Robert99

Jo, Go to Sluggo's web page and take a look at the aerial photographs he has there of the Tina Bar area that were taken on August 8, 1970, September 6, 1974, and September 29, 1979. Then come back to DZ and point out exactly what you are calling a "house" and its exact location. In addition to the above photographs, other aerial photographs of the Tina Bar area have been posted on this DZ thread over the years. If you (and Blevins also) bothered to read this thread you would already be aware of those photographs. Further, the September 29, 1970 photograph should ring a bell with you. That photograph was taken within a handful of days of your claimed visit to Tina Bar with Duane Weber in which you have suggested he buried the money at Tina Bar which the Ingrams later found. And don't claim that you have "computer problems" that prevent you from viewing these photographs. Your "computer problems" and "both feet in the grave claims" are not believable anymore. Robert99

Blevins, All you have to do is take a look at the aerial pictures of the Tina Bar area dated August 9, 1970, September 6, 1974, and September 29, 1979 which have been available on Sluggo's web page for at least the past five years. These and other pictures of the Tina Bar area have been posted on this very thread on DZ over the years. If you are now going to pretend that you are not aware of the existence of these pictures, it will only prove that you don't actually read the information on this thread. So, have you seen these and other pictures of the Tina Bar area previously or not? Don't do your famous waffle, duck and weave routine. Robert99

Jo, There is existing documentary evidence that your claims are completely false! What do you think you are accomplishing by your irresponsible allegations? You are the biggest mystery on this thread! Duane Weber was NOT D.B. Cooper. And there is NO WAY on God's Green Earth that he could have been. Robert99

Not sure I worded it that way! If the money find is NOW underwater, is the Fazio house still there....their back yard ended at the fence and the trees where just outside of the fence. Because of the ben in the river - I wondered if later on the house had to be moved. Does anyone have pictures of how the beach looks now & is the Fazio home still there. Jo, There is NO Fazio house adjoining the Columbia River "beach" now and none is evident in any of the pictures taken from 1971 to the present day. Robert99 YOU guys are nuts. The walk way to the beach in 1979 and in 2001 was there - the fence with the gate. Looking at the water the house is on my right and the equipment in 2000 was on my left & the house was still there. Mr. Himmelsbach and Fazio and the documentary crew were with us. If the house has been removed by nature or just demolished AFTER 2001, I understand that - but it was there in 1971, 1980 and 2001. You are the one who is delusional or being completely misled or fed false information. Why don't you give Mr. H a call before he dies! As you know he is almost ninety and with his health - tomorrow might not come one day in the near future. WHO provided the pictures you are using? Georger? If that is the case figure this out yourself! If you are maintaining there was NO house there - then you have been led around with a ring in your nose. Jo, I have been to Tina Bar and there is NO house close to the river's edge! Nor is one shown in the aerial pictures taken from 1971 to the present! You are just blowing more smoke. Robert99 Robert you are either delusional of blind - to think I WASTED 2 yrs arguing with a man who doesn't even know the history or geographic of the site he has carried on & argued about for many yrs. Pick up the phone and call Mr. H or Mr. Fazio. There was a gate and a fence. Wire fencing separated the beach from the house and its back yard. The house set between the road and the beach. We parked in the parking lot to the EAST & NORTH of the house. From there you walk down to the gate - and then some more until you are on the beach. You can see the beach & the river from the parking lot. YOU are a FRAUD! A complete FRAUD and someone who occupies time and space. You serve no purpose in life....you are a fraud. Some place I have the pictures that were sent to me - yrs ago to make sure it was the place I was talking about and I went back in 2001 with the documentary crew and the house was there then. If it has been removed it was removed AFTER 2001. If you really believe there was NO house - then someone is Yanking your chain.... An ENTIRE CREW WAS THERE. Perhaps pictures were not made of the house for privacy issues - but the house was there...in 1979 & in 2001. Jo, There is NO EVIDENCE that any house EVER existed adjacent to a wire fence at the "beach" (adjoining the water) in the Tina Bar area during the 1971 to present day period. With all the people that you claim were with you in 1979 and 2001, surely you can find at least ONE who can support your allegations. To repeat, you are just blowing smoke. Robert99

Not sure I worded it that way! If the money find is NOW underwater, is the Fazio house still there....their back yard ended at the fence and the trees where just outside of the fence. Because of the ben in the river - I wondered if later on the house had to be moved. Does anyone have pictures of how the beach looks now & is the Fazio home still there. Jo, There is NO Fazio house adjoining the Columbia River "beach" now and none is evident in any of the pictures taken from 1971 to the present day. Robert99 YOU guys are nuts. The walk way to the beach in 1979 and in 2001 was there - the fence with the gate. Looking at the water the house is on my right and the equipment in 2000 was on my left & the house was still there. Mr. Himmelsbach and Fazio and the documentary crew were with us. If the house has been removed by nature or just demolished AFTER 2001, I understand that - but it was there in 1971, 1980 and 2001. You are the one who is delusional or being completely misled or fed false information. Why don't you give Mr. H a call before he dies! As you know he is almost ninety and with his health - tomorrow might not come one day in the near future. WHO provided the pictures you are using? Georger? If that is the case figure this out yourself! If you are maintaining there was NO house there - then you have been led around with a ring in your nose. Jo, I have been to Tina Bar and there is NO house close to the river's edge! Nor is one shown in the aerial pictures taken from 1971 to the present! You are just blowing more smoke. Robert99

Not sure I worded it that way! If the money find is NOW underwater, is the Fazio house still there....their back yard ended at the fence and the trees where just outside of the fence. Because of the ben in the river - I wondered if later on the house had to be moved. Does anyone have pictures of how the beach looks now & is the Fazio home still there. Jo, There is NO Fazio house adjoining the Columbia River "beach" now and none is evident in any of the pictures taken from 1971 to the present day. Robert99

Here's my vote: 1. 377 2. EVick 3. Parrot 4. Nimi Wrecks 5. Robert 99 6. Shut 7. Sail 8, 9, 10: 3-Way tie for last place: Jo, Bobby and me. Bruce, there is something wrong with your methodology if you rate me as being "nicer" than Shutter. Robert99

I have done some research on this and my best sources don't say who drew the black line on it or made the notations. But...that the information came from a combination of sources. Bill Rataczak mentions Paul Soderlind and his team at NWA as one of the sources. If the map is so inaccurate, why does the FBI continue to make it available on their website as 'the' flight path as they know it? I am willing to accept it as basic truth. I suggested once you contact Bill Rataczak (co-pilot) on this question before you start trying to move the flight miles off what the map shows now. He's in the phone book, and he has done a great deal of research on the whole thing for years. He keeps files, maps, notes, everything. He told this to Skipp Porteous when Porteous interviewed him by phone in 2009. Even if the FBI won't tell you anything, I'm sure he would talk to you about this. He's the only Bill Rataczak listed for Minnesota in the white pages. You could also try the Seattle FBI case agent, (you could attach a copy of that map where I added the notes and send it to him with the basic question, i.e. 'is this accurate?' And 'who is responsible for this map?') Have you done either of these things before deciding on your own it is wrong? That should be your first, most obvious step, right? These things fall to you because YOU are the one trying to move the flight in order to explain the arrival of the Tina Bar money. I'm not saying that's a bad theory, I'm saying you haven't done a basic check with the main people yet who could answer the questions about the map. Your best bet is to go to Bill Rataczak, I think. Ever since the Marla Cooper thing, the FBI has become reticent to answer questions. For example, when I asked them about the Amboy Chute, they told me they couldn't discuss it because it was 'evidence' in the case. I found this strange for two reasons. First, they had allegedly dismissed it years ago as evidence. Second, they never actually gave a reason WHY they dismissed it. And they still don't. They won't even acknowledge its existence anymore. Yeah...you should go to Rataczak. If you can't find Bill's contact info, email me at adventurebooksofseattle AT G frickin' mail dot frickin com and I will give you his info. (my email disguised to defeat the evil spammers)

Robert99 do you not remember the guys in the field with that map with all of the markings - the places they were looking for Cooper! That picture is worth a million words and 10's of million more - it shows the search area & they are looking at the picture ON SITE! YOU cannot make that one go away....so you have been in the evidence room - what did you remove...they trusted YOU? But they do NOT provide a wife with PROOF her husband was not Cooper, but they allow the likes of you in the evidence room! What evidence did YOU see that dismissed WEBER? You must be having a memory problem - do you even remember the pictures that have been put on this site. That was not just a map@ One of you guys find that picture of the guys in the field with map of the search area....that is the correct search area. You THINK they STAGED that one! Evidently! =================== Blevins stated: "If you think it's wrong, proof is required unless you believe you are smarter than the FBI...SAGE radar...ATC...a couple of chase jets out of McChord AFB...the flight crew on board 305...and Paul Soderlind and his team at NWA." ====================== Go Blevins Go - I think you and I are the only sober ones posting tonight. Robt99 actually indicated he had been in the evidence room - Geeze! "But the map presented by the FBI shows that the flight was actually moving a bit SE when it passed by Tina Bar and was miles from the interstate." Actual field photos of map show just that! They can deny the maps all they want, but a photo of searchers looking at the map in the field is all I need. Do any of these people know what they are talking about? Robt99 needs to wake up - just go to the field photo - it is all telling. Robt99 needs to be aware that the FBI can put what they want on their site - that does not make it true. Lots of things on the FBI site before that was not true - the guys who put the sites together are just computer guys - they aren't actual FBI. Remember I confronted the FBI on one piece of fiction they had on their site and it was REMOVED. Jo, the above post is just more of your nonsense. I have never made any claims about being in the Seattle FBI's evidence room. In fact, I don't even know where the Seattle FBI's office is located and don't have any reason to know or even care about its location. But I do have something in common with D.B. Cooper and the hijacking. In your and Blevins lingo, it's a BIG SECRET. And in typical Jo Weber/Blevins style, maybe I'll tell you what it is tomorrow or maybe I won't. Robert99

You shouldn't be talking to me. You should be challenging the Seattle FBI. And you should have read the previous post and then answered the Seattle FBI's questions about where the map came from, who prepared it, etc.. And you haven't proved the map was right.

All I said was that since there is a Cooper flight path map ONSITE at the OFFICIAL SITE FOR THE FBI....that says THIS IS WHERE THE PLANE WAS... That I believe that map is reasonably accurate unless you can prove otherwise. You talk as if I created the map myself. And to date...I haven't seen a thing from you that proves it is wrong. The FBI has been offering that map up on their site for years now. It is still there. If you think it's wrong, proof is required unless you believe you are smarter than the FBI...SAGE radar...ATC...a couple of chase jets out of McChord AFB...the flight crew on board 305...and Paul Soderlind and his team at NWA. You also assume that since the flight was on the ground in Seattle for a few hours, and half the LEO on the West Coast had time to prepare for the takeoff they knew was coming eventually...that they all had their heads up their behinds and had no idea where the plane was after it took off again. Sorry, but I'm not buying into this idea without proof. Your entire scenario on this has been a weak attempt to place 305 several miles WEST of the Interstate 5 freeway in order to explain the Tina Bar money. (Cooper jumped there and pancaked into the river) But the map presented by the FBI shows that the flight was actually moving a bit SE when it passed by Tina Bar and was miles from the interstate. It's a good theory you have there. Proving it is something else. If you have a problem with the map, you should challenge the Seattle FBI on it, not blame me or Jo Weber for it. (portion of map attached below) Blevins, you can't seem to understand that the FBI apparently doesn't know where that particular map came from either. Ralph H. reportedly has stated that he had never seen it until recently. The FBI simply having possession of that map does not make it factually correct. You should take a look at the information on Cooper in the FBI "Vault" (on their web page) and see if you consider all of it to be factual. Robert99

Maybe Jo should just start reading the thread. It would save the rest of us a lot of time.

Jo, you are your usual delusional self tonight. I had never heard of you or Duane Weber before I joined this thread. And if I had known anything about your silly claims regarding Duane Weber, I probably would NOT have joined the thread. You apparently don't seem to remember that I have ALWAYS told you from the very BEGINNING that THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT DUANE WEBER COULD HAVE BEEN D.B. COOPER. Do you actually understand what I have just said? If you can't comprehend this, do as I have suggested several times before and get yourself a good shrink. On your Howard Hughes remark, I think you have me confused with another poster here who used to work for one of Hughes' companies. Robert99

[Jo's post has been edited to eliminate claims about her health that have no bearing on the Cooper matter.] Jo writes: Georger (JW) I have addressed that already. As for you - it is your supposed relationship with Georger that I question... R99 replies: Jo, uh, are you accusing Georger and myself of some kind of impropriety? Jo writes: I have not seen your history - why don't you state it in the thread. R99 replies: It is comforting to know that you gathered all the information necessary before you started making accusations. Jo writes: What I know about you is your attitude toward me & that you seem to be buddy buddy with JW and you both obviously have a history. You supposedly are a pilot yet you dispute the REAL accounting of the flight path. R99 replies: So you are now making a claim of guilt by association? I'll bet that Georger and my personal histories, individually or collectively, pale in comparison to your own colorful personal history. I definitely dispute the "REAL accounting of the flight path" that you and Blevins have put forth. You apparently assume that I have an attitude problem toward you when I tell you that you don't know what you are talking about. Jo writes: You know more than you have revealed. R99 replies: True. Jo writes: OR are you being led down that path by Georger or someone else. R99 replies: What path? Jo writes: What are your connections past and present to Delta and British Columbia? R99 replies: If you are referring to Delta Airlines, I flew on it quite a few times when I lived east of the Mississippi River a long, long time ago. I have never been in British Columbia (Canada) but did live about 100 miles from its border for a couple of years an even longer time ago. Jo writes: I repeat - what is your relationship with British Columbia - Past and Present? Also with Delta. R99 replies: See the answers just above. Robert99

Jo, you have got me shaking in my boots and I imagine Georger is in the same position. But for heaven's sake, make your silly claims (if you even have any - and you probably don't) by midnight EST. I'm not going to stay up any later than that tonight looking for them. Your previous track record in making BIG REVELATIONS is sorry indeed. And don't come back claiming that you really meant that you were going to make those claims in January of next year (or maybe 2016, 2017, etc. .....). Also, I'll pass the word to Georger to insure that he knows of your pending claims that later tonight he and I will be in deep doo-doo. Robert99

Jo, Let's be completely frank here. Even if what you say above is correct, you don't know me well enough to make any accurate or valid judgment whatsoever about me. I do want the truth to come out, but the truth will probably NOT be your version of it. And that is what you are complaining about. I am NOT going to spend any time trying to figure out your riddles. Robert99

I have been reasonably patient with you, but now you are just making stuff up. I contacted the bank officer by telephone after Margie moved. He told me she had asked not to have her present location revealed. I did NOT press him on the matter. He volunteered to me that Margie had moved to a condo and he asked me what my connection was to her. I told him about the Geestman/Christiansen/DB Cooper stuff, the interviews, the History Channel show, and the book. He asked to see a copy of the book, so I emailed him the PDF. I haven't made the slightest effort to find or contact her since that time. I could do this easily by dropping forty bucks at US Search, just like you or anyone else, but I didn't bother, not even for the upcoming report on Christiansen. I did run a Google search on her once just out of curiosity, but it came up that she was still at the ranch so I left it at that. Before you start saying that Margie did all this because of me, let me set you straight. My interview relationship with Margie was both courteous and mutual. We did seven interviews together. On the final one in August 2010, I told her I wouldn't be visiting her any more. And I never contacted her again. She sold the place in mid-2012. Since Twisp, WA is a very small town (Pop. 900) and they have cable tv and read books, my personal belief is that Margie sold her ranch and bailed town to avoid certain questions or possible contact by the FBI. So I imagine after the book and History Channel show emerged she was getting questions at the grocery store checkout line. Most of the locals knew she had been married to Bernie Geestman for years. A couple of the interviews were done in her living room. The rest were done while we walked around her ranch feeding the horse, checking the other animals. Sometimes I would give snacks to her dog. Pretty non-stalking, harmless stuff. And as I said previously, the last six interviews were arranged in advance by personal letter. This means I would send her an interview request for a certain date (a Saturday or Sunday, since I work during the week) and include a self-addressed stamped envelope for her reply. She would mail me back a confirmation, I would then make the long drive. As I said, she lives a five-hour drive from my office each way and you have to cross both Snoqualmie and Blewett Passes to get there. And back... I don't know where she is today and I don't care. If the Seattle FBI decides to look her up based upon her testimony in the report on Christiansen, I'm sure they can find her. Problem here is you keep putting your foot into your mouth without going to the source first. Just makes you look uninformed, Robert. I'm going to attach a couple of 'non-stalking' type photos for you from the interviews. On a couple of them she offered them up for our files. One I took myself. It's the 'Third Interview' picture, the one taken with her posing near her hat collection. She actually suggested this pose. Look like to you I was 'stalking' or 'abusing' her? I think not. Unlike how Bruce Smith works in interviews, I find you get better results by treating people with courtesy and respect, rather than browbeating them or thinking they owe you something. This approach is what enabled me to get interviews with Bernie Geestman's own family this summer, something you would think impossible to do since they had seen me on History Channel already. But if you use manners, you can get interviews with even possibly hostile witnesses. As it turned out, they were pretty cooperative. EDIT: You also say in part: ***'On the matter of the meaning of the word "hearsay", my desk dictionary gives two meanings and I will fully give both of them: 1. Hearsay: Information which cannot be adequately substantiated; rumour. 2. Hearsay: The report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law. I will defer to 377 on this, but I personally don't think anyone is going to court on hearsay evidence alone in the Cooper matter...' You are absolutely correct on this. But I am not submitting the report as 'evidence'. It's a report and nothing more. It would be up to the FBI to contact the witnesses listed in the report and verify their testimony, or decide on the merits of any information contained within it. The report alone is worthless in a court of law, as far as my notes on their testimony. It is merely informational, a tool provided to the Seattle FBI. I guess you could say some of the pictures and docs could be considered legit evidence to a degree, and maybe Lyle's DNA profile especially, but that's all that could be remotely considered evidence. And even then, it would be up to the Seattle FBI to decide on its merits, how to proceed with it, or even if they should proceed with it. Chances are pretty small they will actually investigate the merits of the report anyway, so I wouldn't worry. I just figured it was a good way to close out my interest in the Kenny investigation. After five years, it is my last word on the matter, at least with law enforcement and the media. Blevins, Other than putting your own spin on my earlier post, you have basically verified that post. As far as your claim about Margie leaving town to "avoid certain questions or possible contact with the FBI", I think that is laughable. The "I" in FBI does stand for "Investigation" you know. And I think their track record for doing investigations is quite a bit better than yours. If the FBI wanted to contact Margie, they probably could do so in less time that it has taken you to read this paragraph. Based on my personal experiences, I wouldn't rate driving over Snoqualmie Pass, even during a snow storm (and I have), as being a life changing event. After all, it is barely 3000 feet above sea level. If you want to drive over some big time mountain passes, just check the Rocky Mountains among others. I have driven over passes that were more than 11,000 feet above sea level with no problems. Robert99

Jo, What and where is this INDEX site that you are talking about? Robert99

All interviews with Margie Geestman, with the exception of the first one, (cold call, since she had no phone) were arranged in advance by mail. You are misinformed. No one 'stalked' her. Are you kidding? She lives two hundred and fifty miles each way from my frickin' office. And you have to cross two mountain passes each way to get there. All interviews were done by permission. Since she didn't have a phone, it would be dumb to try driving that far without an appointment. The new report will be released in January to the Seattle FBI, whether anyone 'approves' or not, or likes it or not. If the Seattle FBI have additional questions or a problem with it, my address and phone are included in it. Some of the stuff you guys are bringing up is years old, when we first started investigating Kenny. A lot of things were not yet straight at that time. We discovered quite a bit about Kenny, his friends, his financials, along the way. Robert99: Hearsay evidence is when someone quotes what they heard from someone else. The testimony of the witnesses was direct testimony on things THEY personally knew about, and was mostly recorded either on video or voice recorder. And since the contact information on these people is included for the FBI in the report, it goes beyond the realm of hearsay. I wouldn't worry. The FBI will probably ignore everything anyway. Blevins, On the Margie matter, I believe you posted at length about how she sold her property to the State of Washington for several hundred thousand dollars and then moved while telling her lawyer and banker not to give her new address to anyone. And you then spent some time talking to her banker and trying to get him to reveal her new address. When he wouldn't, you complained that you would have to wait for her utility bills to start appearing on various sites before you could find Margie's new address. Personally, I would consider this to be stalking. On the matter of the meaning of the word "hearsay", my desk dictionary gives two meanings and I will fully give both of them: 1. Hearsay: Information which cannot be adequately substantiated; rumour. 2. Hearsay: The report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law. I will defer to 377 on this, but I personally don't think anyone is going to court on hearsay evidence alone in the Cooper matter. Robert99

Jo, did you say something somewhere in there about stopping personal attacks? Also, you should read your posts nos. 55962, 55964, and 55965. In any event, your last three paragraphs are undecipherable to me. Robert99

BLEVINS WRITES: Several things you say above are either untrue, or don't match the facts. R99 REPLIES: Where is your evidence? BLEVINS WRITES: 1) I am not Jo Weber and my goals in this case are both different than hers, and very well defined. R99 REPLIES: Despite your claims elsewhere that you have turned down tons of money, you are here to peddle books, screen plays, and anything else that will generate a buck. BLEVINS WRITES: 2) Your opinion on this matter is slanted, since you are currently one of the biggest posters and general contributors to another site on the Cooper case. R99 REPLIES: You are using faulty logic again. But to apply your logic to your own case, as a "leading Cooper researcher" (your description of yourself) you probably have made more posts on Cooper and KC, both on this thread and elsewhere, than anyone else on the Internet. Using your logic, that means you are slanted in your opinions. BLEVINS WRITES: 3) You cannot say for certain that either Duane Weber or Kenny Christiansen were not DB Cooper. That is a blanket statement that could apply to ANY current suspect, since certain key evidence is lacking on any and all current suspects. That statement is merely your opinion. Even the Seattle FBI has said that Christiansen has not been eliminated as a suspect, and in fact, Special Agent Fred Gutt in Seattle has said some agents believe he is a good suspect, while other agents believe there are better suspects. You are putting yourself up here as more informed than the entity responsible for the case. R99 REPLIES: Where is your proof that KC and Duane Weber were ever "suspects" in the first place? For reasons that you are not aware of and that won't be explained further here, the simple fact that KC and Duane Weber were still breathing at 8:30PM PST on November 24, 1971, effectively eliminates them from being possible Cooper candidates. It is unlikely that the FBI will formally eliminate any possible Cooper "suspects" until the final Cooper shoe hits the floor. BLEVINS WRITES: 4) Neither Jo Weber or myself have 'delayed' the solving of the Cooper case. If you had solved it yourself, or others had solved it, you could have posted your results anytime you wished. R99 REPLIES: More faulty logic. You start with a denial and then seem to indirectly imply that you and/or Jo have solved the Cooper case. You haven't. BLEVINS WRITES: 5) When you speak of 'the things you get away with here,' i.e. improper postings or whatever, some of the people you interact with NOW at the alternate site (of which you are a heavy supporter) were previously BANNED by Dropzone for personal attacks. This is the pot calling the kettle black. R99 REPLIES: Blevins, your have probably been banned from this DZ thread more times, and for longer periods of time, than anyone on the "alternate site". And some of your attacks here were beyond inappropriate. BLEVINS WRITES: 6) You refer to my having 'other agendas' here besides the discovery of the evidence regarding Kenny Christiansen. And although everyone goes off-topic here occasionally, the majority of my posts regard our work at Adventure Books trying to discover the truth on Christiansen. I have also posted extensively on subjects such as the Amboy Chute find, the Tina Bar money, actions by the hijacker on board the plane, and the murder of Earl Cossey, among others. R99 REPLIES: This has already been discussed above and elsewhere. BLEVINS WRITES: 7) Point number six above is easily proven by the extensive amount of travel, interviews, (three of them very recent) articles I have posted to my Newsvine column, and the generally open presentation of what we are doing to accomplish a goal of determining whether Christiansen was the hijacker. The only thing I have held back is certain personal contact information on witnesses we are working with, and that is because some Cooper folk have demonstrated they cannot be trusted with such information. These people brought this on themselves by visiting other articles on Christiansen or the Cooper case and making the most filthy comments imaginable about Adventure Books, myself, even Gayla Prociv, the head of AB. In addition, since Shutter decided to make the flow of information non-private (disallowing private communications) and shut down all imput from AB to his site, we feel justified in taking precautions. This is Shutter's perfect right, but we have rights too. R99 REPLIES: You have posted personal information of several people on this thread and have been called out for it by the Moderators. Your treatment of Margie is just plain stalking according to the Washington State laws that others posted here for your benefit. The rest of your comments have been discussed at length elsewhere on this thread. BLEVINS WRITES: 8) You point to others as 'a problem,' and make many posts to the alternate site. But then most of your posts HERE for the last few months concern having the thread closed or responding to poor comments by Jo Weber. And not coincidentally, you have done this since you became one of the most active posters at the alternate site. But the fact remains you visit here a lot and then transfer your views here into posts at the alternate site. That includes comments on our current investigation into Christiansen. If you really believed what you say about Christiansen, (not a chance he was Cooper) you would not speak of him at the alternate site at all, or discuss our current investigation into him. Also, if you have a problem with Jo Weber, you should be going to the moderators about it. R99 REPLIES: In all honesty, I doubt if you are doing any serious investigation of KC. You certainly haven't done so in the past. As for me posting at both sites, you have been attacking Shutter for months in an effort to be permitted to post on his site. BLEVINS WRITES: 9) You claim I have 'non-Cooper goals,' but don't specify what you believe those goals ARE. Making money? Selling books? A film offer? The evidence is clear on that. I have turned down money from two TV producers, and a modest five-figure offer for the film rights to Kenny's story. On that last one, the reason I did was because the interested production company wanted to be allowed to take extensive liberties with the truth on Kenny, and sort of 'mold' him into the hijacker. So we said no to that offer. These things demonstrate not a propensity to shove square pegs into round holes to make money - but to determine the truth. We even stopped work completely on our own screenplay on Christiansen's life because we can't write the ending, and if that ending was that Christiansen was NOT the hijacker, then there is no sense in completing it at all. In addition, I have a standing offer to anyone who wants to see the book but doesn't want to pay. I have said many times here that all they have to do is contact me via email and I will gladly send them the PDF of the book for nothing. In fact, I offer it up for free (or close to it) at Amazon four times a year under the KOLL program there. R99 REPLIES: This has already been discussed here and elsewhere. BLEVINS WRITES: 10) Out of ALL the people currently involved in trying to solve the case, I alone am the only person still investing extensive time, travel, and money, out in the real world trying to prove my case. Most, (but not all) of the other work being done these days is being done solely by computer and internet forums. R99 REPLIES: You don't have the slightest idea of what other people are doing in the Cooper matter. BLEVINS WRITES: 11) You have also demonstrated a propensity, as have some others you interact with at the other site, to dismiss evidence not based on its merits, but how you personally feel about the person delivering the evidence. Alternate site user Georger was famous for that, and you engage in the same thing to a lesser degree. R99 REPLIES: We seem to have a different opinion of what constitutes "evidence". Hearsay is not evidence. BLEVINS WRITES: 12) I have seen a great many negative posts both here, but mainly at the alternate site, about the current evidence package on Christiansen that we are preparing for a January release to the Seattle FBI. This is a complete mystery to me, i.e. I can't figure out why some of you seem so against this whole idea. It's almost as if you believe we can magically convince the FBI that Christiansen was the hijacker. In reality, the exact opposite is true because the chances are far greater that they will determine the DNA eliminates Christiansen and the other evidence presented will turn out to be a string of coincidences. So, in my mind you should be GLAD we are doing this. Your attitude is almost as if you and some of your friends at the alternate site are afraid we could be right and all the work you and others did was for nothing. This is real mystery to the staff and myself at Adventure Books since we believe the chances are extremely high that by presenting everything we have to the FBI that Christiansen will be eliminated. So you should WANT us to do that. Parrothead Vol says in part: ***'Just like the house purchased with cash was a lie. As I said there is a liar somewhere in this Kenny Christiansen story and you don't seem to eager to reveal who that is. Someone started these lies...who?' First time I saw that reference was from the 2007 Geoff Gray article, which had been out for nearly a year before I was ever contacted by Skipp Porteous: Gray mentions nothing about the mortgage and promissory note with the Grimes couple that was discovered later, but he hints strongly that KC couldn't afford to purchase a house due to his income. In fact, I think most reasonable people would assume that if Gray says 'he PAID for' it means exactly that. That the property was PAID FOR. I think Porteous and others (at first) assumed the house was bought for cash. I'm not sure where I first heard the story of the FBI visiting Lyle and taking swabs, but early on in the KC investigation I sometimes went with certain items that turned out to be just another Cooper urban legend. However...when this happens I have usually made good faith efforts to find out the truth. This is why I finally called Lyle on the phone about this and announced the results publicly. (FBI did NOT come to his house) We now have Lyle's DNA samples today, though. On a side note, although I like Skipp Porteous, he made some mistakes along the way, and since he was the main investigator here until much later (when I took over for good) he has made mistakes. One of them was cutting Geoff Gray from the loop on anything I was discovering on Christiansen. It would have been better had they been exchanging information. For example, my interviews with the witnesses (none of them discovered by Gray for his article or his book, or even mentioned in either) would have been better with Gray doing the interviews. I have chided Porteous' actions occasionally on these things, and although he got the ball rolling a bit on KC, I have taken it much further since that time. But I do remember when Gray's book was released. I got my copy on the first day of release and read it immediately from cover to cover. It didn't take me long to realize that Porteous hadn't kept Geoff Gray informed on a single damn thing...and that was a big mistake, in my opinion. I have wondered many times how those interviews would have gone if Gray and I had done them together with Gray asking the majority of the questions. He is a pro reporter. I am not. If Porteous has made bad decisions during the investigation into KC, his keeping Gray out of the loop while Gray was researching his book was the biggest one of all. R99 REPLIES: Based on your own previous comments, you are not releasing any information about your present Cooper information package, so how would anyone here or at the other site know what was in it? My replies to Blevins comments are included in the above. Robert99

I disagree. Let it survive. It is pretty useless right now but it might get better someday. Meanwhile just ignore folks who annoy you. Its easy to do. If Snow were allowed to return and we got Orange, Sluggo, Farflung and others like them back in the forum it could bloom again. 377 Agreed. But the Cooper candidate pushers are using it currently just to spread dis-information. And that is a drag on the whole Cooper investigation. Robert99

Robert99 - what do you find so threatening about that statement? You do CONTINUELY attack me every chance you get - you can't say one nice thing. When you mention me it is NOTHING, but negative. I will not allow you to continuely attack me and that is not the attacking posts made by you referrencing me that I speak of and YOU know it. There are multiple posts where you have made insulting remarks. Right now I have to go to bed and I am very tired & I have just taken my medication. AT least treat me with respect & I will treat you accordingly. I had finally just had enough of your cocky remarks trying to shut this thread down. Don't deny it just go back a few days. Just leave me out of your posting & I will leave you out of mine unless you start sounding like you have tilted the bottle a little too much. Jo, In the last day or two, you have made remarks threatening Georger and myself as well as running down a number of other people who don't buy whatever product you are trying to sell. In my humble opinion, you and Blevins have successfully delayed any resolution of the Cooper hijacking matter by a number of years. In reality, Duane Weber and KC were not connected to or involved in any way with the Cooper hijacking. You and Blevins need this thread to advance your own non-Cooper goals. You both know that any other web site would not permit either of you to do the things that you get away with here. The skydivers are right. This Cooper thread does not have anything to do with skydiving and does not serve any useful purpose in the real Cooper hijacking investigation. Again, this Cooper thread should be shut down and locked in perpetuity. Robert99

You need to read back to recent postings made by Robert99 on this thread - he goes on about it constantly & then others jump in. Robt99 only comes to this thread to antagonize & he never make a contribution - he comes here with nothing but malice...and keep stating this thread NEEDS to be closed. I try to be nice - but it is getting difficult - he had a whole gang chiming in with a recent post about closing the DZ site. That should not be allowed. If he comes here he should not be continuely aggravating & creating a hostile enviroment on this thread. He doesn't post like that on your thread. I enjoy the explorations they make there - it is the behavior of those with DUAL priviledges that get their nose out of place their finger in the wrong place. Robt99 is the worst along with Bruce. Why can't they be NICE in this thread like they are in the other thread. I understood the attacks made on Blevins and I agree - but there has been NO reason for him to continuely attack me & suggest this thread be closed. When he comes to this thread he is antagonistic about everything and everyone....especially me and I have stayed pretty neutral lately - orders given to me by others. Jo, If you are so neutral, how do you explain your post #55962 above in which you threaten Georger and myself. Admittedly, I do have a low tolerance for BS (and I don't mean Bruce Smith). Robert99

Jo, You are just plain NUTS! Get yourself a REALLY GOOD shrink and start working on those problems between your ears. I am shaking in my boots about your threats to expose Georger and myself. And don't worry about us trying to silence you. Your mouth will still be running 10 years after your death. Your post is just more of the baloney for which you are deservedly famous. Robert99