47 47
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

So what you are saying is that even though all these people were supposedly involved...the best they could do was point the finger at a guy with blue eyes, who was about twenty years YOUNGER than the descriptions given by witnesses to the hijacking? And that now you are convinced beyond a doubt that Rackstraw was Cooper? Sounds like that's what you're telling us here.  

 

How do you speak for the public when you can't even get things right here? try and stay focused. I, meaning me. never claimed that Rackstraw was Cooper. showing his team does not invite that idea. you still with me? it was a post showing you how many people was on his team. you still there? you claimed in the past, just a few pages back that you have done more than anyone else. the post was a wake up call showing you that you are pretty amature when it comes to organization and capabilities that Tom has over you, and most of us. it had nothing to do with me believing Rackstraw was Cooper. if you followed along I also mentioned that Cooper has not been found yet. 

Getting a movie deal is not going to solve the crime. hard investigative work does the job. it's good to have those things but it's not going to solve the case. how would it be any different than the hundreds of shows about Cooper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I will talk about Kenny any time I wish. it was brought to your attention while posting negative against Rackstraw when you fail to look at yourself. Kenny was 5' 8" and bald. lol. zero pictures of any hair piece that would pass for real hair in the 70's. you can spot them still today. see how this works. you can be negative about others but call foul when it points in your direction. it's called an example and not considered discussion....

Edited by mrshutter45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

You don't follow very well at all Robert. I answered the question several times in the last couple days.

Tuesday 7:08 " I don't believe we are any closer to finding Cooper then we were in 1971"

14 hours ago "I also believe they will jump out of there seat if a picture of Cooper every gets shown"

6 hours ago " if you followed along I also mentioned that Cooper has not been found yet."

please show where I said the show was great? 

Did Tom put the team together for the show. not that I'm aware of?

You want people to work with you? that isn't going to happen Robert. you have done considerable damage. you write articles about people. you actually believed we would pay money to set up a conference to talk bad about Kenny that caused Eric to be kicked out of the country club he was going to have his conference at. you talk bad about people to producers and media outlets. this is just a few things. then when you want help you appear confused as to why it never happens. where ever you go this always happens. the thread gets stalled to talk about how bad things are for you. you threaten law suits that are not justifiable. you don't own Kenny Christiansen. you own the rights to your book. big difference. 

I also explained why I posted the names of the people Tom had on his team. you made a remark that you have done more than anyone else with the Cooper case. this had nothing to do with my beliefs towards Rackstraw or Tom. you made that assumption all by yourself which was completely wrong, as usual. 

I consider this matter closed. 

Edited by mrshutter45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Actually Robert, you may think you own Kenny's story and you may even have something that says you do. But in reality anyone could write about Kenny or make a movie or TV show about him and you would have no way to stop them. 

Quote

And after you die, your life story rights do not fall to your estate. As entertainment law attorney Mark Litwak states in his book, Dealmaking in the Film & TV Industry, “A writer could publish a revisionist history of George Washington, portraying our first President as a child molester and a thief, and his heirs would have no remedy.”

 

Edited by ParrotheadVol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EJU said:

Daily DB Cooper Bite. I discuss DB Cooper's selection of the Boeing 727.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DBCooperChannel

 

 

The funky "P" was rolled out starting as the new retail store logo Nov 24 1963,,, the chance of that funky "P" getting incorporated onto the tie and sold in 1963 is virtually nil... your 1963 timeframe is debunked.

The time frame for the tie was 1964-65.. not 1963.

Evidence clearly indicates Cooper had aviation knowledge that doesn't mean he had to have worked for Boeing.

If he couldn't get the airtairs open it wasn't a jail cell...  at the time many hijackers were successful by going to Cuba, though I think it is self evident that Cooper was confident the airstairs could be opened in flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

The funky "P" was rolled out starting as the new retail store logo Nov 24 1963,,, the chance of that funky "P" getting incorporated onto the tie and sold in 1963 is virtually nil... your 1963 timeframe is debunked.

The time frame for the tie was 1964-65.. not 1963.

Evidence clearly indicates Cooper had aviation knowledge that doesn't mean he had to have worked for Boeing.

If he couldn't get the airtairs open it wasn't a jail cell...  at the time many hijackers were successful by going to Cuba, though I think it is self evident that Cooper was confident the airstairs could be opened in flight.

First of all, the updated JC Penney logo was fully implemented by November 1963. This wasn't done overnight. Items were produced before that date with the updated logo in preparation for the November '63 launch date. In fact, some items had already rolled out with the new logo.

Second, the patent for the new "snapper" contraption was filed on December 7, 1964. Remington did not manufacture the tie in 1965 utilizing the old snapper contraption. The tie was manufactured in 1963 or 1964.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EJU said:

First of all, the updated JC Penney logo was fully implemented by November 1963. This wasn't done overnight. Items were produced before that date with the updated logo in preparation for the November '63 launch date. In fact, some items had already rolled out with the new logo.

Second, the patent for the new "snapper" contraption was filed on December 7, 1964. Remington did not manufacture the tie in 1965 utilizing the old snapper contraption. The tie was manufactured in 1963 or 1964.

The patent filing date does not = sale date.

Hence, the tie sale date = 1964-65. get it.

The logo was first introduced for retail stores Nov 24, 1963.

Where is your proof that the new logo was used before that on the tie or any items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FLY, you really need to learn how to think critically as opposed to just being a naysayer. You and Georger, Group 4 residents.

I am breaking a cardinal rule here by even responding to your comment. I frankly don't like even acknowledging your type.

That said, the reason I say the tie was "manufactured" in 1963 or 1964 is for two reasons:

1) That's when it was "manufactured."

2) We cannot definitively determine when it was "sold." Apparently you can?

After all, the FBI visited JC Penney stores after the skyjacking, which was November 24, 1971, and learned that the store in Portland hadn't carried the tie for about one year. The Vegas store said about three years.

What this means is that it is theoretically possible that Cooper purchased the tie at JC Penney in Portland as late as November 1970, or thereabouts, even though it was "manufactured" 6 years earlier.

Now if you can pin down a "sold" date I'm sure we'd all be very interested to see that.

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, EJU said:

FLY, you really need to learn how to think critically as opposed to just being a naysayer. You and Georger, Group 4 residents.

I am breaking a cardinal rule here by even responding to your comment. I frankly don't like even acknowledging your type.

That said, the reason I say the tie was "manufactured" in 1963 or 1964 is for two reasons:

1) That's when it was "manufactured."

2) We cannot definitively determine when it was "sold." Apparently you can?

After all, the FBI visited JC Penney stores after the skyjacking, which was November 24, 1971, and learned that the store in Portland hadn't carried the tie for about one year. The Vegas store said about three years.

What this means is that it is theoretically possible that Cooper purchased the tie at JC Penney in Portland as late as November 1970, or thereabouts, even though it was "manufactured" 6 years earlier.

Now if you can pin down a "sold" date I'm sure we'd all be very interested to see that.

Cheers!

I don't need to do anything you suggest.

You have avoided the question and thrown out some decoys flares... you claimed to know that the tie was produced before the funky "P" rollout, clearly you were um.. mistaken.

The FBI asked a retail manager a general question about the tie, they got an uninformed general response. The Penny's employee was responding to the tie as a general representation, not the specific production timeframe.

As we now know the tie can be dated within a range based on the labels. That makes the FBI Penny's investigation DOA and frankly a joke. 

 

The FBI missed this big time and screwed it up, their information is worse than useless it is wholly incorrect. Everybody thinks the tie was less than a couple years old.. 100% false.

 

That specific tie was sold 1964-65. Later ties may have looked the same but would have had different labels. The Penny's employee would not know that. The opinion of Penny's employee without the tie manufacture "date" context is meaningless.

 

1966 plus the tie labels were different. Nov 24 1963 the funky "P" was first introduced for retail stores. That leaves a 1964-65 timeframe for the sale. That means about 6 years for the environment and particle exposure. 

If anybody needs critical thinking it is you.

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Survivors or descendants of the dead have no legal claim on behalf of a deceased relative’s good name, nor can they collect on behalf of their own interests relative to that person’s reputation. Likewise, the estate of a deceased person cannot be liable for the defamation of the dead.

Good luck trying to sue someone for liable against the dead. you guys are too busy accusing Kenny of being a terrorist. the court system would laugh you out of court. Kenny can't even defend himself against you guys..

 

 

Dead Cannot Be Defamed

"You can't defame the dead" is an often-repeated legal chestnut that restates the general rule that only the living can sue for damages to their reputation. The continued force of this rule explains why many defamatory "tell-all" biographies appear after a famous figure has died. Georgia's law is typical -- it recognizes no cause of action for slander of a dead person, but allows the person's family to continue to prosecute a legal action for slander that the deceased started before he died.

Edited by mrshutter45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why of course there is :)

"Is there a point to your rather bitter post?" nothing bitter about countering something false said by you...

".If they presented slanderous material in that book, they could be sued. Not by AB of Seattle, but by the family"

Correction = bitter? I don't think so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

 I never claimed to be a lawyer

 

You should look into these matters before tossing law suits around and making claims the family could sue as well. you have been told this multiple times but keep posting similar comments and threats. 

Now, I've said this multiple times as well. there is a "shred of evidence" suggesting Kenny's behavior was not normal. this started right out of the gate. it's documented that Kenny took in under age runaway's (boys). he bought them gifts, took them to restaurants etc. some, might suggest this would fall under the category of "grooming". the whole town was talking about it. personally, I doubt it was anything bad, but it's questionable. certainly not something someone trying to hide should be doing even with good intentions. also, in a lot of cases friends and families are the last to find out. Today? they would most certainly look into this matter. that's a fact. a lot has changed since 1971.

You have to realize that Kenny is not perfect either. he's subject to criticism just like the others. the very same one's you go after. 

 

This has noting to do with Producers. they have lawyers to make sure things are done right, most of the time...

Edited by mrshutter45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you all had the nerve to blame it on me and whine about it when you got dumped by the Portland Yacht Club.

You mean the letter you sent causing the country club to not allow Eric to hold the convention there. the one you apologized for doing, that one. yes, I remember it well. the one you apologized to Eric about.  that's a lot of apologizing for something you didn't do? 

What was the letter about. threats of a law suit. you are crossing the line here with honesty Robert. you know why it got shutdown. it was because of your actions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Remember this part? something you had no authority to do? a little different to how you explain it above. you can't hold anyone liable for what you did. that's nonsense. you threatened them..

 

If we observe anything slanderous being presented, we will immediately file suit against the Portland Yacht Club for personal damages, and for supporting the presentation of such slander

 

Edited by mrshutter45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I feel sorry for Eric. He probably didn't even realize what was going on, and the reason his event had to be moved. I would have contacted him directly, but at your website, where he was doing most of the advertising, only registered members can view any links, pictures, profiles, etc. I didn't even know exactly who he was until afterward. 

 

Very deceptive. Eric knew exactly what happened. he received the email you sent. he also posted on The Mountain News where you were also posting prior to being perma-banned.. you could of easily contacted him. Eric posted the event updates on both sites. you couldn't figure out how to contact an active poster that was on multiple sites, really? 

You had no intentions of contacting him directly.

Edited by mrshutter45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Eric's statement...

I posted the following comment (blue text) on MN regarding the discussion about Robert Blevins:

My vote would be to permanently block Blevins from this forum.
Blevins’ threat was grounded in malice. He knew that the yacht club wasn’t organizing, funding or sponsoring the DB Cooper Conference. That would be me. However, he hasn’t threatened me. Why?
The answer is because Blevins hoped that he could stir the pot and that the yacht club would cave. He was right. Furthermore, he knew that he could not intimidate or silence me. Once again, he was right.
The event is called the “DB Cooper Conference” and not the “Robert Blevins Conference” for a reason. Blevins is not that important. DB Cooper is important. The conference is about Cooper, not Blevins.
This and other sites should be welcoming to people with differing opinions and theories regarding the DB Cooper mystery—even those espousing Kenny Christiansen as Cooper. This task is impeded when people like Blevins are permitted to operate unchallenged in any manner they see fit. It is neither right nor productive.
Free people are not required to tolerate malice. There is no honor in willingly forfeiting the rights that we all enjoy as Americans, chief among these freedom of assembly and speech. The 2018 DB Cooper Conference will take place; the new venue will be announced soon.

Cheers
!

You can stop the games giving the idea that Eric didn't know who you were and the tricks you pull..even after you apologized Mayer said you had plans for the next location. obviously, you backed out of that idea. as Eric stated. it was pure malice. 

Edited by mrshutter45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert, the allegation are not mine. they are documented in the 2007 article. you are trying to sweep it under the rug. this occurred almost 50 years ago. the article was made by Gray, not me. I realize you believe this is my fault too. they are troubling allegations. I already told you Kenny probably didn't do any harm. that doesn't mean it never happened. 

You are not law enforcement. not even close. talking with friends and family helps support your version but it's far from what the possibilities could of been. calling him a child rapist is wrong but you can't just ignore the allegations. people talk. it's part of life. people are mean, nasty, nice etc. you can't control it. 

The conference was all your fault Robert. you lied saying you couldn't contact Eric. you are not being honest speaking for him by saying he had no idea what happened. you seen the post above what Eric stated. it's miles from what you stated. not one person or hint was given about anyone discussing Kenny at the conference. why, because it was never going to happen. you invented the idea. it's called "fake news" malice is visible as can be and the evidence backs that up. who was going to speak about all the liable, Tom Kaye, Eric, 377? that leaves Bruce. do you really think people would spend money just to gossip about Kenny? it's total nonsense. Eric pegged you perfectly. How many times have you posted how easy it is to find someone "dropping a few bucks on a website" it was free in this case. you could of easily made a post on TMN asking Eric to contact you. his name is all over the place. Eric Ulis. the intentions were crystal clear....

Stick a fork in it...she be done :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

47 47