DB Cooper

[CCharger 0]

EVickiW

*********Eye witnesses have often made mistakes in describing physical features of a accused criminals.

We are not talking about just any eyewitnesses. We are talking about two young, intelligent women who spent 5 hours on a plane with him, sitting next to him and talking to him directly, trying to gather as much info about his as possible for the authorities. It wasn't a fleeting glance.

That is why you cannot dismiss Coop's description out of hand. It is one of the best clues there is.

I am thinking out of the box here....... If Cooper had and was using Benzadrine, or another type of stimulant, wouldn't he more than likely have one or more of the common side effects of using a stimulant.

Stimulants can/will cause the pupils to dilate until they are almost completely black with a thin rim of iris around the pupil. In a normal situation, pupils will contract when exposed to light and if on a stimulant a user's pupils will remain largely dilated.

Benzadrine, sun glasses and a dimly lit plane.....? Maybe his eyes were dark, but not necessarily brown in color. Didn't Florence see his eyes for a brief moment when Cooper looked over his glasses (in an attempt to show the seriousness in his request)? Wouldn't black dilated eyes have a piercing effect?


http://www.drugrecognition.com/Stim.htm

Vicki
That is certainly possible, but I think in this case, unlikely.

First, Cooper was not wearing his glasses the entire time. He did not put them on until he gave her the note at the beginning of the hijacking. Also, even dilated blue eyes or green eyes retain their color.

However, dilated brown eyes appear even MORE dark and could - could - account for the "piercing" appearance.

[377 20]

CCharger

******Eye witnesses have often made mistakes in describing physical features of a accused criminals.

We are not talking about just any eyewitnesses. We are talking about two young, intelligent women who spent 5 hours on a plane with him, sitting next to him and talking to him directly, trying to gather as much info about his as possible for the authorities. It wasn't a fleeting glance.

That is why you cannot dismiss Coop's description out of hand. It is one of the best clues there is.

If the FBI was certain of Cooper's eye color they wouldnt have even bothered interviewing Sheridan Peterson much less perform multiple interviews and finally insist on a DNA sample.

I've often wondered why Cooper made little effort to disguise himself. If his eye color on the plane wasnt his real eye color then that might explain it.

Can I prove Peterson was Cooper? No, not even close. Just a bunch of very provocative coincidences.

Even if Sheridan wont talk about Norjack I'd love to talk to him about early skydiving. I started jumping in 1968 and am fascinated by the sport's early history. Sheridan was one of its more colorful and unique participants. There is so much I'd like to ask him about including sport jumping in Saigion using RVNAF military helos. I'd love to know if he and other jumpers in Nam knew about the SAT 727 airdrops in Thailand.

Sheridan is pretty active on the Internet (but not so much lately). he may still be reading this forum. If so PM me Sherdian. Let's bury the hatchet and talk about old school skydiving if nothing else. I assure you I am not FBI or CIA and in fact am far on the other side of that spectrum. I don't think anyone is more anti-authoritarian than Sheridan, but I definitely share the trait.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[CCharger 0]

In terms of Sheridan's job at Boeing, there is no better candidate I believe. However, the physical description is important.

I wonder if Sheridan would have any pictures of co-workers from around that time that one might compare against Cooper.

[georger 197]

CCharger

In terms of Sheridan's job at Boeing, there is no better candidate I believe. However, the physical description is important.

I wonder if Sheridan would have any pictures of co-workers from around that time that one might compare against Cooper.

[skyjack71 0]

georger

***In terms of Sheridan's job at Boeing, there is no better candidate I believe. However, the physical description is important.

I wonder if Sheridan would have any pictures of co-workers from around that time that one might compare against Cooper.

Georger, why did you edit out your remark. I want to know the names of all of these men - if indeed any of them actually worked with Sheridan.

Is Sheridian the 1st one on the second row? If not who is the guy?

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[georger 197]

skyjack71

******In terms of Sheridan's job at Boeing, there is no better candidate I believe. However, the physical description is important.

I wonder if Sheridan would have any pictures of co-workers from around that time that one might compare against Cooper.

Georger, why did you edit out your remark. I want to know the names of all of these men - if indeed any of them actually worked with Sheridan.

Is Sheridian the 1st one on the second row? If not who is the guy?

Quote

What remark?

Duplicate photos of the same person were eliminated.

This is the facial recognition test composite Snowmman posted
ages ago which included a few people supposedly related to
Sheridan and a few ringers Snowmman threw in.

It is what it is.

Complain again and I will change it again!

[BobKnoss 0]

377

*********Eye witnesses have often made mistakes in describing physical features of a accused criminals.

We are not talking about just any eyewitnesses. We are talking about two young, intelligent women who spent 5 hours on a plane with him, sitting next to him and talking to him directly, trying to gather as much info about his as possible for the authorities. It wasn't a fleeting glance.

That is why you cannot dismiss Coop's description out of hand. It is one of the best clues there is.

If the FBI was certain of Cooper's eye color they wouldnt have even bothered interviewing Sheridan Peterson much less perform multiple interviews and finally insist on a DNA sample.

I've often wondered why Cooper made little effort to disguise himself. If his eye color on the plane wasnt his real eye color then that might explain it.

Can I prove Peterson was Cooper? No, not even close. Just a bunch of very provocative coincidences.

Even if Sheridan wont talk about Norjack I'd love to talk to him about early skydiving. I started jumping in 1968 and am fascinated by the sport's early history. Sheridan was one of its more colorful and unique participants. There is so much I'd like to ask him about including sport jumping in Saigion using RVNAF military helos. I'd love to know if he and other jumpers in Nam knew about the SAT 727 airdrops in Thailand.

Sheridan is pretty active on the Internet (but not so much lately). he may still be reading this forum. If so PM me Sherdian. Let's bury the hatchet and talk about old school skydiving if nothing else. I assure you I am not FBI or CIA and in fact am far on the other side of that spectrum. I don't think anyone is more anti-authoritarian than Sheridan, but I definitely share the trait.

377

If you knew that "Cooper" was recognized by the copilot when the note came to the cockpit, and a long convincing discussion pursued with Captain Scott to convince him to go along with the program, would you have a different opinion? If the copilot had trained Cooper and knew the exact jump point immediately, would it make more sense? If the delays to get the chutes by the FBI were a delaying tactic to get McCoy in a follow chopper, if the course was intentionally shifted west without detection by a 'seat of the pants' copilot to hide the dropzone, would things seem to fall in place? I'm not going to say these things are absolutely true, because it would get me in more hot water. But I can tell you absolutely that Peterson is no Cooper, because I knew Cooper and all of the Norjak boys.

Chew on that MrShutter, Badgerman.

[sailshaw 0]

smoking99 you say:

" In the tone of most of your posts you seem to hold a bit of animosity towards Sheridan. Though I personally think no one alive will ever be actually convicted of this crime because it would be too easy to defend, I get the feeling that you really want Sheridan to spend the rest of his life in jail. In fact, I think you've posted this before".

I say:

"The reason I speak of the FBI using the DNA on the stamps/envelop flap is to threaten Sheridan (if there is a match and I think they will find a match) with jail for the remainder of his life unless he tells all about the case and admits to being DB. I am interested in seeing the case closed even with Sheridan getting an out of jail card in exchange for his confesson to being DB Cooper. I hold nothing against Sheridan, just just want to see the case solved and closed soon."

Bob Sailshaw
[email protected]

[smokin99 0]

sailshaw

smoking99 you say:

" In the tone of most of your posts you seem to hold a bit of animosity towards Sheridan. Though I personally think no one alive will ever be actually convicted of this crime because it would be too easy to defend, I get the feeling that you really want Sheridan to spend the rest of his life in jail. In fact, I think you've posted this before".

I say:

"The reason I speak of the FBI using the DNA on the stamps/envelop flap is to threaten Sheridan (if there is a match and I think they will find a match) with jail for the remainder of his life unless he tells all about the case and admits to being DB. I am interested in seeing the case closed even with Sheridan getting an out of jail card in exchange for his confesson to being DB Cooper. I hold nothing against Sheridan, just just want to see the case solved and closed soon."

Bob Sailshaw
[email protected]

That's fair enough. Thanks for your response.

but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

[mrshutter45 21]

BobKnoss

************Eye witnesses have often made mistakes in describing physical features of a accused criminals.

We are not talking about just any eyewitnesses. We are talking about two young, intelligent women who spent 5 hours on a plane with him, sitting next to him and talking to him directly, trying to gather as much info about his as possible for the authorities. It wasn't a fleeting glance.

That is why you cannot dismiss Coop's description out of hand. It is one of the best clues there is.

If the FBI was certain of Cooper's eye color they wouldnt have even bothered interviewing Sheridan Peterson much less perform multiple interviews and finally insist on a DNA sample.

I've often wondered why Cooper made little effort to disguise himself. If his eye color on the plane wasnt his real eye color then that might explain it.

Can I prove Peterson was Cooper? No, not even close. Just a bunch of very provocative coincidences.

Even if Sheridan wont talk about Norjack I'd love to talk to him about early skydiving. I started jumping in 1968 and am fascinated by the sport's early history. Sheridan was one of its more colorful and unique participants. There is so much I'd like to ask him about including sport jumping in Saigion using RVNAF military helos. I'd love to know if he and other jumpers in Nam knew about the SAT 727 airdrops in Thailand.

Sheridan is pretty active on the Internet (but not so much lately). he may still be reading this forum. If so PM me Sherdian. Let's bury the hatchet and talk about old school skydiving if nothing else. I assure you I am not FBI or CIA and in fact am far on the other side of that spectrum. I don't think anyone is more anti-authoritarian than Sheridan, but I definitely share the trait.

377

If you knew that "Cooper" was recognized by the copilot when the note came to the cockpit, and a long convincing discussion pursued with Captain Scott to convince him to go along with the program, would you have a different opinion? If the copilot had trained Cooper and knew the exact jump point immediately, would it make more sense? If the delays to get the chutes by the FBI were a delaying tactic to get McCoy in a follow chopper, if the course was intentionally shifted west without detection by a 'seat of the pants' copilot to hide the dropzone, would things seem to fall in place? I'm not going to say these things are absolutely true, because it would get me in more hot water. But I can tell you absolutely that Peterson is no Cooper, because I knew Cooper and all of the Norjak boys.

Chew on that MrShutter, Badgerman.




sorry Bobby, nothing you say is truthful...end of story.

"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

[skyjack71 0]

georger

*********In terms of Sheridan's job at Boeing, there is no better candidate I believe. However, the physical description is important.

I wonder if Sheridan would have any pictures of co-workers from around that time that one might compare against Cooper.

Georger, why did you edit out your remark. I want to know the names of all of these men - if indeed any of them actually worked with Sheridan.

Is Sheridian the 1st one on the second row? If not who is the guy?

Quote

What remark?

Duplicate photos of the same person were eliminated.

This is the facial recognition test composite Snowmman posted
ages ago which included a few people supposedly related to
Sheridan and a few ringers Snowmman threw in.

It is what it is.

Complain again and I will change it again!




What complaint - I wanted to know the names of the guys. I have seen a picture of the 1st one on the first row before but do not remember where. Also the first one on the second row.

Just wanted to know if it was random pics or if there was a purpose.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[georger 197]

skyjack71

************In terms of Sheridan's job at Boeing, there is no better candidate I believe. However, the physical description is important.

I wonder if Sheridan would have any pictures of co-workers from around that time that one might compare against Cooper.

Georger, why did you edit out your remark. I want to know the names of all of these men - if indeed any of them actually worked with Sheridan.

Is Sheridian the 1st one on the second row? If not who is the guy?

Quote

What remark?

Duplicate photos of the same person were eliminated.

This is the facial recognition test composite Snowmman posted
ages ago which included a few people supposedly related to
Sheridan and a few ringers Snowmman threw in.

It is what it is.

Complain again and I will change it again!




What complaint - I wanted to know the names of the guys. I have seen a picture of the 1st one on the first row before but do not remember where. Also the first one on the second row.

Just wanted to know if it was random pics or if there was a purpose.

Quote

Ask Snowmman. He posted the composite.

[skyjack71 0]

mrshutter45

***Do a search on the Coded letter it is in this thread . The 1st post had a mistake in the walk thru of the code and too late for me to make a correction

Later I posted the correction:
I believe TWICE in this thread. I have not scanned the method I used to decipher the code, but it is there with 7 being the turn a round number.

Jo, what you do with any type of numbers is not proof of anything. I have not been able to find anything on a "coded letter" when it comes to DB Cooper other than what you are trying to claim. I mentioned that if there was an actual "coded letter" then something could be looked into. myths are started like this. do you remember what stories came about when Buddy Holly's gun was found at the crash site?

Are you saying a letter sent to a Newspaper in Reno did not exist? That a article with the CODE was never published! Are you saying the code was a scam by someone who knows me? That someone had to know Duane's Navy and Army numbers. Are you saying the article never existed and the letter was never received? Please explain.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[ParrotheadVol 70]

Here is an article on Tom Kaye that came out yesterday.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/08/19/2738107/hunting-db-cooper.html


Is anyone else having trouble getting on the forum at times? There have been several instances lately in which I can't get it to load up. But, I can go to any other site just fine. Just curious if everyone else was experiencing the same thing.

"They were saying he was never gonna make it now, now that daylight had set in. But later that night, they were shining those lights back down on that mountain again." - Todd Snider

[georger 197]

Here's an answer to your question: Do The Right Thing

Sincerely, Robert

Quote

I snipped all of your B.S. above.

You declared multiple times that Kenny was not gay.
Then after a barage of critical posts from Farflung and others
you finally backed off saying: 'well if he WAS GAY it
didn't play any role in his life, and didn't/doesn't have anything
to do with him being Cooper'

That is exactly what you said, for years.

Farflung accused you of being two-faced and shamless on the
whole matter!

Do we actually have to go back and play the tape for you? ... mealy-mouthed opportunist promoter?

Do you think people here all have Alzheimers?

Get a life and a new 2-way 3-way 4-way on your way to the
next 8-way revision of revisions of "what I didn't say"!

Do we have to play your own tape back to you?

Just buck up to the fact that you argued for years that "IF"
Kenny was gay (which you said he wasnt) then it played no role
"in his life" and your interpretive editorialising socalled research
was as pure and valid as the driven snow, including your
publically calling Geestman a liar and branding "that woman"
\(whoever she is) a welfare cheat!

Its shameless and Rediculous, just as Farflung said.

My advice to Bruce is to leave things just as they are and to tell
RobertMBlevins, to go screw himself.

Because: there is a vast Public Record here at Dropzone posted
by none other than RobertMBlevins himself, to back up
everything Bruce is saying. ... and more!

Your 9 Lives of Hypocrisy ran out years ago on this issue!

How many remakes and revisions do you get? Before the original product and the final product are all judged faulty?

You are now making this up as you go along, based on the
public shift and sentiment against you, just as Jo Weber does.
This is exactly what Geoff Gray said you would do. No real
research of merit to begin with ... just make it up as you go
along based on the latest sentiment and data here on Dropzone.
To appeal to your audience you call: the wage earner sheeple.
(We aren't as smart as you!)

Sluggo and Gray had your number the first week out.

Remakes and revisions. Make it up as you go along. Conceal
the opportunism and the fact you had basically nothing but a
faulty product right from the start and were here to learn and
absorb and revise as you went along. You resisted mightily!
Isn't that why Porteous split from you ... and Geoffrey Gray
too? The central issue is: fraud.;

Your 9 lives of hypocrisy have run out with your boilerplate
tonight.

Bruce Smith's report is entirely accurate of your posts here over
years denying and claiming Kenny being gay had no role "in his
life". You even denied at one point saying your research hadn't
uncovered anything that would indicate Kenny was even gay!
That is fully documented by your posts over several years here
on Dropzone, and that is a fact.

Now you claim his family and you knew it all along!

Wash your mouth out with soap, Sham Wow Hypocrit.

• Quote

[georger 197]

You sir, can take a very long walk off a...(*withholds due to manners*)

Quote

And you sir, are a fraud and an opportunist who makes things up
as they go along ... claiming you never said (anything!) before.

My advice to Bruice is simple. Tell this moron to go screw himself.

He's a fraud and a hypocrit.

Manners dont rely on hypocrisy!

You have no manners. All you have is the hope of the next
opportunity when nobody is looking or keeping track. You cite
the weight of the Cooper money to the decimal point tonight,
but you cant keep track of time or what you said five minutes
ago!

There is no fix for stupid, Bevins.

You dont even have style! Hit the bottle Blevins.

[georger 197]

RobertMBlevins

I have received multiple phone calls and emails regarding Bruce Smith. As you may know, he offered up free copies of his unedited manuscript on the Cooper case. I received a copy and read it and it was pretty good. I've previously offered to promote or assist him with that book any way I can. And I still do.

However...

I came to one passage I had to object to. Below you will find the emails we exchanged about it. I sent the first message.

Quote

Hello Bruce,

I have read much of your book. Not bad. As far as tech editing you did pretty well with that. I have to make objection to one passage in it, though. Everything is fine regarding what I do for a living and AB of Seattle, but this passage about KC is inaccurate in several areas, and after you see it I will explain why:

EXCERPT from the ms: ***'In this work, Gray reveals that Christiansen was probably gay and had troubling relationships with teenage runaway boys, allowing them to stay in his Bonney Lake, Washington home. Blevins and Porteous do not investigate this dimension of Christiansen’s life...'

Robert says: Christiansen was not 'probably' gay. Members of his family knew he was from about the time Kenny was sixteen onward, although you wouldn't know it by talking to him. Some members of his family were a bit frightened for him when he joined the paratroops at the tail end of WW2, since it was illegal to join if you WERE gay. (I didn't notice whether you mentioned his service, but I'm sure you did.)

Also, Christiansen did NOT have 'troubling relationships with teenage boys'. You are mistaken. Christiansen occasionally took in runaways and HELPED them. Any relationships he may have had were with adults. Some were friends he knew in the Army. This is specifically mentioned by Gray, who interviewed one of these boys, 'Mac'. You probably should re-read that Gray article.

Just because it wasn't mentioned heavily in Blast doesn't mean Porteous and I didn't investigate this facet of KC's life, i.e. his personal relationships, other interviews with people who lived there (Carolyn Tyner for example) and his work with NWA post-hijacking. We did those things. After the hijacking, Christiansen returned to work and was with NWA until he got cancer. Most of the people who worked with him, like Harry Honda, said KC was low-profile, little-known, and for some reason stopped attending the union meetings. He stayed with the Orient routes, working maybe two or three flights a month. On the same day as the Statute of Limitations was due to expire in 1976, Kenny received a silver bowl and an invitation of a free flight to Minneapolis for his 25th anniversary banquet. He did not go.

None of the people we interviewed who knew KC or lived with him EVER gave the slightest hint that Kenny Christiansen was inappropriately involved with underage boys. None of the evidence on him suggests anything like that. And for you to suggest this is wrong, unless you have evidence to support it.

If you put a passage like that into your book, I will definitely call our lawyer and file suit, and I will encourage Kenny's nephew Bruce Christiansen and his brother Lyle Christiansen to do the same. This isn't a threat, Bruce. We just want you to do the right thing, and for you to make an unsupported allegation against Christiansen for pedophilia is wrong. You know it. I know it.

Right now, you are offering up that book free with that passage in it. I think you should remove it at once before you send out any more copies. I could actually file suit tomorrow on this because legally you have now self-published that book by offering it up publicly. And that passage is libelous.

I have copied your offer posts at Dropzone, and of course, I have a copy of the manuscript. Look...I actually like you, so don't make me do this. But your unsupported allegations are irresponsible, and should a publisher accept your book in its present form, I will object to the publication of that passage, tell them why, and include them in any suit for damages.

If you message me in return and say the passage stands, you won't leave me any choice but to send the manuscript to our lawyer, along with your free offers at Dropzone.

I haven't said a word about this at Dropzone, because I don't want to embarrass you publicly. I actually WANT you to be successful with this book. If I didn't, I wouldn't have offered to edit it for free and tried to give you Kindle advice, etc. Quietly remove it, send me the edited manuscript for verification that you have done this, and we will forget all about it. It will never be mentioned in public or at Dropzone. If there are any other hints in your book elsewhere on this subject, you should remove those as well.

I will expect an answer from you on this, along with an edited version of the ms by Friday night. Otherwise, I just give our lawyer what he needs on Monday and let him deal with it.

Sincerely, Robert

He responded with this:

Quote

So, Robert, what was the nature of Kenny's relationship with runaway boys?

I consider any single man who allows youth at risk to live in his home and then treats them with exotic gifts and dinners in restaurants as having an inappropriate relationship with them. Do you disagree with that characterizations? If so, why. And what exactly what you would call it?

Please tell me more. What age were the boys? Do you have any names? Contact information for them? I'm happy to follow-up and ascertain more clearly what the exact nature of the relationship was.

My response was:

Quote

That is your job to explore those questions and provide proof, not mine. Don't publish BS like that, offer it up publicly, and then come running to me for justification. It's irresponsible on your part. I'd enjoy promoting your book in any way I can, reviewing it well, even trying to provide you a forum with the public. But not when you start fishing with allegations presented without proof. You can't just tag someone with the name 'child molester' without proof, or at least some evidence. Anything else on this I already stated above.

Sincerely, Robert

Bruce says:

Quote

Robert, I just noticed that you have given me a deadline to remove my commentary about Kenny and his boys, after which you are promising that you are suing.

Here's my response: do what you feel you need to do.

My last message to him:

Quote

Bruce,

I just think you should do the right thing. You're not using me to promote your book. Everyone does what they have to do. Okay. Go ahead and leave it in if you wish. I'll be waiting for the final results. Meanwhile, I have your posts at DZ and the original ms you offered publicly. Over the past couple of years, I have come to have some respect for you. But I am losing that rapidly. Saying Kenny Christiansen was a child molester without evidence of same, or without proof, is irresponsible. And I thought you were turning into a good journalist and stuff. Maybe I was wrong.

Realistically, this is what I will do. I will just send the ms and PDF of your posts at DZ to my attorney. No...I don't want to sue you. And I have no intention of doing that right away. You understand that if you sub that ms to a publisher, the editor is going to see that passage and ask for proof. They probably won't want to go near that one unless you can provide it. They will ask that you edit this allegation OUT. You know that, and so do I.

However, you offering this ms publicly saying that stuff could hold you liable for it. Right now, I don't think thousands of people will email you asking for a copy. But I will keep a record anyway for later. This is very disappointing for me, because I actually like you, and would do anything to help you make your book a success. You make this very difficult.

Here's an answer to your question: Do The Right Thing

Sincerely, Robert

Quote

Im going to keep this simple:

You denied that Kenny was even gay! You denied that even if
Kenny was gay it had any major role in his life, especially with
regard to him being DB Cooper which you maintained he was.
You avoided and repressed or denied the whole topic, very
actively, while also focusing on basic relationships and 'facts'
you alledged defined Kenny's life, which you said 'proved' Kenny
was DB Cooper. You threw in supporting evidence: that optical
physics does not work in cabins of airplanes, that witnesses are
always wrong with poor memories, that the FBI failed to
investigate NWA employees, that Geestman was a liar, that
crucial witnesses you interviewed were witholding vital
information and knew Kenny was Cooper ... and the like.

Central relationships and events in Kenny's life you said had
nothing to do with Kenny being gay, but supported Kenny being
DB Cooper, you claimed strenulously to the point of overkill.

With this record, Mr. Blevins, is it not understandable people
would question the validity of your research? Or whether you
had succeeded in accounting for the "real" Kenneth Christiansen
at all - specifically with regard to him having been DB Cooper,
since this is a "DB Cooper Thread" !

If you have failed to describe or even share facts of the real
Kenny Christiansen you now claim you knew all along, but chose
not to share, of what value is your work in relationship to the
issue of DB Cooper?

Has your work revealed the real Kenny Christiansen at all, or
to what extent?

What has any of your quest with Christiansen and 500 other
editorials (on Newsvine!) got to do with DB Cooper?

Maybe you just failed to find the real Kenny Christiansen - and
now threaten to sue somebody over Christiansen? Maybe Lyle
Christiansen could sue to defend Kenny's reputation, but who
and what is your "standing" in this whole sordid affair?

This whole pamadgeon being conducted appears to have
dropped off the edge of reality!

There apears to be a mutiny ON THE GOOD SHIP KENNY!
Which you and Adventure Books may not be the sole owners
of, managers, or Captains-Admirals of ... ?

You got struck down claiming and trying to publish the contents of Dropzone, apparently ?

[quade 3]

Guys . . . once again I'm FORCED to remind you that talking about the SUBJECT of DB COOPER is awesome, but attacking each other and calling each other names and in at least one case not respecting each other's personal privacy is absolutely not awesome.

Chill or get banned. Simple as that.

Do NOT make a post intentionally to piss off another member of this forum.

Come on now...

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skyjack71 0]

To All: Over the yrs Bruce had done a lot of distasteful things. He DOES take and put twists on to individuals he is writing about - but, he TAKES too many liberaties in how he judges people....and makes it public.

Freedom of SPEECH does NOT mean that we can make known to the world things that are distateful and unproven....he get twisted in his thinking and goes beyond facts - he goes into a deep part of his own mind which is scary.

Remember what he did to Tina?
Tina and her family should speak up, but they CANNOT. Their lives have been disrupted to many time and for way too long.

Bruce takes his story telling to a level worse than tabloids used to be and goes into the world of SMUT - leaving scars on those he victimizes. His own mind envisions things and then makes them public - that is wrong. NO one person should have to face slander in that way.

He wrote horrible things about Tina and her family .He took what many thought about Kenny and twisted into something filfty and sordid.

This is about real people and a real crime - and it is SICKENING to project of sordid things into this case that have NO reason for being.

To demean publically those who cannot defend themselves should be a crime. He takes freedom of speech way BEYOND respectful. The people he writes about are real people.

Bruce has NO reason to fear since he is poor and has no monies. He could care LESS who he steps on to reach his goals. Bull in a China Closet does not come close to describing his attituted.

Some of you that he agrees with will not understand this until his vengance is directed at you and he starts to demean you and your family publically. Most of us cannot afford to sue him - and what do we have to gain other than to put ourselves in debt. Bruce know this and he uses this.

There should be a way to stop someone like him from destroying the lives and memories of others. Freedom of Speech should have boundaries!

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[Robert99 37]

georger

Im going to keep this simple:

You denied that Kenny was even gay! You denied that even if
Kenny was gay it had any major role in his life, especially with
regard to him being DB Cooper which you maintained he was.
You avoided and repressed or denied the whole topic, very
actively, while also focusing on basic relationships and 'facts'
you alledged defined Kenny's life, which you said 'proved' Kenny
was DB Cooper. You threw in supporting evidence: that optical
physics does not work in cabins of airplanes, that witnesses are
always wrong with poor memories, that the FBI failed to
investigate NWA employees, that Geestman was a liar, that
crucial witnesses you interviewed were witholding vital
information and knew Kenny was Cooper ... and the like.

Central relationships and events in Kenny's life you said had
nothing to do with Kenny being gay, but supported Kenny being
DB Cooper, you claimed strenulously to the point of overkill.

With this record, Mr. Blevins, is it not understandable people
would question the validity of your research? Or whether you
had succeeded in accounting for the "real" Kenneth Christiansen
at all - specifically with regard to him having been DB Cooper,
since this is a "DB Cooper Thread" !

If you have failed to describe or even share facts of the real
Kenny Christiansen you now claim you knew all along, but chose
not to share, of what value is your work in relationship to the
issue of DB Cooper?

Has your work revealed the real Kenny Christiansen at all, or
to what extent?

What has any of your quest with Christiansen and 500 other
editorials (on Newsvine!) got to do with DB Cooper?

Maybe you just failed to find the real Kenny Christiansen - and
now threaten to sue somebody over Christiansen? Maybe Lyle
Christiansen could sue to defend Kenny's reputation, but who
and what is your "standing" in this whole sordid affair?

This whole pamadgeon being conducted appears to have
dropped off the edge of reality!

There apears to be a mutiny ON THE GOOD SHIP KENNY!
Which you and Adventure Books may not be the sole owners
of, managers, or Captains-Admirals of ... ?

You got struck down claiming and trying to publish the contents of Dropzone, apparently ?

First, let me point out that I have changed the title to better reflect my feelings on this matter. And, of course, I accept full responsibility for changing the title, whether it be legal or illegal.

ATTENTION BRUCE SMITH:

Bruce, you are hereby put on notice that if push comes to shove with RobertMBlevins, I will gladly make a four digit (before the decimal) contribution to the Bruce Smith Legal Defense Fund. And there is the possibility of future contributions to the Bruce Smith Legal Defense Fund as the situation develops.

Further, I will consider contributions to any organizations devoted to such topics as "Truth and Honesty in Journalism" that you may chose to recommend to me.

Robert99

P.S.

Bruce, you know my real name, my personal e-mail address, and other people known to you have the same or more information about me. So we will be able to stay in touch.

R99

[Robert99 37]

quade

Guys . . . once again I'm FORCED to remind you that talking about the SUBJECT of DB COOPER is awesome, but attacking each other and calling each other names and in at least one case not respecting each other's personal privacy is absolutely not awesome.

Chill or get banned. Simple as that.

Do NOT make a post intentionally to piss off another member of this forum.

Come on now...

Quade, May I humbly suggest that you start the banning with the individual who made post no. 46167. In my opinion, that would take care of about 50 percent of the "unchilled" comments.

Robert99

[skyjack71 0]

Was doing a POST telling them to CHILL as you were posting your warning.

I am going to let my post stand because it is something that NEEDS to be addressed.

NO ONE should demean victims or suspects in the manner writers have done in the past. Some writers think the perversed sells books. Bruce gets off on TWISTS that hurt others...such as Tina and her family and invaded their private space not 1 time but many times.

Those defending Bruce forget about the times he has demeaned them or others they defended.

Bruce's book has many upset. I find it disgusting the way he makes comments like suggesting a suspect was a child molester (NOT a GOOD thing). Agree to disagree, but do not slander or demean. Bruce would have been more served to have only explored the case and the subjects without demeaning and slandering and tormented those living a nightmare on earth or demeaning those already deceased with suggestive horrid remarks.

No matter how much one LIKEs Bruce or the things he wrote - they need to be addressed outside of this thread and not argued about publically as that only encourages others to exploit Cooper, Tina, Suspects, Victims - and anyone ever involved in this case.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

Quade, May I humbly suggest that you start the banning with the individual who made post no. 46167. In my opinion, that would take care of about 50 percent of the "unchilled" comments.

Robert99

Robert99 that was uncalled for - I only spoke about what was happening and regarding Blevins and Georger hashing it out over insults in Bruce's writing. You have a MOTIVE to silence me and I know this, but I try to objective. YOU KNOW I have actually presented to the FBI and/or others things that could help solve the case. Your post makes one wonder what your INVOLVEMENT is.

Jo Weber does not attack - instead she tries to defend others to slow down and think how hurtful their remark are!

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[377 20]

It's really ironic that the only lawyer on the forum never threatens lawsuits.

Real libel and slander happens every day and VERY VERY few lawsuits result. The reason? Money. It just isn't worth it and unless you are a celebrity nobody will take a defamation case on a contingent fee basis.

Jo never sues and I don't think Blevins will either, not unless he has a fat wallet and doesnt care how fast it loses weight. Besides, suing Bruce is probably a dead end financially. You really think he has the bucks to pay a huge judgment? The best defense to a civil suit is poverty. I don't know Bruce's net worth but he doesn't strike me as wealthy.

I'd sure like to see more Cooper investigation dialog and less personal attacks and threats here. It get so toxic so fast.

I wish Quade would let Snowmman back, it really has been long enough. He has served his time. Snow found info that nobody else could. How about doing it as a favor to me Quade? Jumper to jumper. He may get ejected again but even a few months would really step up the relevant content level here.

Has anyone heard from Farflung? I worry that something happened to him. Miss that guy. Miss Sluggo, Safe and Orange too. Even Jamie Cooper had his good days. Jerry T too.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[georger 197]

skyjack71

To All: Over the yrs Bruce had done a lot of distasteful things. He DOES take and put twists on to individuals he is writing about - but, he TAKES too many liberaties in how he judges people....and makes it public. Talking about ideas in private are ok, but to write about things that go public with ONES own twisted perversion and in ways that HURT people is wrong.

Freedom of SPEECH does NOT mean that we can make known to the world things that are distateful and unproven....he is very twisted in his thinking and goes beyond facts - he goes into a deep part of his own mind which is perverse.

Remember what he did to Tina?
Tina and her family should speak up, but they CANNOT. Their lives have been disrupted to many time and for way too long.

Bruce takes his story telling to a level worse than tabloids used to be and goes into the world of SMUT - leaving scars on those he victimizes. His own twisted mind - he envisions these things and then makes them public - that is wrong. NO one person should have to face slander in that way.

He wrote horrible things about Tina and her family .
He took what many thought about Kenny and twisted into something filfty and sordid.

This is about real people and a real crime - but he gets SICKENING in his projecting of sordid things into this case that have NO reason for being.

To demean publically those who cannot defend themselves should be a crime. He takes freedom of speech way BEYOND respectful. The people he writes about are real people.

Bruce has NO reason to fear since he is poor and has no monies. He could care LESS who he steps on to reach his goals. Bull in a China Closet does not come close to describing his attituted.

Some of you that he agrees with will not understand this until his vengance is directed at you and he starts to demean you and your family publically. Most of us cannot afford to sue him - and what do we have to gain other than to put ourselves in debt. Bruce know this an he used this.

There should be a way to stop someone like him from destroying the live and memories of other. Freedom of Speech should have boundaries!

Quote

In fairness, I think there is an element of truth in what you say.
I have joined you in being critical of Bruce on those ocassions
when I agreed with you.

On the other hand, WHO was KC? The real KC especially as it
applies to the chance he might have been DB Cooper, as one party has alleged. Surely, we have to know something more about the real KC, in order to make a fair judgement.

We asked the same thing of you, with regard to Duane.

My suspicion is, based on what has transpired, that we don't
know a lot more about KC than when Gray first wrote his article,
and everyhing since then has been highly biased and selective.

If Bruce has evidence let him present it. If he doesn't have
evidence let him admit that. (I am in full agreement with you
Jo on that point). But, that could be explored without threats
of a lawsuit!

Maybe it's time somebody impartial talks to Gray and Bruce
and brings more actual facts to the forum. That would go a long
way to resolving 'the factual issue'.

• Quote