I've presented everything I have on KC both here and in the book. Maybe he was Cooper, maybe he wasn't.
He certainly had motive, opportunity, and he was familiar with a parachute. I've always wondered why the hijacker selected the NB6 container instead of the newer sport chute. I've always had a problem with that.
And maybe you actually believe the Bureau when they try to tell you they think Cooper had no military experience. If so, why would he select the older, smaller, military chute?
You all want the smoking gun, the definitive evidence that nails KC to the cross and points to him as the hijacker. I can't give you that. This case is forty years old, but I will tell you this much: Where there's smoke, there's fire. And nearly every single thing I have discovered about KC points to him as being the guy who hijacked Flight 305. This includes the witness interviews.
I can't do everything here, you know. It's up to the Bureau to run with what we've given them and either eliminate Kenny as a suspect once and for all, or do their own digging and find out for themselves. We've given them the basics, and yet there is nothing from them saying YES or NO on Kenny one way or the other.
Maybe they should pay Bernie Geestman a visit and crack through his lies and get him to own up once and for all. He denied being involved on Decoded, but admitted he thought Kenny was the hijacker. Ask yourself why he would say that on national television? Think about it.
Pete Berg (one of the producers) said that interview with Geestman ran for hours, even though only two minutes or so actually aired. He refused to answer where he was, why he lied about Foss Tugs, and a number of other things. This guy and his ex know everything. You can believe or not as you wish. His own sister ID'd the tie tac as Kenny's right away, even before she knew why I was at her house. When I told her later why I was really there, she freely admitted the loan and said she thought KC was the hijacker from the beginning. Ask yourself why she would say that to a total stranger. One thing I'm good at is cutting through the crap, and breaking people's lies, and I shredded his to bits within days of hearing them.
I don't know if Kenny Christiansen was the guy for sure. But at this point I do consider him the most likely suspect. As far as Duane Weber, the FBI has already written him off, and for good reason. He can't be definitively placed in Washington on the weekend of the crime, he has no provable jump experience, he had no known grudge against the airline, and a number of other things.
On the other hand, we can prove many of these things about Kenny.
For a more recent witness, a person who may also know the truth, look to Kenneth McWilliams, the guy mentioned in the NYM article by Grey. Ever since he discovered that Porteous wanted to talk to him, he has been moving all over Washington State. (He was left the adjoining lot of KC's house, which he sold quickly after KC's death. The house itself went to Carolyn (Tyner) and her then-husband, Robin Powell)
I don't sit and spout junk. I give names, facts as they are known. This is what makes me different from others here, who give vague, ambigious statements that can't be proven, or who promise important revelations later that never come. Basically, I'm a pretty down to earth guy who likes to cut through the baloney, and separate the wheat from the chaff. Anything else is a waste of time.
Brown eyes? Hazel eyes? Baloney. Eyewitness reports can be notoriously unreliable. I wouldn't base my whole case on a friggin' sketch by some artist and descriptions mostly obtained from frightened people. Hard evidence is required, and I think both Skipp and I have provided as much as is possible without one of the liars coming forward at last.
The heck with this. I want a 'hands up' from everyone who is posting here who HAS NOT seen the book. And step up to the plate and tell the friggin' truth. I may make the entire PDF available on this site once and for all.
Mr. Blevins, I would suggest that you re-read the above post objectively. You state that "eyewitness reports can be notoriously unreliable". You also claim that a couple of your eyewitnesses know everything about the KC matter. Basically, all you are doing is claiming that "THEIR eyewitnesses are unreliable while YOUR eyewitnesses are reliable, except of course, YOUR eyewitnesses that disagree with your theory".
Show me some logic in your post. Otherwise, it is just BS.
You can post now and register later.
If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.
Mr. Blevins, I would suggest that you re-read the above post objectively. You state that "eyewitness reports can be notoriously unreliable". You also claim that a couple of your eyewitnesses know everything about the KC matter. Basically, all you are doing is claiming that "THEIR eyewitnesses are unreliable while YOUR eyewitnesses are reliable, except of course, YOUR eyewitnesses that disagree with your theory".
Show me some logic in your post. Otherwise, it is just BS.
Robert Nicholson
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites