georger 197
Recommended Posts
Quote
Lyle does not also acknowledge you as his personal
spokesperson, as you claimed here (by contract?).
Maybe you need to review your contract you claim to have with Lyle, and who speaks for who on all matters Christiansen, or Egyptian compost for that
matter!?
As for Lyle's contract with Christainsen - none of us know how that contract reads.
We can be assure that Lyle is unaware that Blevins is his spokes person. In fact Lyle has an engagement to speak at a writers group next yr. Perhaps someone needs to refer Lyle to a GOOD entertainment attorney in his area.
When individuals age the brain's reasoning ability becomes dimished - that is not to say ALL individuals do this. Even if our intellect holds - our judgement is not always as sound as it used to be....especially when we tread upon grounds we are not accustomed to.
Individuals like Gray, Cook, Blevins, Dirk and many many others over the yrs want to WRITE the BOOK that GOT COOPER! There is just NO WAY they can do it, because I had him all along!
What concerns me about how Blevins developed his book is not the story subject itself, but the 2 women who got sucked into this. Lyle had seen a program about Cooper and thought maybe Kenney was Cooper and maybe what he was trying to tell him before he died.
At least Weber actually told me he was Dan Cooper, but this dumb broad didn't know who Dan Cooper was - so he could just as well have been saying he was Mickey Mouse. The part about jumping out of plane - I said "Oh Come on give me a break - you jump out of plane!"
There are only 2 answers in regarding Cooper's survival.
1. He died in the jump.
2. He survived by NEVER discussing the jump with a sole, until he reached a stage in his life when no one could hurt him. He would die a free man and not in a cell.
Duane CHOSE me the night he met me! My name in "the day" was Jo Jones. You guys know exactly the response that name gets when a guys meet a woman in a public place. Sure Baby sure! Well, I chose to use another name because of past negative responses - and Duane started to ask some unusual questions - about my family.
Did he LOVE me or did he USE me? Well, I know he loved me or at least come to love me, but I am not sure of his intent to start with... Of course I would not know this until 12 yrs into the marriage when the highway patrol knocks on my door and shows me a picture. "Do you know this man?"
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
The response you made to Georger is totally uncalled for;
Perhaps you should read what you just wrote and perhaps you should attempt to retify your position!
Below is the Statement You made regarding Georger's opinions.
Blevins stated:
Blevins YOU owe EVERYONE here an apology. You do not mind using this thread to promote yourself and your book, but YOU are NOT able to take it when they THROW things back at you. Your position is that Georger should be permantely banned and your making statements like that have caused you in the past to have to take a vacation.
Shall we talk about how many times you have STORMED out of the thread?
Shall we talk about how many time you have cause HARDSHIPS for others?
You are NOT here to be objective about Cooper - you came here to promote your book, but learned you didn't actually have the information and knowledge you needed. These guys took you under their wings and tutored you - and then you rewrote the book several times.
Yes, your promoting your book here does ire some of us, but YOU are the one that ultimately causes individual to be put on vacation. You are all about CONTROL and PROMOTING.
Rather than approach the subject objectively you THROW out your same OLE STUFF defending your book and your investigation.
I will state this very clearly right now. I deplore HOW you wrote the book. YOU took advantage of a lot of elderly people for your own EGO and SELF IMAGE. You also use this Thread to promote your book and now you will NOT even allow us to discuss anything other than YOUR BOOK and constantly defending your book and ON TOP of that you use this thread to promote your own SELF worth.
Go Back and Write the Real Story about how a hungry writer used and exploited elderly people to enhance his book. You did NOT actually do the background work BEFORE you started to inteview people. YOU took the words of others and misconstruted the words of others to write your book.
You have always been kind to me and I have tried to be likewise to you, but enough is enough. When YOU ATTACK others who stand against you it is time to Stand Down & Grow-up!
Perhaps you should read what you just wrote and perhaps you should attempt to retify your position!
Below is the Statement You made regarding Georger's opinions.
Blevins stated:
QuoteIf you quote a response from Gray that affirms your BS then I will gladly eat crow. Otherwise, my position is that you should be banned from Dropzone permanently for making up quotes by others.
Integrity and reliability, my butt.
Blevins YOU owe EVERYONE here an apology. You do not mind using this thread to promote yourself and your book, but YOU are NOT able to take it when they THROW things back at you. Your position is that Georger should be permantely banned and your making statements like that have caused you in the past to have to take a vacation.
Shall we talk about how many times you have STORMED out of the thread?
Shall we talk about how many time you have cause HARDSHIPS for others?
You are NOT here to be objective about Cooper - you came here to promote your book, but learned you didn't actually have the information and knowledge you needed. These guys took you under their wings and tutored you - and then you rewrote the book several times.
Yes, your promoting your book here does ire some of us, but YOU are the one that ultimately causes individual to be put on vacation. You are all about CONTROL and PROMOTING.
Rather than approach the subject objectively you THROW out your same OLE STUFF defending your book and your investigation.
I will state this very clearly right now. I deplore HOW you wrote the book. YOU took advantage of a lot of elderly people for your own EGO and SELF IMAGE. You also use this Thread to promote your book and now you will NOT even allow us to discuss anything other than YOUR BOOK and constantly defending your book and ON TOP of that you use this thread to promote your own SELF worth.
Go Back and Write the Real Story about how a hungry writer used and exploited elderly people to enhance his book. You did NOT actually do the background work BEFORE you started to inteview people. YOU took the words of others and misconstruted the words of others to write your book.
You have always been kind to me and I have tried to be likewise to you, but enough is enough. When YOU ATTACK others who stand against you it is time to Stand Down & Grow-up!
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
georger 197
Quote
"If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..."
Marilyn Monroe
Sorry, but I don't believe an apology is forthcoming. When people begin to make up stuff in an effort to support one view or another, I have a problem.
"If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..."
Marilyn Monroe
Georger quoted Geoff Gray with something Gray did not say, and stubbornly sticks to that story. Then he tried to blame it off on others in a rather lame manner.
"If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..."
Marilyn Monroe
I gave him the link to verify with Gray. This has nothing to do with any book. This is a matter of integrity. I've had quite enough with his postings saying this or that without proof.
"If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..."
Marilyn Monroe
Calling him on them seemed perfectly natural. Continuing this might qualify him for inclusion into the Bob Knoss Fan Club.
"If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..."
Marilyn Monroe
Hey Marilyn: why would I need a link from you to
get to Geoff Gray, when I have his personal cell
number? Duhhh.
Pick on somebody else for a change - Get a new
schtik.
.thumb.JPG.e3961c3b7e4427878bb877a252be4a17.JPG)
QuoteQuote
"If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..."
Marilyn Monroe
Hey Marilyn: why would I need a link from you to
get to Geoff Gray, when I have his personal cell
number? Duhhh.
------------------------------------------------------------
Georger, this is so mean spirited. It's a low blow, c'mon!
Here are but two examples in an endless list of such
suppositions Safe makes, which he calls 'premises'!
(1) "Nothing was found within 1 square foot of the Ingram find, and nowhere else".
True?
(2) "The Tena Bar money involves money that was either in a bag, or not in a bag".
True? Are these the only options?
I could list another twenty examples of similar
suppositions Safe makes; on which he then claims
to perform a logical matching and reduction.
He even goes so far as to attach probabilities to the
suppositions he choses. Well if the actual number of
known options available at some point in his logic
are say 4-6, and Safe has only chosen 2, how
accurate can his estimates of probabilities of 1 and
2 be, if 3,4,5, and 6 are excluded?
It is acceptable to attach subjective probabilities to real life scenarios, statisticians do it everyday. Choosing fewer options is not necessarily a bad thing either. As Safe stated, every time you add another less than 1 probability to the mix, it makes the overall scenario more complicated and more unlikely -- a simple application of the multiplication rule for probability. And it's totally acceptable to make assumptions in probabalistic analysis -- as long as you tell everyone up front what they are and why you're doing it ... and Safe seems to have done this -- I see no problem with what he has done.
suppositions Safe makes, which he calls 'premises'!
(1) "Nothing was found within 1 square foot of the Ingram find, and nowhere else".
True?
(2) "The Tena Bar money involves money that was either in a bag, or not in a bag".
True? Are these the only options?
I could list another twenty examples of similar
suppositions Safe makes; on which he then claims
to perform a logical matching and reduction.
He even goes so far as to attach probabilities to the
suppositions he choses. Well if the actual number of
known options available at some point in his logic
are say 4-6, and Safe has only chosen 2, how
accurate can his estimates of probabilities of 1 and
2 be, if 3,4,5, and 6 are excluded?
It is acceptable to attach subjective probabilities to real life scenarios, statisticians do it everyday. Choosing fewer options is not necessarily a bad thing either. As Safe stated, every time you add another less than 1 probability to the mix, it makes the overall scenario more complicated and more unlikely -- a simple application of the multiplication rule for probability. And it's totally acceptable to make assumptions in probabalistic analysis -- as long as you tell everyone up front what they are and why you're doing it ... and Safe seems to have done this -- I see no problem with what he has done.
georger 197
QuoteHere are but two examples in an endless list of such
suppositions Safe makes, which he calls 'premises'!
(1) "Nothing was found within 1 square foot of the Ingram find, and nowhere else".
True?
(2) "The Tena Bar money involves money that was either in a bag, or not in a bag".
True? Are these the only options?
I could list another twenty examples of similar
suppositions Safe makes; on which he then claims
to perform a logical matching and reduction.
He even goes so far as to attach probabilities to the
suppositions he choses. Well if the actual number of
known options available at some point in his logic
are say 4-6, and Safe has only chosen 2, how
accurate can his estimates of probabilities of 1 and
2 be, if 3,4,5, and 6 are excluded?
It is acceptable to attach subjective probabilities to real life scenarios, statisticians do it everyday. Choosing fewer options is not necessarily a bad thing either. As Safe stated, every time you add another less than 1 probability to the mix, it makes the overall scenario more complicated and more unlikely -- a simple application of the multiplication rule for probability. And it's totally acceptable to make assumptions in probabalistic analysis -- as long as you tell everyone up front what they are and why you're doing it ... and Safe seems to have done this -- I see no problem with what he has done.
Through the lens of logics purports to apply a formal
discovery procedure to various alleged facts in the
Cooper case, using the following operations:
Commutative Laws:
a + b = b + a
a × b = b × a
Associative Laws:
(a + b) + c = a + (b + c)
(a × b) × c = a × (b × c)
Distributive Law:
a × (b + c) = a × b + a × c
Why? In order to discover previously unknown (or
unrecognised) relationships based on the known
or unrecognised facts in the Cooper case. (It is
like looking for previously unknown planets in the
universe using some new technology - yes?)
The value of the system is no better than the set
of 'facts' Safecracking alleges are true and performs
an operation on.
I previously cited two 'facts' Safecracking cites, which
I say are untrue, unknown, or unknowable. I also
cited an example of an operation Safe makes, which
is faulty because it is not a strict application of
the 'rules of operation' usually applied in formal
logic, cited above.
Safecracking claims there are several Paradoxes
which result from his application of logic. Those
Paradoxes, however, can be shown to be the result
of false or unknown premises, Safe used in his logic,
at the beginning.
In other words: false facts in > paradox out.
I understand Safe's motivation. His application, and
I think his understanding of formal systems in
general, is lacking. There are other formal
mathematical discovery systems which would have
far greater utility in this situation, comparted to what
Safecracking is attempting to apply, in as much as
they are empiracle in nature, and not reliant on
concepts and assumptions only.
My greatest criticism, frankly, is that Safe is taking a
deductive approach, which requires the making of
assumptions, whereas problems in the Cooper case
are empiracle and inductive by their very nature.
If you have read the thread you will note that I
already recommended the use of the "Ruis fractal
probability algebra" for examining "specific issues"
in the Cooper case. Rather than taking the global
approach Mr. Safecracking has done, I prefer to
examine subsets of the whole Cooper case; for
example money flow to Tena Bar, as distinct from
flight path (implications). Then pending the results
of those specific examinations apply an inductive
process looking for links between the results of one
examination (in one specific problem), to the results
obtained in a separate examination of another
problem in the Cooper case.
One can conduct such modeling using computer
software.
Have I done such an examination - yes, a little, as
much as time and circumatnces allowed.
Safecracking is employing a deductive process which
is frought with weakness, right from the beginning.
His conclusions are no better than the premeses he
makes. If he then throws in a few crucial leaps in
logic which happen to be wrong, then his cocnlusions
will be wildly - wrong. An Inductive process follows a
different route and builds 'true facts' inductively, as
opposed to assuming them. That is the difference,
in my opinion.
Quote
Nice to hear from you, SafecrackingPLF. I understand about the anonymity issue, I just thought since some folks on the DZ know each other by their real names, someone might know your real name. Not necessary to know.
Your TTLOL series must have been a major undertaking, I applaud your efforts. I enjoyed the series, twice. I am always intrigued by how folks apply statistical logic and mathematics -- it's what I do, I'm a college math teacher.
No one's perfect; granted, you took some liberties, but you took on something that very few folks would even dare.
I was definitely intrigued by your application of the the normal curve/empirical rule to the timeframe for the Tena Bar money find the year before discovery(your discovery and money axioms), and the third paradox about the Tena Bar money: the money must have traveled in the money bag v. the money couldn't have traveled in the money bag. That's the one that's got me thinking.
If you create something new in the future, I'll check it out for sure. Best wishes.
MeyerLouie
There are a very few on DZ that know my RL name. It's not that it's a huge secret or anything, but who I am shouldn't really matter as much as what I say, IMO.
I appreciate your sentiments. There is one fellow on here in particular (you can take a stab at who that might be) that told me (and I could cut n paste the quote if needed) that doing the series would be a waste of time since everything I could possibly discuss had already been discussed here on DZ.
That was blatantly false, and I knew it.
There is more that I know which I'll discuss a little at the bottom of this post.
You did say
QuoteTrue, there were contradictions.
I'd like to know what these were. I've found some mistakes in the series, but they're minor and would not lead to any different conclusions. Perhaps I've missed something?
When you first said that I used stats liberally, I wasn't quite sure what you meant. I knew you would be correct either way... a lot, sure used em a lot. The other way, as you put it, took liberties. That's putting it lightly, and in particular the instance that you noted with Palmer's one year opinion and the timeline.
What you'll notice when I take liberties is that it doesn't matter. I'm making a point and using some sort of reference to make the point. The references might be arbitrary or incorrectly applied... for example, I do not know for sure if we ran a hypothetical money find 1,000 times if Palmer's opinion would follow a normal distribution. The beauty as I said is that it doesn't matter, I was trying to illustrate a point which I think was shown very well using the bell curve.
SKyjack71 and I have spoken, through PM and what have you, enough since I've been away from this message board for me to understand where she's coming from.
It's a touchy thing to have a discussion with someone that may or may not be a witness. It's easy to accidentally tamper and ruin a source of knowledge. I've definitely had to proceed cautiously in that regard, but if you look closely you'll notice that her narrative has changed some in the last 3 years or so. Much of this has to do with my occasional phone discussions. I will tell you that the original narrative that she told me was totally incorrect. When I say narrative, I'm talking about her viewpoints and not events that she claims to recall.
TTLOL focused on looking at the evidence for the story it tells (or probable story it tells if you will). Biases and cognitive error have massively distorted public opinion, opinion of those that are interested in the case, and unfortunately investigators in the case. Removing those mistakes is what TTLOL was about.
FWIW, similar mistakes are prevalent everywhere and are not only found in the Cooper case.
The model (optimal solution as I called it) is one I've been working on for years. No one seemed to be too interested in it, so I worked on it alone. What I can tell you now is that the model is not only to be favored from a mathematical standpoint on the evidence alone, it's actually quite profound in the sense that I've made predictions with it and seemingly verified with Jo on the veracity of them. Those confirmations, if you will, have led to me to become 100% convinced that it not only should be favored, but that it is what happened.
If I've somehow misjudged this, I'm not incorrect in saying that the model explains the evidence perfectly where all other theories do not. When I stop and think about this, with some of those predictions, the hair on the back of my neck stands up. It's that strong.
I'm hopeful to explain all this down the road at some point, but time is a huge factor. I had a good 10 minutes to waste just now, thus the post... but to put this together will be an undertaking as you say.
It has kept me sleepless at times over the last 2 years in particular. The final breakthrough was achieved around a year ago, so I've made pretty much no progress on it since then. I believe that I know about 80-90% of what can be known. There are some people that have far more energy, time, and resources that could potentially fill in some of the remaining holes through a lot of hard work - but I'm not that person.
I'm more than happy to discuss things with you, especially since you're mathematically inclined. I'm also willing to discuss with any person of science given that they use the scientific method. I will not discuss anything with self proclaimed logicians that add nothing to the case and ride the coattails of their friends, nor with people off their meds, nor book writers. Use the PM. I'm not here often, but in time, I'll do my best to correspond.
georger 197
I'm more than happy to discuss things with you, especially since you're mathematically inclined. I'm also willing to discuss with any person of science given that they use the scientific method. I will not discuss anything with self proclaimed logicians that add nothing to the case and ride the coattails of their friends, nor with people off their meds, nor book writers. Use the PM. I'm not here often, but in time, I'll do my best to correspond.
Look ... can you siccinctly state your conclusions
or revelations you claim to have discovered from
your 'through the lens of logic', which othewrwise
escaped the notice of people and FBI agents
examining the DB Cooper case?
Surely that was the end-goal of your project?
And surely, people are not as dull or unintelligent
or impure as you imply above, if we are co-equal
partners in the human race to which you also belong!
It would seem a simple request: As in . . .
1.
2.
3.
4.
Thanks in advance, I am one of those 'any person of science' you specify above...
G.
mrshutter45 21
QuoteGeorger asks=
Quote'Look ... can you siccinctly state your conclusions or revelations you claim to have discovered from your 'through the lens of logic', which othewrwise escaped the notice of people and FBI agents examining the DB Cooper case?...'
I second that emotion.
pretty much escaped the notice of You Tube as well
"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI
Farflung 0
You know how some authors take poetic license and stretch it to every extreme possible? I mean, you hope for some accurate representation as a product of the over 300,000 words available in the English language, but it never seems to work that way. Here’s an example:
A. So I’m being all cool this weekend with a bunch of chicks sensing my power and skill. I’m holding my 28.3468746356283489 foot, Magnum at optimum speed with all the skill that like 9,000 years of experience brings; when some douche cuts me off. Thanks to my fast thinking, cat like reflexes, and Ray Bans, I was able to save the day with all the chicks falling over themselves to get to me. Man was I cool while handling the controls of that mighty vessel. People who don’t own boats wish they were me.
B. It appears that the grand experiment of people being able to protect themselves has officially come to an end, or soon will due to emergency rooms being flooded with the likes that Darwin himself theorized should be vanquished from the gene pool. Incapable of understanding the most basic principles of physics, these very reasons for the astronomically high, medical insurance premiums manage to push the envelope to a new level. Sans restraints, helmets, padded instrument panel, seats, licenses, stereo-optic vision, flotation devices or eye-hand coordination, groups of like minded manage to gather as one, to celebrate the subsidies the rest of society has provided to keep them alive. This ultimately culminating in a ‘freak accident’ which no one could have possibly foreseen. These are the same people who need warning signs since their collective literacy is greater than common sense or the pain experienced from a previous, similar and much smaller mishap in adolescence.
Now you decide which the more accurate narrative is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWqlFCQB8xU&feature=related
A. So I’m being all cool this weekend with a bunch of chicks sensing my power and skill. I’m holding my 28.3468746356283489 foot, Magnum at optimum speed with all the skill that like 9,000 years of experience brings; when some douche cuts me off. Thanks to my fast thinking, cat like reflexes, and Ray Bans, I was able to save the day with all the chicks falling over themselves to get to me. Man was I cool while handling the controls of that mighty vessel. People who don’t own boats wish they were me.
B. It appears that the grand experiment of people being able to protect themselves has officially come to an end, or soon will due to emergency rooms being flooded with the likes that Darwin himself theorized should be vanquished from the gene pool. Incapable of understanding the most basic principles of physics, these very reasons for the astronomically high, medical insurance premiums manage to push the envelope to a new level. Sans restraints, helmets, padded instrument panel, seats, licenses, stereo-optic vision, flotation devices or eye-hand coordination, groups of like minded manage to gather as one, to celebrate the subsidies the rest of society has provided to keep them alive. This ultimately culminating in a ‘freak accident’ which no one could have possibly foreseen. These are the same people who need warning signs since their collective literacy is greater than common sense or the pain experienced from a previous, similar and much smaller mishap in adolescence.
Now you decide which the more accurate narrative is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWqlFCQB8xU&feature=related
QuoteSorry, but I don't believe an apology is forthcoming. When people begin to make up stuff in an effort to support one view or another, I have a problem.
Georger quoted Geoff Gray with something Gray did not say, and stubbornly sticks to that story. Then he tried to blame it off on others in a rather lame manner. I gave him the link to verify with Gray. This has nothing to do with any book. This is a matter of integrity. I've had quite enough with his postings saying this or that without proof. Calling him on them seemed perfectly natural. Continuing this might qualify him for inclusion into the Bob Knoss Fan Club.
Pick up the phone and call Geoffrey - you do know his number don't you. Instead of stomping around and blaming others - pick up the DAMN phone and all him. Have you EVER spoke to him on the phone or do you depend on others to do that for you? I didn't take YOUR word for the things you have claimed about others - I picked up the phone. Want ME to MAKE the call for YOU to Gray? Out-line EXACTLY the question you want to ask him in 2 lines. NOT a lot of gibberish!Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
QuoteIt was years between the time Kenny died and Lyle started making an association that his brother could possibly be Cooper. Maybe ten years or a bit more, right?
Lyle was watching a TV program called Unsolved Mysteries (probably the one done on Duane L. Weber) when he decided Kenny might be Cooper.
The program was recorded in 2001 and repeated several time. I never got to view it on TV, but was provided a tape of it. I chose NOT to view it.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
georger 197
QuoteQuoteSorry, but I don't believe an apology is forthcoming. When people begin to make up stuff in an effort to support one view or another, I have a problem.
Georger quoted Geoff Gray with something Gray did not say, and stubbornly sticks to that story. Then he tried to blame it off on others in a rather lame manner. I gave him the link to verify with Gray. This has nothing to do with any book. This is a matter of integrity. I've had quite enough with his postings saying this or that without proof. Calling him on them seemed perfectly natural. Continuing this might qualify him for inclusion into the Bob Knoss Fan Club.
Priceless!
377 20
Blevins wrote:
That's what we all suffer from: a simultaneous possesion AKA the Cooper Curse.
377
Quote...the officials ruled it 'simoutaneous possession
That's what we all suffer from: a simultaneous possesion AKA the Cooper Curse.
377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.
QuoteSorry, but I don't believe an apology is forthcoming. When people begin to make up stuff in an effort to support one view or another, I have a problem.
Georger quoted Geoff Gray with something Gray did not say, and stubbornly sticks to that story. Then he tried to blame it off on others in a rather lame manner. I gave him the link to verify with Gray. This has nothing to do with any book. This is a matter of integrity. I've had quite enough with his postings saying this or that without proof. Calling him on them seemed perfectly natural. Continuing this might qualify him for inclusion into the Bob Knoss Fan Club.
Jo Stated:
QuotePick up the phone and call Geoffrey - you do know his number don't you. Instead of stomping around and blaming others - pick up the DAMN phone and all him. Have you EVER spoke to him on the phone or do you depend on others to do that for you?
I didn't take YOUR word for the things you have claimed about others - I picked up the phone. Want ME to MAKE the call for YOU to Gray? Out-line EXACTLY the question you want to ask him in 2 lines. NOT a lot of gibberish!
Georger stated:
QuotePriceless!
Blevin replied with:
QuoteYou would be good at dodge ball, I think. LOL why should I call Geoff Gray? This is a lame suggestion on your part, mostly given because although you might have his cell number, he probably won't take your calls. If he does, I can just imagine the conversation:
Blevins I deleted your part about FOOTBALL.
Do YOU know that Gray came to see me? Do you know I had communicated with Gray before he came? Do you know he saw things I have never made public?
How much time did YOU spend with Gray before he did his book?
Gray is, but ONE individual who has see the things I have! Sluggo was one, but he looked at this thur colored lenses...he did NOT have access to things others saw after that. I was NOT comfortable exposing ALL.
One individual spent time reviewing the things I have and saw things I did NOT see, plus at REQUEST I obtained other documents. It has taken some time to acquire these documents and also there were other things FOUND in the process.
THINGS do NOT add up with the FBI process used - they had incomplete information... the FBI agent spent about 4 hours only with the preliminary things I obtained prior to 1997 and NOT the things that were obtain since then. Note also the agent had to research Cooper before coming to my home in 1997.
The FBI ignored my pleas to look into this in more detail with the newly acquired information. I did NOT provide them with ALL of the information I had and SINCE the FBI did NOT bother to acknowledge my emails or phone calls from 2001 until the present time...other than Carr reading what I had on this thread. Carr did take some of phone calls, but that is all....because what he relayed on this thread was unprofessional and incomplete.
Remember what he did with the Dan Cooper Comic - some agent! He took that right out the thread and did NOT acknowledg the source. Then Blevins made it part of HIS story!
I do NOT scan documents and somethings I refuse to allow to be used in a public way and the FBI was NOT interested even when I called and left messages.
None of them were returned.
I am unable to access ALL of the documents or to keep any order to them myself now that my health has gotten in the way. I now just fumble thur these things and everytime they become more disorganized - JUST too much for me to handle.
I have placed in my WILL what will become of these Documents and other "junk" at my death. I wanted to be sure these things are preserved - so if I cannot see it thru perhaps others can.
Those who inteviewed the Stewardessed did so with their own subjects in mind rather than being objective. Actually at this date and time the crew would NOT be able to ID a photo because that is JUST fact! Time has a way of robbing us of our memories.
ALL we really have to go on now is what they told the FBI and others in thoses 1st 10 yrs when Florence tried to explain something to the TV artist who did his own composite.
There was ONE characterist that stood out for Florence, but the FBI turned their head. NOW she nor Tina want nothing more to do with the case - that is completely understandable as their lives were forever changed by Cooper. Their lives have been turned upside down. I could only imagine what it would have been like for me to have my world turned upside down in my 20's.
This is WHY there was only one contact with Tina in approx 2003 or 2004 - I wanted her to view photos I had she had never shown. I never knew what PHOTOS the FBI used as they took none with them - so that means they used FILE photos or what was released to the media, but it is my understanding they interviewed her prior to 2001 prior to my going public - so the only photos available were media photos and prison photos.
The FBI did NOT ask me for photos of Weber! NONE! So what did they use to show the stewardesses? The Jefferson file photo - hell I never saw that one.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
377 20
Jo wrote
QuoteGray is, but ONE individual who has see the things I have! Sluggo was one, but he looked at this thur colored lenses...he did NOT have access to things others saw after that. I was NOT comfortable exposing ALL.
Ahhh! The tease. Jo always has cards up her sleeve. Nobody gets to see the whole picture.
Let me know when you are ready to reveal the Folsom Prison inmate smokejumpers photo.
I am surprised nobody has postulated that DBC was a Mason. Surely if there was a conspiracy there must be Masons involved.
377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.
Typo - corrected - thanks for pointing it out - now
says UNTRUSTWORTHY.
Thanks for one more game, Blevins.
You lose.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites