georger

don't forget the man on the stairs, oh wait Knoss said he jumped on the other side of the Columbia way before she seen him

Pick up the phone and call Geoffrey - you do know his number don't you. Instead of stomping around and blaming others - pick up the DAMN phone and all him. Have you EVER spoke to him on the phone or do you depend on others to do that for you? I didn't take YOUR word for the things you have claimed about others - I picked up the phone. Want ME to MAKE the call for YOU to Gray? Out-line EXACTLY the question you want to ask him in 2 lines. NOT a lot of gibberish! Priceless!

I'm more than happy to discuss things with you, especially since you're mathematically inclined. I'm also willing to discuss with any person of science given that they use the scientific method. I will not discuss anything with self proclaimed logicians that add nothing to the case and ride the coattails of their friends, nor with people off their meds, nor book writers. Use the PM. I'm not here often, but in time, I'll do my best to correspond. Look ... can you siccinctly state your conclusions or revelations you claim to have discovered from your 'through the lens of logic', which othewrwise escaped the notice of people and FBI agents examining the DB Cooper case? Surely that was the end-goal of your project? And surely, people are not as dull or unintelligent or impure as you imply above, if we are co-equal partners in the human race to which you also belong! It would seem a simple request: As in . . . 1. 2. 3. 4. Thanks in advance, I am one of those 'any person of science' you specify above... G.

Through the lens of logics purports to apply a formal discovery procedure to various alleged facts in the Cooper case, using the following operations: Commutative Laws: a + b = b + a a × b = b × a Associative Laws: (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) (a × b) × c = a × (b × c) Distributive Law: a × (b + c) = a × b + a × c Why? In order to discover previously unknown (or unrecognised) relationships based on the known or unrecognised facts in the Cooper case. (It is like looking for previously unknown planets in the universe using some new technology - yes?) The value of the system is no better than the set of 'facts' Safecracking alleges are true and performs an operation on. I previously cited two 'facts' Safecracking cites, which I say are untrue, unknown, or unknowable. I also cited an example of an operation Safe makes, which is faulty because it is not a strict application of the 'rules of operation' usually applied in formal logic, cited above. Safecracking claims there are several Paradoxes which result from his application of logic. Those Paradoxes, however, can be shown to be the result of false or unknown premises, Safe used in his logic, at the beginning. In other words: false facts in > paradox out. I understand Safe's motivation. His application, and I think his understanding of formal systems in general, is lacking. There are other formal mathematical discovery systems which would have far greater utility in this situation, comparted to what Safecracking is attempting to apply, in as much as they are empiracle in nature, and not reliant on concepts and assumptions only. My greatest criticism, frankly, is that Safe is taking a deductive approach, which requires the making of assumptions, whereas problems in the Cooper case are empiracle and inductive by their very nature. If you have read the thread you will note that I already recommended the use of the "Ruis fractal probability algebra" for examining "specific issues" in the Cooper case. Rather than taking the global approach Mr. Safecracking has done, I prefer to examine subsets of the whole Cooper case; for example money flow to Tena Bar, as distinct from flight path (implications). Then pending the results of those specific examinations apply an inductive process looking for links between the results of one examination (in one specific problem), to the results obtained in a separate examination of another problem in the Cooper case. One can conduct such modeling using computer software. Have I done such an examination - yes, a little, as much as time and circumatnces allowed. Safecracking is employing a deductive process which is frought with weakness, right from the beginning. His conclusions are no better than the premeses he makes. If he then throws in a few crucial leaps in logic which happen to be wrong, then his cocnlusions will be wildly - wrong. An Inductive process follows a different route and builds 'true facts' inductively, as opposed to assuming them. That is the difference, in my opinion.

Hey Marilyn: why would I need a link from you to get to Geoff Gray, when I have his personal cell number? Duhhh. Pick on somebody else for a change - Get a new schtik.

No, but you definitely have a keep-my-story-straight problem. And you are really free with the quotes by others. I'm happy that you say now Geoff Gray believes 'I am trustworthy in the extreme'. LOL Typo - corrected - thanks for pointing it out - now says UNTRUSTWORTHY. Thanks for one more game, Blevins. You lose.

I went on the bio provided by Lyle Christiansen. Georger: Any proof on your latest round of raggedy claims? Just wondering. You DO understand that once you misquoted Geoff Gray, the Trust Factor with you sort of disappeared? 1 above - Thats wierd. I thought you previously said Lyle was estranged from Kenny and literally knew nothing about his personal life after leaving Mn, thus the "I have a secret" speech to Lyle on KC's deathbed raised Lyle's eyebrows culminating in: 'Lyle thinks Kenny is DB Cooper' (or the King of Siam) - that was the "defense" you used at that time. Im sure its in the thread - you or anyone can do a search but you won't preferring instead to pester me and punish the thread, all to your own grandure of course So, I guess you know it, when you use it - all convenient in the moment of your self defense, of course. 2- You keep asking "any proof". Answer: Yes. 3- Geoff Gray said you suffered from a "Small Man Syndrome" (I think he got that from Thomas), and that you were untrustworthy (in the extreme), and more - he cited a few examples based on his or others prior experience with you he said. But I am repeating myself - have said all of this before at your insistence. Have you got a reading retention problem? Why do you keep embarrassing yourself here at Dropzone? Are you a sadist too? Willing to sacrifice yourself for the good of the thread - or some other bizzare notion? I have a pretty good record of integrity and reliability here, compared to yours, as best I can achieve and maintain that, with no help from you of course.

My main responsibility throughout the KC investigation was very simple: Get the interviews with the people closest to Kenny and publish the results. And unless they offered a crash course in sky piracy at any of the schools Kenny attended, I couldn't care less about his school record. Geoffrey Gray wrote the first account of Kenneth Christiansen in the New Yorker Magazine in 2007, and interviewed a different set of people - supposed "closest". Since you dont even mention any of those people Gray found, some of who Kenny actually lived with, to tie them to the people YOU say were Kenny's closest pals .... well, something is wrong. One of the people in Gray's account goes clear back to Kenny's days at Shemya, for example. Are you claiming KC had different and distinct lives with different sets of closest ... ? So who does the public believe? Gray or You? Its a major paradox in the Blevination of the Cooper Christiansen maldum fornax - yes? Oh! BTW. Lyle now remembers his interview by Mike Fitzsimmons in Nov 2007, following Gray's article and press coverage, despite your refusal to admit such an interview of Lyle ever occurred! Well actually you did not say the interview never occurred - you were more cagy saying 'Lyle does not remember'. Just thought you (the agent/expert) might like to know Lyle now does remember!, so you can stop that flow of maneur from Blevins/AB Books B.I HQ. Lyle does not also acknowledge you as his personal spokesperson, as you claimed here (by contract?). Maybe you need to review your contract you claim to have with Lyle, and who speaks for who on all matters Christiansen, or Egyptian compost for that matter!?

Your TTLOL series must have been a major I am always intrigued by how folks apply statistical logic and mathematics -- it's what I do, I'm a college math teacher. No one's perfect; granted, you took some liberties, but you took on something that very few folks would even dare. My objection to Safe's socalled 'statistical logic' is that it is neither statistical or logic/logical! In fact, it is anything but logical and there is literally nothing in his cocktail of truths to be statistical with, that any level. You can see this by simply watching any of his videos and noticing how quickly he becomes bogged down in his own polemics, because he makes a lot of assumptions that are simply false, or incomplete, unknown, or unknowable. Here are but two examples in an endless list of such suppositions Safe makes, which he calls 'premises'! (1) "Nothing was found within 1 square foot of the Ingram find, and nowhere else". True? (2) "The Tena Bar money involves money that was either in a bag, or not in a bag". True? Are these the only options? I could list another twenty examples of similar suppositions Safe makes; on which he then claims to perform a logical matching and reduction. He even goes so far as to attach probabilities to the suppositions he choses. Well if the actual number of known options available at some point in his logic are say 4-6, and Safe has only chosen 2, how accurate can his estimates of probabilities of 1 and 2 be, if 3,4,5, and 6 are excluded? The other (better) alternativbe is to look for actual forensic evidence. If you want to know if a money bag was ever on Tena Bar, look for money bag fibres vs. performing mix n match voodoo with concepts? Maybe the Ingram money arrived at Tena Bar in a brief case! That is one option based on evidence. Safecracking does not include that option in his list of assumptions, at all. In one video Safe states 'the Cooper flight was the most-watched flight .. ever', or something akin to that. Having blithly stated that Safe goes on to draw a number of very firm 'logical' conclusions, then weighs those options, assigns probabilities to each ... while his original premise may be false or just incomplete and insufficient! And Safe repeats this drumbeat of imprecision over the whole course of his videos. I just think he should spend more time on forensics and actual evidence gathering and less time on making videos, as a promotional affair for a resume in his job search!

I believe he works for the county - Planning & Zoning, something like that. Safe may have been the one who concocted the fake money find - using modern twenties no less. Was kind of funny. It was covered here - do a search. Logic? No. Just Safe's version of informal logic - he picked the idea up somewhere. His intentions were good but his results were meaningless and full of contradictions. For one thing, Safe had but a few of the real-world logical options covered in the premises he made - but he loves to make videos. Nice young man. It sounded good while it lasted - he had Ckret going ! Well, this should be fun. MeyerLouie, there are unnamed people I mention in that video series. People I call "Cooper Enthusiasts" that have been on this forum for years spinning their wheels. Meet Georger, KING ENTHUSIAST. He likes to throw dung on the wall to see if it sticks. He also likes to make assumptions and incorrect premises and hypotheses. I'll confess, I've done it too when I foolishly thought he was Skip, LOL... but that's how long I've been away from here and really don't follow (what's there to follow?) 1. I do not live in the NW any longer and have never concocted a fake money find. I did happen to view a youtube video where someone was claiming to have found money in a tree - I called BS in a comment that I left. Perhaps this is where this opinion comes from? Yeah, I use a lot of informal logic. I also use knowledge from all sorts of areas. My personal opinion on this case is that there are too many things to hold in the memory for a single person to unscramble unless they know the evidence backwards and forwards. There are also plenty of biases and attribution errors that people make - which adds up to a lot of stupidity. The thought like I like to make videos, not really - but how else do I explain some fairly complicated lines of reasoning? I've been meaning to do another series but simply do not have the time. The next series, if or when I do it, will not take the step back and examine the evidence approach that I used in TTLOL. It boils down to mathematics really. You have a choice. Accept the evidence as it is and then deal with one of 7 potential solutions, or challenge the evidence and deal with the three paradoxes as I called them. One way gets you there fairly quickly (under 10 years). The other gives you something to do day after day with nothing to show for it. The law of parsimony ought to be followed as best as can be for a simple reason... for every less than 1 probability you introduce, you reduce the odds of your scenario. The particular choice I said most closely resembled the evidence not only explains the evidence, but also includes the fewest entities (variables as I call them) - each of which would have less than 1 probability. Mathematically speaking, that's the choice you ought to favor. But I can (but won't for now due to time) go much much further into that choice. There's a reason why I made a blank bet on this forum more than a year ago. No one had the conviction to take me up on it. It's really simple, put up some money that your guy did it. I say he didn't do it. There's only one guy you're not allowed to bet me - and even if I bet against him, they still can't put him on the plane, so it's an easy sure thing. Perhaps that's why people would rather write books about their father, uncles, etc on pure speculation. Where is Marla Cooper? Geez, what a fraud that was (and that was the moment I made the bet) Ckret (or agent L. Carr), FWIW, couldn't follow my train of thought down this path. I tried. I never ever "had him going". That's laughable actually. Well that was cruel, so well let me throw this out and see if it sticks to the wall Did anyone understand a single thing he might have said, or may be saying, or may say in the future ? Mathematics? Or Marvel Safe-logic Comics ? These geniuses with their supposed special tricks and NEW methods are really beginning to get under my skin: Safecracking, this is RobertMBlevins. RobertMBlevins, let me introduce SafecrackingPLF. Get a trailer and discuss transfinite modulus as it applies to the Cooper Maldum Fornax! Rumpelstiltskin, this is Dropzone. An online Casino for Cooperites. Place your bets - The odds are - logical metaphors overlayed on the issues or variables involved in the Cooper case, cannot reveal or supply anything new or unique, which 'common ordinary English' cannot. Does that make sense? Is my sentence above comprehensible? In other words, putting a sheep skin on a goat - the object still behaves like a goat, because IT IS a goat! Is that a probabilistically true-proposition? I suppose it depends on the sex of the goat! But, the application of supposed formalisms (logic?) Safe devises to the Cooper case, as he sees it, does not guarantee any special outcome, which could not have been arrived at by the use of common ordinary language (English) and fingers and toes ... in the first place. If that is not true, I would like to see an example of it - If that is what SafecrackingPLF means by "throwing dung against the wall", then so be it. Im dissappointed in the young Arstotle who has not resolved the flight path or the money at Tena Bar by his logical cabalism, et cetera ... Maybe SafecrackingPLF can remind us, or illustrate for us, something (anything!) he discovered in the Cooper case using his "logical method", which had not been known before ... or still isn't known or realised ? A=B iff C/NXy^2 [RSVP] + RB/NOP [x] ... = [the Tena Bar money came from Pluto] ?

Blevins, I never cease to be amazed at how you can ignore information that contradicts your version of events. You are right up there with Jo Weber on this point. There are basically three things supporting KC's graduation from high school, and if you had bothered to read Smokin's recent posts on this matter you would be aware of the first two: 1. The program he signed up for six days before his scheduled graduation date of May 31, 1944 required that he be a high school graduate. This was a mandatory requirement. 2. When KC actually enlisted in the Army in December 1944 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, his official records stated that he had one year of college. This strongly suggests that he had successfully completed the program that he signed up for on May 25, 1944, which again implies that he graduated from high school. 3. As I remember the senior year of high school, the seniors had completed all their requirements a week or more before the actual graduation date. After that, the only reason you wouldn't graduate would require something along the line of playing a really bad prank on the principal or one of his friends or other such nonsense. So unless you can prove otherwise, it is a very safe assumption that KC graduated from high school. Robert99 Blevins always raises a problem - where none exists! It's automatic with Blevins. Thousands of men, literally, got caught in the same situation - maybe hundreds of thousands. My Dad was ordered to report one week before the "graduation ceremony". The principal got upset because my Dad had not bothered to "show the papers". At length my father was sent his diploma. Meanwhile, my father reports as ordered to the AAC base at Omaha and all of the guys are told to "go home and we will issue you new orders later"! Turned out the base was not ready for a new flight training class! So now, my Dad has the porincipal of his school pissed off, his father gets pissed off, and my Dad has had enough and goes to live with an uncle in another community. Six months later a letter arrives at my father's home ordering him to report - again. Word was sent to my father and he reported a second time ... and is immediately told to report to an Army Air Corps base in Kansas City ... his brother, an electrical engineer at KC drives up to get him ... Lots of guys got caught in these machinations, especially in the early years (1939...) Kenny was not special! In spite of Blevin's attempts to make him look special. It's writer's license, I guess.

I believe he works for the county - Planning & Zoning, something like that. Safe may have been the one who concocted the fake money find - using modern twenties no less. Was kind of funny. It was covered here - do a search. Logic? No. Just Safe's version of informal logic - he picked the idea up somewhere. His intentions were good but his results were meaningless and full of contradictions. For one thing, Safe had but a few of the real-world logical options covered in the premises he made - but he loves to make videos. Nice young man. It sounded good while it lasted - he had Ckret going !

Blevins, KC did NOT drop out of high school just six days before his scheduled graduation. He apparently signed up for the program that Smokin describes six days before graduation. That program required that he be a high school graduate. What are you talking about when you write "only 80 passed"? Passed what? Robert99 Courage had nothing to do with it! The kids had to report when told to - which sometimes conflicted with life. My Dad was in a similar situation. Diplomas were mailed to the kids. Kenny was not Jessie James or Neil Armstrong! And if some guy with an inferiority complex as big as the Moon comes along and says he was - he's full of shit, or worse!

Assuming that KC did enroll in this program and that the dates given above, as well as those given previously by Blevins, are accurate, then this is the way the dates would work out. 1. KC born on Sunday, October 16, 1926. 2. Started 1st grade in late summer of 1932 just before 6th birthday. 3. Took test for the program on Wednesday, March 15, 1944. 4. Apparently signed up for the program on Thursday, May 25, 1944. 5. Graduated from High School on Wednesday, May 31, 1944. 6. Spent most of the slightly more than 28 weeks until his Army enlistment on Monday, December 18, 1944 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas taking academic courses. This was probably a full time, 40+ hours a week program, that provided KC with the equivalent of about one year of college. 7. From the information that Smokin provides, KC was a volunteer (as opposed to being a draftee) based on his serial number. Remember our long winded discussion a few months ago about Duane Weber's Army serial number or lack thereof. 8. In any event, KC was obligated to spend six months on active duty after the end of the War, which presumably means the Japanese surrender on September 15, 1945. So KC would be obligated to serve until March 15, 1946. We will have to see what additional information Blevins can come up with and how it all fits together. Robert99 From Gray's article: [Kenny trained with the 11th Airborne Division, the Angels, which had been sent to the Pacific. But he never saw combat. When he was finally deployed, on August 16, 1945, his discharge papers show, the war was over. He ended up in Japan, joining the initial occupation forces. He ran the mail room and made jumps on the side for extra money. “Dear Folks,” Kenny wrote home in one letter dated August 4, 1946, from Sendai. “I went to church this morning. I went last Sunday also. I had more reason to go last Sunday, as after ten months of hibernation, I once again donned a chute and reserve and entered a C-46. I cringed a good deal, but I managed once again to pitch myself into the blast. That jump was worth $150. The nicest thing about the whole affair was that I never had time to worry about it … Don’t get the idea that I didn’t get that certain stomackless [sic] feeling, because I did.” After that jump, he vacationed in Namazu, a fishing village south of Tokyo. “I spent most of my time up on the roof during the day; nights I usually lounged in a beach chair down by the water’s edge,” he wrote. “They had a group of Hawaiian guitar players down there. With the music, the breeze off the Ocean, and the waves crashing the shore, I felt like a millionaire enjoying his millions.” ]

Rosh Hashanah ends tonight. Darn it NO Angel smiley ok - will do - give me an hour-

I didn't lead [or misslead] people when questioning them. I even tried to [avoid telling them at first WHY] I was asking about Kenny. With Geestman and his sister, both answered key questions [BEFORE they knew I was investigating KC] for the Cooper case. After he [realized why I was questioning him], he wouldn't agree to a second interview. He also never sent me the pictures he promised. Trust me, ----------------------------------------------------- Gee Blevins ... your trusting technique logic - is flawless! Never tell people what your up to before hand. And always condemn themand call them liars when they don't fill your pot with gold. Trust me!

Jo you have mail -

Now just exactly what did he do with that training during the remainder of his military service? What was his military job? What units did he serve with? When did he get out of the military? If you have any answers to the above, please post them here. Robert99 That's what Ive wondered about also - what theatre did he serve in while in active duty? Where and what engagements did he jump in, if any? I think? Blevins did post something a long time ago from a letter KC wrote from overseas? while in the military but I dont remember the details...

more mind games - you dont have a contract with and own and run Dropzone - thank God!

Why dont you give Lyle Christiansen a call and see how he is surviving all of this Blevins chaos ? Maybe Lyle would tell you his take on his brother -

It's called 'a fact,' as opposed to your non-linked, non-proven, so-called 'radio interview' that supposedly proves Lyle confessed to something he never knew in the first place. (SEE: 'Lyle Christiansen knew his brother was Cooper') He never did, he doesn't now, (neither do I) so your point is without merit. Give it up, man. Lyle Christiansen never claimed his brother was Cooper. He just said he THOUGHT he could be Cooper. gong! wrong! ding dong! drum rimshot! "He just said he thought it would make a good story" - that is what he said! Stop lying and making shit up. You are not Lyle and you do not speak for Lyle and his family - God only knows what shit you have planted in the old man's head by now, with your Cooper JIHAD! SALEM ALEQAM BUCKAROO - Boy, are you angry. (*laughs*) But then I'm not the one who is claiming a radio interview, and quoting content without any proof, am I? That would be YOU. Should I file that in the same category as your phony Geoff Gray quote? Just wondering. more mind games - you talk the talk - isnt Lyle getting a little old for your kind of bottom feeding games? Who watches over the old man's interests - you and Gayla and AB Books? I mean your behavior here on this forum is not good form, Mr. Blevins. Have you treated old Lyle similarly? What does Lyle do if he reaches a point where he has had enough of your calamity and wants out !? Are you going to hold his feet to the fire to save your contract wth him ? Welcome to Reality Hotel, Buckaroo Blevins!

It's called 'a fact,' as opposed to your non-linked, non-proven, so-called 'radio interview' that supposedly proves Lyle confessed to something he never knew in the first place. (SEE: 'Lyle Christiansen knew his brother was Cooper') He never did, he doesn't now, (neither do I) so your point is without merit. Give it up, man. Lyle Christiansen never claimed his brother was Cooper. He just said he THOUGHT he could be Cooper. Believe it or not, there is a big difference. Did he tell anyone HOW Kenny pulled it off? This would indicate he was working on a hoax. Anyone can say they think a family member was Cooper, like Marla for example. Proving it is another story. Georger says in part: 'This is all semantics and mind-games you are playing. You want Proof ? _ You don’t speak for LC nor can you! (Actually, I CAN speak for him. We have a contract with Lyle. You are free to question himself, though.) _ You don’t speak for Geoff Gray nor can you! (Correct. I merely responded to your phony quote, the one where you said he stated I had 'little man syndrome and was completely untrustworthy...' Prove he said that, or stick it in your hip pocket, please.) _ You don’t speak for Porteous, nor can you! (Actually, I can. I have a contract with him also, and he allows me to make statements on his behalf. If you want to ask him about it, his email is public: skippporteousAT Gmail Dot Com) _You do not OWN the KC story. You are just one voice and you do not represent or speak for anyone else but yourself, and you can't even do that effectively! (Actually, I DO own the rights to the KC story, along with all the files, pictures, and letters.) _ You do not speak for the staff of Decoded! (True enough. I have quoted them from emails they've sent me from time to time, though. Quotes are allowed. You can verify them by contacting them at their Facebook pages.) __It will not be you who decides the merit of your work and claims, but the world, Buckaroo! (We agree on this completely. I never expected anything else.) OH! So you have a CONTRACT with Lyle and OWN HIM! Is his family aware of that fact? The 80+ year old man. Thus you have the legal righ to speak for Lyle! ??? REALLY? This shit just gets thicker and thicker.... You have contract with Porteous and speak for him! You own the RIGHTS to the KC story! ? Really! ??? So, it is about ownership, control, and MONEY! No fucking wonder you have taken over Dropzone to peddle your wares - THE BLEVINS REVELATIONS JUST KEEP POURING IN! WHAT IS PORTEOUS' CUT? GEOFF GRAY'S CUT ?

It's called 'a fact,' as opposed to your non-linked, non-proven, so-called 'radio interview' that supposedly proves Lyle confessed to something he never knew in the first place. (SEE: 'Lyle Christiansen knew his brother was Cooper') He never did, he doesn't now, (neither do I) so your point is without merit. Give it up, man. Lyle Christiansen never claimed his brother was Cooper. He just said he THOUGHT he could be Cooper. gong! wrong! ding dong! drum rimshot! "He just said he thought it would make a good story" - that is what he said! Stop lying and making shit up. You are not Lyle and you do not speak for Lyle and his family - God only knows what shit you have planted in the old man's head by now, with your Cooper JIHAD! SALEM ALEQAM BUCKAROO -

Well, sure. He certainly thinks his brother is Cooper. But he never said his brother WAS Cooper, and that he knew this for sure. Subtle difference, but important. The only possible thing he could have made up would be the alleged deathbed statement, and to me that is nearly worthless unless Kenny said it in front of multiple witnesses. But since Kenny didn't say exactly WHAT he should tell his brother, it is useless, even if you accept that Kenny said that. Remember that it was Lyle who provided Kenny's letters home talking about being broke, being unhappy with NWA, and Lyle was the (*surprise!*) recipient of a huge estate no one suspected was coming. But even after all that, it wasn't until years later when he saw the Cooper tv show that he began to wonder, and that's when he called the FBI. This is all semantics and mind-games you are playing. You want Proof ? _ You don’t speak for LC nor can you! _ You don’t speak for Geoff Gray nor can you! _ You don’t speak for Porteous, nor can you! _You do not OWN the KC story. You are just one voice and you do not represent or speak for anyone else but yourself, and you can't even do that effectively! _ You do not speak for the staff of Decoded! _ It will not be you who decides the merit of your work and claims, but the world, Buckaroo!

I'm glad that perked your spirits. But, uh...Kenny was DEAD at the time I did the interviews, so except for written material (like letters) I can't quote him exactly. Those are MY words, not Christiansen's. You are still dealing in reality, correct? Cheese hasn't slid off the cracker? He told his friends he made a lot of money working for the airline. Not true, of course, but he liked to say it. Well I am speculating KC might have been using his station/opportunities vis-a-vis his job to make extra money beyond his wages. Having a job like his was full of opportunities for enhancement and exploitation, for anyone passionate about "making a buck" (Geof's quote of Lyle). Now that Ive had one more hour of personal abuse from you - with no Moderator to do a damned thing about it! - I will retire for the evening. "If I'd observed all the rules, I'd never have got anywhere..." Marilyn Monroe