DB Cooper

[JerryThomas 0]

To All: Got the message.I will calm down and make no more derogatory comment's that would be directed at anyone. I have forgotten my place in the natural order of thing's.I will however answer as many question's that I can.I will keep all of you informed on any finding's that I come up with, and welcome any sugestion's, any of you may present.I will continue to research and search any area that is presented.Those of you that do not uderstand why you monitor this Forum.Well I guess it's just away of either getting your point across or curiousity.Maybe it is just plain fun.I don't realy Know, Each individual must decide that for themselve's. Jerry

[JerryThomas 0]

Snowmman:Vancouver lake, back in that time frame was shallow and nothing more than a sesse pool. When it was decided to drain the lake and deepen it, all material was put into the center of the lake .I talked to the contracter's. There statement was , nothing from the lake could have flowed into the columbia River, that would have allowed any debris to land on tina's bar. Further more the Army corps of engineers and the hydrologist verified this.Any Theory involving Vancouver Lake or the lewis River is to say the least stupid.Could not happen.Jerry

[snowmman 3]

My statement about Lake River is correct.

Why do you use the word "stupid" rather than just presenting data? You know, from my point of view, it's all you guys who are constantly throwing insults around. I rarely see any facts or data from you guys. It's funny. I can count on you guys to throw (weak attempts at) insults when you have no data. Sure thing.

I guess you're saying the Lake River behavior in 1971 was different than today? Is that what you're saying? I believe I researched that, and I'm not sure I agree. I'm not interested in looking at it again though.

If you have any data post it. Anecdotal stuff doesn't count for much.

But here's another nice doc on current behaviors.

Good background starts on page 18 of
http://www.cityofvancouver.us/PublicWorks/vancouverlake/PartnershipTechnicalFoundation121208.pdf
but there's similar info in lots of places.

"Typical Water Year
The source and volume of contributing flows to Vancouver Lake vary throughout the year. When examining lake hydrology and its effects on lake dynamics, it is important to understand changes in flow from different sources. One way to become familiar with changes in flow at the lake from month to month is by looking at a typical water year at Vancouver Lake (see Figure 2-2). For scientists examining flows, a water year typically begins in October. The following paragraphs represent an interpretation of flow data by Ron Wierenga of Clark County Public Works.

In October, water levels at Vancouver Lake and their tributaries are at their lowest, and tidal fluctuations are more influential than tributary flows. As a result, the direction of flow through Lake River reverses daily, flowing into and out of Vancouver Lake at different times during the day.

During the rainy season (November to February), the lake level rises to intermediate stages as flows from Burnt Bridge Creek and Salmon Creek increase rapidly. Lake water is dominated by flows other than the Columbia River, and during the winter it is assumed that local tributaries are the primary source of water to Vancouver Lake. Flow through Lake River reverses direction (either to or from Vancouver Lake) for days at a time, depending on runoff from local watersheds and dam operations for hydropower.

From March to June, local tributary flows decrease and inputs from the Columbia River rise as a result of springtime snowmelt and rainfall. The highest water levels at Vancouver Lake are
often observed in early to mid-June. During the spring, Lake River typically flows south from the Columbia River to Vancouver Lake for long periods of time. The lake maintains high water levels, which are influenced mainly by Columbia River flows.

In June and July the lake level can drop rapidly as Columbia River stage declines. At this time Lake River typically carries water away from the lake, flowing to the north for long periods at atime.

During the last few months of the water year, from July to October, the lake remains at its lowest levels and the direction of flow in Lake River again reverse daily as a result of tidal fluctuations. During this period only water from the southern reach of Lake River is exchanged with lake water. Columbia River water continues to enter the lake through the flushing channel as a result of tidal swings and dam operation.

Figure 2-2 (attached)
2006 Vancouver Lake and Columbia River Water Levels
(CPU and NOAA river gauges 2008)

[snowmman 3]

Jerry, did you know the Columbia can reverse flow up to the Cowlitz?

[JerryThomas 0]

My Comment was not directed at you. Vancouver lake does not flow into the columbia River anywhere near Tina's bar, All I meant was that it was stupid to think that the money could have came from Vancouver Lake Or the lewis River. My research has proven this. If you would like , Please contact the army Corps of Enginers. Or contact the City Of Vancouver. and verify it, for your self. Nothing in my last post was directed at you.I did not mean it to seem that way. The Post was meant, Only for Info. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.I'll be more carefull next time. Jerry

[snowmman 3]

This book analyzes the effects of the Mt St. Helens eruptions...here specifically the mud and debris into the rivers:


http://books.google.com/books?id=AlysQS0xwjEC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=columbia+reverse+flow+cowlitz&source=bl&ots=IxRTz3860q&sig=5Kj5XP6kRRHA8iwwDsacyIUMZXM&hl=en&ei=LB91St3TDInYsQPin-DnCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=columbia%20reverse%20flow%20cowlitz&f=false

It says an estimated 45 million cubic yards of sediment were dumped in the Columbia from the Toutle and Cowlitz Rivers.
Estimated 14 million cubic yards of this material filled in parts of the navigation channel.

"According to Haeni (1983) "[The deposit was] in an area 7 miles upstream and 2 miles downstream from the junction of the Cowlitz and Columbia Rivers."

That's interesting. Sure the Cowlitz is way downstream from the Lewis. But hell, it's interesting the debris could have gone that far upstream. The dye experiment from the '60s seems vindicated.

more from that page in the book

"The flow of the Columbia River is in influenced by daily tidal cycles. During this cycle, there are periods when the river stands and periods when the flow is reversed in an upstream direction. The bulk of the sediment loads carried by the Cowlitz River reached the Columbia River during a period of reduced, or possibly reversed, flow. Although the reverse flow effect is thought to extend only as far upstream as river mile 52, much of the sediment was deposited upstream from the mouth of the Cowlitz for 7 miles"

[snowmman 3]

Quote

My Comment was not directed at you. Vancouver lake does not flow into the columbia River anywhere near Tina's bar, All I meant was that it was stupid to think that the money could have came from Vancouver Lake Or the lewis River. My research has proven this. If you would like , Please contact the army Corps of Enginers. Or contact the City Of Vancouver. and verify it, for your self. Nothing in my last post was directed at you.I did not mean it to seem that way. The Post was meant, Only for Info. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.I'll be more carefull next time. Jerry

I don't care enough about the river theories to research them more. There are plenty of propellers anyhow. No reason to analyze hydraulics.

Hey, what about 1300 lb sturgeon! 13 feet! (they're not allowed to lift them out of the water in OR?) pics here
http://www.nwfish.com/Sturgeon/sturgeon_fisheries.htm

(edit) It would have been way ballsy for Tom to say a 1000lb sturgeon moved the money from the Lewis to Tena Bar!

[JerryThomas 0]

Snowmmann.Your right.How ever this was not true before Mt ST Helens Erupted In the early 80's silt enterd into the columbia river causing flow change's .Jerry

[snowmman 3]

Quote

Snowmmann.Your right.How ever this was not true before Mt ST Helens Erupted In the early 80's silt enterd into the columbia river causing flow change's .Jerry

You didn't read the page in the book I referenced.

I don't know what we're debating. I'm confident neither of us knows anything about the behavior of the Columbia around the Lewis, today or in 1971. And I doubt Tom does.

The issues around the Cowlitz/Columbia juncture are explained in that book. The question is "why did the mud go 7 miles upstream". Not what happened after it did.

[JerryThomas 0]

Snowmman. Your right. Jerry

[georger 267]

Prior, though, in his air-conditioned office Al told me he saw a lot of shards of Cooper twenties in all kinds of shapes and sizes, discolored and black, and in various states of decomposition. He said many pieces were scattered along the high-tide mark. He couldn't say if it was that day's high tide, or the previous night's or the day before, etc. He also said that nothing was buried, that it was all laying on the surface as if it had just washed in.

[georger 267]

Quote

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"

I did and I have just addressed it. Good work! Thanks!

[snowmman 3]

good overview of the issues surrounding all the testimony and hydrology around tena's bar, georger.

I like these summaries that just try to collate all the available info, and implications or possibilities, as opposed to one-paragraphs that wrap with "and that's why it's obvious it got hooked on a propeller"

[snowmman 3]

georger said "I did and I have just addressed it. Good work! Thanks! "

yeah, the Cowlitz is pretty far away [from the Lewis], and everything seems to say similar stuff wouldn't be happening at the Lewis. But clearly the Columbia is a much more complicated river, at different points, then I had realized.

The stuff about the Mt St Helens debris going upstream in the Columbia (from the Cowlitz entry point) is good too (the book url I posted).

I was intrigued about how they said the stand-still or flow reversal happens at low-flow points/times.

Does it mean anything? Probably not, but good background/context/stuff to muse about.

[georger 267]

Quote

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?

I cant speak for what the FBI did or did not do
in this case. The technology in 1971 was good. By 1980- it was better. Today it is still better, and more efficient, with a growing body of well trained people. People were already doing multi variant modeling by computer in the 60s. Eg., "Computer Experiments in Fluid Dynamics - Hydrological Modeling" by Harlow & Fromm, Sci Am + Nature, March 1965. Quantico has always been up to date if not ahead of the curve. Quantico has a steady influx and outflow of leading researchers.

Ckret posted here that he wants well-reasoned
arguments backed up with facts and data. I believe
that is his stance and I share that point of view.

[snowmman 3]

Georger said "Ckret posted here that he wants well-reasoned
arguments backed up with facts and data. I believe
that is his stance and I share that point of view."

I was wondering if we could agree on the following.

Tom said he pinpointed the dredge plume to be 150 feet away from where the money was found, and used that measurement to claim that the money could have arrived at Tena Bar shortly after the jump, i.e. before the dredging.

Do we all agree that the Fazios spread the sand from the dredging on Tena Bar (their testimony), so that independent of where the initial plume was, from the pipeline dredge, that the spoils likely were spread widely on Tena Bar?

I can't understand how Tom used one measurement, to discount Palmer's report of layers and contents of those layers, when there was straightforward testimony from Fazio that could explain the dispersion of dredge spoils away from the initial plume shown in the aerial photos.

Oh BTW, those aerial photos were shown on the documentary and referred to as "satellite photos"...We know they were aerial right? I don't think they had satellite photos in the '70s like that (they were Corps of Engineers photos if I remember right, for floodplain analysis?)

[georger 267]

Quote

georger said "I did and I have just addressed it. Good work! Thanks! "

yeah, the Cowlitz is pretty far away [from the Lewis], and everything seems to say similar stuff wouldn't be happening at the Lewis. But clearly the Columbia is a much more complicated river, at different points, then I had realized.

Well, the Columbia and its environs are a complex
web of interactive elements. This is why its so
important to have some idea about where Cooper
bailed ... which goes back to the fp. Especially if
the money doesn't "blink" a special message....
I came from . . .

[377 22]

Quote

Hey, what about 1300 lb sturgeon! 13 feet! (they're not allowed to lift them out of the water in OR?) pics here
http://www.nwfish.com/...urgeon_fisheries.htm

Wow, some big Sturgeon! Thanks for the info Snow. We have them in SF Bay too, a few HUGE old ones and a lot of younger 4-6 footers.

Nice to see you and Georger engaged in a reasoned discourse on tides, flow and Tena Bar stuff.

That flow reversal info is interesting, with the phenomena extending a lot further upriver than I expected.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[georger 267]

Quote

Georger said "Ckret posted here that he wants well-reasoned
arguments backed up with facts and data. I believe
that is his stance and I share that point of view."

I was wondering if we could agree on the following.

Tom said he pinpointed the dredge plume to be 150 feet away from where the money was found, and used that measurement to claim that the money could have arrived at Tena Bar shortly after the jump, i.e. before the dredging.

Do we all agree that the Fazios spread the sand from the dredging on Tena Bar (their testimony), so that independent of where the initial plume was, from the pipeline dredge, that the spoils likely were spread widely on Tena Bar?

I can't understand how Tom used one measurement, to discount Palmer's report of layers and contents of those layers, when there was straightforward testimony from Fazio that could explain the dispersion of dredge spoils away from the initial plume shown in the aerial photos.

Oh BTW, those aerial photos were shown on the documentary and referred to as "satellite photos"...We know they were aerial right? I don't think they had satellite photos in the '70s like that (they were Corps of Engineers photos if I remember right, for floodplain analysis?)

Yes, the photos were Corps aerial views given us
by Ckret, as I recall. The 9/6/74 photo shows two
bulging deposits which I assume are dredge deposits.
It would be these piles Fazio spread. (see attached)

The circle on these photos was supplied by someone -
Ckret? The circle marks the general area where the
money surfaced; looks to be very close to a dredge pile if not under the pile.

I simply dont know what Tom's current thinking
on this is.

[georger 267]

That flow reversal info is interesting, with the phenomena extending a lot further upriver than I expected.
377

[snowmman 3]

on the idea of the Fazio seeing fragments.

Do we agree that there were no black bills when the money was found?

I'm also not sure how Fazio could visually identify (it appears he didn't recover any) fragments of paper as coming from dollar bills, from a distance of at least six feet.

Could Fazio have seen something else? natural or otherwise?

I mean it beggars belief that he visually saw a debris field of black fragments, and identified it as fragments from bills just by looking at it, or remembering something after the money was found.

Black fragments: if they're black, how do you know they are dollar bill fragments anyhow, just from a distant visual inspection.

Bruce: I posted the page from the Tosaw book. Is that the page Fazio pointed to when you interviewed him? I have the Norjak photo also. If that photo wasn't it, maybe it was the Norjak photo.

Maybe Fazio remembered seeing fragments, the memory being after the money was discovered. But when the dig happened the fragments had been washed away.

Who the heck knows what we're talking about with this "fragment field" though.

(edit) an alternate explanation of the "fragment field" would be that it was the brown remnants from Duane Weber's paper bag. But people would instantly recognize that it's unlikely for a paper bag to flake out like that. Once you realize that, it makes you think about the craziness of this dollar bill fragment field proposal.

[snowmman 3]

Back in the caveman era, Jo posted

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2530355;search_string=north%20carolina;#2530355

"I know he was in North Carolina and South Carolina during the yrs 1968 thru 1971 off and on. Lived in Columbia for sometime."

North Carolina is interesting because of Fort Bragg.

Jo: did Duane ever live in the vicinity of Fort Bragg??

(edit) I just noticed Jo's post was from Nov 14, 2006.
That's MIGHTILY impressive. Coming on 3 years, posting to DZ.com about a single topic.

I don't care what planet you're from, that's impressive.

[snowmman 3]

I think this is 377 and SafecrackingPLF in the tunnel at Fort Bragg.
How come they get such a big one?

[snowmman 3]

You were right, 377. It was a lot faster/better to pour slabs for the walls, and then raise them up with a crane, rather than pour in place.

The project turned out pretty good. Photo attached.

[georger 267]

Quote

on the idea of the Fazio seeing fragments.

Do we agree that there were no black bills when the money was found?

I'm also not sure how Fazio could visually identify (it appears he didn't recover any) fragments of paper as coming from dollar bills, from a distance of at least six feet.

Could Fazio have seen something else? natural or otherwise?

I mean it beggars belief that he visually saw a debris field of black fragments, and identified it as fragments from bills just by looking at it, or remembering something after the money was found.

Black fragments: if they're black, how do you know they are dollar bill fragments anyhow, just from a distant visual inspection.

Bruce: I posted the page from the Tosaw book. Is that the page Fazio pointed to when you interviewed him? I have the Norjak photo also. If that photo wasn't it, maybe it was the Norjak photo.

Maybe Fazio remembered seeing fragments, the memory being after the money was discovered. But when the dig happened the fragments had been washed away.

Who the heck knows what we're talking about with this "fragment field" though.

(edit) an alternate explanation of the "fragment field" would be that it was the brown remnants from Duane Weber's paper bag. But people would instantly recognize that it's unlikely for a paper bag to flake out like that. Once you realize that, it makes you think about the craziness of this dollar bill fragment field proposal.

I am in the same boat with all of this -

A 200ft foot field is a good sized field. I am
assuming Jerry/Fazio meant parallel to the river.
Geometry & depth of the field would relate to the
process that created it.

I have no problem with discolored bill fragments,
even black fragments. In the hard light of day
however these colors are not single hues.

My opinion is a lot is getting lost in translation.
We dont even have the DATE Fazio/Jerry are talking about.

I like you am trying to juxtapose this report in
terms of other observers, the excavation, reports,
etc. Even Palmer reports "fragments" but "in the
top layer", not on top of it. So I do not think\
Fragments are in doubt.

Here are excavation photos. I see two things at
possibly two different stages of the dig. Trenches
perpendicular to the river (not sure how many).
But also people turning the surface with scoops
(shovels), maybe looking for surface artifacts like
fragments? I assume these people turning the
surface with shovels came BEFOIRE the deep
trenches were dug? The work of turning the surface
seems compatible with (1) how Ingrams found the
money, just below the surface, and (2) the idea of
fragments near the surface...

One photo shows screening obviously looking for
small artifacts...

Question: do we know anyone who was on this
dig who is still alive to talk about it?