DB Cooper

[Kamkisky 10]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Nope, the bundles were wet and rolling along the sandy bottom would round them off without affecting the rubber bands.

Rubber bands stay on because they are elastic and stretched, the bills were wet,, so they didn't need much impact to round them off. It makes perfect sense. It made sense to the Palmer team and it makes sense to me.

The Palmer report identified the rounded off edges as indicating a rolling motion in the River. Simple physics.

The bills did not rot elsewhere. they were rounded off tumbling along the bottom, the shards came off of the remaining stack. The shards were not from the outer edges they were from the top/bottom bills interior.

Your shards argument is invalid.

I have seen many images of buried money and none looked as uniform as the TBAR money.

I am 99% convinced the money rolled along the bottom for some length, at least a few miles.

Human burial makes no sense.. to claim it only needs a reason is a huge problem.

There is zero evidence and contradictory evidence.

 

both of you guys are using your own assumptions, not the evidence.

both you guys claim that river tumbling makes no sense or is laughable when the it is in THE PALMER REPORT.

AND the Palmer team including the hydrologist NEVER even mentioned human burial as a possibility.

So there is enough friction grinding along the sand (like sandpaper) to remove material from the money, but not the rubber bands? It just doesn’t compute. It makes no sense. 

Take sandpaper to rubber bands…see what happens. Especially taut rubber bands. 

Edited June 19 by Kamkisky

[olemisscub 545]

2 hours ago, georger said:

That is one of the reasons I favor a destructive dredging scenario prior to the bills settling as a group on the beach where they were found.

 

The FBI files indicate, from discussion with the Corps of Engineers, that the dredges used on the Columbia were all pipe dredges that would have ripped the bills into oblivion. Only a clamshell dredge would work for your scenario, and those weren't used. 

[FLYJACK 769]

12 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

So there is enough friction grinding along the sand (like sandpaper) to remove material from the money, but not the rubber bands? It just doesn’t compute. It makes no sense. 

Take sandpaper to rubber bands…see what happens. 

It makes sense to me and the Palmer team.

The money was wet and the rubber bands would have less impact with the bottom due to their location,, the money would roll end over end causing a rounding just like the TBAR money..

 

 

[olemisscub 545]

7 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

It makes sense to me and the Palmer team.

The money was wet and the rubber bands would have less impact with the bottom due to their location,, the money would roll end over end causing a rounding just like the TBAR money..

 

 

The question is how does it get from the bottom of the river to where it ended up

[Kamkisky 10]

8 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

It makes sense to me and the Palmer team.

The money was wet and the rubber bands would have less impact with the bottom due to their location,, the money would roll end over end causing a rounding just like the TBAR money..

 

 

I have never seen river rocks that had stripes where they weren’t worn. 
 

I suppose there is an argument the river sand is rounded and not as abrasive, but if it was abrasive enough to remove material from all sides of the money…tough sell.  

[FLYJACK 769]

23 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

The question is how does it get from the bottom of the river to where it ended up

It gets pushed along the bottom by the current,, it would have some buoyancy and not take much to move it.. rolls to its position when the water level is above that spot effectively making it the bottom. That spot is well below flood stage and often covered by water.

[FLYJACK 769]

1 hour ago, Kamkisky said:

I have never seen river rocks that had stripes where they weren’t worn. 
 

I suppose there is an argument the river sand is rounded and not as abrasive, but if it was abrasive enough to remove material from all sides of the money…tough sell.  

River rocks are round for a reason.. abrasion

I am sure if the money kept rolling for long enough the rubber bands would eventually break.

River rocks don't roll on sandy bottoms like money would... they hit each other.

The money sinks due to density but if the density is barely more than the water it will sink but still have a buoyancy and be moved easily in the water. A rock is more dense and needs far more current to move it.

Buoyancy is key factor for movement in a river..

Comparing rocks to linen/cotton is silly.

and for the money, the ends were missing/rounded the most, not the top and bottom or through the center of the stack.. the erosion matches tumbling or rolling exactly as the Palmer report states. If the bills eroded in situ the erosion pattern would be different.

If you want to keep deny it, go ahead. I am not interested, there is no debate here..

Edited June 20 by FLYJACK

[Kamkisky 10]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

River rocks are round for a reason.. abrasion

I am sure if the money kept rolling for long enough the rubber bands would eventually break.

River rocks don't roll on sandy bottoms like money would... they hit each other.

The money sinks due to density but if the density is barely more than the water it will sink but still have a buoyancy and be moved easily in the water. A rock is more dense and needs far more current to move it.

Buoyancy is key factor for movement in a river..

Comparing rocks to linen/cotton is silly.

and for the money, the ends were missing/rounded the most, not the top and bottom or through the center of the stack.. the erosion matches tumbling or rolling exactly as the Palmer report states. If the bills eroded in situ the erosion pattern would be different.

If you want to keep deny it, go ahead. I am not interested, there is no debate here..

Even if I could get to your theory (full disclosure - I can’t), the fact the Ingrams move the money from it’s location, handled it, transported it, washed it (an aggressive action) and let it soak in a bleach bath before rinsing it hurts the cause. 

The version of the money we see on the FBI table has been through several other processes than money that just rolled along the sandy bottom. Taking a photo of Cooper’s money on the table and comparing to money from a different set of processes is apples to oranges. 

Edited June 20 by Kamkisky

[FLYJACK 769]

49 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

Even if I could get to your theory (full disclosure - I can’t), the fact the Ingrams move the money from it’s location, handled it, transported it, washed it (an aggressive action) and let it soak in a bleach bath before rinsing it hurts the cause. 

The version of the money we see on the FBI table has been through several other processes than money that just rolled along the sandy bottom. Taking a photo of Cooper’s money on the table and comparing to money from a different set of processes is apples to oranges. 

um, it is in the Palmer report, have you read it.

Tell me what you know that they didn't.

[georger 267]

6 hours ago, Kamkisky said:

Yeah, simple physics suggests any abrasive force from rubbing along sand would take out the rubber bands along with the rotten edges of the bills. I don’t see how that could even be argued. It’s obvious. 
 

Any theory that states the bills rotted elsewhere, then floated downstream has to explain the shards. The rotted edges of the bills would be lost in any river float/sandy bottom theory.
 

Unless the claim is some minor rotting occurred first, then the river ride, then more rotting in place at Tena Bar. That takes out a lot of other theories though and leaves you with the money being somewhere just upstream rotting until it moves to Tena Bar to rot some more…but…how do the rubber bands stay on? Again, it makes no sense. The rubber bands in good condition adjust to the size of the package and when the package volume is reduce the effectiveness of the bands is reduced. How would they survive a river ride after some rotting? The bands would not is the answer. 
 
The simplest explanation is someone buried it at Tena Bar. All it requires is a reason, there are no other obstacles. The other transport methods have so many contingencies, it strains the imagination. 
 

Yeah, simple physics suggests any abrasive force from rubbing along sand would take out the rubber bands along with the rotten edges of the bills. I don’t see how that could even be argued. It’s obvious.  ...

You saw this happening? 

 

The simplest explanation is someone buried it at Tena Bar. All it requires is a reason, there are no other obstacles. The other transport methods have so many contingencies, it strains the imagination. 

You obviously havent  looked at the Ingram parts. Take a look at those groups of bills some day. No rush.

 

[georger 267]

8 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I don't think TBAR will ever be solved,, just some theories ranging from nonsense to possible.

Finding Cooper does not depend on the money at Tena Bar be explained.

[FLYJACK 769]

21 minutes ago, georger said:

Yeah, simple physics suggests any abrasive force from rubbing along sand would take out the rubber bands along with the rotten edges of the bills. I don’t see how that could even be argued. It’s obvious.  ...

You saw this happening? 

 

The simplest explanation is someone buried it at Tena Bar. All it requires is a reason, there are no other obstacles. The other transport methods have so many contingencies, it strains the imagination. 

You obviously havent  looked at the Ingram parts. Take a look at those groups of bills some day. No rush.

 

No, the rubber bands were not compromised, the money was, it was wet.

And the rounded wear was on the ends of the packets.. indicating a tumbling end over end,, the rubber bands around the middle would not have the same impact.

Haven't you been paying attention..

This is simple stuff..

[georger 267]

1 hour ago, Kamkisky said:

Even if I could get to your theory (full disclosure - I can’t), the fact the Ingrams move the money from it’s location, handled it, transported it, washed it (an aggressive action) and let it soak in a bleach bath before rinsing it hurts the cause. 

The version of the money we see on the FBI table has been through several other processes than money that just rolled along the sandy bottom. Taking a photo of Cooper’s money on the table and comparing to money from a different set of processes is apples to oranges. 

Yes. The Ingrams could have damaged their find and probably did to some extent. However Pat said they were as careful as possible whatever that means. We just dont know. The overall condition of the bills looks good and well preserved. There is damage to some of the groups that is clearly natural vs human. This is why I URGED the FBI to send the money to the Treasury Forensic Lab for an EXPERT OPINION! Apparently the FBI Agents decided they saw no need for that ... who knows. 

The Treasury Forensic Lab has experts who have dealt with found money for generations. They have a vast data base. To have turned down their expertise was like asking a butcher to diagnose your heart problem and do your surgery, literally! 

So many claims and opinions have been stated about the dredge I cant even comment about that ... which may be lucky for me!  That issue may have been destroyed beyond recovery or belief, by competing claims and competing interests so passionate and certain that ...... I cant even remember it all! 

Edited June 20 by georger

[FLYJACK 769]

21 minutes ago, georger said:

Finding Cooper does not depend on the money at Tena Bar be explained.

Sure, finding Cooper doesn't depend on a bunch of things.

[georger 267]

1 minute ago, FLYJACK said:

No, the rubber bands were not compromised, the money was, it was wet.

And the rounded wear was on the ends of the packets.. indicating a tumbling end over end,, the rubber bands around the middle would not have the same impact.

Haven't you been paying attention..

This is simple stuff..

a tumbling end over end,   This is simple stuff..

I wasnt there to see it.

[FLYJACK 769]

Just now, georger said:

a tumbling end over end,   This is simple stuff..

I wasnt there to see it.

You never are.. the Palmer team was there and they believed the money came from the River and the wear indicated a rolling.. I agree, I have never found any images of buried money that looks anything like the TBAR wear. They had a hydrologist who never even mentioned the possibility of human burial. 

The TBAR money wear indicates a rolling along the bottom.

There is no evidence for a plant and it makes no sense. It is not a reasonable theory.

If you guys want to remain in denial be my guest..

 

The hard part is figuring out how it got into the River.. 

 

[Kamkisky 10]

By end over end I’m assuming Fly means the long ways of the bills (the width). If he is taking about the short ways (top to bottom of the bills face as one would read it) that’s a different thing. 
 

The bills on the FBI table have missing volume from *all four sides.* The short way (top to bottom) is missing material just like the long ways (left to right). This seems consistent with a river bed tumble. But…
 

How again can rubber bands that have adapted to the size (top to bottom) survive a river ride and sandy river bottom going end over end (width/long ways) tumble for miles that causes all four sides to erode? The direction the rubber bands were placed has eroded too. Why wouldn’t the bundle break up?

Are these special rubber bands that after aging, and being tossed in a river and scraped along the sandy bottom have sufficient clapping force to accommodate lost bill material? It’s just a tough sell. It doesn’t make logical sense.
 

I suppose there’s an argument that the bands were new and thus still had the right pressure/clapping force to accommodate the missing top/bottom bill material. It’s a question of residual elasticity. But now we are talking about freshly rubber banded bills…and a ton more assumptions are needed. 

Edited June 20 by Kamkisky

[dudeman17 349]

5 hours ago, olemisscub said:

The question is how does it get from the bottom of the river to where it ended up

They do shipping on that river, right? Some time ago someone posted a video of a large ship passing by, I think it was on that river but I could be misremembering. Anyway, the ship displaced quite a lot of water sideways, even affected the water level on the shoreline by a number of feet. So it's conceivable that if the bundle was at the bottom near the center but still somewhat buoyant, that a passing ship might push it aside towards the shore?

[georger 267]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

You never are.. the Palmer team was there and they believed the money came from the River and the wear indicated a rolling.. I agree, I have never found any images of buried money that looks anything like the TBAR wear. They had a hydrologist who never even mentioned the possibility of human burial. 

The TBAR money wear indicates a rolling along the bottom.

There is no evidence for a plant and it makes no sense. It is not a reasonable theory.

If you guys want to remain in denial be my guest..

 

The hard part is figuring out how it got into the River.. 

 

Why dont you take this up with Tom Kaye ?

Try fitting the Ingram parts back together ... what do you see ?

Edited June 20 by georger

[georger 267]

2 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

They do shipping on that river, right? Some time ago someone posted a video of a large ship passing by, I think it was on that river but I could be misremembering. Anyway, the ship displaced quite a lot of water sideways, even affected the water level on the shoreline by a number of feet. So it's conceivable that if the bundle was at the bottom near the center but still somewhat buoyant, that a passing ship might push it aside towards the shore?

Exactly. Ships pass by all the time creating waves that break on the shoreline moving debris around. The direction of movement/flow is south to north, including during high tide. The whole upper active layer of the beach is creeping north.

Presumably, depending on how the Ingram bills were deposited, the bundles were once on the surface then covered over - without being noticed! How could that happen with so many people always on that beach unless it happened quickly? The Fazios thought the money was brought up with the tide or because of the tide, then covered over in the same process ... the Fazios have always pointed out that the bills were found 'on the high tide line'.    

Where is the rest of the money? Why wasnt all of the money found on TBar?

 

Edited June 20 by georger

[georger 267]

3 hours ago, Kamkisky said:

By end over end I’m assuming Fly means the long ways of the bills (the width). If he is taking about the short ways (top to bottom of the bills face as one would read it) that’s a different thing. 
 

The bills on the FBI table have missing volume from *all four sides.* The short way (top to bottom) is missing material just like the long ways (left to right). This seems consistent with a river bed tumble. But…
 

How again can rubber bands that have adapted to the size (top to bottom) survive a river ride and sandy river bottom going end over end (width/long ways) tumble for miles that causes all four sides to erode? The direction the rubber bands were placed has eroded too. Why wouldn’t the bundle break up?

Are these special rubber bands that after aging, and being tossed in a river and scraped along the sandy bottom have sufficient clapping force to accommodate lost bill material? It’s just a tough sell. It doesn’t make logical sense.
 

I suppose there’s an argument that the bands were new and thus still had the right pressure/clapping force to accommodate the missing top/bottom bill material. It’s a question of residual elasticity. But now we are talking about freshly rubber banded bills…and a ton more assumptions are needed. 

Things get rounded in nature ...

[c99acer 8]

19 hours ago, olemisscub said:

He’s talking about digging a firepit. Slim had his arms full of wood for the fire. Brian didn’t so much dig into the sand but rather smoothed it out with his hand. Cattle had escaped and ran through the beach a few days earlier. The sand on the bar was pockmarked and uneven from the hooves of the cows. 

The Ingrams don’t have anything to do with the money other than finding it. 

This is just scurrilous bullshit from the Rackstraw grift. 

Why does the senior Ingram need to direct his son to a particular point to smooth a spot?  Why didn't he let Brian smooth the first spot Brian chose?? They are on a large beach of sand - wouldn't anywhere work??? 

This doesn't have to be the Rackstraw grift - it could be tied to any one of the suspects. The Rackstraw researchers are just the ones that exposed this part of the puzzle. A human bury on Tena Bar makes more sense than trying to get the money to wash up on shore nine years later and in a condition that it could be identified as Cooper money. 

I agree with others, that the money find doesn't really matter to solve the case. But if you have another option besides the Columbia River as the money delivery method, then you don't have to tether the rest of your story to the Columbia or the whole bag of loot. 

[FLYJACK 769]

7 hours ago, georger said:

Why dont you take this up with Tom Kaye ?

Try fitting the Ingram parts back together ... what do you see ?

I have put the piles back into the packets...

 

[FLYJACK 769]

5 hours ago, georger said:

Things get rounded in nature ...

Go and find images of buried money... nothing looks like this. The uniform erosion of TBAR is definitely from tumbling/rolling.

The tumbling/rolling along the bottom is the best theory by a long shot.. nothing else is even close.. this is the easy part.

You need to accept it, resistance is futile..

I lean towards it being only three packets vs five in a single bundle.. no more money was found and it is hard to imagine another bundle or two coming out from inside a rubber banded bundle to disappear somewhere. We can also assume the rubber bands still had their elasticity when it went into the River. 

 

As for how it got into the River, that is tougher one to noodle. It travelled some distance along the bottom so TBAR itself is out of the picture.

Did it fall from the plane over the Columbia, perhaps in the overcoat left on the stairs.. Diatoms?

Did somebody toss it in the River to dispose of it? Is it money Cooper gave to the stews or for a ride,, Did somebody find it get scared and toss it?

Did it get mistakenly tossed into the dump next to the Columbia River at the confluence of the Willamette? Was it hidden in something?

Did it get moved into the River by natural means?

Was it moved from downstream via clamshell dredge/barge then dumped into the River? They did this..

 

Does this indicate Cooper survived,, not really,,

Does this indicate he lost the money in the jump, not necessarily,,

 

[Boeing 377 0]

Been reading the latest T Bar money discussions. Nice to see rational civilized discussion between smart people without personal attacks when they disagree. 
 

Long ago, when thinking out of the box, and trying to make all the pieces fit I came up with a theory. I don’t think this is what actually happened, but it would explain a lot.  
 

The Ingram parents find the loot. All of it. It’s very damaged, wet worn, etc. It doesn’t matter whether it was with Cooper’s body or not in this hypothetical scenario. They don’t know if it has value, whether they can keep it, whether the government or insurance companies will claim it and they want to figure out the best way to proceed.  
 

They decide to do a test using their child Brian as the “finder”” of a portion of the loot. They go for an unlikely nighttime picnic in the middle of winter at T Bar.  They either bury the roughly $5800 of test loot that night or earlier when Brian wasn’t there. His father very subtly directs him to a spot to prepare for a campfire and Brian “accidentally” finds the buried money. The test has begun. 
 

I don’t think this is what actually happened, but I thought I’d put it out there to simulate some further out of the box thinking.