You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Hahneman was an electronics engineer.. matches tie particle environment

Nasa Survey 1971 - Uses of Ceramics in Microelectronics..

Virtually all those Cooper tie particles including rare "Yttrium" were used in Microelectronic components.

blown electronics components could spray all those particles on a tie.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

..

How many matches to the tie particle environment have we got from you now?

3 - 5 - 7 - 12 - 40?

Does Wendy's match the tie particle environment? 

Only 2 dentistry and electronics.. (both use ceramics)  pay attention GEORGER

Clearly, everyone can draw their own conclusions but attempts to discredit facts through mockery will not be tolerated.

.

Well the mockery is yours. No mockery was intended on my part, I can assure yous. But since you've brought it up, do you feel your work mocks Tom Kaye's work? The two could not be more opposed and dissimilar. Tom and Allen gave some thought to this and they settled on production vs end-use environments. They have reasons for this. I thought you were going to talk to Tom and Allen so where is your report about that? Who is mocking who here, frankly? Are you a materials expert?

What of the other particles on the expanded list? Where is your explanation for each of them? And don't mock me by asking where my list of explanations is for the particles. I stated very clearly years ago that I was not going to get into that but was leaving it to Tom and Allen. There's nothing wrong in that - that was my personal decision to make. I had many reasons for coming to that decision and I have stuck by my decision.

I dont buy your claim that I am mocking you! That's just an excuse, in mho. Others have also stated they chose not to get into the particle-reading game for various reasons. So who were those people mocking when they made the same decision I did? Why are you saving your blame for me while they aren't being blamed?

For all I know the tie was borrowed or wasn't even Cooper's personal tie.

But we really would like to hear what Tom said about your interpretations.

BTW: was your termite theory re- Tina Bar Ingram money another example of mockery on your part? You chose to bypass and not even mention Tom's explanation. You just continued, as you always do, in spite of everything entered against your theory. I see the whole thing as mockery on your part. Mockery is not admitting a mistake. Or even the possibility of a mistake. Mockery is as mockery does. 

In addition, I havent posted regularly in this forum for weeks/months. Critics including you seem to have not noticed that!  Some keep calling me the lead poster. Why when Im not posting for long periods of time. Their clocks are broken? Their calendars and attention spans defective? Or is it an agenda ...

Tom provided an explanation for the money holes he proved scientifically. Where's your scientific proof of termites? The whole forum looks forward to seeing that soon.   
     
Likewise, your insistent claims and conjectures about the money accounting was another mockery - all unproven but persistent and to this day you hold fast to those bogus claims which you yourself finally classified as "unprovable". One piece of nonsense after the other all somehow related to your suspect(s), whoever your current suspect actually is.

What is a rational person left to do or think. I ask? Just turn the persistent chaos off and say nothing at all and let you post, or have the whole forum to yourself if that's what you want. So if anyone dares say a fucking word - they are instantly charged with what - mockery to match yours! It's pretty funny dont you think? Have a nice day!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Hahneman was an electronics engineer.. matches tie particle environment

Nasa Survey 1971 - Uses of Ceramics in Microelectronics..

Virtually all those Cooper tie particles including rare "Yttrium" were used in Microelectronic components.

blown electronics components could spray all those particles on a tie.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

..

How many matches to the tie particle environment have we got from you now?

3 - 5 - 7 - 12 - 40?

Does Wendy's match the tie particle environment? 

Only 2 dentistry and electronics.. (both use ceramics)  pay attention GEORGER

Clearly, everyone can draw their own conclusions but attempts to discredit facts through mockery will not be tolerated.

.

Well the mockery is yours. No mockery was intended on my part, I can assure yous. But since you've brought it up, do you feel your work mocks Tom Kaye's work? The two could not be more opposed and dissimilar. Tom and Allen gave some thought to this and they settled on production vs end-use environments. They have reasons for this. I thought you were going to talk to Tom and Allen so where is your report about that? Who is mocking who here, frankly? Are you a materials expert?

What of the other particles on the expanded list? Where is your explanation for each of them? And don't mock me by asking where my list of explanations is for the particles. I stated very clearly years ago that I was not going to get into that but was leaving it to Tom and Allen. There's nothing wrong in that - that was my personal decision to make. I had many reasons for coming to that decision and I have stuck by my decision.

I dont buy your claim that I am mocking you! That's just an excuse, in mho. Others have also stated they chose not to get into the particle-reading game for various reasons. So who were those people mocking when they made the same decision I did? Why are you saving your blame for me while they aren't being blamed?

For all I know the tie was borrowed or wasn't even Cooper's personal tie.

But we really would like to hear what Tom said about your interpretations.

BTW: was your termite theory re- Tina Bar Ingram money another example of mockery on your part? You chose to bypass and not even mention Tom's explanation. You just continued, as you always do, in spite of everything entered against your theory. I see the whole thing as mockery on your part. Mockery is not admitting a mistake. Or even the possibility of a mistake. Mockery is as mockery does. 

In addition, I havent posted regularly in this forum for weeks/months. Critics including you seem to have not noticed that!  Some keep calling me the lead poster. Why when Im not posting for long periods of time. Their clocks are broken? Their calendars and attention spans defective? Or is it an agenda ...

Tom provided an explanation for the money holes he proved scientifically. Where's your scientific proof of termites? The whole forum looks forward to seeing that soon.   
     
Likewise, your insistent claims and conjectures about the money accounting was another mockery - all unproven but persistent and to this day you hold fast to those bogus claims which you yourself finally classified as "unprovable". One piece of nonsense after the other all somehow related to your suspect(s), whoever your current suspect actually is.

What is a rational person left to do or think. I ask? Just turn the persistent chaos off and say nothing at all and let you post, or have the whole forum to yourself if that's what you want. So if anyone dares say a fucking word - they are instantly charged with what - mockery to match yours! It's pretty funny dont you think? Have a nice day!

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH..  let it go, this isn't the Georger therapy forum..  you have issues, everyone knows it.

Most of us are trying to advance the knowledge base for this case. Your drama is toxic.

We should stick to the case.. the Cooper Vortex is crazy enough without the Georger Vortex..

Honestly, I no longer read your posts, they are either nonsense, irrelevant or subversive.

.

Oh ok. Really. nonsense, irrelevant or subversive.

Arent you the guy who said the holes in money were from termites? Who posted for weeks irrelevant nonsense about the money auditing. Subversive in what way, to you?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Hahneman was an electronics engineer.. matches tie particle environment

Nasa Survey 1971 - Uses of Ceramics in Microelectronics..

Virtually all those Cooper tie particles including rare "Yttrium" were used in Microelectronic components.

blown electronics components could spray all those particles on a tie.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

..

How many matches to the tie particle environment have we got from you now?

3 - 5 - 7 - 12 - 40?

Does Wendy's match the tie particle environment? 

Only 2 dentistry and electronics.. (both use ceramics)  pay attention GEORGER

Clearly, everyone can draw their own conclusions but attempts to discredit facts through mockery will not be tolerated.

.

Well the mockery is yours. No mockery was intended on my part, I can assure yous. But since you've brought it up, do you feel your work mocks Tom Kaye's work? The two could not be more opposed and dissimilar. Tom and Allen gave some thought to this and they settled on production vs end-use environments. They have reasons for this. I thought you were going to talk to Tom and Allen so where is your report about that? Who is mocking who here, frankly? Are you a materials expert?

What of the other particles on the expanded list? Where is your explanation for each of them? And don't mock me by asking where my list of explanations is for the particles. I stated very clearly years ago that I was not going to get into that but was leaving it to Tom and Allen. There's nothing wrong in that - that was my personal decision to make. I had many reasons for coming to that decision and I have stuck by my decision.

I dont buy your claim that I am mocking you! That's just an excuse, in mho. Others have also stated they chose not to get into the particle-reading game for various reasons. So who were those people mocking when they made the same decision I did? Why are you saving your blame for me while they aren't being blamed?

For all I know the tie was borrowed or wasn't even Cooper's personal tie.

But we really would like to hear what Tom said about your interpretations.

BTW: was your termite theory re- Tina Bar Ingram money another example of mockery on your part? You chose to bypass and not even mention Tom's explanation. You just continued, as you always do, in spite of everything entered against your theory. I see the whole thing as mockery on your part. Mockery is not admitting a mistake. Or even the possibility of a mistake. Mockery is as mockery does. 

In addition, I havent posted regularly in this forum for weeks/months. Critics including you seem to have not noticed that!  Some keep calling me the lead poster. Why when Im not posting for long periods of time. Their clocks are broken? Their calendars and attention spans defective? Or is it an agenda ...

Tom provided an explanation for the money holes he proved scientifically. Where's your scientific proof of termites? The whole forum looks forward to seeing that soon.   
     
Likewise, your insistent claims and conjectures about the money accounting was another mockery - all unproven but persistent and to this day you hold fast to those bogus claims which you yourself finally classified as "unprovable". One piece of nonsense after the other all somehow related to your suspect(s), whoever your current suspect actually is.

What is a rational person left to do or think. I ask? Just turn the persistent chaos off and say nothing at all and let you post, or have the whole forum to yourself if that's what you want. So if anyone dares say a fucking word - they are instantly charged with what - mockery to match yours! It's pretty funny dont you think? Have a nice day!

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH..  let it go, this isn't the Georger therapy forum..  you have issues, everyone knows it.

Most of us are trying to advance the knowledge base for this case. Your drama is toxic.

We should stick to the case.. the Cooper Vortex is crazy enough without the Georger Vortex..

Honestly, I no longer read your posts, they are either nonsense, irrelevant or subversive.

.

Oh ok. Really. nonsense, irrelevant or subversive.

Arent you the guy who said the holes in money were from termites? Who posted for weeks irrelevant nonsense about the money auditing. Subversive in what way, to you?

You make simple errors, intentional or not. I never said it was termites, I said and showed that it appeared consistent with termite damage. YOU, incorrectly inferred a conclusion and launched a straw-man attack (as usual).

The money bill numbers is entirely legitimate, even the FBI noted that they had trouble curating the list. I still believe there was an error in that list but it may not impact the case. I dropped the issue here when I realized that YOU and SOME others didn't actually understand the bill number process and inconsistencies. I couldn't be bothered to straighten YOU out.

You are still trying to delegitimize my factual posts...  through either ignorance or animus.

Do you actually realize what you are doing.. to this forum and advancement of this case. Look within dude.

"You make simple errors, intentional or not. I never said it was termites, I said and showed that it appeared consistent with termite damage. YOU, incorrectly inferred a conclusion and launched a straw-man attack (as usual)."

No, you said the holes were caused by termites - do you really want me to collect your posts on this? You specifically went on to say you had identified "termite damage" in the house where your suspect lived and said any money stored there would/could have 'termite damage'. Moreover you totally ignored Tom's website where he specifically assigns the holes to bacterial damage and shows evidence of that. You ignored Tom's site being pointed out to you and went forth posting further about ... holes in money and termite damage. Photos of holes in money caused by termites were shown to you (by me) and a comparison between that and Cooper money holes was shown (by me), and you ignored that!

Now you are saying I "launched a straw-man attack"?  Well look in the mirror - sir.

Give us a break for a change. As usual you fit the profile of a person "launching straw-man attacks" to fit your suspect into a theory. Who of course dug a hole and planted the money at Tina Bar also.

And you couch yourself further by accusing me of blocking (your) vital truths in the DB Cooper case.

Whatever.
   

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Hahneman was an electronics engineer.. matches tie particle environment

Nasa Survey 1971 - Uses of Ceramics in Microelectronics..

Virtually all those Cooper tie particles including rare "Yttrium" were used in Microelectronic components.

blown electronics components could spray all those particles on a tie.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

..

How many matches to the tie particle environment have we got from you now?

3 - 5 - 7 - 12 - 40?

Does Wendy's match the tie particle environment? 

Only 2 dentistry and electronics.. (both use ceramics)  pay attention GEORGER

Clearly, everyone can draw their own conclusions but attempts to discredit facts through mockery will not be tolerated.

.

Well the mockery is yours. No mockery was intended on my part, I can assure yous. But since you've brought it up, do you feel your work mocks Tom Kaye's work? The two could not be more opposed and dissimilar. Tom and Allen gave some thought to this and they settled on production vs end-use environments. They have reasons for this. I thought you were going to talk to Tom and Allen so where is your report about that? Who is mocking who here, frankly? Are you a materials expert?

What of the other particles on the expanded list? Where is your explanation for each of them? And don't mock me by asking where my list of explanations is for the particles. I stated very clearly years ago that I was not going to get into that but was leaving it to Tom and Allen. There's nothing wrong in that - that was my personal decision to make. I had many reasons for coming to that decision and I have stuck by my decision.

I dont buy your claim that I am mocking you! That's just an excuse, in mho. Others have also stated they chose not to get into the particle-reading game for various reasons. So who were those people mocking when they made the same decision I did? Why are you saving your blame for me while they aren't being blamed?

For all I know the tie was borrowed or wasn't even Cooper's personal tie.

But we really would like to hear what Tom said about your interpretations.

BTW: was your termite theory re- Tina Bar Ingram money another example of mockery on your part? You chose to bypass and not even mention Tom's explanation. You just continued, as you always do, in spite of everything entered against your theory. I see the whole thing as mockery on your part. Mockery is not admitting a mistake. Or even the possibility of a mistake. Mockery is as mockery does. 

In addition, I havent posted regularly in this forum for weeks/months. Critics including you seem to have not noticed that!  Some keep calling me the lead poster. Why when Im not posting for long periods of time. Their clocks are broken? Their calendars and attention spans defective? Or is it an agenda ...

Tom provided an explanation for the money holes he proved scientifically. Where's your scientific proof of termites? The whole forum looks forward to seeing that soon.   
     
Likewise, your insistent claims and conjectures about the money accounting was another mockery - all unproven but persistent and to this day you hold fast to those bogus claims which you yourself finally classified as "unprovable". One piece of nonsense after the other all somehow related to your suspect(s), whoever your current suspect actually is.

What is a rational person left to do or think. I ask? Just turn the persistent chaos off and say nothing at all and let you post, or have the whole forum to yourself if that's what you want. So if anyone dares say a fucking word - they are instantly charged with what - mockery to match yours! It's pretty funny dont you think? Have a nice day!

Okay, the reason I close a thread is to defuse the problem, or stop it in it's tracks..now, we are going to get along here and stop the insults...If other sites like the Mountain News want to tie up threads about people that's there business. we are and will get back on track with discussing Cooper on this forum...I didn't help things by going over there in the first place but accusations were made and it went on and on from there.

The thread is now open and hopefully I won't have to close down another thread in the future..people are more than welcome to post anything related to the case...if you don't like it, just ignore it and look for other discussion's that might interest you..

I'm cutting this a little short..12 hour day, still hotter than hell from a long ass day that didn't go very well at all...

Shutter

Hahneman told neighbours he was in Guatemala, Honduras and Cambodia... all had CIA covert operations including Phnom Penh.

We know, one of the Cooper clues was that he said the 727 could take off with rear stairs open. We know about the 727 CIA drop tests. But the video shows two different 727 configurations. The rear stairs were not lowered for drops, they were removed.

What if COOPER knew it could take off NOT with rear stairs open but NO rear stairs at all. In this short version of the CIA 727 airdrop test there are actually 2 different plane configurations shown, the first with rear stairs and second with a slide and NO rear stairs at all. Clearly, it took off with rear stairs removed and if COOPER had witnessed that 727 anywhere in South East Asia he would have inferred that a passenger 727 could take off with rear stairs open.

So, COOPER didn't need 727 rear stair experience, expert/technical knowledge or 727 jump experience, he just needed to witness that 727 without the rear stairs. This is supported by his lack of knowledge and trouble operating the rear airstairs.

At 1:26 of video, slide with no rear airstairs at all.