georger

Come on, Jo. Quade would be onto that in a second. The postings would come from the same IP address, or one in Western Washington at least. Otherwise I'd have to run up the frequent flyer miles for sure. Besides, Quade will permanently ban anyone for establishing a duplicate account. Remember what happened when I was 'on vacation' and Gayla came on board for a post using my office computer under the name 'El Jefe'? Quade traced the IP and banned her account the same day. This is my current IP info: ***Your IP: 67.185.175.203 Proxy: No Proxy Detected City: Seattle State/Region: Washington Country: USA ISP: Comcast Cable Communications Inc. Have Quade take a look at Danielle's IP address. Bet it doesn't come from anywhere near the NW USA... 'Danielle' is a guy, and the name belongs to his mother. His real name is Andy. I can't recall where he lives, but I think he named a place much closer to Florida than Washington State. He has said he has managable autism. He seems like an okay kid and everything. At least he doesn't send me hate mail or wacko Cooper Nut messages, as I occasionally receive from others. (*laughs*) No worries. I didn't mean anyone on this thread. If I get any flak from current users, they post it here, not to my email.

I believe Danny is Blevins himself! Blevins was the one who presented the profile regarding Danny and because of my own grand-daughter the postings do not fit the profile of an individual with the condition described. The pattern does NOT fit nor do the questions. Obcessive and compulsive are part of the profile. The fixated on KC fits, but the replies - the time and dates and the reason for responding do NOT fit the profile of such an individual. Evidently Danny never sleeps or has very irradical sleep patterns. The timing of the postings do NOT fit the profile of a young person with the disabililty as was explained to us. If I did NOT have PERSONAL connections to the condition - I would be unaware of this. My grand daughter will be up late into the night GAMING all over the world, but she has to sleep and - you will not find her on the net after 4am. Obviously there is NO adult supervision & considering the condition this not a good thing. They cannot remember to take their meds at the appropriate times and there are other medical condition that go along with this that need attention. Usually a high degree of intelligence but focused on specific things. My grand daughter can NOT comprehend math, but she reads the Newpaper everyday and tells you about everything that is going on in the world. Her fixation is gaming and art and world affairs. Danny does NOT fit any of the profiles due to the ODD times he posts and the question he asks...and the timing of his question which always pop up when Blevins has been on the computer for several hours....and has backed himself into a corner. I believe Danny is Blevins, himself. I will say NO more about this - but surely the DZ has a way of checking this out. Blevins knows how to use an ON LINE phone to access Gmail and make these posts himself. Definite possibility - more than one Blevins personality posting here, for sure. Danielle could be a third. Blevins is well known for circumventing THE RULES!

Your original BOLD claims continue to shrink! Maybe move on to raising Talapia in your bathtub as a hobby instead? I was going to ask you something about Gray's original article but won't.

I didn't quote over all of the things you said only because it's pretty long and all. Look...there is a bottom line here. Either Christiansen was Cooper or he wasn't. Either he was the hijacker and Bernie Geestman assisted him (with later complicity by MRS. Geestman) or it's the biggest set of coincidences in frickin' history. And I do not know which statement is true. Because of the amount of my personal involvement with these people, sure...I lean to the idea that KC may have been Cooper. But I can't prove it. The only people in those families who know for sure (and are still living) are Bernie and Margie Geestman. One bailed town, the other is not talking. Maybe the FBI will finally get around to checking them out, but I doubt it. I don't even care much about it anymore. Frankly, I'm tired of chasing this thing. Let someone else, either from law enforcement, or from the media, figure it out. On August 9th of this year I will present the most accurate information I have on all of this, and then move on to something else besides frickin' DB frickin' Cooper.

me me me me do re me fa so la ti doh? Forver, and ever, and ever, and ever Hallejulya Hallejulya Hallejulya Hal le lulllllllllllllllllllll yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

That's what YOU say. It's a personal opinion on your part and nothing more. Here's what I believe: People have generally seen through you. You're a shill who has pulled out all the stops in a pathetic effort to discredit. You falsely quoted Geoff Gray with negative comments about me (scores of times) without offering a shred of proof. You've been slamming on other people since your 2009 posts at Science dot com, you are scrabbling in the gutter but no longer have any answers. You should just admit you lied about Geoff Gray before I get tired of it and post his emails. How about that? You want to talk credibility? We can start there. You really should offer an apology and we can move forward from that point. You changed on a dime. Within 24 hours. Where is the mild mannered logical personality that was posting. Tonight we have the confrontational illogical personality? How many of you are there - at least two? Different people or different personalities? Both posting under your name at different times. I can't be the only one who has noticed this. Mairzy Doats and Dozy Doats. Mairzy = patient, nonconfrontational, logical = Gayla ? Dozy = confrontational, illogical, attack mode = Robert ? Either there are at least two people writing under your name or there are two distinct personalities of you - which is it? You can't fool some some of the people some of the time and all of the people all of the time! Ive noticed this since an RobertMBlevins + first came here four years ago. And again, I can't be the only person noticing this...

Bernie EDIT: Do you think we could discuss something BESIDES Kenny Christiansen? I'll assume most of the folks who post here are convinced he wasn't Cooper. So if you are convinced of that, why bring him up? All the basic info on him has been made available. He has not been proven as Cooper. You want to know if he was? Contact the Seattle FBI and ask them to look into it for real. Don't expect me to hand it to you on a silver platter. I did what I could, and after August 9th I will be officially OUT of the DB Cooper business.

Bernie EDIT: Do you think we could discuss something BESIDES Kenny Christiansen? I'll assume most of the folks who post here are convinced he wasn't Cooper. So if you are convinced of that, why bring him up? All the basic info on him has been made available. He has not been proven as Cooper. You want to know if he was? Contact the Seattle FBI and ask them to look into it for real. Don't expect me to hand it to you on a silver platter. I did what I could, and after August 9th I will be officially OUT of the DB Cooper business.

Fair enough. So if Gray is vague about this and cant define "varied" in any meaningful way, and you are relying on Gray, well then .... Ive mentioned before that Gray has little or no technical background. Tom and I (and others) ran into this with him. But, rather than run you or Gray down, I need to say issues like this really do matter. Here's another example. Where would the greatest error in witness testimony about height be? 5'6"-6'.0", 5'8"-6'.0", 5'.10"-6'.1"? Would a person 5'8? next to two tall women be more likely to be judged less than 6' tall than a man 5'10" inches? This is where variance enters the picture in a very real way, and more error is more likely to occur between 5'10" and 6-feet, than say between 5'6" and 5 feet. It's the difference between a gross comparison vs. a fine comparison. Gray never defines what he means by "variance". Or among all those who gave testimony on the subject what the actual range was and who fell where in the range. Gray would probably never think to parse the matter is those terms. Gray is making a very gross statement which may have little meaning at all. Its fertile territory for discussion and Im sure there are a thousand opinions ...

How do you know for sure that Cooper was six feet? Because a witness told you so? I've seen those items. The descriptions varied. We've been over this point many times. Blevins you haven't seen any FBI testimony! All you have "seen" are a few anecdotal remarks "about" witness testimony. So stop making things up. Likewise you have never given any thought to what "varied" means in this matter. And yet you are hanging your whole argument on the word "varied". Varied how? My guess is you do not want this examined or want to know ... because my guess is your socalled theory would go right out the window - poof! For example, is the variance linear between 5'6" and say 6'1"? What's the standard error based on n-number of witnesses whose testimony you claim to have seen (Ive seen those items)? What is clear is that you don't know what the fuck you are even talking about! Forget how tall Cooper was or how tall KC was ... you don't even know how to judge and evaluate witness testimony on height. You have no concept of standard error in this matter, you wouldn't know where to even apply it, and very specifically if Cooper was only 5'8" tall, you can't even tell us what standard error would have to apply for those witnesses saying Cooper was 6foot to 6'.1" ! Think about it! It matters! When you can tell us what "varied" means in some concrete way that applies to the Cooper case, or any other case, come back and tell us. Because, you might as well be arguing that Cooper could have been a "sheep" due to the "varied" witness testimony you have seen ((Ive seen those items)!

Thank YOU but I finally got the BIG one to down load & at almost 400 KB. I must have gotten a little help from Quade on that one...never been able to download that high before...it took me several tries, but it is there NOW! I will throw these into the mix if you want them -

Here's a lighter version of the photo -

Blevins - I do understand what you are trying to do. I sometimes marvel at your persistence. But take a good look at your side by side photos. It's not going to work. These are two different people. The math just doesn't add up. But, good luck with your presentation in any event.

More horseshit. The most common use of the word 'smut' in the good old USA refers to pornographic material. 'Middle English' and 'Middle High German' my ass. I really shouldn't dip my nose in the gutter to address your comments regarding my editing work, but I will make it simple for you. No references to Middle Earth, or Middle English necessary. When you approach a total of sixty books edited (most of them privately for other authors) and can say you've created nearly 500 illustrated articles for a page with millions of views since 2007...then you can critique my editing skills. Otherwise, your opinion about me means zip. All you do is spend your free time here hacking on others. Does Galen Cook put you up to this? Or the guy you like to lie about in quotes, Geoffrey Gray? Or maybe it's the folks on the alternate site, some of whom were banned from Dropzone for personal attacks. Funny thing...that's pretty much what you do here on a full-time basis. If so, you should simply hang out there full-time. Like the guy said to me about that place in his PM: ***'They deserve each other over there...' I have to agree. You're not a Cooper investigator anymore. You spend your time here lashing out at others and spouting more BS than a Jersey cow who has forty acres of nice grass to herself. Well then contact all the dictionary editors and have them change it! You know more than they do. You know more than anyone does about anything and everything! Words have derivations and root meanings whether you and AB Books likes it or not! You are showing your rank ignorance once again, Mr. Blevins. Just like when you claimed physics does not apply in the cabins of aircraft! Have a nice dream.

What is a "directive of the law" ? Can you put it in English? Damn you are fast. Wham Bam Thank You kind of Man! Huhh! Note I said "supposed directive of the law". Supposedly the sneaky snake in the grass is supposedly claiming knowledge obtained supposedly from FBI sources & supposedly intends to use that information for an action against a witness before or after the fact. Since Cook is NOT privey to what goes on in the FBI office this is flagrant public extortion or out and out blatant slander or there is an FBI agent out of bounds stating his personal opinion. Note - the poster also jeopardized and included others in his supposed actions. So you did not mean Officer of the Court which what Blevins thought you meant. Beyond this I have no interest in any of this - whatever. In fact, if you really want to know, (Shutter will confirm), I have asked that all of this "Bullshit" stop on the other site ... as well as here! That states my position in this clearly.

Jesus H. Christ. A bigger load of self-serving, self-pitying hogwash I have not heard in a long time. You flatter yourself. You're not my 'foil'. A foil would actually address the content of a post, not just hurl insults one after another as you do. *** 'But I can understand your frustration. These smut peddlers are rank novices! For example, tell this guy Blevins to plant his smut in 14-inch rows. He will get far better germination! Jo uses the 'seed bag-on-hip' method just like her ancestors. I doubt she can change at this late date.' I already told you. AB doesn't do porno. Your smut reference is ridiculous. And since you decided to bring up what is published by me (albeit in another roundabout insulting way), you are speaking of some very nice books. Like the 48-story sci-fi collection I assembled from 44 different authors worldwide. Or...when I published a 15-year-old girl's novel and made her the happiest kid on Earth, and covered the costs. Or...when we re-issued a classic novel you've certainly heard of in a much better version than the original. We don't do smut. And the above also proves that if you're a scientist, you didn't even bother with the basic research on us. As usual, you just decided to make up whatever BS suits you at the moment. If there's anything I dislike more than a whiner...it's someone who lies to themselves. You made it 'your concern' a long time ago...with almost each and every post. Stop saying it's 'not you', and then wishing people 'good luck'...and then returning with more insults. If there's anything I dislike worse than a whiner, or someone who lies to themselves...I guess third place would be a phony. Message=END To answer an actual question: 'Letter sent to Robert' that Danielle asked about. Dan is referring to the letter sent to AB by Margaret Geestman. She sent it after I think her third or fourth interview. In it she says that even if Kenny was aboard 305 that day, he wasn't hijacking the plane. No, it wasn't that. He was just doing his job as the purser. She says other things, like repeating her previous statement, 'No matter what he may have done, Kenny was still a nice guy...' etc. I'm glad someone brought that up. I will snapshot the letter and make it into a slide, along with the other new ones we're ordering from Gamma Tech. I think the legal term Jo was seeking is 'Officer of the Court'. Just thought I'd throw that in. We've been through this before. You learned nothing. And you a socalled Editor and Man of Letters? So here it is again for your benefit, editor Blevins. The word smut quite literally means a particle of dirt or soot! Anything that stains or makes dirty or blackens. Matter including written words that soils or blackens a thing or a person as in tabloid smut. Surely you have heard the reference tabloid smut before. The sexual connotation is secondary and later. smot to stain, from Middle English smotten; akin to Middle High German smutzen to stain or Am English smut. 1: matter that soils or blackens; specifically : a particle of soot. To stain or blacken a thing. Obscene language or written material that stains a person's reputation or issues. We've been through this before. Did you learn anything new tonight? Probably not. Don't be lazy. Look the word up on the internet for yourself! Some people would consider your whole book Blast - The True Story of DB Cooper to be a piece of tabloid fiction or smut. And if Geoff Gray is correct about the role of sex in KC's life, your failure to note or even include that as a working element in KC's life, could be interpreted as an intentional omission on your part. So, if you insist on a sexual component in my use of the word smut, then in fact there may be a very strong sexual element working in your book - intentionally unreported by you ... which fulfills all of the requirements you require for use of the word: smut. Agree?

What is a "directive of the law" ? Can you put it in English?

Georger stated: ***Why would Cook need to prove anything? It's your story and claims! You are the one with the burden of proof! Jo States: Duhh! Cook wrote the deflammatory crap! I am not the one who brought it up. Cook is the one who claims FBI affiliations and inside information. An attorney making slanderous statements just to keep his stories going (Do U know HOW MANY suspects he has proclaimed in the last 20 plus yrs). 75% of the time he sounds like he is drunk! He claims he is Cook, but later when the heat is on makes a post that clearly states he is not Cook. When he starts getting flack - claims he's not Cook! Can't have it both way! Now you are sounding like Knoss (ooohhh! I know you are not going to appreciated that, but it is a truthful statement). Your postings over the yrs. have you bouncing like a rubber ball depending on who pitched the damn thing. ON the serious side: Georger you are an exceptionally witty brainiac & YOU find his actions acceptable? One would hardly think you would wander along his destructive path. Beginning to think you are bored out of your mind - or you just post to agitate. The multiple stands you take pro & con leaves one wondering why the hell you even post! Other than to act as a buffer for heaven only knows what reason!

You mistake me for a four legged animal, sir. Are you being entertained with impure thoughts? I don't write the scripts here. Somebody named RobertMBlevins and Jo Weber do. If it isn't up to the standards you expect or want, maybe you need to change the script writers? The rest of us are just spectators and their victims - duhhhhh! Without foils these people have nothing, quite literally. But I can understand your frustration. These smut peddlers are rank novices! For example, tell this guy Blevins to plant his smut in 14-inch rows. He will get far better germination! Jo uses the 'seed bag-on-hip' method just like her ancestors. I doubt she can change at this late date. Dropzone could set up a separate thread for training smut peddlers? Then bring them to the DB Cooper thread after a year or two of training? It's not my job or my concern, in any event. Good luck.

Did Duane ever rob a waffle house with a pitchfork!? Did you and Duane ever get stoned? Wasn't it Duane's dog who did the skydiving, while you and he stayed home doing God only know what! ? See attached.

Why would Cook need to prove anything? It's your story and claims! You are the one with the burden of proof! Cook worked with Tosaw for years. [Does anybody really read this crap? They must have a lot of time on their hands.... ]

Did Paul Quade tell you to STOP the free advertising here on DZ? I thought his post was very specific! Told you to STOP. Told you to contact him if you wanted to place ADVERTISING on any forum on Dropzone.com? Do you advertise elsewhere your "presence" and articles" here on Dropzone? How come the rest of us don't get FREE ADVERTISING here at Dropzone? What makes you so SPECIAL?

This comes to me from the same guy who says things like this in response to posts: ***'Marla has changed her ways in accord with your Jihad!..' (On that last one, you falsely quote Geoff Gray again. I have his emails on this subject, making one of you a liar. I believe Gray, of course.) Nice how you are always calling me a liar, but when challenged to provide a shred of proof for just one instance, you always come up with nothing. And as far as 'endorsements', you don't speak for everyone. I get a kick out of how you often refer to 'we' think this or 'we' think that. It's we-we-we all the way home for you.

Not really. You sure like to demonstrate to people how unbelievably intelligent you are. It's an ego boost for you, I'm sure. Common sense? Anything reasonably resembling courtesy or manners? Maybe not as much. I have said what I thought needed to be said, and answered a couple of questions honestly in the best manner I could. That really chaps your hide, doesn't it? Now it's time to go back to work. Any additional questions...you'll have to contact me privately. You sure like to demonstrate to people how unbelievably intelligent you are. It's an ego boost for you, I'm sure. Yous can take it that way if you want! More intelligent people don't. Everything with you is always reflexive personal. A person can't take a dump around here without you comparing it to yours and writing an essay about yourself about it. This song aint about you Blevins - never was. Get your own!

Let me get this straight....You came back to this thread to tell everyone you're planning to have an event that pretty much everyone on this thread is expressly NOT invited to. But, it's other people, not you, who are rude on DZ. Got it. That's not really what I said. I said I was going to (as people demanded of me) cut out the media and make it private, after-hours. It's informal. But if anyone thinks they will be allowed to attend just to disrupt and make buttheads of themselves at my expense, it ain't gonna happen. Take a look back there at Georger's post...as well as the juvenile picture he attached to it. He makes my point exactly, although it was his comment earlier about me 'using' the media for my own ends that made me consider another option instead. Greg came up with the basic plan here. We don't take advantage of the theater and the media. The media is not there to see evidence on Kenny. I know that. They are there to cover the writers, and mostly because some are very well-known. So we will just do the mail-outs to Puget Sound media, not hit them over the head with a stick at the theater just because they happen to be there for something else. Georger was right about us possibly doing that, I will admit. It's not proper. Nobody's saying you can't attend. But if you're planning to cause trouble then don't bother to apply. I've had quite enough on that, thank you. And if you want to attend, you'll have to email because I'm not going to answer anything else about this publicly on this thread. So save your questions for an email. The subject is closed. And if I discover you are posting those emails either here or at the alternate site, you will not be allowed to stay after the film ends at 7PM. The people who will be there after the doors close will be on an invite list only. No media will be allowed, not even the Auburn Reporter guys. It's closed-captioning all the way. V and VX, then G/R and P^4th power but only when R>Z and FO] .......... I see that. Therefore, when a cat's ass is raised to the 4th power it is really a skunk, on Tuesday only. Do I have this correct?