• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


MarkBennett last won the day on November 17 2019

MarkBennett had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5 Neutral
  1. FYI - since Kenny is a topic over here.....I was in Bonney Lake last weekend getting my oil changed, I thought I'd drive by Kenny's old house (the print shop). It has been torn down -- it's just a vacant lot now. As far as Kenny goes, the story is full of contradictions. Robert -- if we were to hypothesize that Kenny was Cooper, did he get away with the money? Given what we now know (he bought a house on a rural highway no bigger than a trailer for $15,000 and didn't put up any of his own money to buy it, and his entire net worth when he died is mostly explained by some wooded land he bought in 1962 and sold in 1991), if Kenny were Cooper, he didn't get away with the money. The only real financial largess was the $5000 loan to Bernie's sister....A plausible explanation for that was it was Bernie's money in the loan. Why would he tell his sister it was Kenny's? Anyone who's ever loaned money to a family knows the answer to that one --you're less likely to get it back. I know we've been down this road many times. We know where it leads.
  2. I know I'm wasting my time responding to this, Robert, but the only conclusion I can come to is you did not watch the History Channel Cooper broadcast. The show did not advocate Rackstraw as D.B. Cooper. Quite the opposite. At the end, only Tom Colbert remained as believing that. Not only did Tom Fuentes and Billy Jepsen not believe it, the rest of Colbert's staff also bailed.
  3. It makes it very difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt when you deny the obvious.
  4. You can Google “10 dollars and other valuable consideration” and get several entries explaining it. However, Shutter explained it pretty well a few posts back.
  5. Tom Colbert fell prey to confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. But, he’s hardly alone for those with favorite suspects in the Cooper case.
  6. I don’t know why their offices were raided, but I do know Tom Colbert was not happy with the program.
  7. Ok, this is confusing to me. Did we watch the same broadcast? The History Channel DB Cooper doc was two separate tracks. One was Tom Colbert’s research on Rackstraw. The second separate track was Jepsen and Fuentes researching the story. At the end, Colbert believed it was Rackstraw, Colbert and Jepsen did not. The documentary was not a vehicle to push Rackstraw as a candidate. I met Jepsen and Fuentes when they interviewed Vicki ( which was not included in the broadcast). They did not have any preconceived notions at all. In fact, they hadn’t done any research about the case in advance at all. But, it was not a pro-Rackstraw broadcast. If anything it was the opposite.
  8. Parrothead Vol, Thanks for the post. Right after this happened I emailed Marla and asked her if they told her the last suspect was LD. She confirmed the FBI had told her that. (I also asked her what specifically about LD caught the FBI's attention and she didn't know). I feel like we've gone around and around this already. Robert has his own opinions and he's entitled to have them. I don't think you're going to change his mind no matter what you post.
  9. I believe Marla's mother has passed away. I think Marla had some memories and tried to fill in the missing details, many of them quite implausible. I think Tom Fuentes said in the history channel documentary, If someone says A and B, and they make sense, and then they say C and C sounds nuts, does that mean A & B aren't true? The FBI didn't shut down the case until after they finished one last fingerprint test on LD Cooper, so there was some part of her story the FBI found plausible. I don't know what that is, and I don't think Marla even knows exactly what that is.
  10. I don't think that's a good representation of the History Channel broadcast. The first part was Tom Colbert, his study, his suspect and his conclusion. Then, they added Jensen and Fuentes to review Colbert's evidence as well as the other suspects. In the end, Jensen and Fuentes did not believe Rackstraw was Cooper. I wouldn't call it a pro-Rackstraw program at all. I thought the program was excellent. I had hopes they'd release a DVD including material that didn't fit in the four hours.
  11. Robert said earlier that Tina was shown Rackstraw's photo and six other people not related to the hijacking. I don't know where that came from. If someone can go to the broadcast, you can see L.D. Cooper's photo on the coffee table where Tina was. I didn't get a good view of the other photographs. If Tina recognized any of the photos, I think it would have been part of the broadcast.
  12. .......... On a simpler point, one of the reasons I never believed the dismissal of the chute based on Cossey's 'It's silk, and the one I gave to Cooper was nylon...' Is because after December 7, 1941 silk production and importation virtually ceased in the United States for some years afterward. The chute is almost certainly not made of silk, and that explanation for dismissal appears in article after article about it. It simply doesn't make sense. There you go again. I'm no silk expert but this is just historically inaccurate. First, US production of silk has never been much of a success. That is why we had to import it from other countries, principally Japan. Second. The US ceasing import of Japanese silk did not mean that all of the stores of silk in the United States disappeared overnight. Actually what happened in 1941 is that the US government froze the imports and commandeered all existing US companies inventories of silk. The existing stock was mandated for government use only for things like parachutes, surgical sutures, electrical insulation. Processing silk for civilian use was prohibited. Over the next few years, as the supply dwindled, they had to come up with an alternative. This still did not mean that silk chutes totally disappeared as some companies used up their supply while others quickly re-tooled for the new material. According to export records, we were also still supplying some other countries with silk parachute cloth in the mid to late 40s. I have posted all of this before as well as documentation that showed that while limited, silk parachutes were still being manufactured in some mills in the mid 40s. But really - even if the chute was not silk and was a first generation nylon - in the pictures it did not look like rip-stop nylon - even to my untrained eye. If the chutes supplied to the hijacker were made of the material that was shown at the Washington historical exhibit that Sailsaw posted....then all the wishes in the world won't turn it into what has been photographed as the Amboy chute. There was some discussion from 2010 on this site for example this one saying that "silk" parachute after the 1930s, weren't really silk anymore, but some material that looked like silk. If there were any issues of biodegradation or lack thereof, that could be why. I'm just posting what I read. I encourage anyone with more knowledge than me to comment.
  13. The truth is that Kaye was quoted correctly. And not only that, but he had ongoing concerns about the Amboy chute. This is plain from his email, and just as plain at his website. I have already quoted both. I don't believe the date printed on the Amboy chute has anything to do with repacking. It's the Date of Manufacture. And a DOM that reads February 1946 means the chances are close to nil it is actually made of silk. Same stuff, same argument. Cossey said it was silk. And that's the reason he dismissed it. If he was wrong, then how can you trust his dismissal? If the Seattle FBI says it isn't Cooper's, but doesn't give a reason, just dismisses it...then why would they say it's evidence in an ongoing case five years later? I can't possibly be the only person who wonders about all that, and the fact that no container or harness were found with the chute. Which means someone disconnected them and took them elsewhere. And no one thinks any of these things are strange? Brother, some of you must be really gullible. While we're on that subject, I have some nice beachfront property about eighty miles NE of Reno you might be interested in. Cheap, too. Picture attached. But, the point I was making was that the stories from you and Shutter were not inconsistent. If you had read the thread from January 2014, you'll see that Kaye is quoted as saying they didn't think to ask about the chute when he was granted access to evidence because it had been dismissed. Carr was still the case agent at the time. Your quote from Tom asking about seeing the chute was obviously later because Eng was the case agent by then. I'll shorten my post because I see you've edited yours to remove the snarkiness. But, can you be surprised you get the responses you get when you lash out even at people who support your position?
  14. This is a bit of deja vu.....We had this conversation in 2014 when Robert first received the email from Tom Kaye. Start here: Basic gist is Tom didn't ask to see the chute when working with Carr because it didn't seem to have any relevance. Kaye asked Eng about it later, but he wasn't sure it was even in the Seattle office, so Kaye was not able to see it. Feel free to relive the conversation from days of yore.
  15. I think they should submit the Cossey case to "Law and Order". That way, not only will they catch the killer, they can also put him on trial and convict him -- all within 60 minutes!