DB Cooper

[olemisscub 582]

1 minute ago, FLYJACK said:

 

He is claiming credit for something that wasn't the original issue...

You have a really unhealthy desire to be credited for things. This emphasizes the way you view this mystery: a contest. You are about keeping score. YOU want to be the one who wins. I view this, and I think most others do as well, as a collaborative effort. 

I don't care about "taking credit" for things. If I was, I wouldn't have mentioned you at all. 

[FLYJACK 785]

29 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

You have a really unhealthy desire to be credited for things. This emphasizes the way you view this mystery: a contest. You are about keeping score. YOU want to be the one who wins. I view this, and I think most others do as well, as a collaborative effort. 

I don't care about "taking credit" for things. If I was, I wouldn't have mentioned you at all. 

BS, it isn't about credit...  you were inaccurate, this is about accuracy, you have a history of screwing up the details and misleading people.. 

You said that I claimed the placard never came on a 727-100.. wrong,, I never said that. It was a rare option and was not on NORJAK..

If the placard was found on the FP,,, and there was wind that would mean the plane flew much further West.. that was the issue you missed completely...   you actually claimed it didn't even matter if it came from NORJAK..  WRONG.. 

It happens that you were right but for the wrong reason....

It really seems you don't have a grasp of many of these issues... the placard, the chutes, TBAR, and Skip... yikes..  

 

and it is pretty funny you guys are entertaining "telephone" between Cooper Tina and the crew,,,  but fail to recognize my theory that Cooper's (fly dirty) demand was slightly misunderstood by the crew...  Cooper's initial demand was airstairs lowered inflight,, not on takeoff..

Edited October 8 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 582]

4 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

and Ryan seems to be blind... minimizing the unique facial features of Skip.. probably because Limbach will be doing a presentation on Skip at CooperCon... He is not Cooper. Cooper had normal forehead lines... Cooper did not have Skip's extreme forehead lines nor did he have several large lumps on his face Skip has.. 

Ryan is abusing reality by claiming Skip's forehead lines makes him a better suspect...  This is insane.. Skip's forehead lines are severe and extreme in depth quantity, coverage and shape.. they curve right down the temples.. No witness would miss that.

Oh the humanity! What terrible forehead wrinkles when he's not raising his eyebrows! Witnesses would spot those wrinkles a mile away for sure. 

 

[FLYJACK 785]

9 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Oh the humanity! What terrible forehead wrinkles when he's not raising his eyebrows! Witnesses would spot those wrinkles a mile away for sure. 

 

So, your argument was his forehead wrinkles were perfectly normal and they support him as a suspect.. Now, he didn't show them to witnesses.. and you know that how?  and you still fail to acknowledge the many large bumps on his face. Lots of pics/video of Skip with those extreme forehead lines... no way he doesn't show them.

You have become a partisan hack,,, 

If Hahneman had a forehead like that you be all over it... and you know it.

Edited October 8 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 582]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

You have become a partisan hack,,, 

 

Says the man who finds NO FAULT in this suspect:

 

[FLYJACK 785]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

Says the man who finds NO FAULT in this suspect:

 

You prematurely eliminated him based on assumptions... and have heavy confirmation bias,.. that isn't my fault..

There is no upside in discussing my research with somebody so compromised.

You even stated that utilizing the rear airstairs was not an improvement... crazy.. 

You aren't worthy...

Edited October 8 by FLYJACK

[DWeber 6]

32 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Says the man who finds NO FAULT in this suspect:

 

We should be getting something regarding H in the 302s soon right? I’m hoping this month since they seem to be going in chronological order 

[Kamkisky 30]

Natural vs Mechanical vs Human

I was a little surprised to hear Ryan say he still likes natural means.

Natural and mechanical both suffer from a major problem. They require two solutions. Not only do these require explanations for how the money was moved to Tena Bar, but also how did the money get to where it was before being moved to Tena bar. You have to explain *why* the money was in/near the river or in a sand bar and then explain *how* it was moved to Tena Bar. 

Human intervention requires only one explanation. Why. It avoids having to link why with how. That’s a simpler explanation.

Someone dug a hole on that beach and buried money without protection (no bag, wrapping, etc.). There’s very few reasons that can make sense. 

[lxchilton 10]

2 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

Natural vs Mechanical vs Human

I was a little surprised to hear Ryan say he still likes natural means.

Natural and mechanical both suffer from a major problem. They require two solutions. Not only do these require explanations for how the money was moved to Tena Bar, but also how did the money get to where it was before being moved to Tena bar. You have to explain *why* the money was in/near the river or in a sand bar and then explain *how* it was moved to Tena Bar. 

Human intervention requires only one explanation. Why. It avoids having to link why with how. That’s a simpler explanation.

Someone dug a hole on that beach and buried money without protection (no bag, wrapping, etc.). There’s very few reasons that can make sense. 

I feel like the "why" in human intervention has to do a lot of heavy lifting; it's a lot easier for me to sort of blank out and say "nature works in some weird ways" than to try and explain the burial of the money there.

All Tena Bar explanations make me want to tear my hair out.

[Kamkisky 30]

7 minutes ago, lxchilton said:

I feel like the "why" in human intervention has to do a lot of heavy lifting; it's a lot easier for me to sort of blank out and say "nature works in some weird ways" than to try and explain the burial of the money there.

All Tena Bar explanations make me want to tear my hair out.

Even if you skip the how you’re still left with a why. Why was the money near/in the river upstream or a sand bank? 
 

I just imagine myself on a beach. I dig a hole. I put a bundle of money in it with no plastic or other serious protection…just cash and rubber bands (maybe paper bands). I then fill that hole. What’s my thought process possibilities? 

If I never want it to be found I’d be thinking this is a dumb idea. Buried things in sand get found all the time, erosion is real, people use this beach, etc.

If I was thinking I want it found/recovered by myself or someone else…it needs to be found shortly or it will get ruined. So my reason requires either myself or another person to intentionally come and get it soon.

The only other reason that could make sense is I do want it found but not intentionally by myself or another person. I want it to be found randomly…but why? Could be Tina for Tena. Could be to throw a wrench in the case/search. But as I would be covering up the hole I’d have to consider that the money could be found and neither of those things happen. The most likely scenario of a random person finding the money is they keep and Tina or the cops never know. I’d think this was a dumb idea. 
 

For me the most logical reason is I want it recovered soon by myself or someone I’ve told. Second best reason is to have it gone forever, but I’m doing it in kinda a stupid way. Just sinking it in the river is better than buried on the beach (and of course the most obvious option of burning it…which I could even do at Tena Bar). The distant third is wanting a random person to find it to send a message to Tina or the cops. 

[FLYJACK 785]

TBAR is easy..

The money went into the River in Spring/Summer probably close to the money find time..

It rolled along the bottom to its spot when the River was higher...

The only mystery is how or who caused it go into the River...

Cooper likely..  either gave it to somebody and they tossed it somebody found some and tossed it.

The image of buried money Ryan showed looks nothing like TBAR... these guys are amateurs claiming it matches...  I have found lots of buried money images and none are consistent with TBAR...  Palmer was a geologist and even he recognized the uniform abrasion pattern and concluded it was from rolling/tumbling...

 

[Kamkisky 30]

1 minute ago, FLYJACK said:

TBAR is easy..

The money went into the River in Spring/Summer probably close to the money find time..

It rolled along the bottom to its spot when the River was higher...

The only mystery is how or who caused it go into the River...

Cooper likely..  either gave it to somebody and they tossed it somebody found some and tossed it.

The image of buried money Ryan showed looks nothing like TBAR... these guys are amateurs claiming it matches...  I have found lots of buried money images and none are consistent with TBAR...  Palmer was a geologist and even he recognized the uniform abrasion pattern and concluded it was from rolling/tumbling...

 

That five in the bottom left looks like the erosion pattern of the Cooper money to me. 
 

You also are very light on the why. Somebody just tossed it near the river. That’s pretty weak. It could happen but is not really a reason, it’s just pushing off the actual reason. The best answer I hear for this is because the money was hot so someone wanted to get rid of it…by just throwing it near the river. Ehh…it’s so soft of a rationale. 

[lxchilton 10]

18 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

Even if you skip the how you’re still left with a why. Why was the money near/in the river upstream or a sand bank? 
 

I just imagine myself on a beach. I dig a hole. I put a bundle of money in it with no plastic or other serious protection…just cash and rubber bands (maybe paper bands). I then fill that hole. What’s my thought process possibilities? 

If I never want it to be found I’d be thinking this is a dumb idea. Buried things in sand get found all the time, erosion is real, people use this beach, etc.

If I was thinking I want it found/recovered by myself or someone else…it needs to be found shortly or it will get ruined. So my reason requires either myself or another person to intentionally come and get it soon.

The only other reason that could make sense is I do want it found but not intentionally by myself or another person. I want it to be found randomly…but why? Could be Tina for Tena. Could be to throw a wrench in the case/search. But as I would be covering up the hole I’d have to consider that the money could be found and neither of those things happen. The most likely scenario of a random person finding the money is they keep and Tina or the cops never know. I’d think this was a dumb idea. 
 

For me the most logical reason is I want it recovered soon by myself or someone I’ve told. Second best reason is to have it gone forever, but I’m doing it in kinda a stupid way. Just sinking it in the river is better than buried on the beach (and of course the most obvious option of burning it…which I could even do at Tena Bar). The distant third is wanting a random person to find it to send a message to Tina or the cops. 

I think that's plausible but I think Cooper having an accomplice is less so, just based on the fact that no one ever talked about any of it. 

I am drawing a line in the sand (lol) about the whole Tena is for Tina thing. That's some wild stuff. And if that was the case does Cooper come back well after the fact and do it? It's the dumbest thing to envision he would do it the night of the hijacking when the only thing he is concerned about is getting out. 

I know that we have a problem getting the money into a route that would take it there, but all the other conundrums (why bury it in the sand? why not package it?) are answerable by removing humans from the equation. Tena Bar is the honey badger of enigmas. 

[lxchilton 10]

6 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

That five in the bottom left looks like the erosion pattern of the Cooper money to me. 
 

You also are very light on the why. Somebody just tossed it near the river. That’s pretty weak. It could happen but is not really a reason, it’s just pushing off the actual reason. The best answer I hear for this is because the money was hot so someone wanted to get rid of it…by just throwing it near the river. Ehh…it’s so soft of a rationale. 

My problem with someone wanting to get rid of it is that they never talked about it later. This stuff is a legend in the area, the FBI offered clemency for people who turned money in, and someone would definitely say "yeah I had some Cooper money once..." and that would lead to a tip or to gossip or to whatever. None of that happens.

[lxchilton 10]

13 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

The money went into the River in Spring/Summer probably close to the money find time..

This is a possibility, but it is not a fact. 

[FLYJACK 785]

 

34 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

That five in the bottom left looks like the erosion pattern of the Cooper money to me. 
 

You also are very light on the why. Somebody just tossed it near the river. That’s pretty weak. It could happen but is not really a reason, it’s just pushing off the actual reason. The best answer I hear for this is because the money was hot so someone wanted to get rid of it…by just throwing it near the river. Ehh…it’s so soft of a rationale. 

That bill looks nothing like Cooper money.. are you blind as well..

Light on why,,, if I knew why I why I would know who,, what a ridiculous comment..

I posted what the facts suggest,,  others are making up nonsense that is not supported by anything but their imaginations..

 

[FLYJACK 785]

29 minutes ago, lxchilton said:

This is a possibility, but it is not a fact. 

It is a true statement..  The diatoms indicate spring/summer, they could not penetrate the sand...  the erosion and rubber bands indicate closer to the money find..  Palmer and the FBI believed this was the best theory.. (before diatom stuff)

Ryan claims there is no plausible explanation... of course there is... it has been right there the entire time... All of you just won't accept the obvious..

 

We just don't know who caused it to go into the River..

A stew? somebody he paid for a ride? somebody found some money?

I bet it was tossed in at Frenchman's Bar,,, 

 

 

[FLYJACK 785]

The airstairs were both gravity drop and hydraulic assist depending on how you operated them..  

 

[Nicholas Broughton 90]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

That bill looks nothing like Cooper money.. are you blind as well..

Light on why,,, if I knew why I why I would know who,, what a ridiculous comment..

I posted what the facts suggest,,  others are making up nonsense that is not supported by anything but their imaginations..

 

“I posted what the facts suggest,,  others are making up nonsense that is not supported by anything but their imaginations..”

Again you are the one doing what you accuse everyone else of. What are your “facts” for the money tumbling along the Columbia River bottom exactly…. the rounded corners are a fact but offers no evidence for how they got like that, it could of very well have been just degradation in situ as evidence by the holes in the bills which would not happen from rolling in the river (TK’s current stance). So what else ya got? Palmer’s theory? Not a fact. Here is an inconvenient actual fact though for your theory. In 2023 Brian gave Tom bill fragments to analyze. One of the fragments was made up of 4 layers of bills. Tom presented his findings from his forensic analysis at CC23 and of note, he found it to be remarkably clean in between the layers of the fragment…. no soot, silt, mud ect. How in the hell is that consistent with tumbling along a sandy river bottom? How does that action happen, with out shit from the river bottom getting deposited between the bills in the bundle? We know the bundle had to have fanned out in the water to have picked up the diatoms. Silt is smaller then diatoms. In August 1972 three boys find 10 and 20 dollar bills in bottom of Willamette River by the riverbank in Cottage Grove, OR. No match to a nationwide check of the serial numbers. A year later,  since no one had filed a successful claim, the boys split the $2,360. This article talks about all the mud and silt on the bills when they were found. Now I know you’ll probably cite the fact that the Ingram’s washed some of the money to keep your theory breathing but I asked Brian myself specifically about the 4 layer fragment and he said it was virgin and not part of what they washed. It makes sense because there is no salvaging that for spending and it had no serials on it. Even if it did get washed, a rinse in the sink isn’t leaving it as spotless as Tom found it to be. That would require a surgical effort with certain tooling. According to Tom the layers were pretty well stuck together, it took some serious work from him to separate them, so he could look inside. 

Edited October 9 by Nicholas Broughton

[FLYJACK 785]

44 minutes ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

“I posted what the facts suggest,,  others are making up nonsense that is not supported by anything but their imaginations..”

Again you are the one doing what you accuse everyone else of. What are your “facts” for the money tumbling along the Columbia River bottom exactly…. the rounded corners and Palmer theory? I’d hardly qualify those as facts or evidence. Here is an inconvenient actual fact though for your theory. In 2023 Brian gave Tom bill fragments to analyze. One of the fragments was made up of 4 layers of bills. Tom presented his findings from his forensic analysis at CC23 and of not, he found it to be remarkably clean in between the layers of the fragment…. no soot, silt, mud ect. How one the hell is that consistent with tumbling along a sandy rivers bottom? How does that action happen with out shit from the river bottom getting in between in bills in the bundle? We know the bundle had to have fanned out in the water to have picked up the diatoms. Silt is smaller then diatoms. In August 1972 three boys find 10 and 20 dollar bills in bottom of Willamette River by the riverbank in Cottage Grove, OR. No match to a nationwide check of the serial numbers. A year later,  since no one had filed a successful claim, the boys split the $2,360. This article talks about all the mud and silt on the bills when they were found. Now I know you’ll probably cite the fact that the Ingram’s washed some of the money to keep your theory breathing but I asked Brian myself specifically about the 4 layer fragment and he said it was virgin  and not part of what they washed. It makes sense because there is no salvaging that for spending and it had no serials on it. Even if it did get washed, a rinse in the sink isn’t leaving it as spotless as Tom found it to be. That would require a surgical effort with certain tooling. According to Tom the layers were pretty well stuck together, it took some serious work from him to separate them, so he could look inside. 

You essentially claim Diatoms got in but not silt on a few tested stuck bills somehow proves the money did not come from the River.. Nonsense.   Even Tom won't claim the money could not have come from the River. 

The best and most logical theory is that the money came from the River... it sinks so it is suspended on the bottom pushed by current, the bottom is abrasive sand... the uniform abrasion pattern on the packets is consistent with a tumbling/rolling action. There were no identifiable frags found from the outside edges. 

This is simple... silt has nothing to with it. Tom did not test all the bills. The money could have been in the River less than an hour..

I find it bizarre that no silt was found even after being buried... surely there is some silt in the sand. Perhaps just those pieces Tom tested.. 

Regardless, your assumption proves nothing.

and, nobody has shown the mechanism to produce the erosion pattern on the packets in situ... nobody

 

 

Edited October 9 by FLYJACK

[Nicholas Broughton 90]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

You essentially claim Diatoms got in but not silt on a few tested stuck bills somehow proves the money did not come from the River.. Nonsense.   Even Tom won't claim the money could not have come from the River. 

The best and most logical theory is that the money came from the River... it sinks so it is suspended on the bottom pushed by current, the bottom is abrasive sand... the uniform abrasion pattern on the packets is consistent with a tumbling/rolling action. There were no identifiable frags found from the outside edges. 

This is simple... silt has nothing to with it. Tom did not test all the bills. The money could have been in the River less than an hour..

I find it bizarre that no silt was found even after being buried... surely there is some silt in the sand. Perhaps just those pieces Tom tested.. 

Regardless, your assumption proves nothing.

and, nobody has shown the mechanism to produce the erosion pattern on the packets in situ... nobody

 

 

I’m just going as far the evidence supports, which is that the money bundle fanned out in CR river water before it ended up where Brian found it. Not only are you going beyond what the evidence supports but you are doing so knowing contradictory evidence exists. Tom is on record of saying that the money was exposed to clean Columbia river water. Rolling along the river bottom doesn’t make for clean water environment.  That 4 layer fragment came from inside the stack. We know the money was already wet when it arrived. Brian pulled the money out in three  separate packets that he describes as soggy clumps that he initially thought was drift wood. When the Ingrams put them in the plastic hot dog bun bag…. the three packets stuck to each other due to the moisture, forming one solid clump. It took a solid effort by the Ingrams to peel the bills apart from what Brian has told me. So any crap that got deposited in between the bills while the bundle was fanned out in water, would of remained trapped when the bundle comes out and closes up like a clamshell. The money tells a story and you can either chose to listen to what it’s saying or be a flyjack and come up with your own version of events, thinking you know better. 

 

“and, nobody has shown the mechanism to produce the erosion pattern on the packets in situ... nobody”

And you haven’t shown that the abrasion pattern on the bills is consistent with tumbling/rolling on a sandy river bottom. 

“the uniform abrasion pattern on the packets is consistent with a tumbling/rolling action.”

 

I have no dog in the tena bar mystery. If Tom had found it filthy in between the layers of that bill fragment then I’d find your theory super plausible and even most likely.
 

Tena Bar is a a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma and I think that was the intention.     

Edited October 9 by Nicholas Broughton

[FLYJACK 785]

23 minutes ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

I’m just going as far the evidence supports, which is that the money bundle fanned out in CR river water before it ended up where Brian found it. Not only are you going beyond what the evidence supports but you are doing so knowing contradictory evidence exists. Tom is on record of saying that the money was exposed to clean Columbia river water. Rolling along the river bottom doesn’t make for clean water environment.  That 4 layer fragment came from inside the stack. We know the money was already wet when it arrived. Brian pulled the money out in three  separate packets that he describes as soggy clumps that he initially thought was drift wood. When the Ingrams put them in the plastic hot dog bun bag…. the three packets stuck to each other due to the moisture, forming one solid clump. It took a solid effort by the Ingrams to peel the bills apart from what Brian has told me. So any crap that got deposited in between the bills while the bundle was fanned out in water, would of remained trapped when the bundle comes out and closes up like a clamshell. The money tells a story and you can either chose to listen to what it’s saying or be a flyjack and come up with your own version of events, thinking you know better. 

 

“and, nobody has shown the mechanism to produce the erosion pattern on the packets in situ... nobody”

And you haven’t shown that the abrasion pattern on the bills is consistent with tumbling/rolling on a sandy river bottom. 

“the uniform abrasion pattern on the packets is consistent with a tumbling/rolling action.”

 

I have no dog in the tena bar mystery. If Tom had found it filthy in between the layers of that bill fragment then I’d find your theory super plausible and even most likely.
 

Tena Bar is a a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma and I think that was the intention.     

There is NO contradictory evidence,, NONE..

The money fanned out is a general claim,,  that test Tom did had one rubber band in the center of one packet,,,

What happens with two rubber bands around three packets perhaps paper bands as well, some fanning out at the ends?? Clearly not as much as Tom's experiment.

I still don't get the no silt thing...  if there is silt in the River it is in the sand.. if it is in the sand it would get on the money like the diatoms..  there is probably some explanation.. 

But the abrasion pattern is consistent with tumbling/rolling abrasion.. Palmer a GEOLOGIST thought so and I actually thought it before Palmer's stuff was released in the files.. all you need to do is look at it..

Unless you are blind, it is clearly consistent...

Even if you question the tumbling/rolling abrasion pattern the most likely source for the money is from the River..  the abrasion just supports that.

 

 

 

Edited October 9 by FLYJACK

[Nicholas Broughton 90]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

There is NO contradictory evidence,, NONE..

The money fanned out is a general claim,,  that test Tom did had one rubber band in the center of one packet,,,

What happens with two rubber bands around three packets perhaps paper bands as well, some fanning out at the ends?? Clearly not as much as Tom's experiment.

I still don't get the no silt thing...  if there is silt in the River it is in the sand.. if it is in the sand it would get on the money like the diatoms..  there is probably some explanation.. 

But the abrasion pattern is consistent with tumbling/rolling abrasion.. Palmer a GEOLOGIST thought so and I actually thought it before Palmer's stuff was released in the files.. all you need to do is look at it..

Unless you are blind, it is clearly consistent...

Even if you question the tumbling/rolling abrasion pattern the most likely source for the money is from the River..  the abrasion just supports that.

 

 

 

Tom’s 2023 analysis of the money shows that the rubber bands were on the ends  and the center opened up and let the diatoms in and the very edges could also open up and let the diatoms in. If that bundle is rolling on a sandy river bottom there is no way silt (smaller then diatoms) and other debris aren’t getting lodged in the middle opening and outside crevices. The middle opening and outside edge crevices quickly close up when it gets out of the water. There not open for sand debris to enter in it’s water logged condition while in situ on the sand bar. I think your smart enough to get the no silt thing. You just choose to believe it doesn’t mean anything because it clashes with your theory . Cooperites no longer subscribe to the natural arrival via spring flood because of this finding. Tom Kaye - “So being this clean kinda says this money was never exposed to the water in the way you’d think.” Whether you choose to accept it or not it puts further constraints on how the money got to tbar. 

Edited October 9 by Nicholas Broughton

[Nicholas Broughton 90]

[FLYJACK 785]

29 minutes ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

Tom’s 2023 analysis of the money shows that the rubber bands were on the ends  and the center opened up and let the diatoms in and the very edges could also open up and let the diatoms in. If that bundle is rolling on a sandy river bottom there is no way silt (smaller then diatoms) and other debris aren’t getting lodged in the middle opening and outside crevices. The middle opening and outside edge crevices quickly close up when it gets out of the water. There not open for sand to get in while it’s in situ on the sand bar. I think your smart enough to get the no silt thing you just choose to believe it doesn’t mean anything. Cooperites no longer subscribe to the natural arrival via spring flood because of this finding. Whether you choose to accept it or not it puts further constraints on how the money got to tbar. 

I have been saying there were two rubber bands for ages... 

It doesn't have to be a spring a flood, the money was found at the high water line.. well below flood stage. You don't need a flood and who cares what Cooperites believe.

The FBI tested the money for sand and it matched the River....

Where were the pieces Tom tested located on the bills... 

As for the silt..  Tom looked at a sample, not all the bills..  You extrapolate that sample to claim all bills... I just don't believe that if there was silt in the River it would not be on the money buried in the sand..  the lack of silt on Tom's sample does not contradict the money coming from the River.. 

If there was silt in the River it would be in the sand..

Why no silt then..  

Either there was no silt in the River or Tom's sample didn't have silt and other parts would.

The lack of silt on Tom's test sample doesn't mean what you think it does. There may be some explanation for it.

 

You are making a lot of assumptions to discredit a theory but ZERO facts. Tom did not test all the money.

 

 

 

Edited October 9 by FLYJACK