54 54
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

(edited)
2 hours 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.     

Good description of what the Ingrams did and their description of the money as found ...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.  ... and ... 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?

First, any attempt to get Flyjack to change his mind, is 100% pointless. FJ is totally invested in his "theories" which are devoid of any facts!

I am not convinced the money was ever 'in' the river or was even brought up on TBar by the river. Think about this. Is there anything about the money that requires it was ever "in the river". No question the money was exposed to Columbia water "on the high tide line". Nobody I know accepts FJ's theory that the money was delivered to TBar via the river especially in the manner he suggests. A closer analysis of the money may suggest several different locations and different conditions the money (and bands) passed through before finally found in 1980. In other words a history more complex than anything FJ knows or can even suggest. Forensic evidence gleaned from the analysis of the money should be guiding this discussion vs people's theories ! That is what Tom is attempting to do. 

I do not think FJ is speaking for Tom Kaye in any regard. In fact I know he isn't speaking for Tom, in any regard that I know of inspite of FJ saying otherwise.

Anything that can shed light on what the Ingrams saw and did is priceless in this debate. Thanks for focusing on that. 

Edited by georger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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 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. 

72482DFF-D756-4102-8595-D93D09990D18.jpeg

798E2ADD-D5DF-4093-9898-903108A7C726.jpeg

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.

This might suggest these parts of bills were fused in some other process in some other location and never were exposed to water at Tena Bar? If Palmer is correct the money was somewhere in some other environment prior to it being at Tena Bar?  

It is also correct, the Ingrams did not wash ALL of the money. Im glad you included that fact.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, georger said:

Good description of what the Ingrams did and their description of the money as found ...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.  ... and ... 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?

First, any attempt to get Flyjack to change his mind, is 100% pointless. FJ is totally invested in his "theories" which are devoid of any facts!

I am not convinced the money was ever 'in' the river or was even brought up on TBar by the river. Think about this. Is there anything about the money that requires it was ever "in the river". No question the money was exposed to Columbia water "on the high tide line". Nobody I know accepts FJ's theory that the money was delivered to TBar via the river especially in the manner he suggests. A closer analysis of the money may suggest several different locations and different conditions the money (and bands) passed through before finally found in 1980. In other words a history more complex than anything FJ knows or can even suggest. Forensic evidence gleaned from the analysis of the money should be guiding this discussion vs people's theories ! That is what Tom is attempting to do. 

I do not think FJ is speaking for Tom Kaye in any regard. In fact I know he isn't speaking for Tom, in any regard that I know of inspite of FJ saying otherwise.

Anything that can shed light on what the Ingrams saw and did is priceless in this debate. Thanks for focusing on that. 

Well stated G. I’m with ya 100%. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
42 minutes ago, georger said:

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.

This might suggest these parts of bills were fused in some other process in some other location and never were exposed to water at Tena Bar? If Palmer is correct the money was somewhere in some other environment prior to it being at Tena Bar?  

It is also correct, the Ingrams did not wash ALL of the money. Im glad you included that fact.  

 

That’s very well possible G. Speaking to  the Ingrams as extensively as we have, I think we both understand the importance of their description of the money and how the rubber bands were stuck to the fibers of those bills. The rubber bands need to be in a high temp environment to enter that gooey melt phase so they can get stuck on the money how the Ingrams described. Just like the money itself the rubber bands also tell a story. A window into the money’s history as you so eloquently put it. I can tell you that a group of us have put Cooper bands that TK sent us around pieces of plywood and put them outside in the PNW throughout the summer in different scenarios and not once did they enter that gooey melt phase.   These are all the days the temp got above 100 in Portland 1972-1979. 

59FF9B0B-638B-436C-B14D-97C52FBD29C1.jpeg

Edited by Nicholas Broughton
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

That’s very well possible G. Speaking to  the Ingrams as extensively as we have, I think we both understand the importance of their description of the money and how the rubber bands were stuck to the fibers of those bills. The rubber bands need to be in a high temp environment to enter that gooey melt phase so they can get stuck on the money how the Ingrams described. Just like the money itself the rubber bands also tell a story. A window into the money’s history as you so eloquently put it. I can tell you that a group of us have put Cooper bands that TK sent us around pieces of plywood and put them outside in the PNW throughout the summer in different scenarios and not once did they enter that gooey melt phase.   These are all the days the temp got above 100 in Portland 1972-1979. 

59FF9B0B-638B-436C-B14D-97C52FBD29C1.jpeg

Your separating of the various pieces of evidence into separate problems to be solved, is crucial. I agree. Just keep picking away, one thing then the next. Sooner or later an evidence based theory or two may emerge. Tom has made several small discoveries that mean something. Your band tests mean something - important! The bills, their makeup and chemistry, the bands and their chemistry, ... all interactive in different environments. Ive seen gooey bands so I know the melt transition phase is real! I have a barber with a gooey ball of old bands stuck to his window -   I laugh every time I go into his shop! The money is an interactive story of chemistries interacting in some number of environments. Now Im preaching and I will stop! Keep working on it!! Thanks. I wish we had the FBI Lab reports in full ....Good Job Nick...

Edited by georger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
6 hours ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

Well stated G. I’m with ya 100%. 

You guys are the ones with no facts... as usual.

No mechanism for the erosion pattern on the bills... Nobody has any evidence or even an explanation other than tumbling/rolling.

No explanation/evidence for the diatoms inside the bills if the money didn't come from the River,, the bills fanned out in the River.. the no silt on stuck samples argument makes no sense. 

 

The evidence suggests the money came from the River,,,  this is really simple.

There are no facts that contradict this.. it is the best and simplest theory...

Resistance is futile.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

That’s very well possible G. Speaking to  the Ingrams as extensively as we have, I think we both understand the importance of their description of the money and how the rubber bands were stuck to the fibers of those bills. The rubber bands need to be in a high temp environment to enter that gooey melt phase so they can get stuck on the money how the Ingrams described. Just like the money itself the rubber bands also tell a story. A window into the money’s history as you so eloquently put it. I can tell you that a group of us have put Cooper bands that TK sent us around pieces of plywood and put them outside in the PNW throughout the summer in different scenarios and not once did they enter that gooey melt phase.   These are all the days the temp got above 100 in Portland 1972-1979. 

59FF9B0B-638B-436C-B14D-97C52FBD29C1.jpeg

Your creepy Georger love fest aside..

Did you put the rubber bands in the sand..  it gets very very hot.

Rubber bands melt due to heat, UV, ozone or chemical reaction..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Your creepy Georger love fest aside..

Did you put the rubber bands in the sand..  it gets very very hot.

Rubber bands melt due to heat, UV, ozone or chemical reaction..

You seem confused.

Edited by georger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
21 hours ago, georger said:

You seem confused.

Nope, your analysis is consistently poor.... 

But you guys are wrong.. Palmer got it right, he is a Geologists not a California pot head and can recognize attrition due to rolling/tumbling on objects..

I have read a lot of research on this and the shape of the packets is 100% consistent with attrition caused by tumbling impacts on the bottom of the River..  For a rectangular shaped object, first the corners get rounded off then a convex shape is formed.. the ends wear off more than the middle top/bottom.. If the erosion was in situ it would be more random around the outside and not as symmetrical..  Interestingly, the concave shape suggests it was not tumbling long.. more time would cause it to reduce down closer to a "circle" shape...  that is consistent with Tom's finding that the money could not travel far...

So, the money rolled/tumbled along the bottom of the River but not far perhaps a few miles and that matches Frenchman's Bar,, a public beach with easy access,,,

The best. simplest and most plausible TBAR theory that fits the physical evidence is that the money went into the River at Frenchman's Bar closer to the money find in Spring/Summer...  we just don't know who did it?

I have another good theory for Spring 1972 but I think the other one is best..

I'll be here all week, try the veal...

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DWeber said:

You mentioned that a few months ago. Same place or new info?

 

More detailed,,, 

All particles are not from a single source..

Silicon, Alumina, Titanium, Calcium, Sodium etc and rare earths... matched..

and it is not from inside the USA...

All of these from one source... Who, What, Where, When and Why..

1027797148_Screenshot2025-10-10at6_50_48PM.thumb.png.bae2990b117d5fc72cc6a0484d73ef04.png

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

54 54