georger

Its never hit me as a gag as much as an ordinary photo of the guy walking through a door arriving home, maybe homecoming? Birthday party arrival? Looks a little surprised - likehe's saying something or about to ?

Wasn't a Polaroid. I have the original. Just a standard print with the date printed on the front by the developer. Says 'Feb 72'. Christmas wreath says it was probably taken the previous December. And why would the picture be so damning? Just a guy walking into an apartment holding a briefcase and a white paper bag... Just curious - any markings on the paper back - Kodak?

ok

Well that is a nice lens as are all of these Carl Zeiss branded designs. Your lens is f2.8-4/7-28 (4x zoom). Olympus etc followed the same lens design paying nice royalties to Zeiss. So your camera is f2.8 focused at infinity, with zoom clicks (3) to bring it to f/4, f/7, and f/28. Each successive zoom click crops the image accordingly, to a smaller frame with the smallest frame at maximum magnification at f/28. Now, looking at Far's double photo the scale of the two photos begins to make sense in terms of the different cameras used. Im betting whoever took your photo zommed in to frame you in the door something like what Kenny's photo portrays, ie same relative scale. And in order to do that with your camera the operator hit the second zoom click and thought 'that looks right, same scale", and took your photo. So your photo is at around f/7. Kenny's photo was probably f/8 being an old Brownie 620 fixed lens f/5.6-f/8 or Kodak 35mm shot at f/8. That would explain why the scales in these photos is roughly the same, except for the differences Farflung noted. Comments?

I may even have one of those in my closet crap! Im just assuming Kenny's photo was pre-digital, 620 or 35mm ??? Im goign to look up the specs on the Sony digital. DSC- V-1. 5.1 for the hell of it - I CAN accept 5'8" and not a centimeter more. You said in his stocking feet as I recall... PS: You need to call Lyle after his surgery or Fitzsimmons and get the staight dope.

Pass the Kentucky Windage over! I think 5'6" to 5'8" and no more is a good estimate and if Blevins is happy with that ... Im happy!

I think the scales are different - two different cameras with different focal ratios (f# lenses). That changes the magification, apparent size, and depth of fields in the two photos, so they arent strictly comparable. The switch plate in the Blevins photo is 28pixel high ... and 23pixels high in the Kenny photo, reflecting a difference in cameras, ie lenses. Within each photo however where dimensions are comparable, isnt the standard switch plate 4.5" H x 2.75" W. You can estimate Kenny's height in each photo using the switch plate height as a ruler. I tried this and Kenny comes out about 5'6-7". I also tried a rectified photo attached and Kenny comes out a little over 5'6" vs the first estimate of 5' 10", using 36" as the standard door frame width ...

It was a casual, non-scientific effort, mostly done because we were curious, and had limited access to KC's old apartment. Yes...we measured the distances between the light switch and the floor, and between the center of the switch and the top of the jamb on both units. Big deal. It was easy to see Kenny was probably shorter than I am. Already said that... Blevins I dont fault your effort at matching in fact what you did is better than the average person might do - that aside .... what type of camera was Your photo of you taken with? Do you happen to know what the lens was and its focal length? Was it a digital camera (cmos or ccd) or film camera (35mm) or quick shot like one buys at a drug store? I just need the camera info if you know it - of your photo of you. Im assuming Kenny's photo was taken with a 620 Brownie or something at f/8-f/12 fixed lens, if you know that?

I don't remember using Kenny's father's pictures to compare height to Christiansen himself. By 'the 99's' I'll assume you mean the female pilot organization did a measurement based on pictures? Hard to figure you out sometimes. The one time we tried to do a measurement ourselves was by going to the apartment in Sumner, WA where Kenny lived at the time of the hijacking, and trying to use the famous Christmas picture as a comparison. Results were inconclusive. Kenny was probably five-eight to five-nine in his stocking feet. The REAL information regarding the height of the hijacker...the only legit source...is the testimony of the actual witnesses to Cooper. Here's some of what they said, according to Geoff Gray: The stews agreed on the age: Mid-forties. Tina said Cooper's height was five ten to six feet. Flo Schaffner said no shorter than six feet. Flo also says his hair was black, while Tina said brown. All three stews selected different profiles from the FBI's Facial Identification Catalog. Flo went with KK5-1, Alice Hancock with KA3-9. Both went with different combinations on the other factors, such as eyebrows, cheek and cheekbones, and mouth. And what about the other witnesses? Not exactly on the same page, either: George Labissioniere, a lawyer, got a good look at Cooper because of Cooper's trips to the bathroom. No older than 35, he said. Cord Spreckel said the hijacker had a square jaw, while Bill Mitchell, the college guy, said the chin sagged. Spreckle says the hijacker was about fifty. Robert Gregory thought perhaps Cooper's hair was 'marcelled,' created by hot irons. Gregory, who owned a paint company and prided himself on an attention to detail, says the suit was not brown or black, but a russet color. He thought the hair may have been dyed. How tall? Gregory pegged the hijacker at no more than five foot nine. It's plain that there were conflicting reports on the hijacker's description. On the matter of Helen Jones saying that Kenny smoked Raleigh cigarettes, she was sure on this point. In her original interview, she named Camels as Kenny's brand (she is a former smoker) but later realized she had named her own brand. She then drove up to find me in Bonney Lake to correct her mistake. Jones really liked Kenny, and almost tossed me out the door initially for even hinting that Kenny might have been Cooper. One of the last things she told me was this: 'How could he (Kenny) have done such a thing...' (hijacked 305) I didn't really have an answer for her. "If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..." Marilyn Monroe Calculate the height of the image of the person on the negative (620/220/35mm etc) by multiplying the image size on the negative by the fraction of the print height of the person. If you dont have the negative you do the calculation using the focal length of the camera lens and estimating the distance of the subject from the camera - The ratio of the focal length of the lens to the distance to the person equals the ratio of the image height to the actual height. The answer will be as accurate as the combined errors in the measurements you put in. http://www.giangrandi.ch/optics/lenses/focalcalc.html http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm There you have it. Pretty simple for a guy with as much physics as you have - Quade could do this! BTW to do dimensional comparisons using the photo alone you need to do a 'rectified' image first which means 'angular corrections' ... then compare ratios. For example, doorways are a standard size. This one measures ~498 pixels at the floor whereas \ Kenny measures about 986 pixels - thats a ratio of 498/986 = 1:1.98 ... knowing the width of a doorway you multiply that number by x1.98 which is 36x1.98 = or about 5ft 10" in shoes assuming a 36" doorway, and using an unrectified image. You could add about a 1-2% error just to be safe. Move on -

Yea you make A LOT OF LEAPS IN LOGIC! That is the under-statement of your whole tenure at Dropzone. How about HAVING A BIG CUP OF "SHUT THE FUCK UP" ! I'm going to quote your post for the record, because at this point if you end with a timeout because of it...you definitely deserve it. I don't have a problem with you questioning points on Christiansen. That's normal. I do have a problem with you simply attacking the messenger, something you are famous for. If Quade were to ask me whether you should be banned, (yeah, I know he wouldn't) I would still say NO. Believe it or not, I still think you are a positive contributor to this thread, but you need to get past your personal issues against me. We can just assume you don't like me and move on. Thats ALWAYS your last resort - Georger being banned. Won't call Mike Fitzsimmons, but will call me a liar - won't call Gray, but will call me a liar - finally admits he made mistakes after months of arguing not - Then claims its personal on "my" end - ! ? Since when is anyone responsible for your obsessions and posts? Same old same old. Play it again, Sam. It's personal with you Blevins and nobody else, you're the one obsessed with this subject and people here, and the rest of this forum and everyone in it - are irrelevant in your obsession. "A legend in his own mind." (Sluggo)

Your attempts to deny and re-interpret what I said... It is what it is. It is what it was. Coming from the fool who told us there were 'optical illusions in an airplane cabin' trying to change physics to squeak Christiansen in ... Nice try Marilyn. Keep playing the Fool. Give Mike Fitzsimmons a call - he will set you straight! is it possible we have this wrong about the high heels, maybe KC was wearing them, this could explain why they had to look up at him a lot of high heels on short people here !

'Who said the Cooper comic was on Shemya?' Guilty as charged. Early on in the investigation, I made a real leap of logic that turned out NOT to be logical. . Yea you make A LOT OF LEAPS IN LOGIC! That is the under-statement of your whole tenure at Dropzone. How about HAVING A BIG CUP OF "SHUT THE FUCK UP" !

Later, when I confronted Georger on this supposed quote, he tried to blame it off on someone else. "If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..." Marilyn Monroe Your attempts to deny and re-interpret what I said... It is what it is. It is what it was. And you are what you are ... as evidence in two years of your posts in this thread. A legend in his own mind - Coming from the fool who told us there were 'optical illusions in an airplane cabin' trying to change physics to squeak Christiansen in ... Nice try Marilyn. Keep playing the Fool. Give Mike Fitzsimmons a call - he will set you straight!

No...it is NOT my job to prove your allegations with your (LOL) 'ironclad proof'. That is your job. I can't believe you are still going with that phony Geoff Gray quote, as well. Yada yada yada. You never provided any proof of that either.... You cant handle the truth.

As far as the radio interview, it's not MY job to prove other people's allegations unless I am investigating that allegation, i.e. a supposed radio interview from 2007 where Lyle may have said this or that. It's the job of the person making the allegation. That should be obvious. If you were really looking for the truth, you would go to the source, not me. Well it IS your job. You are the AUTHOR of BLAST - yes? If a source pops up and says he has iron clad proof Kenny was in DesMoines on Nov 24, 1971 and supplies you with the names, addresses, and telephone numbers - then it is your job to confirm or deny. - No ? Instead, you called Lyle, we presume (or you said) and came back with a denial saying 'Lyle doesnt remember doing such a program', after you earlier speech: 'Lyle never said any such thing - and I speak for Lyle because: I have a contract with Lyle' You cant have your cake and our cake, and Lyle's cake, and all the cake in the world, and eat it all too! This part of what Geoff Gray meant by 'cant be trusted'. In other words, get off the grift. On the other hand, it is good you are so open about your dishonesty. This puts you in a different catagory. I suppose your next line will be: "Sure I lie and distort and misdirect and redirect ... the ends justify the means!" Dictators all have the same speech, and come back for more cake the next day as if nothing happened. All is fair in love and books and movie scripts - while preaching truth and calling everyone else liars, on an average IQ no less! And you WILL have a COMEBACK as you always do, needing the last word as if that helps.

... just like going to Cassey's and buying a six pack. (with a sheet over yourself for months!) Have it your way - you will anyway, despite the facts and experience of others (not to mention Nepal changing its border arrangements in 1971!). Cooper promoters always stand alone, against the world.

Why cant you or SafecrackingPLF state and share the model here? And if you cant or wont why are you posting here? It began with Safecracking backing Duane Weber, as the most likely (modeled) candidate. It ends now in silence. The Shadow knows! ------------------------------------------------------------ By model, I mean Safe's TTLOL model -- based on Occam Razor's principle/the Law of Parsimony -- the simplest solution is usually the correct one, based on proposed subjective probabilities, his "Cracking the Safe" problem that proposes his Discovery Axiom and Money Axiom; his 7 proposed solutions, his 4 premises/quadrants, his 3 proposed paradoxes -- these are all the ingredients he's assembled to define and explain his model. Like it or not, it's a model. Disagreeing with the premise, development, and conclusion of a model does not mean it doesn't exist. MeyerLouie Well, all models of anything are subject to tests of completness, suffiency, consistency, et cetera ... if they are going to have any application in the real world; and Safe's suppositions, and his whole model fails to follow Occam's Razor! The test of any model of the type you are advertising, is predictability. I cant see that Safe's model passes that test insofar as predicting " new facts of the Cooper case", or even predicting the known facts of the case. http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/kk3n/ockham/Ockham.htm Hell I would be happy if I could get this webpage to just load and work, minute to minute, Occam to Occam, ! Maybe Farflung will have something to say - ? I cant see thsat Safe's supposition are any less subjective and random than anyone elses, so far as the Cooper case is concerned. You say I am being unfair, throw dung against the wall. Maybe you state what specifically Im missing - in concrete terms ? A simple statement of Safe's suppositions and axioms and conclusions/paradoxes ... would be a good place for you and Safe to start! We have been waiting years for that, alone! Pending that, the whole thing is just a game you play. Anotehr Cooper Tease.

I dont know that it is an alibi - maybe he was there or he wasn't, doing what he claims. That is a factual issue which can be checked out (rather easily I think). Moreover, I have been to this area, and I have friends who have spent considerable time in this and related areas of Nepal and Tibet; so I know this is not the closed remote informationless area some picture it as being - What I see in Petey is a person 'with lots of stories' and a fertile imagination, idealistic, so his Nepal story may be but one of a number of similar stories. Either Petey was in Nepal at the time he claims, or he wasn't. If he was there he was a known person - for certain. He would be remembered and there would be documents subtantiating his travel to and presence in Nepal. That is the reality of this matter. In the 1960s-70s it took considerable time and planning to even enter this area - you didn't just drop into this area from space. The usual route was through northern India and travel permits were required - a lot of paperwork and some luck. If you know, tell me the route Petey took ... to enter Nepal or Tibet ? Nobody travels by themselves in these areas or escapes notice ... and survives. This area is very tribal and people want to know who you are and what you are doing, once your presence is known. And your survival, especially longterm living, literally depended on a network of people and political conditions which often shifted. All of that, just for starters - in the 60s and 70s... His story is not impossible but would require a network of support (in and out) and documentation in one form or another, in the 1960s-70s.

lol..I know you think that some facts are irrelevant and others just get in the way sometimes, but, how about this... If you don't know, then just stick with I don't know. According to the Homecoming article, the mud hut was at the base of Annapurna, which is in Nepal. Additionally, to quote Peterson from the Rohnert Park, CA meetup group... "...spent.... two and a half years in Pokhara, Nepal writing a protest novel of the Vietnam War. That's where my children were born. We lived in a mud house near the base of Annapurna." lol... Don't take my word for it. Check for yourself.

What's different about your work is you have developed a model, and from that model you search for suspects. Be well. MeyerLouie Why cant you or SafecrackingPLF state and share the model here? And if you cant or wont why are you posting here? It began with Safecracking backing Duane Weber, as the most likely (modeled) candidate. It ends now in silence. The Shadow knows!

Using my usual flawless logic, or in this case: Through the Lens of Goats: why dont you ask the Peace Corps Volunteers who were also living in mud and thatch huts, near the base of Annapurna, Nepal, in 1971 ? I happen to know the PC guy, Jim, who was in charge of that area in 1971, and his wife Crissy Nam Duc'ta'puth, and two actual volunteers from that place and era, Chick and Jim (a different Jim) who would definately have known if some white guy "American!" (non climber!) was living in the area teaching procreation, and saying his 'nam miyo ho renge kyo's'. That kind of thing is remembered! Word of that would have reached Kathmandu, in fact I find it difficut to believe some 'guy' could just pop into that area without permission and plenty of people knowing about it ? Have you got any idea of the distances and terrain and issues involved in just getting to this place, in 1970s !!!! Apparently not. [we had to be taken in by helicopter!] If Mr. Petey was there, in this place, people definately knew about it! Hey! Come to think of it, I know 'Chuck' who has climbed Everest and Annapurna many times! Sherpa Dan is also still alive ... Chuck's familiarity with that area goes back to at least 1971 . . . not to mention his network of climbers, support people, etc etc etc. in the _______ Mountaineers, Inc. Sometimes over-population of a third world mud plain comes in handy! Its all one neighborhood. Can you say: "Mud huts, caves, and Goats" ? Can you say: "United States State Department"? Nepal is a very beautiful and diverse place ... you ought to go there some time. Its a place with a long memory. DB Cooper Shangri-la. Nothing you do in Cooper Shangri-La, stays in Shangri-La.

"If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..." Marilyn Monroe On a stranger and happier note, the NFL settled it's dispute with the refs and the REAL refs start tomorrow on Thursday Night Football. Oh, yeah. For you Seattle fans, here is the guy who called the phony touchdown and handed us a free game. I just love it that all throughout the lockout and controversial calls that it was SEATTLE that benefited LAST before it ended. ('It' being 'The Replacements') Here's the guy Seattle should name a street after, or at least present later at a game, LOL: Sometimes when the fix is in, it's okay if it's official. Right? "If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..." Marilyn Monroe That's what the Pharisees said! Too much inbreeding in those days.

Gee, I wonder why he was ruled out? Maybe it's because 'Dan/DB Cooper' was a made up name or something. You think? Too bad the hijacker didn't use the name 'Mike Jones'. The FBI would have had a lot of initial 'suspects' lol. U R still funny, though. No Blevins. Your statement was: "Early interviews would not count. They didn't have any suspects at first. At least no one publicly known." which is patently untrue, and just one more piece of Blevins propoganda. Now if someone were to come along and actually buy into your endless propaganda bullshit . . . Point is you are factually wrong on all counts. There were suspects (immediately). There were a few suspects whose names were leaked to the press, thus we have the nym "DB" Cooper instead of Dan Cooper ... And you literally dont know what you are talking about but have no problems spreading your nightly perfume of false information and claims .... to the entertainment of everyone!

You are factually wrongos bochos dochos aginos. Where do you think the name "D.B." Cooper came from? A reporter/book writer bochos dochos wrongos. Youve been lost now for years. We are calling off the search. Bye! Uh...you DO realize of course that 'DB/Dan Cooper' was a made-up name, right? And that real people with real identities were not associated with that name until Actual Real People Type Suspects came along later? U R certainly funny sometimes. Lost? You are the one who needs a map. Quote: "Local police and FBI agents immediately began questioning possible suspects. One of the first was an Oregon man with a minor police record named D. B. Cooper, contacted by Portland police on the off-chance that the hijacker had used his real name, or the same alias in a previous crime. His involvement was quickly ruled out; but an inexperienced wire service reporter (Clyde Jabin of UPI by most accounts,[40] Joe Frazier of AP by others[41]), rushing to meet an imminent deadline, confused the eliminated suspect's name with the pseudonym used by the hijacker. The mistake was picked up and repeated by numerous other media sources including The Associated Press, and the moniker "D. B. Cooper" became lodged in the public's collective memory.[35]" You might have to learn some history to get your green card -

1) Early interviews would not count. They didn't have any suspects at first. At least no one publicly known. You are factually wrongos bochos dochos aginos. Where do you think the name "D.B." Cooper came from? A reporter/book writer bochos dochos wrongos. Youve been lost now for years. We are calling off the search. Bye!