day with people asking questions, shouldn't you publicly announce this good news?

perhaps you should give up your Part Time jobs and consider joining the FBI. you could be the rookie who solved the 40+ year old case. I'm sure you would rise above the veteran's in record time Cool

this was added after reading Bruce Smiths reply to Blevins.

Fear mongering (or scaremongering or scare tactics) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.


(This post was edited by mrshutter45 on Nov 1, 2013, 5:31 AM)


mrshutter45

Nov 1, 2013, 8:17 AM
Post #47980 of 56511 (36771 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mrshutter45] Fear [In reply to] Can't Post

there are many different levels of fear. one poster wishes to use this as a tool. I've decided to do the same. this quote is from the Homeland Security website on Hijacking Survival.

"Remember that the hijackers will be extremely nervous and probably as scared as you are. Although they may appear calm, they cannot be trusted to behave reasonably or rationally. Fear can trigger a disaster. One wrong move by either a victim or a hijacker could easily set off a defensive spate of violence. To promote a peaceful resolution of the situation"

If you go by what one poster claims about Fear, or being nervous, how can the hijacker accomplish his mission?
Cooper was noted as "nervous, but not uptight" how could people under "extreme duress" reach conclusions with such detail like the describing the bomb. or what was written in the note given to Flo? can someone scared out of there wits joke with the hijacker? they were able to transmit all of Cooper's demands without any sign of danger to the passenger's.

Back in the early 90's I worked in a bar. broke up many fights. one night will remain in my memory. it started with a guy being involved with the barmaid, she was also with another guy. a fight broke out in the bar consisting of about 6 people. one guy was teamed up on. I managed to get the problem some what under control (others helped) the guy who got the worse end of the fight went out into the parking lot and retrieved a baseball bat. by this time 15 to 20 people were outside including an off duty Miami policeman (a regular) the guy with the bat was spinning it in a backwards motion telling people if they get near him, he would defend himself. I was standing right beside him and didn't notice the cop went into his trunk and pulled out his gun and fired once hitting the guy in the upper right side of his leg, just below his pelvis. it hit a main artery and he died within minutes. I tried to stop the bleeding, but it was too much to control. the first officer on the scene came from, you guessed it, the donut shop across the street. I remember her holding her gun on the off duty cop (just above my head), her hands were shaking as I tried to tell her he was a cop. moments later every cop came from all the surrounding cities to assist the female cop who showed up first. the last I seen her was about 3 minutes after the the rest of the cops showed up. she was standing in between two parked cars in total shock with her firearm in her hand pointed straight down. later I found out she was relatively new to the force, and had never pulled her weapon on someone. the time frame was around closing time 2 AM.

I witnessed several levels of fear and shock. sadly one of them was the guy who died. I'll never forget his eye's. he immediately went into shock. the female officer was scared the second she came on the scene. I can't believe that the people aboard flight 305 were in any type of fear I have witnessed. if they were, they would not been able to perform there duties. I'm not saying they were not scared, but believe it's over exaggerated by some. I have plenty more stories very similar to this one. even though the female officer showed fear, she was first on the scene and took control. I never saw her again, even during the trial.

This whole story lasted only minutes, not hours. the fight inside lasted about two minutes. the part outside lasted less than 2 minutes, and seconds before the first cop was on the scene. IMHO I don't think we had the same fear on board 305. I think the reports of there professionalism and courage speak for themselves. I'm not saying that got everything 100% correct, but believe they were capable of doing what was called for, and what was asked of them. including descriptions.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/...ce-officer-bat-brawl

for you sports, fans the barmaid Tara Biasucci. her brother was a kicker for the colts.


(This post was edited by mrshutter45 on Nov 1, 2013, 8:59 AM)


Robert99

Nov 1, 2013, 9:41 AM
Post #47981 of 56511 (36736 views)
Shortcut
Re: [uberalles] Weather Condition PDX 24 NOV 1971 7:00pm [In reply to] Can't Post

uberalles wrote:
These are the correct numbers recorded on the ground at PDX 7:00pm (next recorded data was at 10:00pm) I got this from a weather site

Temperature w/windchill - 43 F
Humidity - 86%
Barometric Pressure -30.01
Visibility -15 miles
Winds from the SE - 4.6 mph (No Gusts)
Light rain showers

Typical MILD Portland weather and not at all the raging storm I have read about...

You are absolutely correct! All available weather data supports a relatively mild and humid evening with some light rain showers. NOTHING supports the raging storm theory. Just another typical evening in the Portland area.

Hominid has posted extensively on this thread about the weather. His analysis is the "Gold Standard" for the weather in Portland, and throughout the Pacific Northwest, for that evening.

Let me add that Hominid had access to the US Weather Service maps and information and all FAA weather information including hourly sequence reports, cloud and overcast information, winds aloft forecasts, forecasts for various locations, etc.. To repeat, Hominid had access to ALL available weather information in making his analysis and that information was extensive.

Robert99


(This post was edited by Robert99 on Nov 1, 2013, 10:51 AM)


MarkBennett

Nov 1, 2013, 10:31 AM
Post #47982 of 56511 (36704 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RobertMBlevins] Bones in the woods....... [In reply to] Can't Post

"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?


georger

Nov 1, 2013, 11:38 AM
Post #47983 of 56511 (36690 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MarkBennett] Bones in the woods....... [In reply to] Can't Post

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!


uberalles

Nov 1, 2013, 1:41 PM
Post #47984 of 56511 (36651 views)
Shortcut
Re: [georger] Bones in the woods....... [In reply to] Can't Post

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??


EVickiW

Nov 1, 2013, 2:35 PM
Post #47985 of 56511 (36662 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 #47986 of 56511 (36577 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 #47987 of 56511 (36572 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 #47988 of 56511 (36563 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 #47989 of 56511 (36557 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 #47990 of 56511 (36545 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 #47991 of 56511 (36539 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 #47992 of 56511 (36515 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 #47993 of 56511 (36503 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 #47994 of 56511 (36497 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 #47995 of 56511 (36492 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 #47996 of 56511 (36484 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 #47997 of 56511 (36480 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 #47998 of 56511 (36466 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 #47999 of 56511 (36446 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 #48000 of 56511 (36471 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)


First page Previous page 1 ... 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 ... 2261 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Skydiving History & Trivia

 


Search for (options)