MarkBennett

Everyone does what they must, or what they believe is best. I'm out of the Cooper biz soon anyway. Well, I fell for it. It`s pretty clear Robert posted that excerpt from his pdf just to get a rise out of us. And, it worked. Well done. I will offer that although Kenny is not a good suspect, I was willing to consider any evidence presented. The crux of the case against Kenny (and this is from the preface of Blast) is that Kenny lived an entirely different life after the hijacking than before. Subsequent research shot several holes in that theory. Now Robert says he has new information but won't share it with people on the forum. The people he will share it with (law enforcement and the media) will have little interest. So, I'm not sure what the point of that was, other than taunting the forum, which, as I confessed, I fell for. I should know better. Most likely there is no new information. So, I won't ask Robert about it here anymore. However, if there is a presentation at Auburn I do plan to attend and I will ask there.

That sounds fishy to me too. I've started rereading the thread and it`s going to take me months. Are you for real, Yellowoxide?

That's your choice, Robert. But, your excerpt is all speculation. You're being very coy, but we have to assume if you really found anything, you wouldn't keep it secret. If you're going to post part of it, why would you choose to share such a non-informative part of it? You've made many comments about what Galen Cook was writing on the other site. All he was doing was making comments about others, but wouldn't discuss his suspect. He wasn't contributing to the discussion - and now appears to have gone. If you're just going to tease and refuse to contribute, why are you here? I've contributed plenty, but there are trust issues here. I only had ONE complaint about Cook, and that was his postings regarding the relationship between myself and Skipp Porteous. Shutter addressed that appropriately, I think. I have to give a running start to people who have no axe to grind, people who can discover the truth about Christiansen who aren't part of Cooperland. People without an agenda, or who are slanted about the whole thing. If you think about it, this is the most intelligent way to find out about Christiansen. Wouldn't you like to know the truth? So would I. In order to discover that truth, I've decided that only certified and unbiased entities should see the PDF for now. It's the best approach, the most unbiased approach. You turn the information over to any legit media or LEO who requests it, and let THEM run with the ball. Let THEM decide. Let THEM investigate. If Porteous and I are proven completely wrong on Christiansen, I will be the first to offer up my apologies. But I will feel a lot better about this if I know that I approached this problem in the most sensible and fair manner. That's your choice, Robert. It's also total nonsense. In the scientific community someone with findings publishes it. Then, someone else researches and agrees or basically says they don't know what they're talking about. And, eventually a consensus builds....until someone else publishes something that knocks it down. You were happy to publish your findings until people started checking up on your work and finding major parts of it inaccurate. You just don't like to be challenged. And, of your so called "trust" issues -- other than snap at you, has anyone done anything inappropriate with the information or harassed your witnesses? But, I repeat my question. If you are going to refuse to participate in the discussion, why are you here?

That's your choice, Robert. But, your excerpt is all speculation. You're being very coy, but we have to assume if you really found anything, you wouldn't keep it secret. If you're going to post part of it, why would you choose to share such a non-informative part of it? You've made many comments about what Galen Cook was writing on the other site. All he was doing was making comments about others, but wouldn't discuss his suspect. He wasn't contributing to the discussion - and now appears to have gone. If you're just going to tease and refuse to contribute, why are you here?

Robert, Since you are not making the PDF public, can you list any new information included in it?

I see nothing wrong with anyone writing a screen play about any suspect in the DB Cooper case (including Kenny) – with the caveat that it is made clear (preferably with a disclaimer at the beginning that it is a dramatization). Too often viewers believe them to be documentaries. A recent case of this was the HBO movie “Spector” , starring Al Pacino and Helen Mirren. The movie’s premise was “how could Phil Spector have been guilty of shooting Lana Clarkson from less than three feet away when there was no blood on him? Surely that’s not possible”. The movie ended after the mistrial in his first trial with text on the screen indicating he was convicted in a second trial when the Mirren character was not able to defend him. This caused a ruckus after the movie aired asking that very question. The answer was: Spector DID have blood all over him. The movie was a fictionalized dramatization. A second case was the movie “Fair Game”, about the unmasking of CIA agent Valerie Plame by the Bush White House. Only during the closing credits is it disclosed that the leaking of Plame’s identity was done by Richard Armitage, who worked in the State department and not the White House. (The subsequent obstruction of justice was linked to Cheney’s chief of staff Scooter Libby, but that’s not what the movie was about). So misleading was the movie that the Washington Post editorial board took the unusual step of chastising the film because people’s perception of history is often based on movies and the film was so misleading. Judith Miller, the only reporter jailed for not revealing information in that case, also wrote a critical editorial. And, the granddaddy of them all is the Oliver Stone movie “JFK”. The movie attempted to meld several disparate conspiracy theories together, invented witnesses and changed facts. The result was a very entertaining movie, but for many younger Americans that movie is the sole source of their opinions of the Kennedy assassination. The result is a huge majority of Americans believe in a conspiracy. So, write any screenplays you want. Just be responsible about it.

Thanks for posting that, Georger. I remember the trial back in the 1980s, but didn't follow it that closely in recent years. But, one thing did strike me. Once someone is branded some way -- either as a war criminal or a liar -- some people will not change their opinion regardless of any new information that comes out.

Once again, I ask...... You claim to have new information on some of Kenny's property transactions. First, you say we have to wait until August to see it. Now, you say, you won't make it public ever. Then, you say once the August document is done, you are out of the DB Cooper business. So, now you're not answering questions about Kenny, you're not providing any new information you may have found and you just come on here to complain about how mistreated you are. Once again, I ask, if that's what you are going to do, why are you here?

I'd go the other way on your last point. If Robert caught them by surprise on Kenny (particularly Marge Geestman) and he talks to her seven times telling her all the "proof" he has (the money, the spending, the fact he was missing that weekend) and he's very nice to her and she cant refute it, how can she disagree?. But, after all of that, she only gets to "maybe....". And, once he convinced others other witnesses he had "proof", you would get a lot of confirmation bias. But, very interesting point that none of them had heard of the New York magazine article.

Other than Lyle, as near as I can tell, there is no one who will say that Kenny is Cooper. So, if Robert doesn't have any new evidence that he can publish, we can probably close the book on Kenny, can we not?

I don't believe your intent is to feed us a load bull. I think, like many others, you so believe you've identified DB Cooper you're willing to mold evidence so it fits your story, readily accept testimony that supports your hypothesis and downplay or ignore evidence that does not. About the only real evidence I've downplayed is the witness description by the FBI. Witness descriptions, especially when the witnesses are under duress, are often just plain inaccurate. 75% of wrongful convictions are due to this concept. The truth is, I just don't know if I named the right guy or not. I sometimes wonder why Bernie Geestman tried to manipulate his own sister the day after I interviewed him, and why he lied so many times not only to me, but to Marisa Kagan at History Channel, and then went on to do the same thing on national television. There was no reason for it. And pretty much every one of those lies had to do with distancing himself from any possible involvement in Kenny's finances or the hijacking itself. Walking through Margaret Geestman's house and seeing padlocks installed on the INTERIOR doors, and she telling me that was done because she thought Bernie might come back to rob her again was hard to reconcile. You almost had to be there. I did seven interviews with her. I could tell sometimes she wanted to open up about everything, but I could never get past her absolute fear of the FBI. It was tough. When I heard she had sold her ranch for that $491,000 and told everyone not to say where she was going, that was also hard to reconcile. It didn't surprise me a whole lot though. Seven more weeks and I'm out of the Cooper biz anyway. I figure someone will end up investigating the updated statements on KC and find out what's what on it. My thought is either he's the guy, or it's one hell of a bunch of coincidences. Maybe the biggest bunch of coincidences in recent crime history. Robert, This is exactly when I talk about "molding the evidence". There are many explanations for the Bernie-Marge circumstances you describe above. The only thing that ties it to the DB Cooper hijacking is the timing of some of it. You interviewed Marge Geestman seven times. You were very nice to her and honestly believed Kenny was the hijacker and the most she would say is "If Kenny were involved, he was only doing his job". That's not the statement of someone who believes Kenny was DB Cooper.

I don't believe your intent is to feed us a load bull. I think, like many others, you so believe you've identified DB Cooper you're willing to mold evidence so it fits your story, readily accept testimony that supports your hypothesis and downplay or ignore evidence that does not.

Well, I'll be interested in seeing if you've discovered anything new on the home purchase. You say, it's not that important. Let's take a look. Here is a hypothetical. I have no basis for any of this, but it's just for the sake of conversation. Let's say, when Kenny bought his house, he assumed a mortgage for half and found a private investor to lend him the other half. Then, he gave that name to Dawn Androsko to lend her down payment. Again....that's just a what if. I made it up and am not advocating that. But, if it were true, it totally obliterates KC as a suspect. There is nothing in his past that would point to him committing a crime like this. There is nothing at the time of the crime -- no matching description and no witness who will claim he had anything to do with the hijacking. And, there is nothing in the aftermath....no evidence of extra spending. He kept his job. He lived in a small house on a rural highway. Robert, you write long posts listing a bunch of possibilities, but you're trying to spin straw into gold. Without some financial information, it just doesn't blow a hole in your case, it pretty much wipes it out.

Early one, Robert (2010) your complaints about the chute were based on your belief that the chute MIGHT have been Cooper's. You don't really make that claim anymore. If you believe that the FBI correctly determined that the chute was not Cooper's, then they have met their sole responsibility on the Amboy Chute. So, I don't understand the basis of your complaint on the FBI on that. That is unless your complaint is they didn't determine WHOSE chute it was. But that really isn't their function.

I crashed two planes and I survived! I am invincible!

This question is really for Robert, but titles imply I know the answer. Robert, you said that Skip contacted you because you were a local book publisher. However, in this article, you say you posted something on a blog that Porteous wrote and he got back to you. http://www.auburn-reporter.com/community/94334624.html How did that come about? Did you offer your services when he posted that he wanted to write a book? Or did he seek you out?

Robert, Kenny had a professional private investigator, Skip Porteous on this case. If Skip thought Kenny had merit as a suspect, he might have dug into it further. So, while it seems that Lyle was only interested in a movie about Kenny, Skip was only interested in getting a book written. If Skip thought he could crack the only unsolved hijacking it US history, I'd have to believe he put more effort into it. Have you ever asked Skip his thoughts on the case?

If you can include a child and three people who weren't born at the time as witnesses, maybe Bruce's time traveling psychic stuff isn't so unreasonable after all! Do you know how your parents got their first house as a family? I do, regarding mine. And so do those folks. It's a Family Affair. The Androsko family now knows everything we do regarding the loan and Bernie Geestman's participation in it, as well as the evidence against Christiansen. This is what they say: Bernie is a liar and a crook, and they believe he was involved in the hijacking. This family has been comparing notes, you know. Robert, Honestly, I can believe you're actually saying this. Dawn's daughter was likely too young to know the details of any such loan. Dawn's daughter's source for the information is Dawn. Her grandchildren's source is also Dawn. You count those as five people cooborating a story, but that's really only one person. And, Shutter is right. $5,000 IS a lot of money. It's worth $25,000 today. That story really raises eyebrows. Someone she didn't know offers to lend Dawn the equivalent of $25,000? There has to be more to that story. And, how did she pay it back in two years? Other than a refi, I don't see how she does it. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, just that you should have treated it with a little more skepticsm and did some of the research that Shutter suggested.

If you can include a child and three people who weren't born at the time as witnesses, maybe Bruce's time traveling psychic stuff isn't so unreasonable after all!

I watched the video. It doesn't appear to be anything new. It was posted in 2012, so it's over two years old. Very interesting. I'd have to say Mr. Blevins comes off much different than he does on the forum, although the content is pretty much identical.

Robert, You obviously haven't been reading the other site. A couple of weeks ago, we did have a discussion of Kenny as a suspect. We discussed it, pro and con, and believe it or not, you were not mentioned. Someday, someone is going to read one of your posts and go to your website and say, "I'm going to see for myself what goes on over there". And, when they visit "The DB Cooper Forum", they're going to find it's not anything like you describe.

Robert, I re-skimmed both Geoff's article and the book "Skyjack". I don't see any reference to Kenny's finances. Further, I think we had talked about this last year, so I asked Geoff directly at the 2013 Symposium whether he looked at Kenny's finances at all. He said he didn't. So, I have to think that information originated with Porteous. Regarding your witnesses, you still don't have any that will say definitively that Kenny was the hijacker or even that they know who is. So, far, I sense a lot of rancor between the former Geestmans, but nothing specifically about the hijacking. Yes, I do know I'm replying to my own post! RobertMBlevins, This is something we discussed on the forum last year and because we didn't nail it down, it's coming up again now. Can you confirm the issue of Kenny's finances (he bought his house for cash, he loaded a large sum of money to Bernie's sister, etc.) originated with Skip and/or you? You pointed me back to Geoff Gray both last year and this year, but I found nothing in his article or his book, and he denies ever looking into it. If we can nail down the genesis of that claim, it will be easier to validate. Thanks.

So, Dawn Androsko is relevant because Kenny allegedly lent her $5000. But, the money Kenny supposedly had to pay for the house is not?

Robert, I re-skimmed both Geoff's article and the book "Skyjack". I don't see any reference to Kenny's finances. Further, I think we had talked about this last year, so I asked Geoff directly at the 2013 Symposium whether he looked at Kenny's finances at all. He said he didn't. So, I have to think that information originated with Porteous. Regarding your witnesses, you still don't have any that will say definitively that Kenny was the hijacker or even that they know who is. So, far, I sense a lot of rancor between the former Geestmans, but nothing specifically about the hijacking.

Robert, You have more than 5000 posts. I don't see how anyone is trying to silence you. But why do you attract so much vitriol? Well, when Porteous brought you in to the KC book, there was only so much research he could do remotely from New York, so you got a partnership in the book and screenplay in exchange for doing the local leg work. Please correct if that an inaccurate assessment. Early on, you reported on this forum that you had proof that Kenny had bought his house for cash. It turned out you made that assertion knowing you had not made even rudimentary research of property information. If someone else had done something like that, you would have call them a liar and challenged their motives. Even now, you say you've done all you can - but you still won't follow up on the property records - presumably because they might undercut your narrative. Still, on this site, you post whatever you want as often as you want. Doesn't sound like you're being silenced to me.