FLYJACK

I just don't see how leaving the tie benefits Cooper.. he may have left it intentionally or unintentionally. If he wanted to mess with the FBI there are many better ways to do it.. Also, Cooper handed money to Tina.. she took it and claimed to return it. Now, Cooper's prints would likely be on that money. So, handing money to Tina was not smart and contradicts his perceived thoroughness. Cooper also handled the drink money, reportedly offered the other stews ransom money and tip/change money from his pocket. That demonstrates that he wasn't as "sharp" as claimed.. I think he was as lucky as he was sharp. That risk Cooper took of leaving prints on the money negates the argument that Cooper must have planted the tie because he was so meticulous about not leaving prints behind.

According to the FBI, sketch "B" is more accurate...

Why? for what purpose.. How would it benefit him,, pre DNA.. it took 40+ yrs to analyze the particles.

It is possible the tie wasn't his... anything is possible. The Goodwill thing is a stretch for such a dirty cheapo tie. Can't see that, it was filthy. I think he probably used the tie to wipe prints in the plane, based on the particle distribution clusters, but he left cigarettes possibly cups and magazines.. and the parachutes he handled. So, leaving the tie isn't really out of character. Hahneman left a tie behind for his hijacking..

Short version.. Eric is dishonest, frequently wrong and I don't publicly debate people I don't respect about their nonsense theories. The IMPORTANT Cooper take away is the tie was made and likely sold after early 1964 into 1965. Since the tie had 6-7 years worth of "environments" to collect all those particles and not the couple years the FBI claimed, then matching a suspect to an environment in that timeframe is a big deal. EVERYONE is missing this..

Wrong Dave, Eric is full of it. The funky "P" was already known to have been introduced in 1963. I have since pinned down the exact date in 1963. The Remington manufacturer is easily found based on a 2 second google search of the RN number. That is a gimme. What I am referring to is dating the tie by deciphering the patent numbers from the Cooper tie, the label was actually misaligned so the last number on the patent was missing from view. Way back, I did a massive search for similar Pennys Towncraft Snapper ties.. I noticed they had different patent numbers for the Snapper.. Looking up the patents you can get a date range.. Later ties had different numbers and ties 1963 and before did not have the funky "P". So, we could narrow down the date. I posted this ongoing process with pics and long before Eric claimed to have figured it out. I also mentioned it in posts many times.. I also emailed it to a bunch of Cooper people. About a year and half after I posted this stuff Eric brags about deciphering the tie patents. I asked him where he got that from.. He said he did it himself.. RIGHT Eric also bragged that he had been studying the case thoroughly for a long time so there is no way he didn't see my posts on it.. there are many posts referring to the tie patents and dating the tie to around 1965. Anybody reading Shutters forum back then would have seen my many posts on it. To deflect, Eric has been calling me a troll and a liar trying to discredit me ever since. I point out facts that refute his nonsense theories and he either calls me names or ignores it.. So, he is a fraud. There is no way he didn't see my many posts about the tie patents over about a year and half and miraculously come up with it himself. No serious Cooper sleuth believes his Sheridan nonsense, it is wall to wall conjecture layered upon speculation wrapped in guesses and sandwiched in ignorance. If he wasn't running the CooperCon he'd be trashed. CooperCon bought him a level of immunity from criticism, probably the reason he does it. Not debating Eric is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of integrity. I don't publicly debate people I don't respect and debating nonsense theories is akin to debating the existence of Bigfoot. You can't prove Bigfoot doesn't exist. I actually prefer that Eric keeps pursuing his increasingly ridiculous metamorphosing theory... now that I have shown the money spot was reached by the river outside of the 72/74 floods Eric needs to conjure up another version to fit his narrative. Lastly,, Eric has it wrong. It was not in 1963. He wants the tie to be 1963 to put Sheridan in possession. So, he made it up. Eric will get mad again and call me names but he has been doing that ever since I caught him lying. and I really don't care that Eric used it, I posted it for everyone. It is the lies and smears he started... Enough of that nonsense, back to Cooper. The tie dating isn't precise as we can only get a range. A patent application/grant doesn't tell you exactly when that part was made or actually used in manufacture. We also don't know how long the tie may have been in store inventory before being sold. The earliest manufacture is early 1964 thru around the end of 1964.. but the tie could have been sold in 1965.. or a little later if inventory slow.. I use an estimate of 1965 +/- 6 months. These are images I posted around Feb 2017.. I also mentioned it many many times in posts before Eric claimed it was his. So, it would be a huge plus for a Cooper suspect environment to match the tie particles from around 1965 +/- and Hahneman matches it better than any suspect. The FBI went to a Pennys store and asked a manager about the tie and they said a few years old... So, the FBI went with that and assumed the tie was only a couple years old. It was actually about six years old. Cooper tie on right.. examples of the different patents on other ties on the left. The last "0" is cutoff the Cooper tie patent number label.

The Hans Egger family owned the N property adjacent to the Fazio's from well before the hijacking to 2004.. Anderson bought it in 2004. I assume he was the "resident/user" prior to 2004, but not the legal owner. The problem is the Fazio's commercial sand and gravel operation is an entirely different process from beach nourishment which had nothing to do with the property owner. There is a water level on the beach where the property actually ends and it is public.. The money spot was very close to the border of the properties and public beach line and it seems unlikely the Fazio's would place their commercial material right up to that border.. We need to find any and all "beach nourishment" records for the Egger property and Fazio's. My preliminary guess is there was "continuous" beach nourishment operations there. The Fazio Commercial dredging operations/permits are probably a red herring and took place South of the money find..

The money may not have been recognizable, looked like wood or garbage.. A local resident said his kids drove a 4wd over the spot... The Ingram's added Clorox to the sink water but were mostly unsuccessful in separating individual bills. They got a few but the 3 packets ended up in 12 clumps.

I checked the shadows in the TBAR pic and estimate the time is late afternoon,, Tide height was about 2.5 ft

Tom's diatom research indicates they entered the money packets in Spring when the money fanned out.. Spring 72-79 The diatoms would not have penetrated the sand or a solid clump of bills. Palmer and the Army Corps suggest the money landed on TBAR within a year or so of the find in 1980. 78-79 If the 1974 dredge operation did not actually reach the TBAR spot it also looks like there was a beach nourishment there in 1973. The money spot is only about 4 ft above the water level in Feb 1980, the river reached that spot frequently including 1978. (The 72/74 flood event only is bogus) The money was found in the top fresh debris layer. Conclusion.. The money most likely entered the River in Spring 79 (poss 78) and was deposited on TBAR within a very short period of time. This is what I have been saying all along.... case is solved.

Apparently for some "continuous" means once every ten years... “During fishing season, the beach is packed from end to end, say local residents Clarence and Barbara Ellis. They have lived in their mobile home just down the road from Fazio Bros. for the past 30 years. Every day Clarence takes his outboard skiff along Tina Bar patrolling the river and the beach for renegade logs that could damage other boats. Ellis says that the Army Corps of Engineers continuously dredges sand directly off the shore from where the money was found.” “Today a spokesman for the Army Engineers said they were working closely with the FBI, checking out that lead, The sand sucked up from the bottom of the river and spewed onto the beach could have contained some or all of the long-sought money. While dredging is continuous, the last time sand was deposited in that spot was in October 1974.” “The beach property actually belongs to the Hans Egger family of Vancouver." This may have been an early assumption because the spot is so close to the property boundary.. it is too hard to pinpoint today but the money spot is just on one side of the property boundary line. Edit: The quotes above are not my statements, they are reports at the time.. Your ignorance is duly noted. Here is the Egger property bordering N of Fazio's.. along the River right at the money spot.

I recently discussed the TBAR slope with Tom.. He got 5.5 deg from his photo, I got 5.7 deg from this photo (about 10% slope). Essentially a match.. using people in the photo and the slope it puts the money spot height at about 4 ft above the water level in Feb 1980. Sorry Eric, wrong again. Here in June 1978 the river level is right at the money spot.. it looks to be just N of the Fazio's and on the Egger property but it is too close to call.

I found a record showing in 1973 at RM 95.9,, 66,615 yards of material was deposited for erosion mitigation,, directly across from the money find. The context for the report and record is the Oregon side ONLY so it would not show anything done on the Washington side. It was common to do beach replenishment after a flood (1972)

I agree with that but here is the problem,, once the bills get initially passed by Cooper they get into circulation. Now, you have potentially 9700 bills randomly circulating throughout the system and not one ever gets identified. IMO, it is unlikely all or most of the bills were passed in the US. either Cooper lost all the money, it was hidden and never spent or it was taken out of the US.

The money was about 4ft above the water level at the time of the find in Feb 1980.. Less if it was buried 6 inches.. That makes sense.. Fazio stated the "place is periodically underwater during high river runoff, like last week"

Yes DAVE, your site is a clown show, a toxic environment that YOU enable.. I responded to the BS and attacks against me from your site, I don't instigate, this is what you fail to understand. I am doing my own thing and you clowns copy my stuff from this site and attack me. Your clown show instigates. Then you blame me when I defend myself.. you are a joke. Everybody knows your site is toxic, people don't post there or they hold back because they don't want to be attacked and feel the need to defend themselves all the time. I have never posted pics from your site and I have only responded to smears and disinformation instigated there. Don't use my stuff from here and don't mention me on your site and problem solved. Just pretend I don't even exist. Thanks. I really just want to focus on the Cooper case...

I don't care if people use stuff I post to advance the case.. I take issue with personal attacks, lies, misinformation and disinformation from ignorant people who contribute nothing.

Here is what I found.. (if you don't like it, do your own homework) The money spot was about 4 ft above the river level in Feb 1980. Not 9 ft, not 10 ft. You don't need the 72/74 flood event for the River to reach the spot. According to reports from the site (and images), the money was found at the 1980 high water line. Here in June (seasonal high water flow) 1978 it was right at the water line. (Eric's false facts and theory busted again) There are two distinct active designated disposal sites (1975): The Southern Fazio sand and gravel operation and the property N of Fazio's owned by Egger. The N site is a beach replenishment site and on the map it encroaches slightly onto the Fazio property. The material for the Fazio operation is used for a commercial purpose, it is placed in large piles.. The Northern beach replenishment serves a different purpose. Beach replenishment was done after flood events. The 1973 image looks like beach replenishment after the 1972 flood.. 97.1 is the Fazio sand and gravel operation.. The Northern site is nearly entirely on the Egger property. 1971/1973,, that looks like beach replenishment and it is right at the money spot. The money find spot is very close to the intersection of 3 separate parcels, Fazio's to the S and two adjacent one's owned by Egger.. There is a report that is was actually on the Egger's side though the digging to the S was on the Fazio property. I have tried to pinpoint the exact spot and it looks like it was on the Egger's side but I can't say for sure. It is really close to the boundary. The property line depicting the shoreline (North/South) is estimated according to the source (Clarke County) On the Egger side of boundary. Palmer pointing to spot, on Egger side. Red line boundary. I can't confirm it is on the Egger side but it might be or very close. Point is the beach replenishment on the Egger side would have included the money spot. The spokesperson for the Army Corp of Engineers in Feb 1980 said that dredging was continuous, last one in 1974. Show me all the records for both sites,,

FACT is, I posted the tie dating research on Shutter's site and emailed it to others long before Eric ever mentioned it.. FACT is, I didn't care about any attribution. I posted it for anyone to use. I have no reason to lie... why would I care.. The only dumpster fire is Eric's Sheridan alt flightpath, burial, retrieval narrative, we all know it but others won't say it publicly. The tie was NOT manufactured in 1963, if Eric did the research he would know that.

Get the facts right. I posted my tie dating research to contribute to the general case knowledge for everyone. I never expected credit.. it was to advance the case for all to use. I also emailed it to several people. About 1-1.5 years later Eric posts the same research, he claimed it was ALL his and then called me a liar and troll ever since. Eric is a liar and a complete fraud. Eric cherry picks/contorts info that fits his Sheridan narrative while completely ignoring or discrediting contradictory info. His Sheridan narrative is a joke and everyone knows it. Eric did three things.. He used my research and claimed it was his. He made a false claim about the date, he claimed the tie dated to 1963 to advance his Sheridan narrative. FALSE, it was NOT 1963. If he did the research he would know that. He then called me a liar and troll ever since. Because of this I stopped posting everything I have. IMO, this is one of the most overlooked pieces of evidence.. The tie was manufactured from about Spring 1964 to the end of 1964. So, it likely sold roughly Spring 1964-early 1965. The tie particles accumulated from then to the hijacking. Pinning down a suspects environment from those dates forward is crucial.

T What a clown show... over there. STOP using my stuff. Do your own homework. The shoreline clearly shows deposits after sept 71 and before July 1973 right at the money spot.. This is Sept 74 showing the documented fresh dredge spoils, and in Sept 75 it is almost gone, but you can still see slight bumps on the shoreline.. just like the 73 spoils at the money spot.

The money find location was about 4 ft above the water level in Feb 1980.. These images end Eric's nonsense burial theory.. There is clearly dredge spoils on the beach in '73.. exactly where the money was found.. the shoreline is dramatically different. Right Sept 1971 - Left July 1973

The "continuously" statement is accurate, it didn't come from Fazio... it came from a local resident who walked the beach daily. There are two dredge spoil designations there.. the Fazio's property and the beach area which goes onto the adjacent property.. The money find was in the Northern site, most of it off the Fazio property. Eric said Fazio didn't even remember the correct money spot. Existing disposal sites 1975 97.1 Fazio site 96.6 Adjacent Fazio site 95% off Fazio property

This is July 1973, looks like dredge material right at the money spot... A local said they dredged to replenish TBAR beach "continuously".... prior to 1974.

BTW a 10-11% slope = 5.71-6.28 degrees