georger

We understand and have compassion, Knoss. Give our regards to Santa Claus and get some rest. Put another way, you "provocations" are ineffective here. Best find another orchard to pick.

You had better hope Mr Selick never sees your posts, or worse, Disney lawyers see them. They would be all over you like a cheap suit. You own a home? Gone. Either that, or they will demand a public retraction. I've seen them in action before. Two of them flew up to Seattle once and forced a daycare to remove tempura-painted Disney characters from the front windows. They are ruthless. I may help them along and drop a few of your posts regarding Selick on their legal department. If that is true, I would say you go through pairs of shoes at an amazing rate.

[replyGeoff Gray was allowed access to the FBI's actual witness testimony reports from the Seattle files. You keep bragging about this. What good did it do you ? Knoss is no real threat to anyone. What do you gain by attacking him? What vital truth, as you see it, is at stake with Knoss? The right to chew bubble gum?

Tosaw's since he is the ONLY ONE to ever get an indept interview with Tina Mucklow! Quote Think about what you just offered! That cant be true - in this universe. It is not true. There was a time when many people talked to Tina, and Tina talked back. Tina's natural compassions for people was used and abused - she learned to (was forced to learn to) WITHDRAW. Bruce's problem is he hasnt learned how to sort causes from effects - and its probably too late to change his wiring. He lives with it and skates over it as best as he can. You would be surprised how many people are in the same condition. Most humans develop that capacity by age 2. Without it you are hamstrung forever -

And neither were you. Unless you have actual proof, which after so many posts by you is still lacking. Give it up, Bob. You've tried shouting and cajoling your way into the Cooper Case with the most ridiculous, unproven story ever conceived...and it's been rejected. Time to move on, since you haven't convinced a single person on this thread that your version of events is true. 'I KNOW!' isn't quite good enough. If you ever write a book, better file it under fiction. Pot calling kettle black?

At the time of the hijacking, she was cracking jokes and smoking cigarettes with the guy, at least part of the time - according to GG. . and what would you do? Thjey had been ordered to cooperate. Ordered! That seemed the best overall strategy. You are hostage with no escape route and facing a guy with a bomb ... a little like dealing with some of the people in this forum!

It would appear - is quite obvious - YOU ARE WORKING OFF A GRUDGE against the Government. Has nothing to do with the Cooper matter. And it doesnt take a psychiatrist to see that. A five year old could see that! Its pathetic on its face and shameful by any accounting. You came here to dispense clarity and now you have been given some - by a number of people here. You came here for change, so change!

According to ckret...."I don't know how it got into the press that Cooper had something against the airlines. Tina asked him at one point why did he hijack the flight and Cooper replied, "I don't have a grudge against the airline, I just have a grudge." There might be more on Tina's actual question but I quit looking after I found this. Understandable. He had just been screwed by that lying Sasquatch, in that trailer-thingie, parked in a semi remote place, where "thingies" are seen and sometimes land, guised as celestial tugboats, with red-hot titanium sparkler-thingies, lighting up the sky and leaving traces on ties, worn in sleeping bags while sleeping, just in case the Dept Manager should drop by, driving four Clydesdales abreast .. What a BLAST! "I don't have a grudge against the airline, I just have a titanium Thingie." More part thingies to be presented as parables when found - this much we know for certain, below.

I post up a serious bit back there about the Boeing layoffs, complete with numbers and a picture...and that's what YOU put up in response? That's all you got? What a joke. Blevnis, your paranoia me-first centralism has run amuck. My post had nothing whatever to do with your post! Next time blow a horn, AND STOP ALL BUSES ........... so the whole world can hold its breath and stop everthing ... knowing by ESP you are composing and posting a MAJOR POST FROM, nobody has even read yet! You are definately a genius of some kind.

back atcha - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfboard

I post up a serious bit back there about the Boeing layoffs, complete with numbers and a picture...and that's what YOU put up in response? That's all you got? What a joke. Just goes to prove you have a built-in problem with yours truly that blinds you to anything I present. Sounds like a personal problem to me... Your objectivity in the Cooper case flew out the window a while back, I think. what in HELL are you yammering about now - ??????????????????????????????????????????? go jump people on the street or kids getting on a buss, or something - ? Mind your own business for a change?(if you have any)

please keep in mind the scale of those particles, in Tom's photos. Compare their relative sizes: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/particle-sizes-d_934.html Flour dust, some bacteria and virii are larger in some cases. Tom calls the Al piece a "spiral" and a "chip". To me it is a shaving, from a process with some tool. A drill? Nothing wierd about that in the context of an aircraft-machine. One has to wonder what ventilator system aboard 305 would have yielded? Say stuck to the ventilator filters, if there were filters? Each row of seats sits directly under or near a ventilator ports? These particles may form a cluster with a common delivery source-mechanism. Maintenance activity? Food service worker who surfed the Tides of the Columbia along Tena Bar, waving to the Fazio's and the Ingrams on vacation? Delivering his package of moire & pamadjeon - Are these finshed metals, raw materials, and what is this thing that looks like it was once a molten dropped moon crater-thingie eaten out by acid with crystals of some kind inside? Do you find these things in foundaries, in tin shops, or work areas in maintenance yards? Is that what Coca-Cola does to a Carnagie-Melon robot's gut? I will forever be grateful that Blevins came along, if only to introduce the world "Thingie" into our technical vocabularly, on ocassions such as this - The springie has sprung - boing boing boing boing... which catches the essence of titanium minds in motion. The aluminun drill shaving, if thats what it is, is the largest particle by far at a whopping 1.6mm or 1600 microns. Some guy with a hand tool and a cigar in his mouth may have made that, before Cooper comes along later to sip bourbon and smoke nicotin under the palm tree of his handy work - oh well -

glad you saw te humor - no problem.

I said that Kaye looked at it under a microscope. Okay, fine. MAGNIFIER. I believe Kaye is referring to rough spots, very tiny ones, left behind during the machining/stamping process. That's what I got from his statement. And if he says there are no numbers...I still believe him. and someone here says he believes the Chinese will be cloning and selling you at Walmart within five years - just in case any duplicates show up at your door wanting to talk your ear off and meet Gayla, and have a BIG symposium with lots of look-alikes all giving speeches and advice -

Just so everyone is clear, I have not made any comments on the markings on the tie clip. I only provided a higher res picture for everyone else to look at. We didn't see anything of significance when we examined the tie clip under a magnifier. The marks everyone is talking about I would guess are processing marks from the stamping machine used to mass produce them. Tom Kaye I have never seen "processing Marks" on a piece of jewelry, the basic stamp consist of the company name or initial followed by carat value, cars have a "Vin number" I have emailed dozens of people and talked with different companies about this clip and nobody has seen any marks on the clip what so ever! all of the clips that did have a box with the company name on it also emailed back that no markings were on the piece, in my questions to them I asked the following, Is there any marks, numbers, carat value or company name on the clip you are selling? this is very important to me for research purposes, end message. Dear clourim, Hi Thank you for your question. I am very sorry but this item has been sold. The clip & cufflinks are not stamped, just the box. Many thanks Emma Dear clourim, I don't see anything that has #'s on it..The only reason I know they are from the late 60's , these were from a relative that passed away..I know how long they had them..Sorry I can't be of anymore help than that.. Dear clourim, It is not marked. Suzette Dear clourim, nothing is not printed on the tie clip or the cufflinks. It is printed on the inside of the shell they are displayed in. - storeon44 Dear clourim, No one signed the set. So no I do not know. Diane - *dkeyburn Vintage Mother of Pearl Cuff Link Tie Clip Set Silvertone, listing #35938193 Hi- Of course this was sold, so I can't have a second look at it. I think I would have mentioned it in my description if it had a brand. I don't believe this set had any marking. Sorry, I can't help you. Helen Anson Product reply from seller, Dear clourim, Hi. There are no hallmarks so I can not know if they are gold-coloured or gold-plated. This is a full 4-piece set in its original box, that's why its more expensive. A - a1-cufflinks Now, the reason no markings are on the piece would be that they were mass produced and sold out wholesale to hundreds of jewelry companies all over the United States and beyond, based on what I have learned about this piece through many emails and phone conversations that this could be the plausible reason why no marks are found, plus the fact of no Gold value to mark. If the Cooper piece has numbers on it, I find this troubling from what has been found in above comments, we would have heard some of them stating numbers on the piece, since the piece can still be found and yet nothing is on them marking wise, I find it hard to believe Coopers clip has them! The only known companies I can recall having numbers on the jewelry is Rolex, I worked in a pawn shop in the late 80's and remember learning about Rolex watches because of the imitations that were going around, you can take off the band and it would be on the rim of the watch. to match the serial number on a rolex http://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-watches/blog/rolex-serial-number-date-year.html Good work, Pawn Star! Until further notice Imsiding with it being a reflection of the wove, possibly a surface imprint of the wove (chemical imprinting of the surface of the clasp by chemistry in the fabric) ... but no mfg no.s which is too bad. When will there ever be a break in our favor that doesnt require ten research teams and five labs? Something ordinary@! I could do a rain dance if it helps.

ok I will bite. What's your connection to military service or friends/ relatives in the military? What is the origin of military jargon in your exigesis? MAC this, MAC that.

Just so everyone is clear, I have not made any comments on the markings on the tie clip. I only provided a higher res picture for everyone else to look at. We didn't see anything of significance when we examined the tie clip under a magnifier. The marks everyone is talking about I would guess are processing marks from the stamping machine used to mass produce them. Tom Kaye Since we dont communicate at all I only report what others report to me - you sent your photo to 'him', he came back with the photo and commentary supposedly from you? I dont like the way you do business, through back doors? So, it would appear these "may be" actual markings on the clasp? Not optical reproductions from the wove in the tie as you allegedly told another ? I could not figure out how the wove geometry got to a new form reflecting? off the clasp? Any markings are potentially significant? Die cast markings? Whose die? Stamping machine? Do you have any information about where and from whom the clasp came from? (That is the point of this whole exercise.)

Just so everyone is clear, I have not made any comments on the markings on the tie clip. I only provided a higher res picture for everyone else to look at. We didn't see anything of significance when we examined the tie clip under a magnifier. The marks everyone is talking about I would guess are processing marks from the stamping machine used to mass produce them. Tom Kaye You are the man with the microscope who examined the actual clip. Good enough for me. Microscope? He says "we examined the tie clip under a magnifier." How do you get from magnifier to microscope? Do you Knoss the difference? How and to whom, does your opinion count?

I was struck, by your description of you and Brian Ingram sitting together, contemplating the Ingram bill auctioned off like a cow, at the socalled Cooper symposium, paid for by Crown Publishing. How very poignant and fitting! 40 shekels was not enough. Eli Eli, lama sabachthani.

well your vid (with no audio?) was useful to me, I think. I think I see things I didnt see before, in quite the same way. It does look like a reflexion pattern - just as Tom said - but I base this on some facts, as follows - see attached. 2a rows & sizes shows what appear to be an ascending series of rows of repititions, of the same glyphs shown on the bottm line, each ascending row larger than the one before (ie. a Rowland optical effect). 2a light angle shows how the rows of glyphs angle off to the right ? This establishes the incoming angle of the flash. The ascending rows noted above angle off to the left at the same angle. The elevation of the incoming light was . . . Government secret! 2a pattern repetition - shows identities of the same glyphs repeated both in the same row(s) and vertically in the ascending orders of reflection. (optical effect). My guess is the patterns in the socalled glyphs are reflections of the tie fabric top edge fabric patterns due to the high angle of the lighting. First reflection is the first row ... reflected back off the camera lens back to the smooth reflective surface of the clip to form the second row ... second row is the second order reflection ... and so on and so forth to the uppermost row to extent the area of the clip can show all of the multiple reflections happening, in the instant that snapshot was taken ... All of these images were taken off your video. Good job! I will attach an unlabeled snaps 2 and 2a. I think this apparition is reflections just as Tom said.

Again, consider the "scale" of Tom's piece. Blevins has the idea this piece is a 2x12! Poor Blev. Knoss thinks its a 4x8 sheet! The piece looks machined with one end broken off? Alan Whosit is supposed to be a broken parts expert? Who is our resident particle expert - besides Blevins, Knoss, and Jo Weber?

He had no credibility elsewhere - for years! Knoss was old news the day he arrived here, running from his other closed down venues... The time he has managed to corral here is only because of people;s social grace ... sympathy card.

Why are you guy disputing Tom on this? He saw the clip and photographed it. The reflection of the tie with the flash of the camera was my first gut feeling. As I studied the images you guys posted - I was even more convinced of this. Since Tom also states this to you Georger, it is obvious you guys love to over analyze things. Do your own experiment with a high grade camera and flash or stobe. Use any old tie tac you can find and a woven textured tie - you will get the same results. Shadows and flaws in the casting and the texture of the tie along with its own shadow creating these "images". Use a loop and look at some of your own jewelry - this is a given. My fantasy - it reads - Kress! YOU guys know I am joking, but JT and Knoss will twist this into something altogether different.

Sorry Bob, was a nice try, I'm making a video showing that you can clearly see the shape in the fabric of the tie, I starting to believe it is material transfer from being stored for years at a time leaving the impression on it, not 100% sure though. Not sure I understand what you are saying but a surface blemish or impression due to longterm contact with fabric weave crossed my mind also, especially after Kaye shared a better photo last night. The features do look more like they are "on" the surface than below it, on Kaye's better photo. See a pixel density isophot scan attached - and No Blevins, Im not using "Paint". Scuff marks vs reflections? I keep saying from the outset without better photos to compare with any conclusion are premature, but evidently those are not forthcoming from the source. Fact is, we are operating completely in the dark here, vs Blevins and Knoss. The banality of the affair is palpable, as usual! Pure gheto drama. I'm working on a not so fancy video, but you will see where the "V" shape comes from, it seems it is the fabric, now, did it transfer, I don't know, is it a reflection, very possible, I should have it up soon, my phone has been ringing off the wall in the last couple hours slowing my process Keep one thing in Mind. Kaye etal are deputised FBI surrogates - so probably limited in what they can say and do, to be helpful! Their cohort Blevins is self-deputised .... Note the Mayan hieroglphs are roughly circular. Note the semi-circular wove tops of the fabric, highlighted right under the bottom of the circular glyphs. Thus a correspondence in patterns - Pixel density of the glyphs is virutally "zero" vs pixel density of the background (clasp surface) in areas adjacent to the glyphs, so these features have no real pixel depth; which may indicate relflections vs something having surface depth.. The circular nature of the glyphs vs the semi circular tops of the wove may be linked .. This is fun!

Sorry Bob, was a nice try, I'm making a video showing that you can clearly see the shape in the fabric of the tie, I starting to believe it is material transfer from being stored for years at a time leaving the impression on it, not 100% sure though. Not sure I understand what you are saying but a surface blemish or impression due to longterm contact with fabric weave crossed my mind also, especially after Kaye shared a better photo last night. The features do look more like they are "on" the surface than below it, on Kaye's better photo. See a pixel density isophot scan attached - and No Blevins, Im not using "Paint". I may get challenged saying this, but the numerical output from the isiophot scan shows "0" significance - so Kaye may be correct. The isue is documentation? Scuff marks vs reflections? I keep saying from the outset without better photos to compare with any conclusion are premature, but evidently those are not forthcoming from the source. Fact is, we are operating completely in the dark here, vs Blevins and Knoss. The banality of the affair is palpable, as usual! Pure gheto drama.