DB Cooper

[georger 267]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

You don't know what would happen to the rubber bands rolling in a slow moving River.

Both Palmer and Tom Kaye suggested rolling in the Columbia.. Tom indicated the shifting was caused by the rolling but 20 miles was too far...

So, your claims are wrong. Strawmanning some phantom agents and using assumptions doesn't cut it.

 

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

You don't know what would happen to the rubber bands rolling in a slow moving River.

Both Palmer and Tom Kaye suggested rolling in the Columbia.. Tom indicated the shifting was caused by the rolling but 20 miles was too far...

So, your claims are wrong. Strawmanning some phantom agents and using assumptions doesn't cut it.

Feel free to give your version of the Palmer presentation! Are you saying it didnt happen? Nobody was there? 

Have you even read the Palmer report?

[FLYJACK 769]

43 minutes ago, georger said:

 

Feel free to give your version of the Palmer presentation! Are you saying it didnt happen? Nobody was there? 

Have you even read the Palmer report?

You throw things in that have no relevance..

What is relevant,, Both Palmer and TK suggested it..  claiming it was unfortunately started by some agents is your attempt to deflect.

Both Palmer and TK suggested it but only when I bring it up do people go sideways.

Also, I don't think a water soaked bundle rolling along the bottom is all that violent.. it has buoyancy, the current was 2-3 MPH sometimes higher.. Bottom impacts over miles of end over end tumbling are enough to wear away the money but have no impact on rubber bands. 

As I pointed out TK suggested based on the erosion pattern that the fanning of bills occurred while moving along the bottom and not in situ. 

There are no discernible frags from the outside edges.

It is the best TBAR theory..  bar none. No counter-factual has been presented, just assumptions, opinions and red herrings.

However, this is only half the answer,, how did it get into the River?

[Robert99 57]

7 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

You throw things in that have no relevance..

What is relevant,, Both Palmer and TK suggested it..  claiming it was unfortunately started by some agents is your attempt to deflect.

Both Palmer and TK suggested it but only when I bring it up do people go sideways.

Also, I don't think a water soaked bundle rolling along the bottom is all that violent.. it has buoyancy, the current was 2-3 MPH sometimes higher.. Bottom impacts over miles of end over end tumbling are enough to wear away the money but have no impact on rubber bands. 

As I pointed out TK suggested based on the erosion pattern that the fanning of bills occurred while moving along the bottom and not in situ. 

There are no discernible frags from the outside edges.

It is the best TBAR theory..  bar none. No counter-factual has been presented, just assumptions, opinions and red herrings.

However, this is only half the answer,, how did it get into the River?

If I remember correctly, TK said about 15 years ago that the fanning of the bills occurred just after it was placed in water and as the bills became saturated.  

And as the bills became saturated they sank to the bottom and stayed there.  There is no natural process that would move the bills back to the surface.

[georger 267]

5 hours ago, Robert99 said:

If I remember correctly, TK said about 15 years ago that the fanning of the bills occurred just after it was placed in water and as the bills became saturated.  

And as the bills became saturated they sank to the bottom and stayed there.  There is no natural process that would move the bills back to the surface.

This may be pointless, but I left a message for Tom today asking him to give his current opinion on these matters. 

Who knows if he will respond. As Tom has said so many times: "This is DB Cooper". Meaning that any consensus on anything is unlikely. A fact of life. 

Edited Wednesday at 07:50 AM by georger

[FLYJACK 769]

11 hours ago, Robert99 said:

If I remember correctly, TK said about 15 years ago that the fanning of the bills occurred just after it was placed in water and as the bills became saturated.  

And as the bills became saturated they sank to the bottom and stayed there.  There is no natural process that would move the bills back to the surface.

You remember part of it...

The bills fanned out when a single packet was placed in water but at that time Tom used one rubber band in the middle.. Now, Tom has shown 2 rubber bands were used and packets were banded together.

So, Tom's analysis at the time was based on a single packet with one rubber band in the middle. That has been updated.

TK "It is theorized that fanned out bundles should become mis-aligned while tumbling along the river bottom over time."

Tom's test bill buried for 33 months had almost no deterioration.

I have explained it many times.. the money does not have to come back up to the surface. If the River level is above the money spot it effectively becomes the bottom and the money rolls along the bottom to that spot. The money spot was frequently underwater. In June of 1972, for example, the money spot was about 5 feet underwater. Money still has buoyancy in water.. it is not like a rock and embeds in the bottom.

 

Edited Wednesday at 01:48 PM by FLYJACK

[Nicholas Broughton 70]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

You remember part of it...

The bills fanned out when a single packet was placed in water but at that time Tom used one rubber band in the middle.. Now, Tom has shown 2 rubber bands were used and packets were banded together.

So, Tom's analysis at the time was based on a single packet with one rubber band in the middle. That has been updated.

TK "It is theorized that fanned out bundles should become mis-aligned while tumbling along the river bottom over time."

Tom's test bill buried for 33 months had almost no deterioration.

I have explained it many times.. the money does not have to come back up to the surface. If the River level is above the money spot it effectively becomes the bottom and the money rolls along the bottom to that spot. The money spot was frequently underwater. In June of 1972, for example, the money spot was about 5 feet underwater. Money still has buoyancy in water.. it is not like a rock and embeds in the bottom.

 

TK "It is theorized that fanned out bundles should become mis-aligned while tumbling along the river bottom over time."
 

What is the source of this TK quote? 

[FLYJACK 769]

7 minutes ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

TK "It is theorized that fanned out bundles should become mis-aligned while tumbling along the river bottom over time."
 

What is the source of this TK quote? 

https://citizensleuths.com/moneyanalysis.html

[FLYJACK 769]

I really don't understand the stubborn resistance to the theory that the money came from the River..

It was found at the high water line of a half mile wide River.. that makes it the most likely source right off the bat. Then, the evidence does not refute it in any way.

But, people are intent in inventing elaborate and unfounded theories to explain what is explained by the best theory by far..

IMO, the only difficult thing to figure out is how it got into the River.

[Robert99 57]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Money still has buoyancy in water.. it is not like a rock and embeds in the bottom.

 

Rocks probably have more buoyancy than a water-soaked packet of bills. 

The buoyancy of rocks is equal to the weight of the water they displace.  A water-soaked packet of bills doesn't displace much water at all.

FlyJack, do you have any knowledge of or training in the physical sciences?  I you do, how about revealing it.

On the matter of money shards at Tena Bar.  An FBI agent wrote a book (which I may still have somewhere) that he found shards at Tena Bar and put them in an evidence envelope.  He then put his initials on the evidence envelope and turned it over to the appropriate evidence specialists.

[FLYJACK 769]

41 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

Rocks probably have more buoyancy than a water-soaked packet of bills. 

The buoyancy of rocks is equal to the weight of the water they displace.  A water-soaked packet of bills doesn't displace much water at all.

FlyJack, do you have any knowledge of or training in the physical sciences?  I you do, how about revealing it.

On the matter of money shards at Tena Bar.  An FBI agent wrote a book (which I may still have somewhere) that he found shards at Tena Bar and put them in an evidence envelope.  He then put his initials on the evidence envelope and turned it over to the appropriate evidence specialists.

First, you need to do your own homework on buoyancy... you are clearly confused if you think an average rock has more buoyancy than "paper" money. That is not even debatable.

Further, I posted several discernible TBAR frags and they are internal, not the outside of the bills. So, you got that wrong as well as not paying attention.

Both TK and Palmer suggested the money came from the River, it is the best theory by a long shot and you so called "seasoned" Cooper researchers are flailing around trying to reject it.. 

I am not really interested in these silly arguments.

 

Edited Wednesday at 05:59 PM by FLYJACK

[georger 267]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

First, you need to do your own homework on buoyancy... you are clearly confused if you think an average rock has more buoyancy than "paper" money. That is not even debatable.

Further, I posted several discernible TBAR frags and they are internal, not the outside of the bills. So, you got that wrong as well as not paying attention.

Both TK and Palmer suggested the money came from the River, it is the best theory by a long shot and you so called "seasoned" Cooper researchers are flailing around trying to reject it.. 

I am not really interested in these silly arguments.

 

Your arrogance is amazing!

[georger 267]

8 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

You remember part of it...

The bills fanned out when a single packet was placed in water but at that time Tom used one rubber band in the middle.. Now, Tom has shown 2 rubber bands were used and packets were banded together.

So, Tom's analysis at the time was based on a single packet with one rubber band in the middle. That has been updated.

TK "It is theorized that fanned out bundles should become mis-aligned while tumbling along the river bottom over time."

Tom's test bill buried for 33 months had almost no deterioration.

I have explained it many times.. the money does not have to come back up to the surface. If the River level is above the money spot it effectively becomes the bottom and the money rolls along the bottom to that spot. The money spot was frequently underwater. In June of 1972, for example, the money spot was about 5 feet underwater. Money still has buoyancy in water.. it is not like a rock and embeds in the bottom.

 

Tom's test bill buried for 33 months had almost no deterioration.

I have explained it many times.. the money does not have to come back up to the surface. If the River level is above the money spot it effectively becomes the bottom and the money rolls along the bottom to that spot. The money spot was frequently underwater. In June of 1972, for example, the money spot was about 5 feet underwater. Money still has buoyancy in water.. it is not like a rock and embeds in the bottom.

Now this above has value.  The Ingram bundles are essentially under moving water at the found location, without the money ever having been "in" the Columbia proper! There is interaction between the Ingram bills and moving water/sand at the found location without the bundles ever having been "in" the river proper. The forces are gentle.

No tumbling end over end or sidewise required. The bundles could even spin or glide some distance vs tumble before being locked in by sand as the water recedes during each high  water period. The forces involved are gentle. How the forces are applied to the geometry of the package is what is  crucial.  The direction of pressure is south to north with the flow. The Ingram bundles are never subject to any violent action in this scenario. The bundles can be eroded-rounded around all sides almost uniformly. The bundles never need to have been in the main river at all. 

I ran some calculations last night concerning the actual forces in the main river on a package with the dimensions of the Ingram bundles. The result was a surprise. The forces are surprisingly low! No more than the weight of a small apple! Given that the bundles are semi-boyant to begin with the river current may not supply destructive force at all! And, given the shape of the package, rolling is not even guaranteed! The package may glide!

The devil is always in the details There are many options in the river borne model. The numbers suggest low energy forces were involved.

I will post the actual math if anyone wants to see it. Anyone is free to run their own math on their own scenarios.

• Force on a bill bundle: ~0.77 newtons (about 79 grams-force, or roughly the weight of a small apple).

Edited Wednesday at 09:51 PM by georger

[Robert99 57]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

First, you need to do your own homework on buoyancy... you are clearly confused if you think an average rock has more buoyancy than "paper" money. That is not even debatable.

Further, I posted several discernible TBAR frags and they are internal, not the outside of the bills. So, you got that wrong as well as not paying attention.

Both TK and Palmer suggested the money came from the River, it is the best theory by a long shot and you so called "seasoned" Cooper researchers are flailing around trying to reject it.. 

I am not really interested in these silly arguments.

 

FlyJack, you need to do your own homework on buoyancy.  You don't seem to understand the term.

Wikipedia has a page on buoyancy if you are interested in learning what the term means.

[FLYJACK 769]

Both Tom K and Palmer indicated TBAR money rolling along the bottom of the River causing erosion..

You clowns attack me personally for suggesting the same thing..

 

You guys are an impediment to the advancement if this case.

[georger 267]

I talked to an Agent today who clarified issues being discussed.

The Palmer report, socalled, is a 302 issued by the Agent who interviewed Dr. Palmer at his office following the excavation at Tena Bar. Palmer never wrote a report and there never was an oral presentation by Palmer.  What we are calling the 'Palmer Report' is simply a 302 by some Agent - who interviewed Palmer. This helps explain the style and content of the 'Palmer Report'.

The Agent today says again, of the ten plus people working the dig at Tena Bar, the general consensus was the dredging was probably responsible for Cooper money being on Tena Bar. He says when shards were found at three feet that only reinforced the dredging theory, and pushed the timeline back beyond Palmer saying the money was a recent arrival. The Agent says there had to be a specific cause for the money being on Tena Bar. He thinks the arrival of money on Tena Bar must be associated with somebody depositing material on Tena, not too long after the hijacking. He says there must be a specific cause, as anything else is a 'crap shoot'.     

[olemisscub 539]

1 hour ago, georger said:

I talked to an Agent today who clarified issues being discussed.

The Palmer report, socalled, is a 302 issued by the Agent who interviewed Dr. Palmer at his office following the excavation at Tena Bar. Palmer never wrote a report and there never was an oral presentation by Palmer.  What we are calling the 'Palmer Report' is simply a 302 by some Agent - who interviewed Palmer. This helps explain the style and content of the 'Palmer Report'.

The Agent today says again, of the ten plus people working the dig at Tena Bar, the general consensus was the dredging was probably responsible for Cooper money being on Tena Bar. He says when shards were found at three feet that only reinforced the dredging theory, and pushed the timeline back beyond Palmer saying the money was a recent arrival. The Agent says there had to be a specific cause for the money being on Tena Bar. He thinks the arrival of money on Tena Bar must be associated with somebody depositing material on Tena, not too long after the hijacking. He says there must be a specific cause, as anything else is a 'crap shoot'.     

The FBI's interviews with the Corps of Engineers indicated that the dredge theory was impossible due to the condition of the money. 

[FLYJACK 769]

2 hours ago, georger said:

I talked to an Agent today who clarified issues being discussed.

The Palmer report, socalled, is a 302 issued by the Agent who interviewed Dr. Palmer at his office following the excavation at Tena Bar. Palmer never wrote a report and there never was an oral presentation by Palmer.  What we are calling the 'Palmer Report' is simply a 302 by some Agent - who interviewed Palmer. This helps explain the style and content of the 'Palmer Report'.

The Agent today says again, of the ten plus people working the dig at Tena Bar, the general consensus was the dredging was probably responsible for Cooper money being on Tena Bar. He says when shards were found at three feet that only reinforced the dredging theory, and pushed the timeline back beyond Palmer saying the money was a recent arrival. The Agent says there had to be a specific cause for the money being on Tena Bar. He thinks the arrival of money on Tena Bar must be associated with somebody depositing material on Tena, not too long after the hijacking. He says there must be a specific cause, as anything else is a 'crap shoot'.     

Palmer was asked about shards at depth and dismissed it as caused by excavating...

and yes the dredge theory is fairy dust...

Nice try tho.. still flogging the dredge theory.. it isn't 2010

 

Edited yesterday at 04:19 AM by FLYJACK

[georger 267]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

The FBI's interviews with the Corps of Engineers indicated that the dredge theory was impossible due to the condition of the money. 

Can you cite a Corps of Engineers report saying that? The Bechly report is all I have.

"Mr. BECHLY added that the dredge works 24 hours a day and any objects such as money or bones would go unnoticed if deposited on the shore during the night."

Likewise, where does it say:  'Palmer was asked about shards at depth and dismissed it as caused by excavating...'   why cant I find that passage in any document? 

?

Edited yesterday at 04:28 AM by georger

[georger 267]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Palmer was asked about shards at depth and dismissed it as caused by excavating...

and yes the dredge theory is fairy dust...

Nice try tho.. still flogging the dredge theory.. it isn't 2010

Shards at depth. In situ. Fairy dust. Flogging. It isnt 2010. Strawman. . . . . .

Try "floccinaucinihilipilification" next. Very entertaining for wine sipping challenged readers.

 

Edited yesterday at 04:39 AM by georger

[FLYJACK 769]

1 minute ago, georger said:

Shards at depth. In situ. Fairy dust. Flogging. It isnt 2010.

Try "floccinaucinihilipilification" next. It suits you.

 

Give it up the dredge theory, it is dead.. that is your agenda.. and why you try everything to dismiss the "from the River theory"..  intellectual fraud.

Agent's speculated earlier in the day... buried in may have been dredge material. But they discounted that theory...

 

[georger 267]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Give it up the dredge theory, it is dead.. that is your agenda.. and why you try everything to dismiss the "from the River theory"..  intellectual fraud.

Agent's speculated earlier in the day... buried in may have been dredge material. But they discounted that theory...

 

Now that wasnt difficult after all !!!!! So its some reporters version vs Palmer;s own words. Things never turn out to be quite what you claim ?  .............. its DB Cooper!  

Edited yesterday at 07:20 AM by georger

[Nicholas Broughton 70]

6 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Both Tom K and Palmer indicated TBAR money rolling along the bottom of the River causing erosion..

You clowns attack me personally for suggesting the same thing..

 

You guys are an impediment to the advancement if this case.

Tom K “indicated” no such thing! He only cited the rolling on the river bottom theory as a possible explanation for the misalignment of the bundles. Here is what he has to say in regards to degradation (not erosion) of the bills. 

Edited yesterday at 05:43 AM by Nicholas Broughton

[olemisscub 539]

1 hour ago, georger said:

Can you cite a Corps of Engineers report saying that? The Bechly report is all I have.

 

 

[georger 267]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

 

Thanks. I remember that now.

[georger 267]

1 hour ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

Tom K “indicated” no such thing! He only cited the rolling on the river bottom theory as a possible explanation for the misalignment of the bundles. Here is what he has to say in regards to degradation (not erosion) of the bills. 

smile... Thank you Tom. And thank you Nick!   Well done!!  Happy Day for Bacteria ! 

Edited yesterday at 07:25 AM by georger