Georger is absolutely correct when he says that Geoff Gray "can't stand" Robert Blevins.  Gray told me the same thing.  Score for Georger!!!!!
Blevins = 0.

It's amazing that Robert Blevins can bring such a strong reaction.  Did you see the post Vicki made on DZ about the symptoms of Paranoid Personality Disorder?  I just said "Wow!' when I read it.

Especially this:

"Their combative and suspicious nature may elicit a hostile response in others, which then serves to confirm their original expectations."

This was all posted earlier.   The case against Christiansen isn't just weak, it's non-existant.  No criminal background.  No witnesses claiming he's DB Cooper.  Claims of financial largess have been shown to be either great exaggerations or outright falsehoods.

I'm as guilty of it as anyone, but I have to wonder:  Why do we bother responding to Robert at all?

It's a hard question to answer. he has so much anger, jealousy, spite, etc. etc. it's hard not to respond sometimes. he sets it up that way. he flip flops on everything he says from what will be shown at the theater, to what he says about this site. originally he didn't like being told where he can go, or not go. then it was Cook, and topping it off by stating nobody can see the site, or see it in schools. oh yea, I'm sure the teacher would put DZ into the classroom? he complains about this site so much it's eating him up. he should focus on trying to get his little part time writing gig going instead of policing the internet. he can't even get that off the ground. it's sad really, but he ask's for a lot of it. he doesn't realize half the things he complains about is his M.O. It's all about the views with Robert. I've told him dozens of times the site was not designed to have thousands of views. sure I would like to see more people posting, but there is only so much Cooper to discuss. it just doesn't run 24/7 when you take the bickering away on DZ. not a lot will be said. 377 tries really hard to change the subject, but as long as they allow things to continue the way they do. nothing will change.

Now, we have been discussing Robert here, lets keep it civil. we don't need to jump down to his level of conversation. what I said above are my opinions of Robert. he put himself in the position he is in all by himself. I can't help it if he can't defend himself here. that's his fault again. he will blast it all over DZ anyway.

To Bruce Smith:

Hey you weasel, I just received word from the state of Florida and they are going to look into the "matter."  I think you know what I'm refering to.  Also, Skipp Porteous is willing to meet with you and I next month and he will "tell all" about Robert Blevins.  You have first scoop for your Mountain News.  Porteous claims he has nothing to do with his former co-author, and is very embarrassed that there ever was an association.  He says that Blevins lives in dreamland. You'll get the straight Skippy.  Oh, Hancock is coming out to Seattle and she informs me that she's still single.  If I introduce you to her, you promise to be nice?  She's still pretty hot.  See you soon, bud.

To Bruce Smith:

Hey you weasel, I just received word from the state of Florida and they are going to look into the "matter."  I think you know what I'm refering to.  Also, Skipp Porteous is willing to meet with you and I next month and he will "tell all" about Robert Blevins.  You have first scoop for your Mountain News.  Porteous claims he has nothing to do with his former co-author, and is very embarrassed that there ever was an association.  He says that Blevins lives in dreamland. You'll get the straight Skippy.  Oh, Hancock is coming out to Seattle and she informs me that she's still single.  If I introduce you to her, you promise to be nice?  She's still pretty hot.  See you soon, bud.

Alice?  Whoa - I'll promise to just about anything, Snakey...

I'd also love to meet with Skippy.

I'll arrange for it, Bruce.  Blevins is not going to visit Skipp, I already know that.  Blevins is just a windbag with no game.  It's easy to call others "liars," while not being able to produce anything of value in the case.  Blevins has produced zilch.  He borrows a few lines from others and throws up a re-printed version as if it was his own.  Old story.  If Skipp was honored to have a guy like Blevins as a co-author, you would have heard from Skipp.  But dead silence.  No one has heard from Skipp.  The two have never even met after five years, and untold re-writes and corrections to the original book.  This is a classic case of one co-author telling the other co-author to "get lost."  Same goes for Blevin's promises to interview Bill Rataczak and William Mitchell.  Nada.  Blevins can't even find Mitchell.  That tells me that Blevins isn't much of an investigator.  He couldn't find Tina Mucklow either.  Of course, the folks at the WA State History Museum didn't want Blevins anywhere near their symposium.  Clyde Lewis thinks Blevins is a dimwit.  Oregon Kickass History don't want Blevins around either.  Why all this anti-Blevins sentiment?  Because no one believes him or trusts him.  He's a fool who posts endless messages about himself.  Meglamaniac without any credentials.   It's actually sick and pathetic.  Fortunately, folks like Georger, Bruce, Shutter, Vicki, Robt99, etc., have Blevins number.  Blevins is a fraud without a party to crash.  He's spent.  He might be good for some light house cleaning, as Georger so eloquently reminds us of.  If there's trash and scrum on the floor, it's "time to call Bob."   Hope you had fun reading this resume I produced for you, Bob.

We know that everything RMB says and does is factually empty , except for its emotional prurient content. His appeal, or lack of appeal, is therefore nonfactual, except that it might jar loose facts that are not known; about an individual or situation. I guess some people call that "muckraking"?   This is why Ive always classified much of what RMB posts as "smut" and RMB has made it painfully clear he doesn't care who he hurts, what people think, or the consequences of his words. RMB is the kind of guy who could come on to a forum and call some innocuous person a "baby killer" and get away with it, and RMB has done this countless times on DZ and gotten away with it, and several on DZ even praise him for it! That indicates to me there is a huge unfilled vacuum at DZ which 2 or 3 people are filling
and just imagine, if you will, what would have happened if SA Carr and RMB had both been on DZ at the same time! There would have been chaos and explosion after explosion with the Moderator coming down on who - SA Carr! And this is precisely what happened between Weber and Carr on DZ. Carr was put down hard by the Moderator! Weber was allowed to spin out all the venom she wanted! And at length Weber even tried to get Carr fired and she sent out emails to a number of people including me announcing that "Carr has been fired!". (of course we all called Carr immediately to find out what in hell was going on).

DZ has firmly established itself as the Conspiracy Theory School of DB Cooper geo-economics! Factual content and discussion/debate died after 2008 and Carr left, and the content since 2010 has been strictly ideological and personal. And what can partly turn that around? A new viable theory can.

Sailshaw's recently announced theory is interesting and could have substance on several grounds: Sail contends that Cossey and Peterson knew each other on a far deeper personal level, than has been explored to date. That they might have been co-conspirators in the Cooper hijacking and were in positions to do this. We already know that they knew each other and had rather intense feelings for each other, for some reason. Both were conceivably in positions to be able to plan and perform a hijacking - in stark contrast to Mssrs Christiansen and Geestman who RMB contends were conspirators and did the Cooper hijacking! The contrast between Sail's hypothesis and Blevins' knee-jerk concoction is huge and substantive!

I just want to suggest this might be worth exploring if for no other reason than to begin to get out of the rut RMB and others at Dropzone have dug, for the whole Cooper community? It's a thought and Sailshaw's theory is the best theory Ive heard in a _very_long_while! There is no question that Peterson and Cossey had a relationship but the nature of that relationship is unexplored? We know the FBI looked at Peterson and apparently dismissed Peterson on 'genetic' grounds, or did they? Perhaps Sail could give us further direction in this whole matter -   

It seems to me we know people in the skydiving community who knew both Cossey and Peterson who should be able to give us direction on precisely what Cossey's and Peterson's relationship was with each other - that might be a place to start?

 

     

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It seems to me we know people in the skydiving community who knew both Cossey and Peterson who should be able to give us direction on precisely what Cossey's and Peterson's relationship was with each other - that might be a place to start?   

That's interesting....But my question would be -- even if Cossey were in cahoots with Peterson, how would he know that he would be the one called to provide the parachutes?  Maybe that doesn't matter.  But, if it doesn't what part could Cossey have played in the hijacking.  I'd be curious to hear where you're going with this line of thought.

Sailshaw should answer this -

Go back and read Sail's post about this ... its a few posts back.

Presumably Cossey winds up providing/packing the chutes used and serving as a consultant to the FBI by mere
accident! Remember, the chutes were originally supposed to come from McChord, but that fell through. Cossey winds up playing a dual role by accident and is never suspected.  Cossey threw the dice and won, in effect! But somebody is going to have to establish a strong known relationship btwn Cossey and Peterson.

Georger:   You say: "I just want to suggest this might be worth exploring if for no other reason than to begin to get out of the rut RMB and others at Dropzone have dug, for the whole Cooper community? It's a thought and Sailshaw's theory is the best theory Ive heard in a _very_long_while! There is no question that Peterson and Cossey had a relationship but the nature of that relationship is unexplored? We know the FBI looked at Peterson and apparently dismissed Peterson on 'genetic' grounds, or did they? Perhaps Sail could give us further direction in this whole matter "

I say:   Cossey was very quick to disclaim that he knew Peterson when I was talking with Cossey about having a lunch date. When I asked about Peterson, Cossey froze-up and would have nothing more to do with me. Just like he was afraid that I was on to him and Peterson. My mind works overtime while I sleep and came up with the part Cossey could have played was the ground man and the launder of the loot through his may Gambling places. That would have left Peterson with out the loot (evidence) and free to travel back to Nepal. Cossey would have probably not done a good job of "investing" the loot and it ran out after 40 years. Peterson and I had a conversation when he was living at my home about how to beat the system and how much money it would take. What is very interesting is that we thought $200 K would be enough to invest and live forever on it. My way of beating the system was to work and save it from wages. Peterson might have been thinking about hijacking for the $200 K rather than saving it. He never mentioned how he might save the basic amount. It very well could have been how Peterson as DB came up with the $200 K number. I was able to double the amount in my 401K and invest it and it is doing quite well and at 80 years old, it only needs to last 20 more years or less. Peterson and I joked about the basic amount being like the Smoo from Little Abner that regrew when you cut away a part to eat. It really works that was too. However, I think Cossey used the money up and had some explaining to do with Sheridan Peterson. Could Sheridan flown up to Seattle to have an eyeball to eyeball talk with Cossey and a fight take place and ended with Cossey turning to go back into his house and Sheridan in a rage picked-up a wrench and hit him in the back of the head. Sheridan suffered the scars of his being beat on at that time. Could that have been from fighting Cossey? I have passed my theory on to the Sheriff Dept covering the Cossey murder and that they should be looking for DNA and finger prints that match what the FBI has on Sheridan.
Did the FBI write off Sheridan as DB because his DNA did not match that on the tie left behind? Don't think they really think the tie DNA is really very good. Do the FBI buy Sheridan's story of being in Nepal at the time of Norjak? If they did they would have not investigated him any further, but they did. Why don't the FBI get the DNA from under the stamps/envelope flaps of the four letters to the newspapers?  There could be many reasons including it would be an embarsement that they overlook the obvious evidence on the letters and were walking down their investigation trail with their blinders on.   
Bob Sailshaw
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

A lot of what-ifs and possible interpretations in there. Without a hard search for evidence it may not go any further than conjecture. I would caution: don't think just because Cossey blows you off abruptly at the mention of Peterson, this means Cossey had some deep relationship with Peterson. It could be Cossey simply did not want to be associated with Peterson, who is controversial on his own. It could be Cossey was simply trying to avoid a problem, where none existed. What was the relationship btwn Cossey and Peterson, if any!

Isn't Peterson a sick old man? Could he travel to Seattle and murder Cossey? Why would Peterson surface 40 years late in a still existing quarrel over the hijacking money? Did Peterson travel north around the time of Cossey's murder - did Peterson travel at all during that period?

I do wonder if the FBI checked Cossey out thoroughly?

I think you raise some very valid questions but I caution not to let speculation form conclusions without hard evidence. We all know where that leads! Fact is, you know that already ... good luck.

Thanks!
G   

I'm actually meeting with the agents in two weeks.  I'll put the entire Blevin's bullshit stories on the table with them.  And I may have a little free time to bring a few friends over to the Auburn Days and listen to Blevins first hand.  Bruce: you might want to bring Sailshaw with you.  I understand its on Saturday, August 9th.  Let's see what this Blevins guy really has.  Can't wait. See you guys there.  Georger:  I'll be in touch just before the 9th.