georger

Members
  • Content

    8,206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Come on, Georger. A lot of that stuff you said there just isn't true. Like anonymity, rules, and the revealing of names. The last time I revealed who you were (figured it was fair since you kept entering subject lines with my name on them) the post was removed by Quade and I was warned. That is the rule: anonymity rule here. No personal info posted. You are correct above. The same should apply to aka Amazon. Complaints have been filed. Amazon uses a nym. Is anonymous. Shall we violate her anonymity? I can. I can also file a complaint with her isp.
  2. Now you're talkin'. Even a Torah reading would be cool. Or Revrun JW. could lead a seance where DB could communicate with us from the Big Beyond. Set the story straight, so to speak.... And your posting it again is not helpful. Never contact me again! It's a baldfaced attack against me by Aamazon to shut me down by a clear violation of the rules here at Dropzone, if there even are any rules here! Rules for us. No rules for Aamazon, Blevins, Weber, and Danielle. It's pure spite on Amazon's part, I guess to redress some grievance she has _ against me? The lady who once said she had been kicked out of more (places) than . . . It's a clearcut violation of the rules she has repeated at least three times here. And the rest of the story is! Amazon herself HIDES under the anonymity of "Amazon" here! Only a handful of people know her name. But if I released her name here - all hell would break lose! I would be banned in seconds! Amazon is nothing but another Dropzone HYPOCRIT who is allowed to violate the rules, while the rest of us are held to different higher standards.! _ _ _ Any feedback yet on having turned Danielle into authorities in Atlanta for its threats made against Geestman and others here at Dropzone? Just one more clearcut violation of the rules which Mods here chose to ignore here What's next? ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and Hamas spreading their venom and bullshit here on the Cooper Thread at Dropzone.com ?
  3. We're not going to do that after all. Not at this time, anyway. I don't see the point of it since we haven't completed our investigation into KC yet. I saw Georger's usual hateful garbage posted above. I read a couple of bits from my sci-fi book and a couple of flash fiction stories to a small crowd. Fairly harmless stuff, no mention of Cooper or the book. 'Shifting his eyes' meant I was looking down at my notes, by the way. And I don't care whether you liked the video or not. You're in negative mode 100% of the time, scrabbling, sniffing, and searching for anything you can scrounge up so you can post more non-Cooper negative Blevins Attack Dog Shit. You're like Oliver Crangle from the Twilight Zone episode 'Four o'Clock'. So your comments are expected, typical...and yes...predicatable. 9 He who has ears, let him hear." 10 The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" 11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he who has more will have more abundance. But, whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; and hearing, they do not hear or understand. They do not know me. They only think they know me! Then he said: he who has eyes, let him see! 5 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they do not see with their eyes. They have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts. To those who are stricken I say: And a session with Golda would heal them! Then blessed would be your eyes because they see, and blessed your ears because they hear. Restore by a session with Golda! Go see Golda and all shall be restored. Golda, who is no mystery to anyone, wrote and asked for the link to the Blevins video again, so here it is, Golda. That all may see with their own eyes and know. Blessings to all and upon you, Golda! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsuE_2f-fyM
  4. No. I say we call it like it REALLY is. Georger engages in post after post at Dropzone where he does absolutely nothing except serve as the Designated Blevins Attack Dog. That, my friends, is a fact. And that fact is proven by his own words, his subject headers, and posts. Any positive or contributory posts he makes to this thread on Cooper are few and far between. Mostly they are Blevins-oriented. He's gone after me, my cat, Gayla Prociv, AB of Seattle in general, B and G Housecleaning, whatever he can think of or lay his hands on elsewhere. He is no longer about investigating the Cooper case, at least not here. This is an obsession on his part and he doesn't mind pulling out the stops in this quest. Right now I'm answering these things and at the same time trying to burn a DVD for my mom of my reading for Auburn Days. I promised her one. Crowd was small by the time I took the stage, but no problem. Everyone had fun. I'm sure if I posted the link to the video from YouTube, (because Andy aka Danielle 1010 asked) Georger would find fault with that as well. He is nothing but predictable. That's for sure. Cops stopped by the theater today. They've seen Galen Cook's crazy Porteous posts from the alternate site. They asked us if he had come to the theater. I was nice. I said no problem. But the fact I had to do that at all just shows what Cooperland can be about. Sometimes (just sometimes) things need a second look.
  5. No. I say we call it like it REALLY is. Georger engages in post after post at Dropzone where he does absolutely nothing except serve as the Designated Blevins Attack Dog. That, my friends, is a fact. And that fact is proven by his own words, his subject headers, and posts. Any positive or contributory posts he makes to this thread on Cooper are few and far between. Mostly they are Blevins-oriented. He's gone after me, my cat, Gayla Prociv, AB of Seattle in general, B and G Housecleaning, whatever he can think of or lay his hands on elsewhere. He is no longer about investigating the Cooper case, at least not here. This is an obsession on his part and he doesn't mind pulling out the stops in this quest. Right now I'm answering these things and at the same time trying to burn a DVD for my mom of my reading for Auburn Days. I promised her one. Crowd was small by the time I took the stage, but no problem. Everyone had fun. I'm sure if I posted the link to the video from YouTube, (because Andy aka Danielle 1010 asked) Georger would find fault with that as well. He is nothing but predictable. That's for sure.
  6. My personal problem is I have never liked con artists and liars. Do you qualify?
  7. Actually, no. It was Geoff Gray in his 2007 New York Magazine article who first mentioned Kenny was gay, which he probably got from the family, since everyone in his family knew his orientation from the time Kenny was sixteen onward. And I never made any mention of anything else, simply because after all the investigation I did on him, there was nothing else to mention regarding his sex life. Sixty-five plus witnesses later...still nothing. And you can bet I checked out that possibility thoroughly, especially after I read the Geoff Gray article. Whether he was Cooper or not is still open to question, of course. Some of the people I interviewed on Christiansen had known him for decades. None of them even mentioned a hint that he might be raping young boys. None. Georger says in part: ***'I'm still looking for the "someone responds to you in a reasonably intelligent way", but can't find it.' I see. This comes to me from the same guy who posts up Boots and Pants and Aflac as a response. Sure, you can go with that story if you wish. Well smartypants n boots: it is a FACT Porteous told people Kenny was gay and more, how did he say this .... let me go look at a few emails .... ah yes here's one, quoting: "That KC was a gay man and liked boys. I asked Skipp what kind of a suspect he was entertaining and Skipp said, "well I didn't pick him. But we know he liked and (groomed) boys. Yes, the usual thing. Gifts were involved............" Porteous is thinking about a book and confides to the recipient further .... but I wont quote that part. That straight from a person who Porteous confided to ... before you even existed. Want me to look up more? But I will say this. At one time you were supposed to be just a publisher, someone to publish for Porteous, not his writer! Someone else was going to fill that role. Your be the writer came later. You were simply supposed to be a sidelight in any event, an anecdote, not even a full fledged partner! Somehow Porteous went to the side and you became Major Domo Owner of the whole Kenny schule! Wow! Nice piece of work. How the fuck did that happen! Care to explain? Porteous and Gray came before you. That is a fact currently being played at the Riviola. Pants n boots! AFLAC!
  8. I'm still looking for the "someone responds to you in a reasonably intelligent way", but can't find it.
  9. What toll? A toll on you? You either don't know a damned thing about how I work in interviews or info-gathering, or you just don't care. We have literally hundreds of pictures, documents, witness statements, and notebooks filled to the brim with (you guessed it) NOTES. Most of them are pretty well organized now. If anyone I questioned feels 'stressed' it certainly isn't because of me. What's pissing YOU off is that we're now working with Geestman's family as well, and not telling you a thing about the details. Too bad. You have no idea what you are talking about here. Except in the case of Bernie Geestman, I am free to re-interview almost anyone I have interviewed previously. They are always free to say no, but most would say yes. In fact, you have a lot of nerve harping on me about this when the only thing I ever suggested regarding Christiansen is the same thing you've been doing with other suspects...investigating him as possibly being DB Cooper, which might actually make him a hero to almost everyone except law enforcement. On the other hand, when it is convenient for you, then you go along with the idea of accusing Christiansen of being a child molester...a person who would certainly be universally hated by nearly everyone. It's a cheap shot, and not fair to his family. We're not talking about proof, or even a lack of real evidence. We're talking about something completely made up without even a WHISPER of the slightest evidence, even after multiple interviews with people who not only knew Christiansen, but in some cases LIVED WITH HIM for years. You want to go down that road with Bruce Smith, feel free. It's one thing investigate a guy for Cooper with the full cooperation of his family, and quite another to start tossing out unsubstantiated bullshit like that. And that's exactly what it is, Georger...BULLSHIT. I've interviewed more than 65 people who knew Christiansen very well. You can't be a 'nice guy' and a child molester at the same time. Being gay is not a crime, and even McWilliams never saw any evidence of what Bruce hints about Christiansen. In fact, McWilliams told Geoff Gray that KC had adult relationships, not with kids. From what I know of KC, (and that is actually MORE than Geoff Gray knows because he never talked to the people who knew Kenny the best, although I updated him later) Kenny just liked helping kids out sometimes. Doesn't mean he raped them, sir. There was absolutely no hint of inappropriate behavior on his part. NONE. These things I discussed above are much of the reason I cut people like you and Smith out of the information loop. I no longer trust Cooperland or so-called Cooper Royalty because some of you need more than two hands to grind the many axes you carry. Some of you will stoop to the lowest stuff imaginable in pathetic attempts to discredit others. That's your way. What's really bothering you is the idea we might be right. In the world of Cooperland, that is the ultimate fear. That some renegade, a newcomer like me, might be able to figure it out and all your work would have been for nothing. It is the worst possible outcome for you, so you will try almost anything to avoid that. You know this, and so do I. Your very words have proven that easily. You've gone after Gayla, AB Books in general, our housecleaning biz, and just about everything else that has zip to do with KC or Cooper. And when you did that, you sacrificed both credibility - and in my humble opinion - a bit of character. When we finally wrap our current investigation into Christiansen, I will present what we have on him, but not a second earlier. Then you can attempt to shred it all you like based on its merits, or the lack of same. Nothing you say will stop that, or even slow it down for a moment. But like I said before I wouldn't worry. Many have been investigated and so far none of the suspects has panned out. Kenny might join their ranks as well. OK. Thanks for the advisory. Boots n pants. Pants n boots. Boots n pants. Pants n boots. AFLAC!
  10. A good point, and here's my rebuttal: Geoffrey Gray has shown repeatedly in his writings that Kenny invited run-away boys to stay in his home for extended periods of time. During their stay he took them to dinner in restaurants and gave them exotic gifts from the Orient. If that is not "troubling" behavior, then what is it? I have repeatedly asked you to describe it in terms that you might find more suitable, but all I've ever heard from you was that Kenny was a nice guy who was trying to help some kids. Sorry, Bobby, but that is too naive for me to consider. Let me ask you this: If your son ran away from you, would you be comfortable if they spent some time with a guy like Kenny and got treated to the good life? Where would you draw the line? You'd be okay with Kenny, but how about Bernie? How about me? How about Galen, or Georger, or Josie? Also for child molesters, I agree most are not gay. In fact, the greatest danger of molestation is from men who are known and trusted by the family - parish priests, neighbors, fathers, uncles, brothers, Penn State coaches, etc. He also bought Dawn Androsko a wall clock from Japan. I don't think he tried to have sex with her. Geoff Gray's article from the NY Magazine addresses this issue with an interview he did with one of those boys, Kenneth McWilliams. 'Mac' was left the lot out back of the house after KC died. Nowhere does Mac say anything about inappropriate behavior with any of the runaways that Kenny took in sometimes. He said that KC had relationships occasionally with guys his own age, some of them old Army buddies. Shall I quote the passages for you? As far as 'inviting' the only mention of that was when KC invited one kid to stop sleeping in the laundromat and let him stay at the house for a while. I never interviewed Mac myself, but I did interview his ex-wife in Puyallup. She said the same thing. KC was NOT engaging in inappropriate behavior, and Geoff Gray says nothing about this in either his book or in his article. You are misquoting him. You want to hint around that Kenny Christiansen had sex with young boys? That's a pretty strong allegation when you haven't a single witness, nor any mention of such a thing by either Kenny's neighbors, or his friends. No police reports, no complaints by a parent, nothing. Nothing from people who knew him well for decades. And I asked directly about it with every witness except Bernie Geestman. Why? Because I read the Geoff Gray article, too. You want to talk about slandering someone when they are no longer around to defend themselves? It's one thing to point to them as possibly being DB Cooper, and quite another to call them a child molester. Dig yourself an actual witness or a single allegation from anyone in Kenny's life to back up your accusation, or chalk it up to a post under Speculation. You can leave that crap in your book if you wish. But you haven't a shred of evidence to back up the idea that Kenny molested kids. Just because he was gay, doesn't make him a child molester. Kenny was described by practically everyone who knew him as low-key, a 'nice guy,' and other positive comments. If he had been engaging in the things you describe, I would have found out a long time ago. But you haven't a shred of evidence to back up the idea that Kenny molested kids No, but what you do have is behavior which is consistent with what is known as predatory grooming behavior. All it will take is one witness saying he molested me or X, and that's it. None of this may have a damned thing to do with whether Kenny was DBC or not! What it does have to do with is the way you conduct socalled research, or fleasearch, as the case may be. You scratch one itch then go on to the next, finally come back to the first, in and endless cycle of scratching the surface of things never solving anything. It's just a motion you go through like the headless horseman looking for his head! And we are supposed to applaud and issue you kudos and be nice which means 'compliant'! It's a totally fucked up way of doing business and anything but 'nice' on your part. What it actually is is "ruthless" on your part. You can call it 'being nice' if you want but the corrosive effect of how you do things is very apparent and has taken a toll on everyone concerned.
  11. A good point, and here's my rebuttal: Geoffrey Gray has shown repeatedly in his writings that Kenny invited run-away boys to stay in his home for extended periods of time. During their stay he took them to dinner in restaurants and gave them exotic gifts from the Orient. If that is not "troubling" behavior, then what is it? I have repeatedly asked you to describe it in terms that you might find more suitable, but all I've ever heard from you was that Kenny was a nice guy who was trying to help some kids. Sorry, Bobby, but that is too naive for me to consider. Let me ask you this: If your son ran away from you, would you be comfortable if they spent some time with a guy like Kenny and got treated to the good life? Where would you draw the line? You'd be okay with Kenny, but how about Bernie? How about me? How about Galen, or Georger, or Josie? Also for child molesters, I agree most are not gay. In fact, the greatest danger of molestation is from men who are known and trusted by the family - parish priests, neighbors, fathers, uncles, brothers, Penn State coaches, etc. He also bought Dawn Androsko a wall clock from Japan. I don't think he tried to have sex with her. Geoff Gray's article from the NY Magazine addresses this issue with an interview he did with one of those boys, Kenneth McWilliams. 'Mac' was left the lot out back of the house after KC died. Nowhere does Mac say anything about inappropriate behavior with any of the runaways that Kenny took in sometimes. He said that KC had relationships occasionally with guys his own age, some of them old Army buddies. Shall I quote the passages for you? As far as 'inviting' the only mention of that was when KC invited one kid to stop sleeping in the laundromat and let him stay at the house for a while. I never interviewed Mac myself, but I did interview his ex-wife in Puyallup. She said the same thing. KC was NOT engaging in inappropriate behavior, and Geoff Gray says nothing about this in either his book or in his article. You are misquoting him. You want to hint around that Kenny Christiansen had sex with young boys? That's a pretty strong allegation when you haven't a single witness, nor any mention of such a thing by either Kenny's neighbors, or his friends. No police reports, no complaints by a parent, nothing. Nothing from people who knew him well for decades. And I asked directly about it with every witness except Bernie Geestman. Why? Because I read the Geoff Gray article, too. You want to talk about slandering someone when they are no longer around to defend themselves? It's one thing to point to them as possibly being DB Cooper, and quite another to call them a child molester. Dig yourself an actual witness or a single allegation from anyone in Kenny's life to back up your accusation, or chalk it up to a post under Speculation. You can leave that crap in your book if you wish. But you haven't a shred of evidence to back up the idea that Kenny molested kids. Just because he was gay, doesn't make him a child molester. Kenny was described by practically everyone who knew him as low-key, a 'nice guy,' and other positive comments. If he had been engaging in the things you describe, I would have found out a long time ago. But you haven't a shred of evidence to back up the idea that Kenny molested kids No, but what you do have is behavior which is consistent with what is known as predatory grooming behavior. All it will take is one witness saying he molested me or X, and that's it. None of this may have a damned thing to do with whether he was DBC or not! What it does have to do with is the way you conduct socalled research, or fleasearch, as the case may be and has been before in your case. You scratch one itch then go on to the next, then eventually come back to the first, and it never is research!
  12. Anything regarding DNA that ends up posted here, there is no doubt Georger is the best-informed on this angle. The only thing I have is the phone calls and the emails from Seattle-office Special Agent Fred Gutt. (There was a time when the Seattle FBI was much more open to Cooper case inquiries than now.) I had sent a question to the case agent, who was NOT Gutt, but Gutt being the media relations agent, he was the one with the reply. I asked him two questions. First, had the FBI run the sample they took from Christiansen's brother during a visit to his home in Morris, MN? (To get a profile) Second, what exactly was their current DNA profile, the one extracted from the tie, telling them. Gutt said that no, Lyle Christiansen's DNA had not been profiled. Then he said that the current profile from the tie could ELIMINATE a suspect when compared to that suspect's full DNA profile, but it could not CONFIRM them 100% as the hijacker. It was a 'partial profile' he said. For anything else on that...see Georger, or try asking the Seattle office. and I thought your parachute pdf last night was a good succinct statement of the current understanding of that matter - amazing, we agree for a change.
  13. So, how many markers are available in saliva, such as found on cigarette butts as compared to epithelial cells? The "markers" tested for are the same in both cases. The genetic material being searched is the same. The genetic material is in cells conveyed in saliva, skin cells, sweat, or some other bio product from a person. What matters is the health (viability) of those cells and the amount of degradation which has occurred in those cells over time. But the markers you search for are the same in all cases.
  14. Once again, Ckret (and others) were not convinced the butts were lost, but more likely in the system somewhere. Pending a definitive statement, people who want the butts to go away will continue to insist "the butts are lost", just as a few years ago the same people insisted "the FBI has no dna evidence at all" then news of the tie samples surfaced by some curious route involving degrees of separation! What is a fact, is that in 1971 agents/LE at Reno and elsewhere were not deeply trained in modern 'evidence and evidence collection', as a rule. General rules applied. The emphasis was on finger prints and gross physical evidence, serological testing, hair and fibre analysis etc, eg. the FBI even tried to pull finger prints off the degraded Cooper bills using chemical methods; which contaminated these bills forever! In 1971 Dna testing and the preservation of dna materials was virtually nonexistent in law enforcement! The first act using the forensic methods of the day would have been to look for Cooper's fingerprints on the cigarette butts - not dna. Dna analysis arose years later but by then the prior finger printing methods employed probably compromised any dna evidence on the butts! So, the issue of butts being lost or not may be irrelevant, in any event! "In 1998, the FBI Laboratory began using DNA testing in forensic cases. Prior to 1998, serological testing was used in detecting, characterizing, and attributing bodily fluid stains found on evidence submitted to the laboratory. The first DNA tests were used primarily in the same fashion and with the same purpose as the serological test..." http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/dna-nuclear "1986 - First use of forensic DNA analysis in criminal case in United States: Pennsylvania v.Pestinikas 1987 - First person convicted as a result of DNA evidence – Tommy Lee Andrews 1988 - First TWGDAM Meeting held at FBI Academy in Quantico, VA. See: http://www.swgdam.org/History%20of%20QA%20%20SWGDAM%20Jan%202013.pdf So, when we get critical about the cigarette butts saying the FBI should have done this or that etc., it's well to understand what actual protocols were in force in 1971, and the timeline of actual historical development of which we are all a part, vs. results in today's world now (vastly different than just a few years ago). For example the latest generation of PCR techniques was not even available just a few years ago. PCR techniques are vital to any dna sampling which must occur to reveal ANY dna data! The techniques used today were not even in people's dreams in 1971, just to add some perspective on these matters! The techniques and quality of data used between 1986-90 (referenced above) was very crude vs. what is available today.
  15. Here is some guidance from the FBI's own handbook, quote: "Q: Can partial match information at NDIS be disclosed? A: Since a partial match is not an exact profile match to an offender profile and therefore cannot be subject to NDIS defined confirmation procedures, the FBI has authorized procedures for the release of partial match information. NDIS Laboratories that identify a partial match resulting from an NDIS search and wish to identify the offender profile should refer to Appendix G of the NDIS Operational Procedures Manual and contact the FBI’s CODIS Unit for further information." and, "Q: How successful are partial matches at locating potential suspects? A: As explained in SWGDAM’s recommendations “Moderate stringency CODIS matches, in general, have very low efficiency in locating true relatives in offender databases. There is little useful probative value in the majority of partial matches using the current CODIS searching rules and algorithms. There are two main reasons for this: (1) true siblings will very rarely share alleles at all 13 CODIS loci; (2) as offender DNA databases get large, the number of unrelated people that do share at least one allele at all loci increases very rapidly. The original intent for allowing moderate stringency CODIS searches was the realization and acknowledgment that crime scene profiles often may be partially degraded and/or contain DNA from more than one contributor. Additionally, different primer sets may have been used between profiles. Allowing the detection of partial matches can help accommodate these two scenarios and allow the ultimate detection of full, high-stringency matches that might otherwise not have been found.” The Committee’s complete list of recommendations is available at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/archive/oct2009/standard_guidlines/swgdam.html (with correction at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/communications/swgdamv3/swgdam.html)." Q: Are partial matches the same as familial searches? A: No. A partial match, as indicated above, is the spontaneous product of a routine database search where a candidate offender profile is not identical to the forensic profile but because of a similarity in the number of alleles shared between the forensic profile and the candidate profile, the offender may be a close biological relative of the source of the forensic profile. Familial Searching is an intentional or deliberate search of the database conducted after a routine search for the purpose of potentially identifying close biological relatives of the unknown forensic sample associated with the crime scene profile. Q: Are familial searches performed at NDIS? A: No, familial searching is not currently performed at NDIS. See also Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 238 (December 10, 2008 at page 74937). Note* State and private testing options can be different. Loci used for the Codis-13 test and the level of confidence (stringency) required, are: D8S1179 Moderate D21S11 High D7S820 Moderate CSF1PO Moderate D3S1358 High TH01 Moderate D13S317 Moderate D16S539 Moderate VWA Moderate TPOX Moderate D18S51 Moderate D5S818 Moderate FGA High Please read further at the same link I gave before: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet