georger

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

My understanding of this, (from a couple of phone calls and emails from the Seattle FBI) is that there was never a DNA test done on the cigarette butts. This is because when they went to find them...they were missing. So they went to the tie, and according to Special Agent Fred Gutt, they were only able to obtain a partial profile...which according to Gutt can not positively ID a known suspect's sample as Cooper, but can ELIMINATE them from contention. I am not a DNA expert by any means, so for any clarification you would have to approach the Seattle FBI on this. So, is it safe to assume they could not get a direction as to haplotype from the partial they have? A partial of what? How meaningful are Gutt's statements to you on this? What do "you" in particular know after his remarks, that you did not know beforehand, that you keep repeating Gutt's remarks in this thread to inform us of what?

***How do you know "Red Campbell took the tie home to show folks"? Or are you just making that part up? Are you alleging the dna the FBI is Red Campbell's and not Cooper's? Nope. Just speculating. You got any ideas where the tie was over the Thanksgiving Day Holiday weekend? Any ideas on whose epithelial cells were on the clasp? Any ideas on where the ciggies are? Where the ciggie-DNA report is? Just askin', G-1. After all, the FBI is a family biz, so to speak. Just sayin'. By the way, G-1, Calame says that none of the G-men he and Rhodes talked to said anything about a tie. No one saw it, and no one retrieved it for evidence. You got an opinion on that? In case you know any of Red's relatives, please tell them I say hello, and if they're up for it, I'd love to talk. As always, you can call me anytime... 360. 832. Six-Two-Four-Eight. *** Foxen and camels. Red vs Blue 99999999 does anything work tonight? reply, trying ..... Have no ideas, knowledge, or opinions about any of this - This is all FBI stuff. Last I knew Crket wondered if the cigs were still at Quantico being held there, as evidence. But have no idea if Ckret pursued this or how that turned out, if he did pursue it. The tie is held at Seattle as evidence - same tie Kaye examined. das ist alles.

Yes, thank you Vicki. I remember this interview. It wasn't exactly an on-the-spot interview. We had some limited discussion while setting up for it. And sure...I remember admitting the possibility that Gossett might be Cooper. Just like KC, neither have been proven to be the hijacker. You may not believe it, but I do keep an open mind about these things. Just because I think KC is a more likely suspect, doesn't negate the idea it could be someone else. Since they knew, and I knew...that I had done a book saying KC might be the guy, I wasn't going to take a cheap shot just to promote KC then and there. Seemed like bad manners. Also, I didn't want to say anything disparaging about Mr. Cook personally. At that time, he wasn't going around spouting lies about the relationship between Skipp Porteous and myself, as he did recently. So I had nothing against the guy. (By the way, Georger...did you ever ask Cook to produce those alleged emails he said he had from Porteous? FYI: Porteous said he hasn't emailed Cook in years and that Cook was lying after Porteous examined his posts I sent him via screenshots. He wasn't even angry about it. Just said he was disappointed in Cook.) At the time of the interview, Clyde Lewis and the other guy (forget his name but he's on the video I did at the same event) were all doing interviews with about anyone they thought was interesting. Sure...Gossett could be Cooper. You bet he could. Proving it is another matter. I know this from experience. The only disparaging thing I ever said about Cook's investigation (prior to his BS about Porteous) was that I thought the Janet Story was ridiculous, that a picture taken of Gossett 18 months after the hijacking doesn't remotely look like Cooper, and that he had (so far) chased some dead end leads. Like the money in Vancouver, the golden key, and Gossett's kids being the only real witnesses. And maybe describing someone as being 'obsessed with road flares' was a bit of a stretch. Some guy says: "Also, I didn't want to say anything disparaging about Mr. Cook personally. At that time, he wasn't going around spouting lies about the relationship between Skipp Porteous and myself, as he did recently. So I had nothing against the guy." Well that video is dated: Published on Dec 8, 2012. Not sure when it was done however, your bashing of Cook here at Dropzone precedes 'Published on Dec 8, 2012' by years That can easily be proved. Another zero sum game by "Some Guy" who says: "So I had nothing against the guy." You need to get a clock and a calendar, Some Guy.

How do you know "Red Campbell took the tie home to show folks"? Or are you just making that part up? Are you alleging the dna the FBI is Red Campbel's and not Cooper's?

Clicky and.... I wonder if the FBI lab at Quantico have considered taking the DNA sample from the tie and randomly run it though CODIS or the Missing Person DNA familial database. I do know that when an officer from the DOJ approached SA Curtis Eng it is given to Ayn Dietrich the Seattle FBI PIO and she sends out a pre-written "Thank you for your interest, but we will call you" email. Your clicky brings up this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsuE_2f-fyM An interview by one Clyde Lewis of one: RobertMBlevins, whoever he is! Is this the same RobertMBlevins that has been posting here since 2010? The interview sounds like some other person! In this interview Blevins seems to accept the possibility that Gossett might be DBC, and Cook is a legitimate researcher. Good grief! This is a complete reversal of the RMBlevins we have known here, by his own words no less. It's a shocking revelation. Can this be the same guy? What accounts for this huge discrepancy in personalities? Or, is someone else posting under RMB's name here at Dropzone? Here is the interview url again: have a look! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsuE_2f-fyM Pay special attention to the interviewee's "demeanor". Deer caught in headlights and not to happy about it? Maybe it is the same guy? The real RobertMBlevins? The real Robert M. Blevins brought down to Earth and revealed? Thank you Vicki for the clarifying look into reality!

Clicky and.... I wonder if the FBI lab at Quantico have considered taking the DNA sample from the tie and randomly run it though CODIS or the Missing Person DNA familial database. I do know that when an officer from the DOJ approached SA Curtis Eng it is given to Ayn Dietrich the Seattle FBI PIO and she sends out a pre-written "Thank you for your interest, but we will call you" email. Becuz: they wont give out specific info. Would you!? There are legal and privacy issues not to mention technical issues not easily explained by agents not trained to delve into such info. Would you want some untrained agent "speculating" about your Dad's test results, if any? I wouldn't!

To your last, theoretically yes. Practically speaking, not sure - would need more concrete info. What the FBI apparently has is a mtdna partial profile which may mean (technically) at least 7 markers specified to a statistically acceptable level out of a full 13 node markers required for a full profile using the Codis-13 system (vs CODIS-22 system used in Europe). Do you understand what Im saying? Here's a link: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet There are also a large number of internet sites that explain the CODIS system, how dna is collected and processed, how and what reliable dna matches are - avail yourself of that info.

Interesting. Good links at his homepage! One video has Blevins telling the interviewer he "could" entertain Gosset as a suspect! That contradicts all of Blevins' statements ever made here at DZ! I guess he has one set of stances for us, another stance in public? Why? Also some nice interviews with Cook on vid via the homepage link. According to Cook the FBI wants one of three things - (a) a dna match - probably a mtdna Codis-13 match. (b) finger print match. (c) Cooper twenties, solidly linked to a suspect. Sounds reasonable.

That is handled by Reason #18 on Rev Bobby Blev's "25-Reasons Why". Reason #18 says: "Things look taller in the cabins of airplanes because airplane cabins are long and round, ie. a cylinder. Human perceptual optics changes in the cabins of airplane." Blevins says this has been fully documented in experiments he performed in his old Subaru which is white and therefore not massaginated. Rev. Bobby Blev says it's a common confirmed experience. Only the blessed may partake of the full ramifications of it, however. For that you need special eBlev training. Email Gayla at R&G Housecleaning or Connie at Auburn Good Ole Days for details and a brochure. The Blevins 'Cabin Claim' is a zero-sum game, however. In need of constant revision and reassertion daily, not unlike staying on medication daily in order to maintain proper metabolic levels and the proper frame of mind and experiential reference. In Reason #25 the goode Rev. housecleaner-editor Blevins further requires a small transformation: the Blevins Vertical Transform. This transform must be applied to all physical data of the real world. Simply multiply all data in the vertical axis by c(x) = 1.0735. Thus the vertical height of Kenny was actually seen as 6ft 1 inch vs 5ft 8inches, as seen by customers and crew in the cabin on Flight No.305. It works! And Rev. Blevins is actually correct in his revision of physical data attributed to D.B. Cooper. Further Blevins Transforms are in the works. Rumor has it that Rev. Blevins intends to show that Cooper was actually an 'ape' of unknown species, sent by Kenny and Geestman to hijack Flight 305, in their steade! Stay tuned!

I don't 'harass' people in emails, and I never have. Show me one place where I 'admitted that at Dropzone'. I'm about the most polite guy going in an email. I don't 'intimidate' people either. I don't think I've ever 'pressured' anyone in an interview to my knowledge. It gets poor results. Easy for you to toss out the tags when it suits you, doesn't it? But then...you have a long history of doing this at Dropzone. Actually, you DID. Your words speak for themselves. Your history is already known. Actually, you (and this) is a zero sum game. How do all zero sum games end? Entropy defines the end. Participants just walk away at some point, with nothing. You are then left with the hoary task of starting the game all over again or the game end even for you, and this is exactly what you have done dozens of times since 2010. Each ending is a new beginning, in your mind. The energy require gets greater each time. You must be pretty exhausted by now.! Funny.. Crap in - crap out. No gain. Start game over, again.... crap becomes crappier each time for you. No gain. Start again. Crappier than the last time. Since to know who you are an idiot. Zero sum game. Same conclusion every time. No other possibility. Zero sum game is all you have and are. That is the only HISTORY involved here.

I don't 'harass' people in emails, and I never have. How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world...' Anne Frank That is not what I said. Go back and read my post again. You see? You are always jumping to conclusions based on false readings, incomplete readings of people's posts, some isolated news article, and the list goes on _ _ _ Go tend Danielle1010101010. He seems to have another crisis which only you know how to handle or dispel. You have wound him up like a clock. Now reset the clock before it blows again! Are we having fun, yet?

Danielle1010, I get a little emotional myself when I see such posts from a self-described 16 year old boy with autism. In my opinion, you need an intervention from your parents or appropriate adults. You fascination with Blevins and obsession with allegations he makes about other people, without proof, is an ominous move in a very dark direction. Get help! Robert99 Oh, pullleeeze...who are YOU? Like his counselor or something? You're just picking on the kid because he thinks Geestman and KC might have been behind the Cooper hijacking. Let me clue you in, he's not the ONLY one. To be fair, there are others who doubt their guilt. This type of polarization is typical with an unsolved case where no one to date has proven a suspect to be Cooper. Andy is no more 'obsessed' than anyone else who has sent me a supporting email regarding my work on Christiansen and Geestman. Or anyone who has commented that we might we right about them. Now that question is unanswered, but responses negative or positive on a suspect are completely NORMAL. Both you and Georger have made a bad habit of dropping by the Cooper thread at Dropzone...not with any comments about the case...but simply stopping by to attack others in one way or another. You don't think Kenny's the guy. Fine. Get in line with the others. I understand that. Maybe you should create a signature that says: 'Kenny's Not The Guy,' and save everyone a lot of time. Do you REALLY believe the investigation into Christiansen will just 'go away' because of your blanket comments? Wake up. Not happening. We are moving forward whether you like it not. Get used to it and look at the bright side. We might find out he DIDN'T do it. Let's face it, chances are much greater it will go that way. So what the heck are you so worried about? As far as Georger's ridiculous comments about 'slander,' those are hardly worth addressing. Christiansen's family is behind us 100%. It isn't 'slander'. They just want to know the truth about him. We're trying to find out. You seem really frightened about this whole thing somehow. I understand, but I have no sympathy for you after all of your nasty comments. Yes...if KC and Geestman were proven to be the guilty parties, you would have to eat a crow the size of Chicago. But like I told R99, chances are good that you won't. On the other hand, you've done so many insulting posts and names directed at me, Gayla, our housecleaning biz, and everything you can think of about us that's non-Cooper...that you are what I call 'heavily invested' now. You are left with no other choice but to plod on with the name calling and the attacks. Instead of that, maybe you should choose to quit calling me a troll and those other insults you keep dumping on me and focus on the case. You are garnering no respect from the public by engaging in that. On a side note...sometimes I think it's good when people get a lesson in manners. I call you a troll because you are a troll. You have admitted to intimidation, pressuring people, and harassment in emails you have sent to various people! You have admitted it here on Dropzone. So you can drop the pretense Blevins. It only makes you look more twisted...

Why would I possibly be 'jealous' of Cook? He's been working on the case for a lot more years, and has come up with few solid results. I don't even KNOW Cook, and couldn't care less about his 'relationships'. You don't know Cook, in fact you know almost nothing about Cook, you say you could care less about Cook and his relations, and yet you say "He's been working on the case for a lot more years, and has come up with few solid results." So how did you channel that? What sooth Sayer told you that? How do you come to that conclusion when you even say know absolutely nothing about the subject? Do you always talk nothing but _ SHIT AND MORE SHIT AND MORE SHIT you know almost nothing about, by your own admission? Or do you just automatically attack people you see as a threat and are jealous of? Or, do you just automatically know more about people, than they know about themselves!? Do you know more about Kenny and Geestman than they know (or knew) about themselves? Do you OWN the whole life of Kenny Christiansen? Play that funky music ignorant boy!

Well...uh...since we have the signed release from his brother (KC's executor), a contract, and the endorsement of the family to look into the matter...I wouldn't call it slander. Not to mention their full cooperation in providing numerous documents, pictures, personal history, letters, etc. You are merely inventing a situation that isn't there. Book says about whether KC was Cooper: "You'll have to judge for yourself..." 'How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world...' Anne Frank Well...uh...since we have the signed release from his brother (KC's executor), a contract, and the endorsement of the family to look into the matter...I wouldn't call it slander. What has any of the above got to do with the ACT OF SLANDER? Are you trying to say you have permission and a contract to slander, so it's not slander? Would you say you had permission or a contract to murder someone, and that permission and contract excuses or redefines the act? Here we go again with your logic problem, Blevins. Play it again Sham Wow. Spin it all you want. You have already spun yourself right off the planet! Woo woo sham wow play it again for the audience

Well, I have to differ on your last statement there. I think we've come up with a fair amount of evidence and some positive contributions to the discussion, and we're still working on that. Nothing conclusive yet on KC, I'll admit, but that goes for anyone working on a possible suspect. I should be able to release the best, and most updated information on Kenny Christiansen within a few months. Considering how long the case has been around (40+ years) a little longer seems reasonable to ensure we get it right. As far as 'everyone running to disassociate themselves' etc. let's hope you aren't buying into Galen Cook's claims about my co-author Skipp Porteous. Skipp has seen screenshots of Cook saying that Porteous wants nothing more to do with the book, or me personally. Skipp's response was that he hasn't emailed Cook in about three years and says Cook is not being truthful. (Polite response) If you would like to see a screenshot of Skipp's actual email on that I can provide it for you. Posters here go off-topic all the time. I'll agree it's not always a good thing. This thread is supposed to be about the Cooper case. Unfortunately, a few select users, especially one I won't name here (not you) spend most of their time on the attack. I see nothing wrong in creating a film script based on Kenny Christiansen's life. It was a natural extension of things. There's been one book strictly about him, another one that talks about him heavily, (Skyjack by Geoff Gray) and a couple of TV shows. It was bound to happen, and since I own the rights to KC's story, it seemed logical the script would come from my corner...correct? Your statement about 'making a buck over somebody's grave' would negate any possible film regarding people like Amelia Earhart, Sir Ernest Shackleton, Frank Luke, or anyone else not living. Like everything else you try to say and post, it's total bullshit. Time you checked into your own Reality Hotel - NEWSFLASH! You will never stop Cook! You are a rank newcomer compared to Cook. Cook was here long before you and will be active long after you. You are merely a blip on Cook's screen! Cook will be talking about you, as will others, long after you, Gayler, and socalled "Adventure Books" have dried up and blown away. Cook has relationships you can only dream of and will never have, and are jealous of. Stop you constant whining Blevins. Nobody but you cares. Yes, you will reply to do this just as you always reply to everyone to pretend to have the last word. Any reply you make will be further proof you are nothing but a troll. And I imagine troll is only where it starts with you. If people knew who you are and everything you've actually said and done and why ... Quade might even boot you off of here, but until then that will never happen. So keep posting: TROLL. (Since having a Cooper forum at your own website failed long ago!)

Blevins has been married to KC for 6 years - to himself for 59 years!

What I have noticed is Blevins and Jo suck the air out of every room they are in! Very soon people just wear out and move on, because there is no point (or reason) to say anything. This is what I meant earlier when I said: "Well Blev you (and Jo) pretty much have DZ to yourselves." Because what is left to say? What can anyone say? NOTHING! Blevins and Jo have said it all, thousands of times! And nothing anyone else says matters in any event. That is called "sucking the air out of a room". They need to find a new room with new people to market their BALONEY. Easy come - easy go.

What a Drama Queen you have become lately. First, your post has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Second, this website has users worldwide, with tens of thousands of registered members. Third, it isn't my website anyway. And finally, if this is your way of telling me that some regular posters plan to stay over at the alternate site, that's their business and I couldn't care less. Next thing you'll be blaming me for climate change. Is there some particular problem you have with the city and people of Auburn, WA? Just wondering. You've made a fair number of nasty comments about Auburn and that they should kick me out of town as a crackpot, or whatever. I kind of doubt that will happen, Georger. For example, last Friday me and two other people delivered, set up, and took down pretty much everything at Veterans Park for VIP Night, the kickoff event for Auburn Days. It's a celebration honoring our local Fire and Police Departments, and many of those members attended. That is the sort of thing I do around here in my free time. They were very appreciative. Somehow I doubt they will choose your ramblings over my actual service around this town. Food Bank, library, Senior Center, annual festival, whatever. Been there, done that. In AUBURN. This is just another example of how when you constantly bad-mouth someone with practically every insult on the planet...it works better if you actually know them. You don't know me at all. You just THINK you do. (*Insert laugh here*) your post marked as SPAM.

Looks like you're going to have this website pretty much to yourself from now on - We may fire all employees who live at Auburn WA, just to set an example! Tough luck for them. You know what you said about 'expendable wage earner sheeple'. Dont run to the press with this yet, Blev-Ins! The final decision hasn't been made yet. We may just settle for a loyalty oathe and a urine test instead! Let's just call it: The Curse of RobertMBlevins. "Wherever Robert goes nuthin grows!"