10 10
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

You should talk to someone who was actually there for the production of the show. I did. It was a farce designed to ensure Mucklow either ID'd Rackstraw as Cooper, or no one at all. Colbert and company were pretty disappointed when their tactics backfired on them. 

Can't say I blame them. They had stars in their eyes, and dreams of a Pulitzer and a place on the NYT bestseller list. Neither happened, which is exactly what they deserved. 

So, are you saying that they didn't show her any pictures of other suspects? Have you been told this by someone that was there or is it an assumption?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Can't say I blame them. They had stars in their eyes, and dreams of a Pulitzer and a place on the NYT bestseller list. Neither happened, which is exactly what they deserved.

who said this was what they were shooting for? that's a projected thought. Pulitzer prize for what? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Someone pointed this out to me:

dbcooperhijack.com

 

You guys have probably already heard of and discounted this guy, but it's an interesting read, and the guy's photo certainly resembles the sketch.

Edited by dudeman17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mrshutter45 said:

who said this was what they were shooting for? that's a projected thought. Pulitzer prize for what? 

Book.

But that completely hinged on whether Mucklow ID's Rackstraw as Da Guy Who Got Away With It. 

Am I the only one in Cooperland who calls baloney on things and people in this case, or is everyone graduated (with honors) from Gullibility University? B|

My take on this whole situation is pretty simple. Some of you out there will support anything, try to SPIN anything, no matter how ridiculous or negative...as long as someone in the group known as Cooper Royalty is involved. Those folks are untouchable, no matter what they do...

Whether it be deliberately trashing the biggest free-to-the-public Cooper event ever conceived for the Pacific Northwest, with an expected SRO crowd...and then having the gall to substitute that for a fifteen buck a head soiree and a road trip...disappointing not only the public Cooper fans, but all the people who planned it for months. 

Or, the production of a show that was so slanted, so phony, that it practiced outright deception and cheesy tactics in an effort to unfairly maneuver a witness to meet their goals...just for some booksales at Amazon...

Or, taking advantage of their position as organizer of a certain Cooper event to...(well, I won't post that directly to Dropzone, but the whole sordid story is HERE.

Would you put up with ANYTHING on that list if I were the one to do these things? Be honest.

I will answer for you. Not just no, but HELL no. You would be all over me like white on rice. And you would be justified. 

After the latest Cooper Con is over, if you are not completely happy with the results, and want something a LOT better for 2020...something where EVERYONE who is interested can have a part in planning...not just ONE person...something where when you stand up there to do your presentation the house if friggin' packed...let me know prior to February 15, 2020. If so, I will make sure this happens. If not, you can settle for what you have now. 

Which frankly, is a lot less than you COULD have had.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Cooper Vortex said:

Robert, who exactly is “Cooper Royalty” In your opinion?

It refers to a select group of people, mostly high-profile investigators or long-term fans of the Cooper case. There are other parameters involved. I won't name names publicly, at least not at Dropzone. You should ask this privately instead. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

 

Or, the production of a show that was so slanted, so phony, that it practiced outright deception and cheesy tactics in an effort to unfairly maneuver a witness to meet their goals...just for some booksales at Amazon...

 

 

Robert - 

No one here has had anything positive to say about that show. No one. I think Colbert has done some really good things for the Cooper investigators, but that show and the evidence against Rackstraw is absolute garbage. No one has said otherwise, so please drop that narrative.

I asked you a simple question that you did not answer: Did someone involved with that show, that was at the Tina Mucklow interview, specifically tell you that they did not show her pictures of other suspects? Simple question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Cooper Vortex said:

Robert, who exactly is “Cooper Royalty” In your opinion?

I'm not Robert, but I think I can answer this:

"Cooper Royalty" is a term that carries with it a certain level of negativity. If you are referred to as "Cooper Royalty", it is usually not a compliment. The purpose of the term "Cooper Royalty", is to paint those being referred to as "Cooper Royalty" in a negative light while at the same time doing just the opposite for the person using the term. The term "Cooper Royalty" is used primarily by only one person in particular on certain forums, blogs and articles. However, reality is that there is actually no such thing as "Cooper Royalty", as it only exists inside the head of the person who created the term, and in a fictional place known as "Cooperland" (another term created by the same individual that is usually used as a term to describe the fictional land of negativity where all of "Cooper Royalty" as well as the rest of the evil "truth fearing" people that oppose his theories on a certain case reside).

 

Hope that helps.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm not Robert, but I think I can answer this:

"Cooper Royalty" is a term that carries with it a certain level of negativity. If you are referred to as "Cooper Royalty", it is usually not a compliment. The purpose of the term "Cooper Royalty", is to paint those being referred to as "Cooper Royalty" in a negative light while at the same time doing just the opposite for the person using the term. The term "Cooper Royalty" is used primarily by only one person in particular on certain forums, blogs and articles. However, reality is that there is actually no such thing as "Cooper Royalty", as it only exists inside the head of the person who created the term, and in a fictional place known as "Cooperland" (another term created by the same individual that is usually used as a term to describe the fictional land of negativity where all of "Cooper Royalty" as well as the rest of the evil "truth fearing" people that oppose his theories on a certain case reside).

 

Hope that helps.

You are right. You are not me. B|

The term Cooper Royalty is assigned to a small group of people involved in the Cooper case who are supported by every other member of that group, no matter how they deal with the public, or what ridiculous (and often negative) behavior they exhibit. I could give a good example or two, but I already did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
49 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

You are right. You are not me. B|

The term Cooper Royalty is assigned to a small group of people involved in the Cooper case who are supported by every other member of that group, no matter how they deal with the public, or what ridiculous (and often negative) behavior they exhibit. I could give a good example or two, but I already did. 

"Cooper Royalty" is Robert's term but it exists in function..

I disagree with one point, they do attack each other..

There are people who try to control and own the Cooper narrative by subversive means. They go beyond mere disagreement, to varying degrees they employ lies, disinformation, personal attacks, double standards, disrespectful and dismissive attitudes. "Cooper Royalty" can collude or fight amongst themselves for control.

This is a very common internet thing, either people can't argue their position with facts, logic and reason or they are ignorant of the facts and resort to toxic tactics to win. These people desire to control the narrative over advancing the case. The perpetrators usually have nothing new to contribute.

This is beyond normal disagreement... which is part of healthy debate.

 

I have been in contact with many Cooper people who agree.

 

The "politics" in the Cooper case are a distraction. 

 

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ParrotheadVol said:

Robert - 

No one here has had anything positive to say about that show. No one. I think Colbert has done some really good things for the Cooper investigators, but that show and the evidence against Rackstraw is absolute garbage. No one has said otherwise, so please drop that narrative.

I asked you a simple question that you did not answer: Did someone involved with that show, that was at the Tina Mucklow interview, specifically tell you that they did not show her pictures of other suspects? Simple question.

So again, Robert chooses to not answer this question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 11/12/2019 at 8:40 AM, FLYJACK said:

I have filled in this redacted FBI document and it I am 99% it is correct..

It is a Hahneman document but the witness ID was a bit of work.. the type is uniform so everything comes down to letter count. Robert Gregory is the only witness that fits, he is also the one that described Cooper as having Marcelled hair. Normally, the names of Cooper suspects who have died are not redacted, Hahneman's name is redacted throughout even though he died almost 30 years ago. I believe they have redacted his name because he was never eliminated. The FBI had Hahneman's passport image on June 1... I have many photos of Hahneman and he does look quite different in the face as his weight fluctuated. He also had a turkey neck.

Hahneman did have curly/marcelled hair, he was swarthy and latin in appearance.

 

gregoryhahneman.jpeg.ecf90fb92021d931e6911fea34292254.jpeg

 

More context for Robert Gregory's FBI statement..

 

Gregory described Cooper's hair.. "Hair itself should be marcelled and hair style of President Nixon is quite similar to what UNSUB had. Hair should be slicked down as characters wore in old George Raft movies."

Hahneman's hair was curly/marcelled parted on left and sometimes slicked back.. he had a swarthy complexion and Latin features. 

Hahneman's mother was Honduran and father a German with American citizenship but his complexion was documented as dark. Swarthy Germans were called "Black Dutch"...

 

raftnixonl.jpeg.132b2f4b1c19773a91a56ef4be4e0f57.jpeg

 

George Raft/ Hahneman / Nixon

rafthahnixona.jpg.fc32ef3a659fca04a9bd925af8d33fda.jpg

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
Quote

 

'I asked you a simple question that you did not answer: Did someone involved with that show, that was at the Tina Mucklow interview, specifically tell you that they did not show her pictures of other suspects? Simple question.

So again, Robert chooses to not answer this question...'

Well, I will answer like this:  When someone quotes a source, and if you have doubts about the validity of the source, or what was said...the obvious thing is to go to the source on your own and ask. I gave a name of a person who was heavily involved in the show. I exchanged some emails with him about my concerns, etc. You should go to him on your own for verification. 

It's like when people ask me what Tom Kaye told me about this or that. Instead of quoting their emails, which I generally consider private, I try to refer people to Kaye himself for verification on what was said. (Usually.)

Go to the source and make your inquiries there. Some benefits to doing that. First, it's better than me just telling you my version of what someone said. Second, you might have better questions and get better answers. Third, if the story is verified independently, then no one can say I just made it up. (EDIT: I have decided to take some action on this question on my own. Notes at the end of this post.)

As far as my comments regarding Cooper Royalty, and what it really means, I think Flyjack described it better than I did. But the truth is, this stuff becomes less important all the time. In 18 months or sooner, I will finally be OUT of the D.B. Cooper biz, and I won't miss it. 

I will be 100% straight up here. It has been about ten years since I first contacted Skipp Porteous and we started investigating KC for real. Since then, it's been what I call Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. A ton of weekend trips all over the Pacific Northwest to interview people and do photos or videos. Podcast folks calling me for an appearance. Two times on TV regarding Cooper, radio interviews, an unreleased documentary out of London, a book. A movie contract. Some love from the internet, and a fair amount of hate to go along with it. Sixty illustrated articles at WordPress, 1,300 followers and increasing at Quora DB Cooper, thousands of computer and paper files, the same number of emails exchanged with people, most of whom I never heard of but who seem like nice folks. Four or five Cooper campouts, most with people I never met prior to them pulling up to the campsite in the middle of nowhere. B|

If it weren't for the movie commitment, I would have withdrawn from the entire Cooper narrative a while back. Now I have to follow that wherever it leads, but when that is resolved...I will definitely be OUT of Cooperland. I will end the whole thing by releasing my autobiography. It's already finished except I have to wait for the last chapter to wrap, which means the results of the movie contract. 

After that...it's exit stage left and no looking back. SoCal or Arizona, doesn't make much difference to me. Sometimes I wonder if I should have contacted Skipp in the first place. Do I actually need the movie money that bad? Is that why I did all this? No, I don't think so. But here we are, and I have to let the chips fall where they will now. 

But I can tell you one thing for sure. On the day I withdraw from all this crazy stuff, it will be the happiest day of my life over the last ten years. 

When I go to California for Thanksgiving in less than ten days, I will be under some pressure from both my folks, and Gayla's mom to make a move sooner. To be closer to where they are now. All my family, as well as Gayla's, left WA years ago. Even my kids. At one time, we would get together for Christmas at some family member's house and it would be absolutely packed. But over the years...everyone bailed for other places. Gayla and I are the last holdouts. 

I have proposed one last Damn Big Cooper Party for next year, and offered to finance the thing. (I will issue an official proposal in early January) If people reject it based on the idea they don't like me personally, it won't break my heart. I will just do a few final campouts for 2020 and leave it at that. After that, it's Sunny SoCal or the desert for me. If people decide they want this, I will organize everyone to assist on something that would not only put the Ariel Store Party to shame, but bring REAL attention to the folks who currently investigate the case. But if you have to WANT this to happen. And if you are going to appear or participate, then you have to help in the planning. If you can't attend or participate, then we will ask for your support in spirit. 

I get the idea many of you are willing to do the minor thing with a few people (EU's event) and that this works for you. And probably aren't interested in something bigger. It's all good, as they say. If there is interest, I will start running up a budget and contacting you. If not, I will move ON.

EDIT: In an effort to be fair, and because you guys are a bunch of nags sometimes...(that was a joke)...I have contacted the original source for re-verification on what was presented to Mucklow either on or off camera, and how it was done. I will wait for a response, and then ask if I can make his answers public. Best I can do.  

Edited by RobertMBlevins
Clarifications and spelling corrections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked Tom Colbert who was the exc-producer if pictures were shown to Tina. he replied that he didn't know. if anyone knew it would of been him. he was about as involved as one could get. it really doesn't matter because Tina would of watched the show. who wouldn't watch a program they were involved in or about a case they were involved in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mrshutter45 said:

I asked Tom Colbert who was the exc-producer if pictures were shown to Tina. he replied that he didn't know. if anyone knew it would of been him. he was about as involved as one could get. it really doesn't matter because Tina would of watched the show. who wouldn't watch a program they were involved in or about a case they were involved in. 

And you believed him? ;) If he was the executive producer, he was involved in every facet of that show. I think I will wait for a more straightforward answer, thank you. Which reminds me...I haven't yet checked my email. 

As far as whether Tina watched the show, she probably did. If so, she also knows KC was a former employee of the airline. So it is hard to say what someone like her would say or do after she saw the program, which only mentioned KC briefly. 

On a side note, I have seen your recent comments regarding the party proposal I made. You misunderstand. I'm not asking people to come on board for the event. I put out feelers to see if anyone was interested. I made it plain that if there is little or no interest, I simply go with Plan B and we do a few campouts next year. Either way works for me, and the campout thing is definitely cheaper. Organizing an event such as I proposed would cost me personally about $2,500-$3,500 depending on how much we front up in prizes for the Cooper Character Lookalike Contest. The campouts I can do for almost nothing, and any new gear I buy for them I get to keep. 

Some corrections for you: I only sent you ONE PM after the block, not 'several'. The 'little deal' in Portland was not mine, but belonged to Jim Brunberg and Bryan Ward. Being mistaken on the cubic footage of a bank bag is not 'spewing hatred'. And if you are going to do Jeopardy, you don't ask questions. You provide the ANSWERS and the contestant is supposed to respond in the form of a question. B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe him. not everyone is a liar. what purpose does he have with his answer of not knowing. was he was lying and she did look at the photo's. which way you want this? 

You made a joke that backfired on you. it was pure malice in it's intent. I see we are now back to discussing other forums and people once again due to your comments...

I heard minimum of three alerts. I even replied twice that you were blocked and still got alerts. 

First response of block..

"Sorry, but I put you on ignore in my PM's today after I posted. you are a broken record and I've grown tired of it. "

Second response

"sorry, all I see is the notification. I don't know why you keep posting a PM...." 

more notifications followed...

 

 

Share this post


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

Flo said that she wouldn't be able to ID Cooper in photos five years after the hijacking..

Does anybody actually think Tina or Bill could 45+ years later.. 

Perhaps Tina could. Hard to say. I know Flo Schaffner got the crap scared out of her when Geoff Gray laid out pictures of KC for her. Her hands were shaking and she definitely got stressed viewing them. That is not an ID, but it's significant. 

Shutter says in part:
 

Quote

"Yes, I believe him. not everyone is a liar. what purpose does he have with his answer of not knowing..."

You mean, why would he not tell you the truth? Are you kidding? The entire show was a prequel to a book slated for release the day after the show aired. And that book named Rackstraw as the hijacker. You really believe that Colbert would risk all that by showing Tina pictures of OTHER suspects...knowing she might identify someone ELSE as the hijacker? 

We already know he presented her with a collage that contained ZERO pictures of any suspects, except for Rackstraw. As far as messages go, I don't care about that a bit. You just didn't like hearing the truth regarding EU is all. Doesn't matter anyway. The WordPress article lays it all out just fine. There is no hatred in it, just the facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
35 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Flo said that she wouldn't be able to ID Cooper in photos five years after the hijacking..

Does anybody actually think Tina or Bill could 45+ years later.. 

The actual witnesses will have trouble remembering 40 years back. most people with suspects have perfect memory, detailed like yesterday :) 

 

I do believe if a picture of Cooper was shown it would trigger there memory...

Edited by mrshutter45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
49 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Flo said that she wouldn't be able to ID Cooper in photos five years after the hijacking..

Does anybody actually think Tina or Bill could 45+ years later.. 

No. But I do think that they could look at some suspects and positively say that it wasn't them. 

Edited by ParrotheadVol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blevins - C'mon man. We can go back through the history on this site and find many times when it was "Exit Stage Left" and you were done with Cooper. We all know that you ain't leaving the Cooper case. This year, next year, 5 or 10 years down the road, whatever. It won't matter. This is in your blood and you can't simply flip a switch and quit. So, quit lying to us and yourself and just take ownership of your addiction to all things DB Cooper. Embrace it, there's nothing wrong with it. My only advice would be to find a better suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
26 minutes ago, mrshutter45 said:

Robert, isn't your movie about your book. one that's full of error's? you have already said you are in this for the money, so how are you any different? 

That is a fair question. Yes, the book has errors. Those will not be in any movie, I can assure you. The film is mostly based on the extensive files we gathered on KC, most of which actually came AFTER the release of the book. Book came out in December 2010. Our investigation on KC more or less ended just this year. 

I turned down one film offer from the same guys who bought the rights to the Geoff Gray book, because they admitted they were going to take extreme poetic license. Turned down $2,500 from History Channel, and another thousand from Comcast Sports Net. (Adrenaline Hunter with Bethy Rossos show)

When the current offer came along, I decided to sign because I was allowed some control over the shooting script so people don't go crazy, and because I was allowed to assign up to two people to assist on fact-checking for the script. You know all about that, I'm sure. No one in Cooperland was interested in the job, so it went to someone else. Frankly, the best person for the job. 

I never did exec producer on a History Channel show that was specifically set up to launch a book pointing at one suspect, and one suspect alone. I can tell you that. I call it dishonest, and I'm not the only one with that opinion. Even many of you over at the Cooper Forum have said the show was a joke. Many comments about it there, back when the show first aired. Hey...I don't blame you. We were actually on the same page, believe it or not. I took it a step further and started talking to someone who was involved with the show, that's all. 

Parrot says in part:
 

Quote

"Blevins - C'mon man. We can go back through the history on this site and find many times when it was "Exit Stage Left" and you were done with Cooper. We all know that you ain't leaving the Cooper case..."

I'm leaving Washington state no later than April 2021 and probably before that. I will know more after Thanksgiving. The only reason I'm still involved with Cooper is because of the movie. Once that is concluded one way or another, I will be more than happy to give up Cooper. With the release of the autobiography, I will have nothing more to really say about it, and will be living too far away to bother with any more Cooper events anyway. Looks like a few Cooper Campouts next year, and then I have to leave. 

As far as 'finding a better suspect,' the way things have turned out for me..that is really foolish advice on your part. Why would I want to do a thing like that? Things have turned out much better than I ever hoped. :)

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
10 10