377 22
Jo wrote
Perhaps fire fighters or paramedics?
Priests and investment bankers were removed from the list years ago.
Lawyers never were on the list.
I tell my son that he can trust skydivers. I wouldn't say the same thing to my 19 year old daughter.
377
QuoteIf we cannot trust law enforcement who can we trust?
Perhaps fire fighters or paramedics?
Priests and investment bankers were removed from the list years ago.
Lawyers never were on the list.
I tell my son that he can trust skydivers. I wouldn't say the same thing to my 19 year old daughter.
377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.
Farflung 0
The ever reliable and honest Skyjack71 asks:
“If we cannot trust law enforcement who can we trust?”
As you have pointed out dozens of times, the FBI is incompetent and constantly engaged in cover-ups. So it’s a strange question about law enforcement, considering the source of the question.
Who’s the most trust worthy and heroic in the twenty first century? This guy:
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-10-03/story/former-penn-state-coach-seeks-millions-damages-lawsuit-against
Yep, this is our new Sgt York, Audie Murphy and Superman all rolled into one. He’s the result of what society has to offer as an example of the finest character, role model and courageous of individual, a nation of 360 million can produce. Gaze deep into the mirror which reflects what America has become.
For this ‘man’ was witness to a middle aged male, sodomizing a pre-teen, orphan in a college shower and sprung into action like any of us would, by going to his office, finishing his work day, then going home to call his father for advice on what to do. Can that much gallantry possibly exist in one person? There must be thousands of explanations for an adult male, savagely raping a child who has no parents. Perhaps he was simply trying to demonstrate what ‘could’ happen if the boy was ever in a bad situation.
Thanks to Mike McQueary, a lightning fast, ten years later, had this crime reported. His father must be a superb example of humanity to suggest his son report this to the college, and let ‘them’ deal with it. Who says the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree? Poppycock.
Imagine the will it must have taken to keep cashing paychecks from that same college for a decade, after seeing what the boss does to little kids. Hero simply isn’t strong enough of a word to describe our new age Super-human. Who on this thread would dare suggest they could even carry McQueary’s ethical gym bag? I thought so.
In answer to the original question of “who can you trust”, I say Mike McQueary, or should it be ‘Sergeant Audie McQueary Superman’? Yes.
“If we cannot trust law enforcement who can we trust?”
As you have pointed out dozens of times, the FBI is incompetent and constantly engaged in cover-ups. So it’s a strange question about law enforcement, considering the source of the question.
Who’s the most trust worthy and heroic in the twenty first century? This guy:
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-10-03/story/former-penn-state-coach-seeks-millions-damages-lawsuit-against
Yep, this is our new Sgt York, Audie Murphy and Superman all rolled into one. He’s the result of what society has to offer as an example of the finest character, role model and courageous of individual, a nation of 360 million can produce. Gaze deep into the mirror which reflects what America has become.
For this ‘man’ was witness to a middle aged male, sodomizing a pre-teen, orphan in a college shower and sprung into action like any of us would, by going to his office, finishing his work day, then going home to call his father for advice on what to do. Can that much gallantry possibly exist in one person? There must be thousands of explanations for an adult male, savagely raping a child who has no parents. Perhaps he was simply trying to demonstrate what ‘could’ happen if the boy was ever in a bad situation.
Thanks to Mike McQueary, a lightning fast, ten years later, had this crime reported. His father must be a superb example of humanity to suggest his son report this to the college, and let ‘them’ deal with it. Who says the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree? Poppycock.
Imagine the will it must have taken to keep cashing paychecks from that same college for a decade, after seeing what the boss does to little kids. Hero simply isn’t strong enough of a word to describe our new age Super-human. Who on this thread would dare suggest they could even carry McQueary’s ethical gym bag? I thought so.
In answer to the original question of “who can you trust”, I say Mike McQueary, or should it be ‘Sergeant Audie McQueary Superman’? Yes.
This photo is of very poor quality.
It was of 3 men so they have been cropped out. Because of the Quality I had NOT tried to scan it in the past. After I did and enlarged it - I wish I had done it much sooner.
The hairline is very evident on this - why some would call it a receding hairline when it was actually the slant of the head.
Ever feature regarding Cooper is right there.
This pic shows an expression or whatever that I have only found on these earlier photos I am revealing. Duane must have had missing teeth or a poorly fitted bridge - he was not smiling with a broad smile and his mouth appears different than the later photos.
I know he had a bridge when we got married and in his later yrs it had to be replaced.
I was never told when he got that first bridge - but, this photo might help bring that to light.
The tax records from 1969 to 1978 do not make any mention of dental bills - so it must have been paid with cash and for some reason not listed on his tax deductionsl.
Perhaps he used a different name when he got the bridge.
If Cooper had obvious dental problems at the time of the skyjacking - the FBI would have kept silent so they could be sure they had their man. Only someone with access to the FBI files could know this for sure...perhaps their way of making sure they got the right man.
The motion Cooper supposedly made with his mouth could have been to keep a temporary in place or because of missing teeth. Duane had a LOT of pride about his teeth - and I never saw him without the bridge.
Duane had also gain considerable weight from 1971 to 1973 - guess he was eating well!
Although this is could have been in part the kidney starting to enlarge....although it was not noticeable when we met in 1977.
I do want feed back:
The eyes seem consistent, but the fading of this old Polaroid makes them look lighter although I can assure you they were a very dark brown.
The nose does not seem prominent and the glasses are not sitting high which helps, There is a large ink smug on the pic. What I do notice is a small scar he had right in front of his hairline in the middle doesn't show up and there is something different about the hairline from photos taken pre 1973.
Duane had a little dip - almost the "hint" of an off centered widows peak in his early photos, but this would not be visible in picture during our marriage and I was told by a prior wife when they got back together temporarily in 1972 that he had a gash on his head which he claimed he got trimming a tree n the yard.
I never understood why he and his wife would separate in November of 1971 and then get back together in Feb of 1972 and yet it was in Feb/Mar that she supposedly tried to commit suicide per a conversation with her son. Supposedly an ambulance was called...they lived in the Atlanta area.
Yet, in May/June they are granted a divorce and Duane
remarrys immediately. That is FAST work for anyone! Guess there is MORE to this than I know! ALL I know is WHAT family and the wives told me.
Duane had a completely different set of friends after Jan of 1972...but then maybe because of his past and having only lived as Duane Weber since 1968 his circle would have been limited. Why when we would go to N.Orleans he made a point to drop me someplace before going to see his old friends - who only knew him as John Collins.
HOW DAMN NAIVE CAN ONE WOMAN HAVE BEEN!
For some reason the pic is being blocked from being posted. When I try to put it on it simply says LAST#
It was of 3 men so they have been cropped out. Because of the Quality I had NOT tried to scan it in the past. After I did and enlarged it - I wish I had done it much sooner.
The hairline is very evident on this - why some would call it a receding hairline when it was actually the slant of the head.
Ever feature regarding Cooper is right there.
This pic shows an expression or whatever that I have only found on these earlier photos I am revealing. Duane must have had missing teeth or a poorly fitted bridge - he was not smiling with a broad smile and his mouth appears different than the later photos.
I know he had a bridge when we got married and in his later yrs it had to be replaced.
I was never told when he got that first bridge - but, this photo might help bring that to light.
The tax records from 1969 to 1978 do not make any mention of dental bills - so it must have been paid with cash and for some reason not listed on his tax deductionsl.
Perhaps he used a different name when he got the bridge.
If Cooper had obvious dental problems at the time of the skyjacking - the FBI would have kept silent so they could be sure they had their man. Only someone with access to the FBI files could know this for sure...perhaps their way of making sure they got the right man.
The motion Cooper supposedly made with his mouth could have been to keep a temporary in place or because of missing teeth. Duane had a LOT of pride about his teeth - and I never saw him without the bridge.
Duane had also gain considerable weight from 1971 to 1973 - guess he was eating well!
Although this is could have been in part the kidney starting to enlarge....although it was not noticeable when we met in 1977.
I do want feed back:
The eyes seem consistent, but the fading of this old Polaroid makes them look lighter although I can assure you they were a very dark brown.
The nose does not seem prominent and the glasses are not sitting high which helps, There is a large ink smug on the pic. What I do notice is a small scar he had right in front of his hairline in the middle doesn't show up and there is something different about the hairline from photos taken pre 1973.
Duane had a little dip - almost the "hint" of an off centered widows peak in his early photos, but this would not be visible in picture during our marriage and I was told by a prior wife when they got back together temporarily in 1972 that he had a gash on his head which he claimed he got trimming a tree n the yard.
I never understood why he and his wife would separate in November of 1971 and then get back together in Feb of 1972 and yet it was in Feb/Mar that she supposedly tried to commit suicide per a conversation with her son. Supposedly an ambulance was called...they lived in the Atlanta area.
Yet, in May/June they are granted a divorce and Duane
remarrys immediately. That is FAST work for anyone! Guess there is MORE to this than I know! ALL I know is WHAT family and the wives told me.
Duane had a completely different set of friends after Jan of 1972...but then maybe because of his past and having only lived as Duane Weber since 1968 his circle would have been limited. Why when we would go to N.Orleans he made a point to drop me someplace before going to see his old friends - who only knew him as John Collins.
HOW DAMN NAIVE CAN ONE WOMAN HAVE BEEN!
For some reason the pic is being blocked from being posted. When I try to put it on it simply says LAST#
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
Farflung 0
Out of skyjack71’s last five comments, Duane Weber is mentioned a repetitive - 24 times; while no mention was made of “other suspects”, which she claimed as a primary concern. Strange, so strange (read: Not).
When will the “other suspects” be discussed? Or is “other suspects” simply a euphemism for Duane Weber, which allows for faux modesty and denial of steering the thread back to the thoroughly covered Duane? Yes (read: Yes).
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” – Some wicked old, irrelevant dude
When will the “other suspects” be discussed? Or is “other suspects” simply a euphemism for Duane Weber, which allows for faux modesty and denial of steering the thread back to the thoroughly covered Duane? Yes (read: Yes).
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” – Some wicked old, irrelevant dude
georger 247
QuoteOut of skyjack71’s last five comments, Duane Weber is mentioned a repetitive - 24 times; while no mention was made of “other suspects”, which she claimed as a primary concern. Strange, so strange (read: Not).
When will the “other suspects” be discussed? Or is “other suspects” simply a euphemism for Duane Weber, which allows for faux modesty and denial of steering the thread back to the thoroughly covered Duane? Yes (read: Yes).
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” – Some wicked old, irrelevant dude
Wicked. Speed of Duane.jpg (111 KB)
Copy of that goes next to my Betty Page calendar
in the garage.
mrshutter45 21
You might be surprised to learn that hairstyling mousse only goes back to the mid 1980s. Mousse has been such a cultural presence, whether in original foam form or the now much more preferred gel that it seems to have always existed. In fact, there was an attempt at marketing hair mousse in the 1970s. It was officially called Breck Salon Hair Finishing Formula and it is quite possible that its ungainly name contributed to its rapid disappearance off store shelves and not in the good way. More likely is the fact that the let it all hang out hair styling of the 1970s just wasn't really as conducive to the properties of mousse as the conservatively coiffed milieu of Ronnie Raygun's Mourning in America. Leave it to the folks at L'Oreal to have better timing than the folks at Breck.
"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI
QuoteOut of skyjack71’s last five comments, Duane Weber is mentioned a repetitive - 24 times; while no mention was made of “other suspects”, which she claimed as a primary concern. Strange, so strange (read: Not).
When will the “other suspects” be discussed? Or is “other suspects” simply a euphemism for Duane Weber, which allows for faux modesty and denial of steering the thread back to the thoroughly covered Duane? Yes (read: Yes).
POO! I presented a NEW PHOTO and discussed that . NOT the SAME old SAME. I was presenting photo never presented before and want opinons on them IT WAS not more of the SAME OLE SAME!
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
The PM's are out of hand.
The e-mail came to me, period. No you can not see it, no you can not e-mail the person. If true, I will gladly hep them.
If true, a couple of you will be served.
If true, a third party who has been watching you all in this thread will "win".
It is just a mater of truth. If you told a fable, stretched the truth, or insulted or implicated some one in in e FELONY, you made the mistake and will live with it.
If the e-mail is true.
I for one hope it is.
Matt
The e-mail came to me, period. No you can not see it, no you can not e-mail the person. If true, I will gladly hep them.
If true, a couple of you will be served.
If true, a third party who has been watching you all in this thread will "win".
It is just a mater of truth. If you told a fable, stretched the truth, or insulted or implicated some one in in e FELONY, you made the mistake and will live with it.
If the e-mail is true.
I for one hope it is.
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
georger 247
Hate to admit it, but the same goes for Christiansen. That case has been presented. Pictures, testimony, documents available. I can't prove he's the hijacker. ,
No but you can keep posting this shit 50 billion
times!
GIVE IT A BREAK!
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOV ON.
yOU ARE VERY CLOSE TO THE FILTER SET STAGE
AND BEING GONE ON MY BROWSER-
CAN I DO THAT?
YES.
AH HELL ...
ITS DONE...
BYE BLEVINS, YOU'RE GONE
Wasn't called Mousse, but, there was stuff I put on my hair in 1958 because it was curly and I wanted a looser curl - but Not the huge rollers were used 12 yrs or so later.
Egg whites have been around forever. Whipped to a foam or beaten to the consistency of a pie meringue. Did the same thing without the chemicals.
As with some of todays products it would leave a residue on your comb or brush, but sure did control the curls.
When I was only 4 yrs old in 1944, my mother got my long hair to hold into some very very long curls - we didn't know what a curling iron was. Do you not think the GIBSON Girl look had some help?
Look back at the elaborate do's of the 1700's in England...do you actually believe they all had wigs.
Note the wigs were made out of real hair in those days.
Egg whites have been around forever. Whipped to a foam or beaten to the consistency of a pie meringue. Did the same thing without the chemicals.
As with some of todays products it would leave a residue on your comb or brush, but sure did control the curls.
When I was only 4 yrs old in 1944, my mother got my long hair to hold into some very very long curls - we didn't know what a curling iron was. Do you not think the GIBSON Girl look had some help?
Look back at the elaborate do's of the 1700's in England...do you actually believe they all had wigs.
Note the wigs were made out of real hair in those days.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
Farflung 0
Skyjack71 selectively states:
“POO! I presented a NEW PHOTO and discussed that . NOT the SAME old SAME. I was presenting photo never presented before and want opinons on them IT WAS not more of the SAME OLE SAME!”
Farflung quotes self with:
“Out of skyjack71’s last five comments…..”
Was there a “NEW PHOTO” in the last five comments skyjack71 posted? NO, NO, NO, NO! So why quibble on this point? Because that’s what every person has done that has been caught red handed, 100% of the time, in my life-long experience. Deflect, deny, minimize and quibble. There was NO PHOTO associated with four of the five comments at all, so she violated her own demand by virtue of that, and selectively avoided the fact Duane was mentioned over twenty times. It WAS the “SAME old SAME” by bringing up Duane AFTER launching an admonishment how “other suspects” don’t get discussed. As if that was ever the issue hence my challenge. Skyjack71 bemoaned and complained how much time was being spent on Kenny (presumably because she is an expert on efficiency and time management (God help us all)) when “other suspects” aren’t being discussed. Well Duane has been talked about, orders of magnitude more than Kenny, so if there is any self-righteous indignation associated with suspect saturation, is most certainly would be the exclusive property of Duane.
Now it’s time to quibble, because that what these people do. She already deflected by suggesting “other suspects” out of an interest of academic purity, no doubt. Denied that she was steering the conversation back to Duane and attempted to minimize by stating that a new picture was posted.
Apparently the claim of it being acceptable to discuss Duane if a new photo is included, is somehow akin to talking about other suspects, even though it’s still the same hackneyed Duane who has had an inordinate amount of time ‘wasted’ on his background. While simultaneously chilling thread readers to the bone, at the potential nightmare of writhing agony and squandered time, where each and every photo of Duane will now be posted and analyzed to the point where the Zapruder film will appear to have been given a passing glance.
There have been quibblers throughout history, and their numbers have continually risen. I have an issue with Mr. Darwin over this phenomenon, unless some species actually devolve into a self interested group who communicate via passive aggressive speech patterns and denial. You can make all the multi-syllabic, non-diction claims you like, but ultimately the people you are trying hardest to convince of your righteous cause, already know precisely what you are. Quibblers.
“POO! I presented a NEW PHOTO and discussed that . NOT the SAME old SAME. I was presenting photo never presented before and want opinons on them IT WAS not more of the SAME OLE SAME!”
Farflung quotes self with:
“Out of skyjack71’s last five comments…..”
Was there a “NEW PHOTO” in the last five comments skyjack71 posted? NO, NO, NO, NO! So why quibble on this point? Because that’s what every person has done that has been caught red handed, 100% of the time, in my life-long experience. Deflect, deny, minimize and quibble. There was NO PHOTO associated with four of the five comments at all, so she violated her own demand by virtue of that, and selectively avoided the fact Duane was mentioned over twenty times. It WAS the “SAME old SAME” by bringing up Duane AFTER launching an admonishment how “other suspects” don’t get discussed. As if that was ever the issue hence my challenge. Skyjack71 bemoaned and complained how much time was being spent on Kenny (presumably because she is an expert on efficiency and time management (God help us all)) when “other suspects” aren’t being discussed. Well Duane has been talked about, orders of magnitude more than Kenny, so if there is any self-righteous indignation associated with suspect saturation, is most certainly would be the exclusive property of Duane.
Now it’s time to quibble, because that what these people do. She already deflected by suggesting “other suspects” out of an interest of academic purity, no doubt. Denied that she was steering the conversation back to Duane and attempted to minimize by stating that a new picture was posted.
Apparently the claim of it being acceptable to discuss Duane if a new photo is included, is somehow akin to talking about other suspects, even though it’s still the same hackneyed Duane who has had an inordinate amount of time ‘wasted’ on his background. While simultaneously chilling thread readers to the bone, at the potential nightmare of writhing agony and squandered time, where each and every photo of Duane will now be posted and analyzed to the point where the Zapruder film will appear to have been given a passing glance.
There have been quibblers throughout history, and their numbers have continually risen. I have an issue with Mr. Darwin over this phenomenon, unless some species actually devolve into a self interested group who communicate via passive aggressive speech patterns and denial. You can make all the multi-syllabic, non-diction claims you like, but ultimately the people you are trying hardest to convince of your righteous cause, already know precisely what you are. Quibblers.
.thumb.JPG.e3961c3b7e4427878bb877a252be4a17.JPG)
QuoteI don't usually double-post, but I've been giving thought again to holding a DB Cooper Whatever Thing at the Auburn Avenue Theatre next August.
Now...I know a lot of you out there in ThreadLand gave me the 3rd-degree because I canceled that idea last year for Auburn Days. But here's the deal: ALMOST NO ONE WAS INTERESTED. I put up a webpage on it for six months, and got TWO EMAILS.
That's right. So I canceled the idea. Anyone with a grain of sense would have done the same. However, with the proper support I might be willing to entertain this for the second weekend of August 2013. But I have to see some REAL interest or forget it.
The Ave seats 250, has a huge pull-down screen, and a big stage for panel discussions. AB always fronts the free refreshments at the Snack Counter. Gayla passes them out. Most people think we hired her for the day, when in reality she's The Prez. Not of everything. Just AB. (*laughs*)
One of the things I want to do is collaborate with a couple of different people on a short film that covers everything truly known about the hijacking, and all the known suspects. I mean ALL of them, the ones at WIKI, even if they've been eliminated. I have great equipment and Wondershare. It can be done. I could organize this to actually work, but not with negativity and certainly not without cooperation.
People don't want to hear that Ken Christiansen might be the hijacker, not by itself. They want to hear the entire DB Cooper story from all sides, all suspects, all angles. And that includes the Seattle FBI and their efforts to solve the case.
There are some benefits to participating. For example, core organizers will get a free box seat and lunch at Emerald Downs, a photo op, minor TV on a cable sports channel, and you can see the horses up close and maybe do some betting on the races. The main event is the Pioneer Queen race, held by Auburn Days and the track co-operatively. Anyone on the Auburn Days committee gets the royal treatment. As chairman for the Auburn Theatre event each year, I'm allowed to name a limited number of folks to attend Pioneer Queen.
Trust me, this is a fun thing. I won fourteen bucks above what I paid for parking, although you can park free if you're willing to walk. And walk.
This is something which cannot be done by just one person, or even the AB staff. It is much bigger than me, or anyone in this office. I see it more as a Northwest thing.
There will already be something next year guaranteed to pack the house. AB is working with the Auburn School District on our Young Writers' Project. Three kids will be signed to contracts/royalty agreements for the best three books subbed. Two will be published for Kindle, the first place winner for Kindle and six/nine paperback. Top three will be announced in the media before the event...but not the order of the winners. That will be done at the theatre. Exact time during that Saturday is still not set. Doing something for kids always brings a crowd. And why not? It's a nice thing.
Blevins, how many times are you going to do the it's-on-again, it's-off-again routine? Don't get pissed, throw a temper tantrum, and threaten to quit when things (like the tentative agenda) don't go your way. It's a broken record, like most of your posts. MeyerLouie
QuoteApparently the claim of it being acceptable to discuss Duane if a new photo is included, is somehow akin to talking about other suspects, even though it’s still the same hackneyed Duane who has had an inordinate amount of time ‘wasted’ on his background. While simultaneously chilling thread readers to the bone, at the potential nightmare of writhing agony and squandered time, where each and every photo of Duane will now be posted and analyzed to the point where the Zapruder film will appear to have been given a passing glance.
There have been quibblers throughout history, and their numbers have continually risen. I have an issue with Mr. Darwin over this phenomenon, unless some species actually devolve into a self interested group who communicate via passive aggressive speech patterns and denial. You can make all the multi-syllabic, non-diction claims you like, but ultimately the people you are trying hardest to convince of your righteous cause, already know precisely what you are. Quibblers.
PRESENT your SUSPECT!
The thread admitted in the majority Kenney was not Cooper. WHERE ARE your arguments that the suspect I present - WAS not Cooper?
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
Number one I have not been on the computer since you made your post.
I WILL STATE THIS - WAS YOUR SUBJECT IDENTIFIED BY THE ARTIST AS HAVING CHARACTERISTS HE TRIED TO PORTRAY IN THE COMPOSITS AND DID HE HAVE A TRAIT THAT THE WITNESSES TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO THE ARTIST?
DID YOU EVER TRY TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THIS COMPOSITE ARTIST?
1) Have pictures of Duane Weber been shown to the known witnesses? (Yes/No)
Unknown WHAT photo was shown to the witnesses - all the FBI had was a distorted photo Duane's brother sent me and I have no idea if the FBI presented the pictures I had....the FBI didn't ask me for pictures - so all they would have saw is what-ever appeared in a magazine or newspaper.
2) Did any of these witnesses identify Duane as the hijacker? (Yes/No)
Do not know? Depends on WHAT photos they were shown by the FBI. If it was the one they had on their site - well that did not look like the Weber I have pictures of.
3) Failing a positive identification, did any of the witnesses name Duane Weber as POSSIBLY being the hijacker?
IMPOSSIBLE to answer that if they were shown only the photo the FBI used.
4) Failing that, did any of the witnesses say that Duane LOOKED like the hijacker? (Yes/No)
AGAIN - what photo did the FBI present as Weber? THat one old photo they used did NOT look like the Weber I knew.
5) Was Duane Weber, on 11/24/1971 in a marital relationship? (Yes/No)
Supposedly separated in November of 1971 and claimed she did NOT go back to him until Feb of 1972.
6) Has anyone sent pictures of Duane Weber to witness Flo Schaffner for her examination? (Yes/No)
I did - but do NOT know if she even received them. I even sent a return for the collections(packaging and postage) if she chose NOT to view them. NEVER got them back and she NEVER told anyone if she SAW them.
I was never able to find out what happened to the package. They were sealed and if she did NOT want to view them all she had to do was seal the enclosed packaging and return it at no charge to her. I spent over 50 dollars to prepare the package and then postage of about 15 dollars and with the return postage of the same. NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT at all.
7) Is the woman who identified Duane Weber's handwriting in a book about DB Cooper willing to go on the record now that she recognized the handwriting as Weber's? (Yes/No)
I WILL STATE THIS - WAS YOUR SUBJECT IDENTIFIED BY THE ARTIST AS HAVING CHARACTERISTS HE TRIED TO PORTRAY IN THE COMPOSITS AND DID HE HAVE A TRAIT THAT THE WITNESSES TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO THE ARTIST?
DID YOU EVER TRY TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THIS COMPOSITE ARTIST?
1) Have pictures of Duane Weber been shown to the known witnesses? (Yes/No)
Unknown WHAT photo was shown to the witnesses - all the FBI had was a distorted photo Duane's brother sent me and I have no idea if the FBI presented the pictures I had....the FBI didn't ask me for pictures - so all they would have saw is what-ever appeared in a magazine or newspaper.
2) Did any of these witnesses identify Duane as the hijacker? (Yes/No)
Do not know? Depends on WHAT photos they were shown by the FBI. If it was the one they had on their site - well that did not look like the Weber I have pictures of.
3) Failing a positive identification, did any of the witnesses name Duane Weber as POSSIBLY being the hijacker?
IMPOSSIBLE to answer that if they were shown only the photo the FBI used.
4) Failing that, did any of the witnesses say that Duane LOOKED like the hijacker? (Yes/No)
AGAIN - what photo did the FBI present as Weber? THat one old photo they used did NOT look like the Weber I knew.
5) Was Duane Weber, on 11/24/1971 in a marital relationship? (Yes/No)
Supposedly separated in November of 1971 and claimed she did NOT go back to him until Feb of 1972.
6) Has anyone sent pictures of Duane Weber to witness Flo Schaffner for her examination? (Yes/No)
I did - but do NOT know if she even received them. I even sent a return for the collections(packaging and postage) if she chose NOT to view them. NEVER got them back and she NEVER told anyone if she SAW them.
I was never able to find out what happened to the package. They were sealed and if she did NOT want to view them all she had to do was seal the enclosed packaging and return it at no charge to her. I spent over 50 dollars to prepare the package and then postage of about 15 dollars and with the return postage of the same. NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT at all.
7) Is the woman who identified Duane Weber's handwriting in a book about DB Cooper willing to go on the record now that she recognized the handwriting as Weber's? (Yes/No)
THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED! She was wrong and I have had the writing thru this thread (remember I posted samples)and by an individual in this area - we do NOT think the handwriting was Webers.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
QuoteSkyjack 71 says:
Quote'PRESENT your SUSPECT!
The thread admitted in the majority Kenney was not Cooper. WHERE ARE your arguments that the suspect I present - WAS not Cooper?'
Insufficient evidence. And you didn't answer the simple questions I asked back there a couple of posts.
INSUFFIENT INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
DID YOU VIEW THE LAST PHOTO OF WEBER I PRESENTED TO THE THREAD? HAS THE FBI VIEWED THAT PHOTO OF WEBER? HAS THE FBI OR THE WITNESSES VIEWED THE PHOTOS OF WEBER THE FBI DID NOT ASK ME FOR A PHOTO OF WEBER (THE SUPPOSEDLY USED ONLY THE OLD FILE PHOTO THEY HAD)UNTIL 2000.
THOSE I MADE AVAILABLE ON THIS THREAD OF RECENT - HAS ANY OF THE WITNESSES SEEN THOSE PHOTO - OF COURSE NOT AND THEY WON'T IF THE FBI DOES NOT CONTACT THEM.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
Robert99 50
Quote
QuoteApparently the claim of it being acceptable to discuss Duane if a new photo is included, is somehow akin to talking about other suspects, even though it’s still the same hackneyed Duane who has had an inordinate amount of time ‘wasted’ on his background. While simultaneously chilling thread readers to the bone, at the potential nightmare of writhing agony and squandered time, where each and every photo of Duane will now be posted and analyzed to the point where the Zapruder film will appear to have been given a passing glance.
There have been quibblers throughout history, and their numbers have continually risen. I have an issue with Mr. Darwin over this phenomenon, unless some species actually devolve into a self interested group who communicate via passive aggressive speech patterns and denial. You can make all the multi-syllabic, non-diction claims you like, but ultimately the people you are trying hardest to convince of your righteous cause, already know precisely what you are. Quibblers.
PRESENT your SUSPECT!
The thread admitted in the majority Kenney was not Cooper. WHERE ARE your arguments that the suspect I present - WAS not Cooper?
Jo, You need to start reading the thread yourself. So to use mostly your own words, keep reading.
The thread has also admitted in the majority that Duane was not Cooper. So there is your argument that Duane was not Cooper straight out of your own mouth.
Robert99
georger 247
QuoteQuoteI don't usually double-post, but I've been giving thought again to holding a DB Cooper Whatever Thing at the Auburn Avenue Theatre next August.
.
Blevins, how many times are you going to do the it's-on-again, it's-off-again routine? Don't get pissed, throw a temper tantrum, and threaten to quit when things (like the tentative agenda) don't go your way. It's a broken record, like most of your posts. MeyerLouie
Says he doesn't double post. He usually quintuple
posts -
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Since I dont see his shit any more except when
people reply to his "shit" his most often posted
words on internet posts everywhere are:
stupid
hate
personal
its personal with ...
you didnt ...
lie
Guy seems very obsessed or something.
I wonder why he bothers.
georger 247
QuoteQuoteSkyjack 71 says:
Quote'PRESENT your SUSPECT!
The thread admitted in the majority Kenney was not Cooper. WHERE ARE your arguments that the suspect I present - WAS not Cooper?'
Insufficient evidence. And you didn't answer the simple questions I asked back there a couple of posts.
INSUFFIENT INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
DID YOU VIEW THE LAST PHOTO OF WEBER I PRESENTED TO THE THREAD? HAS THE FBI VIEWED THAT PHOTO OF WEBER? HAS THE FBI OR THE WITNESSES VIEWED THE PHOTOS OF WEBER THE FBI DID NOT ASK ME FOR A PHOTO OF WEBER (THE SUPPOSEDLY USED ONLY THE OLD FILE PHOTO THEY HAD)UNTIL 2000.
THOSE I MADE AVAILABLE ON THIS THREAD OF RECENT - HAS ANY OF THE WITNESSES SEEN THOSE PHOTO - OF COURSE NOT AND THEY WON'T IF THE FBI DOES NOT CONTACT THEM.
Is Frankenblev after you now?
Funny.
I guess he's run out of easy victims..
He always picks on the weak and harmless.
Must have a perversion of something.
Gray was right about that guy!
Gray knew something!
He's taking you on to save you!
(and be a hero!)
Farflung 0
Skyjack71 SHOUTS with typical self righteous indignation:
“PRESENT your SUSPECT!”
Here’s the problem with the inferred ownership of a suspect. NO ONE can own the DB Cooper story any more than one can own any piece of history. YOU can, and do own, a massive piece of fiction you have mindlessly cobbled together which no one is interested in reading about.
The FBI isn’t committing all these acts of collusion, obstruction of justice and whatever other felonies you constantly accuse them of perpetrating. You jump to that conclusion because they won’t do what YOU demand by ‘confronting’ them. Gee, the FBI ignores you because they are incompetent or corrupt instead of you simply being an unpleasant person, who they evade like any sane and rational individual would.
‘My’ suspect is contained within the long held laws of physics and observable, therefore measurable parameters. Like the probable ellipse which contains the flight track of 305, with a probability deep into the 97th percentile, instead of some Sasquatch based fantasy, crafted with nothing more than force of will. Some people would be humiliated by the suggestion of an electronic men’s girdle which receives navigation signals for example. But ignorance being bliss, shelters one from the sting of ridicule typically associated with unicorns or Elvis sightings at Burger Kings.
I can accept that Cooper lived, and I can accept Cooper was killed at the same time. Yes, if there is information which supports both, then until some compelling and verified data proves something else, the condition remains static. I save a lot of energy not having to put ‘MY’ suspect in every conceivable situation via fabrication and false witness.
What ‘MY’ suspect can’t do is engage in time travel or change geography any more than he could inseminate several of the mother’s who have children that comment on this thread. That alone, should qualify one for admittance to a state sponsored laughing academy.
I will continue to cross-check and validate any data which is presented with faux authority no matter how utterly absurd it is on the surface, and endlessly repeated. I do this since fantasy doesn’t have source material because it is always crap made up from wishful thinking and repetitive publication. Everyone should welcome having their data verified, just like Kenny was getting his height nailed down with a varied and collaborative effort, till someone had a tantrum. It’s good to try and think downstream once and a while. But you won’t.
There are plenty of people out there that are more than willing to say exactly what you want to hear. Typically for some price, be it money or dignity, you will pay. Some people were NOT saying what you wanted to hear, causing you to crow and complain how “other suspects” need to be discussed in typical passive aggressive steering. When challenged that you merely suffered from butthurt because Duane wasn’t mentioned, you pulled out the ever reliable denial card and put the spot light on your mind numbingly, repetitive mention of Duane, and enjoyed the push back that it richly deserves.
In a delightfully ironic response to my comment about your endless quibbling, you masterfully answered seven (7) binary, yes/no questions asked by RobertMBlevins with typical quibbling. Not a single YES or NO; simply exquisite in timing and the sheer state of oblivion in which it must have been crafted. Priceless.
“PRESENT your SUSPECT!”
Here’s the problem with the inferred ownership of a suspect. NO ONE can own the DB Cooper story any more than one can own any piece of history. YOU can, and do own, a massive piece of fiction you have mindlessly cobbled together which no one is interested in reading about.
The FBI isn’t committing all these acts of collusion, obstruction of justice and whatever other felonies you constantly accuse them of perpetrating. You jump to that conclusion because they won’t do what YOU demand by ‘confronting’ them. Gee, the FBI ignores you because they are incompetent or corrupt instead of you simply being an unpleasant person, who they evade like any sane and rational individual would.
‘My’ suspect is contained within the long held laws of physics and observable, therefore measurable parameters. Like the probable ellipse which contains the flight track of 305, with a probability deep into the 97th percentile, instead of some Sasquatch based fantasy, crafted with nothing more than force of will. Some people would be humiliated by the suggestion of an electronic men’s girdle which receives navigation signals for example. But ignorance being bliss, shelters one from the sting of ridicule typically associated with unicorns or Elvis sightings at Burger Kings.
I can accept that Cooper lived, and I can accept Cooper was killed at the same time. Yes, if there is information which supports both, then until some compelling and verified data proves something else, the condition remains static. I save a lot of energy not having to put ‘MY’ suspect in every conceivable situation via fabrication and false witness.
What ‘MY’ suspect can’t do is engage in time travel or change geography any more than he could inseminate several of the mother’s who have children that comment on this thread. That alone, should qualify one for admittance to a state sponsored laughing academy.
I will continue to cross-check and validate any data which is presented with faux authority no matter how utterly absurd it is on the surface, and endlessly repeated. I do this since fantasy doesn’t have source material because it is always crap made up from wishful thinking and repetitive publication. Everyone should welcome having their data verified, just like Kenny was getting his height nailed down with a varied and collaborative effort, till someone had a tantrum. It’s good to try and think downstream once and a while. But you won’t.
There are plenty of people out there that are more than willing to say exactly what you want to hear. Typically for some price, be it money or dignity, you will pay. Some people were NOT saying what you wanted to hear, causing you to crow and complain how “other suspects” need to be discussed in typical passive aggressive steering. When challenged that you merely suffered from butthurt because Duane wasn’t mentioned, you pulled out the ever reliable denial card and put the spot light on your mind numbingly, repetitive mention of Duane, and enjoyed the push back that it richly deserves.
In a delightfully ironic response to my comment about your endless quibbling, you masterfully answered seven (7) binary, yes/no questions asked by RobertMBlevins with typical quibbling. Not a single YES or NO; simply exquisite in timing and the sheer state of oblivion in which it must have been crafted. Priceless.
Farflung 0
Skyjack71 continues to steer the conversation with:
“WHERE ARE your arguments that the suspect I present - WAS not Cooper?”
By the “suspect YOU present” do you mean Duane? Because that’s so smooth how you infer Duane without actually typing Duane. Is Duane one of the ‘other suspects’ YOU wanted to discuss? No, you already denied trying to steer or manipulate the thread to talking about Duane.
Since YOU wanted to discuss ‘other suspects’ AND wasn’t using that as a foil to mean Duane, I can’t and won’t comment since we are now dedicated to discussing ‘other suspects’ as YOU demanded. Think downstream!
“WHERE ARE your arguments that the suspect I present - WAS not Cooper?”
By the “suspect YOU present” do you mean Duane? Because that’s so smooth how you infer Duane without actually typing Duane. Is Duane one of the ‘other suspects’ YOU wanted to discuss? No, you already denied trying to steer or manipulate the thread to talking about Duane.
Since YOU wanted to discuss ‘other suspects’ AND wasn’t using that as a foil to mean Duane, I can’t and won’t comment since we are now dedicated to discussing ‘other suspects’ as YOU demanded. Think downstream!
Farflung 0
RobertMBlevins writes as if his hands are guided by some cosmic force with a huge sense of humor:
“Logic dictates the following: If KC can't be proven to be the guy who did it, then perhaps it's someone else.”
I can say with one hundred percent certainty
(100%)
O-N-E H-U-N-D-R-E-D P-E-R-C-E-N-T
Logic does NOT dictate any such thing!!!! Oh, mah gawwwwwwwwd!!!!!!!
Try and follow along:
If KC can’t be proven to be the guy who did it,
THEN (insert incredulous, slap yourself pause)……
Perhaps (PERHAPS!!!! (as in just maybe)) it’s someone else.
I need a drink.
“Logic dictates the following: If KC can't be proven to be the guy who did it, then perhaps it's someone else.”
I can say with one hundred percent certainty
(100%)
O-N-E H-U-N-D-R-E-D P-E-R-C-E-N-T
Logic does NOT dictate any such thing!!!! Oh, mah gawwwwwwwwd!!!!!!!
Try and follow along:
If KC can’t be proven to be the guy who did it,
THEN (insert incredulous, slap yourself pause)……
Perhaps (PERHAPS!!!! (as in just maybe)) it’s someone else.
I need a drink.
377 22
Belvins wrote:
Did the FBI really swallow it or did Marla merely claim that the FBI really swallowed it?
Maybe Ayn Dietrich got a little carried away in speaking with a foreign journalist. That doesnt mean that the FBI really thought LDC was DBC.
Marla said:
Marla also said
In Cooper matters where the facts are scrambled, Bruce Smith usually sorts them out. Witness his masterful job investigating the ownership of the Cooper chutes.
So I'll defer to Bruce as to how much the FBI really swallowed Marla's story. What say you Bruce?
BTW here is a nice photo of Tom K and Marla: http://themountainnewswa.net/2011/12/02/db-cooper-marla-cooper-says-fbi-case-agent-convinced-her-uncle-is-skyjacker-claims-fbi-will-close-case-shortly
I wonder what Marla is up to now? She sure lit things up for a while.
377
QuoteIt remains a mystery to me how the hell they swallowed Marla's story so quickly and went public with it.
Did the FBI really swallow it or did Marla merely claim that the FBI really swallowed it?
Maybe Ayn Dietrich got a little carried away in speaking with a foreign journalist. That doesnt mean that the FBI really thought LDC was DBC.
Quote... June 2011 when PIO Ayn Dietrich told British journalist Alex Hannaford that the Bureau had its “most promising lead” in nearly forty years. Hannaford published that tidbit in the London Sunday Telegraph on Saturday, July 30, and the news exploded on the wire services.
Quote"With any lead our first step is to assess how credible it is," said Sandalo Dietrich, spokeswoman for the FBI's Seattle office, where the Cooper evidence is kept. "Having this come through another law enforcement [agency], having looked it over when we got it - it seems pretty interesting."
QuoteThe FBI, which has chased more than 1,000 leads over the years and checked out countless names, revealed earlier this week "a promising lead" had led them to a man who had died about 10 years ago. The bureau said it has been investigating the lead for more than a year while cautioning that a major break in the case wasn't imminent.
Marla said:
Quote“He (Eng) told me that he will be closing down the case after the findings are reported regardless of whether they find a match or not,” she said.
Marla also said
QuoteIn an exclusive interview with the Mountain News on December 1, Marla further declared that Mr. Eng had also told her he is “convinced” her uncle is DB Cooper.
In Cooper matters where the facts are scrambled, Bruce Smith usually sorts them out. Witness his masterful job investigating the ownership of the Cooper chutes.
So I'll defer to Bruce as to how much the FBI really swallowed Marla's story. What say you Bruce?
BTW here is a nice photo of Tom K and Marla: http://themountainnewswa.net/2011/12/02/db-cooper-marla-cooper-says-fbi-case-agent-convinced-her-uncle-is-skyjacker-claims-fbi-will-close-case-shortly
I wonder what Marla is up to now? She sure lit things up for a while.
377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.
georger 247
QuoteRobertMBlevins writes as if his hands are guided by some cosmic force with a huge sense of humor:
“Logic dictates the following: If KC can't be proven to be the guy who did it, then perhaps it's someone else.”
I can say with one hundred percent certainty
(100%)
O-N-E H-U-N-D-R-E-D P-E-R-C-E-N-T
Logic does NOT dictate any such thing!!!! Oh, mah gawwwwwwwwd!!!!!!!
Try and follow along:
If KC can’t be proven to be the guy who did it,
THEN (insert incredulous, slap yourself pause)……
Perhaps (PERHAPS!!!! (as in just maybe)) it’s someone else.
I need a drink.
Did the person actually say that!!! ???
“Logic dictates the following: If KC can't be proven to be the guy who did it, then perhaps it's someone else.”
q CDR-0.5 = very mild dementia
q CDR-1 = mild
q CDR-2 = moderate
q CDR-3 = severe
Gray said marcelled hair - he apparently got this
from some file?
If I remembers correctly it was one of the passengers who claims
Cooper's hair was not straight. The the witness's word or Gray's description - none of us will know unless we can speak with that witness. The man said the suit was russet not brown and not black. If this man remembers that much - why has the FBI or Gray not shown him pictures of Duane with the waves. Perhaps because I never provided the pictures.
Wonder if Gray still knows how to contact this witness. If so I will find all of the curly wavy pictures of Duane I can find. His younger pictures definitely showed wavy almost kinky hair - the one at age 25 (it was a guess) and then a picture with is wife right after he got out of Jefferson. She is in that photo and her sister but I can get a corner of his head without getting them in it. Is not high quality and do NOT know who was taking the picture (in fact I never thought about that until just now).
As far as I know Gray did NOT get this from the FILE, but some of the witnesses he interviewed. Mitchell was the closest to Cooper and he told me he really didn't pay much attention to Cooper - as he was studying and really did not know what was going on. He did look only because of the attention the guy was getting.
Never heard the terminolgy Marcelled other than when Gray described. There was a process to accomplish this look, but Duane had natural waves. He did NOT do anything to his hair other than try to keep the curls away, but a good rain and there they were - just as the picture of Duane depicts.
If Duane's hair was moused and set into waves in order to change his appearance - it might have held while he was on the plane.
This process was used by the Flappers for the hairdo's of the time. If he went to New Orleans before flying to WA - that hair do was popular in that area even in the 70's....because of the cajuns and blacks who waited tables and were Door man....it made them intesting and they got more tips.
Be interesting to present photos of Weber with the curly and wavy pics and would have to search all of the pictures I have. The hair-do Gray mentions brings to mind the Clark Gable day and the vaudville days - they deliberatly put product on their hair and created finger waves and when it dried it would stay till you combed out or it got wet. (mostly it was done with EGG WHITES - WHIPPED. Made a great mouse or setting jell...they would add a little fragrance to it also.
The Flappers and showgirls of the 30's /40's did this and that is where the stiff set wave fad came from.