Recommended Posts
georger 267
(edit) For instance, from my point of view, the only thing interesting about the thread is the possibility of getting a paintball guy to release information about 38 year old bills the FBI gave him for some reason. That's about as far from skydiving as you can get!
Tom may never publish, and his work never be
released. Are you prepared for that prospect?
snowmman 3
Quote
(edit) For instance, from my point of view, the only thing interesting about the thread is the possibility of getting a paintball guy to release information about 38 year old bills the FBI gave him for some reason. That's about as far from skydiving as you can get!
Tom may never publish, and his work never be
released. Are you prepared for that prospect?
No problem. It does add to the mystery of his TV appearance then, but hey! that will add to the layers of obfuscation that the next DZ.com thread (in 10 years) has to scrape away! :)
Georger lamented: "Do you realise, we dont even have coordinates for where the money actually was! "
Tom apparently has them, apparently validated by Ingram and Fazio. Jerry may have gotten them that day. Yes we don't have them. Maybe covert AZ op is needed?
Georger measured "This forum is irrelevant and basically an anecdote."
Yes, agreed. Hasn't it always been?
georger 267
QuoteQuote
(edit) For instance, from my point of view, the only thing interesting about the thread is the possibility of getting a paintball guy to release information about 38 year old bills the FBI gave him for some reason. That's about as far from skydiving as you can get!
Tom may never publish, and his work never be
released. Are you prepared for that prospect?
No problem. It does add to the mystery of his TV appearance then, but hey! that will add to the layers of obfuscation that the next DZ.com thread (in 10 years) has to scrape away! :)
Georger lamented: "Do you realise, we dont even have coordinates for where the money actually was! "
Tom apparently has them, apparently validated by Ingram and Fazio. Jerry may have gotten them that day. Yes we don't have them. Maybe covert AZ op is needed?
Georger measured "This forum is irrelevant and basically an anecdote."
Yes, agreed. Hasn't it always been?
I will remind everyone that Quantico did its own analysis of the money, clear back in 80. The FBI
has had every opportunity to do further testing/
analysis over the years, as methods changed and
new questions arose.
I will also say, I do believe Tom Kaye has
complicated everything, needlessly. I think Tom became the primary complication.
snowmman 3
Georger observed "I will remind everyone that Quantico did its own analysis of the money, clear back in 80. The FBI has had every opportunity to do further testing analysis over the years, as methods changed and new questions arose."
That's a good point. The show talked about "new" forensic science, but what tools were usable on the money now, that weren't available in 1980? SEM's have been marketed since 1965.
What new tools could Tom bring to bear? Any?
"The SEM was further developed by Professor Sir Charles Oatley and his postgraduate student Gary Stewart and was first marketed in 1965 by the Cambridge Instrument Company as the "Stereoscan". The first instrument was delivered to DuPont."
My theory has always been that Larry is comfortable with hiding information, to the point of apparent deception. (depends on your point of view).
If Larry told us some stuff, why not tell us more about any money analysis? Why hold back anything? (Is he writing a book :)...the classic Cooper-related refrain! :)
In any case, if we take Larry at face value, the FBI analysis must have suggested the money was deposited after the dredging, maybe a couple years before the find. Or am I forgetting what Larry implied?
(edit) There's no new data that suggests any FBI analysis was wrong, Correct?
That's a good point. The show talked about "new" forensic science, but what tools were usable on the money now, that weren't available in 1980? SEM's have been marketed since 1965.
What new tools could Tom bring to bear? Any?
"The SEM was further developed by Professor Sir Charles Oatley and his postgraduate student Gary Stewart and was first marketed in 1965 by the Cambridge Instrument Company as the "Stereoscan". The first instrument was delivered to DuPont."
My theory has always been that Larry is comfortable with hiding information, to the point of apparent deception. (depends on your point of view).
If Larry told us some stuff, why not tell us more about any money analysis? Why hold back anything? (Is he writing a book :)...the classic Cooper-related refrain! :)
In any case, if we take Larry at face value, the FBI analysis must have suggested the money was deposited after the dredging, maybe a couple years before the find. Or am I forgetting what Larry implied?
(edit) There's no new data that suggests any FBI analysis was wrong, Correct?
snowmman 3
This is an interesting paper, apparently from the late '60s.
Was talking about issues with the cooling water for a proposed nuke plant, but the key thing is that it says the Columbia experiences reversal of hydraulic flow, due to tides, up to 40km from the river mouth.
The specific case they show with a map, is where the Cowlitz river hits the Columbia. It's a good distance past the Lewis (towards the ocean).
The used dye and actually did a nice study with data.
In their conclusions
"Tihs study shows that an extensive upstream movement of water can occur near Prescott during low flow stages of the Columbia River".
It's interesting, because it talks about the reversal being more likely during low flow times?
The paper is good. Georger should take some time to digest it.
It probably doesn't apply because the Lewis is too far past the Cowlitz...but it's interesting.
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_14/issue_6/0960.pdf
We do know that the canal/stream that drains Vancouver Lake (the old one called "Lake River", not the new channel) experiences flow reversal because of tide and water level issues. We discussed this before...
Hmmm. We should analyze that known behavior more. Maybe there really can be some flow reversal from the Lewis, to Tina Bar. Would be wild if so, (although supposedly discounted in 1980 by tidal person???)
"The upstream flow was of sufficient strength and duration to carry the dye about 4.7 km upstream from it's release point. The dye was confined chiefly in the main channel"
Was talking about issues with the cooling water for a proposed nuke plant, but the key thing is that it says the Columbia experiences reversal of hydraulic flow, due to tides, up to 40km from the river mouth.
The specific case they show with a map, is where the Cowlitz river hits the Columbia. It's a good distance past the Lewis (towards the ocean).
The used dye and actually did a nice study with data.
In their conclusions
"Tihs study shows that an extensive upstream movement of water can occur near Prescott during low flow stages of the Columbia River".
It's interesting, because it talks about the reversal being more likely during low flow times?
The paper is good. Georger should take some time to digest it.
It probably doesn't apply because the Lewis is too far past the Cowlitz...but it's interesting.
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_14/issue_6/0960.pdf
We do know that the canal/stream that drains Vancouver Lake (the old one called "Lake River", not the new channel) experiences flow reversal because of tide and water level issues. We discussed this before...
Hmmm. We should analyze that known behavior more. Maybe there really can be some flow reversal from the Lewis, to Tina Bar. Would be wild if so, (although supposedly discounted in 1980 by tidal person???)
"The upstream flow was of sufficient strength and duration to carry the dye about 4.7 km upstream from it's release point. The dye was confined chiefly in the main channel"
What I find extremely funny about this thread and in fact over the past 2 or 3 thousand posts I would say 99% of the reason for me visiting is to see how seriously people take some random persons word as truth or of serious consequences

What really ticks me off is how much I have grown to hate this thread and yet like a crack addict I keep having to come back for more - really wish it was possible to be banned from a singe thread
I have come to the conclusion you have to
live in Washington to make any real progress
in this case. Otherwise, one is a spectator hoping
the Cooper Rover will somehow be sent to the places
and topics that truly matter, and most of the time
the Rover sits, doing nothing! Do you realise, we
dont even have coordinates for where the money
actually was! And yet we are asked to make
judgments about tides and currents and fields,
and those who could speak to these issues don't,
and some consider these issues settled but settled
with 'what'?
Correction: we are not asked to make judgments.
This forum is irrelevant and basically an anecdote.
That frees others to screw around forever on their
own terms -
It's pure frustration on my end.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites