ParrotheadVol

I still prefer the dredge theory.

Reminiscent of the day that Dale Earnhardt died. I was a huge fan of his at the time. I haven't watched NASCAR since and they have never recovered from his death.

Parrotheadvol replied Exactly. There's no need to go there. I said I wasn't going to, but wound up coming anyway. That's a bit different from saying "I never look at DZ", while at the same time looking at DZ.

Robert, I don't recall anyone at the Cooper forum saying they don't look at DZ. There is plenty there that won't post here, but I don't recall any of them saying they don't look here.

I went back and looked and saw where Bruce had posted on TDBCF a few weeks ago that it was a 4 hour show that is going to be airing on HBO. I guess I just made an assumption that it would be 4 episodes. It's too bad that they cut it down to 84 minutes. But, that's still an hour and a half and I will buy HBO for a month so that I can watch it. Robert, I really do wish that you could just answer a question without going into the whole working together thing every single time. It's get tiresome, and my guess is that once you start down that road that most people quit reading. I sure do.

Robert, you're obviously not a boxing fan, it's "Thrilla" In Manila. I may give that one a view as I am an Ali fan. No desire to see the Scientology one though. How is the Minnow films production cut down to 84 minutes? I thought this was a four episode documentary?

It's a 50 year old case. I doubt that the case will ever be back in the national spotlight, at least for any length of time. The upcoming special that is going to air on HBO may create some interest though. People seem to be more interested in docs that air on HBO and Netflix more so than the ones that air on Discover and Travel Channel.

Flyjack - I tend to agree with this. At least it makes sense. But, I do have to point out that a few posts ago you were pointing out that the FBI certainly looked at people that were shorter than what was in the description and that we couldn't be sure about the height. OK, fair enough. But let's remember, they also looked at people that did not have dark eyes, including Sheridan. So, by your own logic, how sure can we be about the dark eyes?

I couldn't remember the exact wording that was in the description and who it was that actually seen his eyes without the glasses. That's why I asked.

Doesn't the Cooper description say "possibly" brown eyes? I didn't think anyone had said that he for sure had brown eyes.

But yet here you are talking about it, like you always do. You say you don't care, but the opposite is obvious.

Was this exec at Foss at the same time Bernie was and did he know Bernie? You probably spoke to this guy in what 2010, give or take? That's almost 40 years after the fact. While it may not have been common for someone to work the schedule that Bernie claimed to have worked, it's entirely possible that there was some reason that Bernie could have and did work that schedule. I think it's a stretch to call this a lie based on the word of one exec 40 years later. To substantiate this as being a lie, you would need something more than just this general statement. Employment records, time card records? You know, proof. I'm betting that the exec that told you this had no direct knowledge of Bernie's employment or schedule.

Robert, things have been moving along just fine here. It's all been Cooper discussion. Not everyone agrees, such as is the case between Flyjack and myself on the height issue. But that's ok, it's still Cooper discussion and not personal. So why then, do you feel the need to make two lengthy posts concerning the Cooper forum and other members of Coopertown? You need to just let it go.

Read what I wrote - I said let's just DISAGREE on that. Again, look at the Zodiac movie. They named Arthur Leigh Allen by his real name and implied that he was the perp. No truth came out. They only succeeded in making Allen look guilty, even though he probably wasn't Zodiac.

Robert, I quit after the second paragraph. Just too long and nothing there that you haven't said a hundred time already. Look, the movie may be good. People may like it. But, I don't think it's going to lead to the truth on Kenny. Anyone that isn't delusional already knows the truth on Kenny. Let's just disagree on that.

I enjoyed the Zodiac movie, they just strayed some from the facts of the case especially in the later stages of the movie. I'm sure ANY Cooper movie would do the same, that's just the way it's done in Hollywood. Very few movies about historical events stick to the facts and nothing more. I say that anyway, perhaps there are some but it seems the ones that I've seen always have some sort of embellishment of the facts.

Robert, I have to be honest here. Those were a couple of pretty long posts and I'd be lying if I said I did anything more that just scan through them. You've taken Jo Weber's place for long posts that most people probably don't read. But I will argue a couple of points here: Yes, there has been manufactured evidence in the KC story. There have been lies. The house purchased for cash thing was certainly a lie. That certainly qualifies as "manufactured" evidence. As far as the movie driving out the truth "one way or the other", why would that happen? Did that happen with the Zodiac movie? Nope. All that movie did was make a guy look more guilty, a guy who probably wasn't Zodiac. Movies don't have a way of driving out the truth on things. Instead, people watch a movie and assume that the movie is representing the truth because most people are either to lazy to research and find out the truth, or more likely just don't care. They watch the movie, they enjoy it or they don't, they move on. Now, going back a couple of posts, it is ridiculous to suggest that if you are standing beside someone on a plane that you would have a hard time judging their height. Bullshit. If you are in back of the plane and they are in the front, maybe. But standing beside someone it wouldn't matter if you were on the street, on a bus, on the moon, or in a plane. It's just something that you've come up with to further your suspect. Finally, if someone broke into your house and 3 people got a good look at the person and knew what he was doing, you would certainly give their descriptions of the person more credence than those of someone who just saw the person in passing and had no idea what was going on. I fly all the time. I'm a pretty observant person and have a good memory. But there's no way that I could give you a description of someone on a flight that I'm on unless I was sitting beside them and having a conversation with them. Why? Because I have no reason to remember them. To suggest that the passengers on the plane descriptions of Cooper should be weighed equally to or more than the stews is absolutely ludicrous, or as Jerry Seinfeld would say "Ridicurous"

There were 3 witnesses that knew what was going on. 3 witnesses that knew that they would be called on to give a description of the hijacker. None of the passengers had any idea what was going on and probably never saw him stand up. So, none of their guesses on height should be considered and I highly doubt they were. Blevins likes to weigh the passengers descriptions equally to those of the stews. You're smarter than that. If I stand next to someone who is a couple of inches shorter or taller than me, that is pretty damn easy to discern. The description is what it is. That doesn't mean that the FBI cannot look outside those parameters if they feel the need to.

Okay, I was wrong about the actual height that Tina said. My bad. But, the point is still the same, if she was correct about his height, then Kenny is out. End of story. If Tina is 5'8", and Kenny is 5'8", and she stands beside Cooper and realizes that this guy is a few inches taller than her (which isn't hard to do - let's not turn that into rocket science), then it can't be Kenny or anyone else that comes in at 5'8".

None of the above matters if Tina was right about Coopers height. It's that simple. She stood beside him and put his height as 4 or 5 inches taller than hers. If she was right about that, then Kenny Christiansen cannot be DB Cooper, no matter how much other circumstantial "evidence" is found or manufactured.

Has anyone ever investigated to see if she did in fact purchase a house in 1972, and if so, how much was paid for that house? Or is this something that we just take her word for and accept it as fact?

Robert, I don't need an exact date and you pretty much provided the answer anyway. It didn't need to be that specific, and just so you know, I'm not real concerned about being on anyone's "trusted list". As far as why I wanted to know, it's pretty simple. My understanding is that you were told by a witness that KC smoked Raliegh cigarettes. I was just curious as to why Lyle didn't show you this "evidence" early on. It just gives the appearance of "manufactured" evidence on the part of Lyle. Seems he would have shown you these things at the beginning, if he had them. That's all, not a big deal at the end of the day.

Robert, when did Lyle provide you with this picture?

C'mon now Robert, we've been through this before. No one ever said Cooper had a tan. You have said that Kenny had a tan at the time (which is impossible to know), but no one said that Cooper had a tan. Merry Christmas everyone!

Figures. I dropped HBO when they quit carrying boxing and Game Of Thrones ended.