FLYJACK

I posted a comment here on the soda cans months ago.. Shutter's site is looking at it now, but I did work on this a while back. Palmer found soda cans in the same top layer as the money and suggested that if the soda cans could be dated it may help determine the arrival time of the money on TBAR. Palmer also stated that the debris in the upper layer with the money was fresher and not very damaged. There is NO suggestion the soda cans came from Cooper. It looks like the Sioux City Sarsaparilla was introduced 1973+.. I found one reference for 1973, another source for 1974 and an ad for Aug 73.. so late '73.. "White Rock" did have a sarsaparilla way back but it had a different name. This suggests the money did not arrive on TBAR before 1973. Further, I have analyzed a really good profile shot of TBAR during the dig from 1980.. The slope is 10-11%, the distance from the river waterline (Feb 1980) to the money spot is about 40 ft.. THAT IS ONLY A 4-4.5 ft ELEVATION RISE from the Feb 1980 River level. Reports at the time claimed the money was found at the high water mark and was frequently under water,,, you don't need the 72/74 flood for the River to reach the money spot. Those floods at 21 ft put the money spot 60-70 ft into the River. The seasonal high water flow for the Columbia is Spring.. matches spring diatoms. Kaye = exposed to River in Spring. Palmer = arrived within about a year. All of this suggests the money arrived within a year or so of the 1980 find,, spring 1979 or possibly spring 1978.. Eric's TBAR burial theory is complete nonsense, it doesn't fit the facts and is speculation well beyond reason. Eric, as usual is claiming supporting facts that just are not so. AND there is NO evidence to support the claim AS FACT that the money could have ONLY arrived as three separate packets. Most likely, they were part of a single rubber banded bundle, that is how it was given to Cooper. It is reasonable that as the rubber bands holding the bundle deteriorated the three packets then separated slightly and were found together. The three packets of 100 bills were in the same order as given to Cooper.

In 1976 can was steel.. https://www.canmuseum.com/Detail.aspx?CanID=23706

"What is Sioux City Sarsaparilla? Sioux City Sarsaparilla is the signature drink from White Rock's Sioux City line. In 1973, White Rock president Albert Morgan wanted to start a western inspired line of classic American soft drinks, with a frontier feel. He chose Sioux City as his inspiration! Sioux City Sarsaparilla is known as "the Grandaddy of all root beers" and has a creamy taste somewhere between root beer and cream soda. And it's the most bought sarsaparilla in the US!" https://www.siouxlandfamilies.com/2020/08/the-story-of-sioux-city-sarsaparilla.html This seems to indicate it was started in 1973,,, if so, since it was found in the same layer with the TBAR money then that suggests the money arrived after 1973... I found an ad for it dated Aug 1973..

At the TBAR money spot the estimated slope from money spot to the water.. in 1980. slope in degrees,, 5.7 - 6.5 slope % 10 - 11.4 Don't ask.. but the claim that the money spot was only reached in the 72/74 flood is false.

Eric Ulis keeps repeating the same lie,, over and over.. From this lie, he builds a false conclusion. EU - "Palmer was just plain wrong about this. How do I know? Well, let’s look at some other verifiable facts for compatibility.1) The money was found in February 1980. What high-water river events occurred between February 1978 and February 1980 that could have delivered, and buried, the money at the money find spot and replenished the area with several inches of new sand? ANSWER: There weren’t any." It was reported at the time that the money was found at the 1980 high water line.. frequently under water. The claim that the money spot was only reached by the River in the 1972 and 1974 flood events is false. This is why I pointed out that Eric got the GPS co-ords wrong, about 25 feet too far from the River. Eric does this often, he establishes a false premise then applies it as fact to support a false conclusion... rookie logic.

Clarification... Time to bust this myth. I keep hearing an inaccuracy. The context for "sequential" is misused. Physical sequence vs alphanumeric sequence. The FBI money list was not physically sequential as the bills were given to Cooper. They were given to Cooper in a random numbered sequence. However, the published FBI list was the microfilm list reformatted to be alphanumeric. So, checking a bill to the list would have been easy. The argument that the FBI Cooper bill list would have been too complex to check is false. In fact, I'd really like to find an original list of the bills in the order they were given to Cooper.

New FBI file #50.. It is almost entirely suspect tips, news clippings and letters.. otherwise, nothing new on the case. https://vault.fbi.gov/D-B-Cooper /d.b.-cooper-part-50-of-50/view

The Money spot was at the N end of the Fazio property which is within a different site from the Fazio operation (97.1) This is a 1975 map of "existing disposal sites",, the red dot is the money spot which is the S tip of the N site.. It looks like the primary Fazio sand and gravel operation has nothing to do with the money spot. There is an adjacent site.

and Himmelsbach confirms the Corps of Engineers was on site... Now, Palmer and the Corps of Engineers, Himmelsbach and the media need to be discredited.. good luck.

article in FBI files.. The pop cans and most of the money were found six to eight inches below the surface, but fragments of the money reportedly were as far down as three feet. Palmer could not explain how the money might have been buried that deep. He said there was "no conclusive evidence" that money was in fact found three feet down, and surmised that it may have been deposited there in digging actions. It indicates Palmer did not believe the money fragments were three feet deep.

The Palmer Report and the article confirm and support each other.. both indicate the Corps was involved in determining the location of the dredge layer. The article only indicates they were on site with Palmer. Claiming the article is wrong with zero evidence... nice try. You can do that with anything, just deny it if you don't like it. That is how Eric rolls. Things don't have to be peer reviewed to be true.

The Palmer report was released in a recent FBI file... Georger is correct, it doesn't confirm the Corps IDing the dredge spoils on site.. it confirms their participation. But that is a red herring... The Corps of Engineers are extremely thorough and have very detailed records.. it is a big lift to undermine their claims. Eric will try, Georger will settle down with a chamomile tea and a blanket in his rocking chair and will eventually realize this is a game changer. I just report what I find.. don't shoot the messenger.

The max tidal swing on the Columbia is about 4.5 ft... But, the tidal numbers are not the absolute water level. It is only the tidal fluctuation, It does not account for other factors like flow.. The data shutter is using is based on gravitational maths for a general location. It has nothing to do with the Columbia R. It is an algorithm probably meant for the Ocean tides.

Georger is attacking me again with his typical strawman nonsense,,, and misinformation because he didn't check the source. No wonder some of these guys have got nowhere in a decade. NEVER EVER trust anything Georger claims without checking thoroughly. The FACTS.. QUOTE: "The agents were joined Wednesday by Leonard Palmer, Portland State University geology professor, and Corps of Engineers specialists in analyzing the area. The Corps of Engineers identified a layer of sand as having been deposited when the 40-foot ship channel was dredged in August 1974." and on cue Georger doubles down on stupid.. admit when you are wrong.. you can pop open the article and read it clearly unless you are still on that Commodore 64. The only thing funny is Georger getting caught again in his own ignorance... HILARIOUS.. We can start a gofundme to get you a modern computer so you can actually read my post and you don't have to make up stuff. I guess this flips the dredge spoils argument around... I was neutral on it but the Corps makes it very likely that the money was on top of the dredge spoils..

AAAANNNNND here we go............... L to R = Sept 71 / June 74 / Sep 74 Sept 71, money spot est 70-80 ft from river.. June 74, money spot est 70-80 ft from land.. (underwater) Sept 74, money spot est 40-50 ft from river.. . June 28/74.. close to record high water event,, far above the money spot. (70-80ft) A record flood event is not required for the river to reach the money spot, confirmed by reports in 1980. Dredge spoils were determined by the Corps of Engineers. They have very detailed records. Reports in 1980 - money was at high water line and sometimes underwater. YOU DO NOT NEED A FLOOD EVENT FOR WATER TO REACH THE MONEY SPOT. Palmer concluded money arrived within a year or so. Tom's diatom research indicates a spring only exposure to the Columbia R. The money was given to Cooper rubber banded in bundles of packets, there is no evidence the three packets arrived individually. It is more likely they arrived in a single bundle then fell apart as the rubber bands deteriorated. Conclusion, money went into the Columbia (as a single bundle) and onto TBAR in spring closer to 1980.. Spring 79 or maybe 78. "June 72 and 74? if they are not relevant then why are you posting them? " HUH,, I never said they weren't relevant, they show that the flood event was FAR above the money spot. Why is this hard to understand.. YOU DO NOT NEED THE 72 or 74 recorded flood events for the River to reach the money spot.. it is FALSE. It is confirmed by Palmer and reports in 1980. Eric's premise is that ONLY the 72/74 high water events after 71 reached the money spot. FALSE, FALSE, FALSE.. Eric needs this to be true for his narrative to work. It isn't.

Eric's premise is FALSE.. "OK. You may recall in an earlier post (Page 343, Reply #5144) that I stated that Tena Bar had had seven high-water events—defined as water levels that would reach the money find spot per 1980 standards —between June 1950 (approx. time Fazio’s purchased the property) and February 1980 (when the money was found)." This is exactly why I have been trying to nail down the exact spot. You do not need a "recorded" high water event to reach the spot. The money was found at the 1980 high water mark and was sometimes underwater.. (Reports in 1980) The evidence suggests it was deposited in Spring closer to 1980.

BREAKING... The dredge layer was identified by the Corps of Engineers...

Wow,, 2010 Columbia River bottom off Caterpillar Island 35 ft deep River mile 98.. TBAR is River mile 97.1-97.3 drifts downriver, must be right off TBAR.. looks sandy with small rocks and some garbage.. It looks like a water logged bundle of cash could easily get pushed down river. Is that a pop/beer can at about 5:28? Pop cans were found buried next to the Cooper money.

This is interesting,, a map dated "1971 09 19"... 9.5 weeks before the hijacking The map is huge so I zoomed and cropped it.. If Georger's Commodore 64 can't handle it,, nothing I can do... ...

Eric Ulis wrote... "What I do know is that if you want to see the precise money find spot today, punch 45.718551, -122.759407 into Google Earth and you're going to see the spot. I cannot speak to the accuracy of overlaying pictures from 30 years ago onto the GPS co-ords I have provided. Nonetheless, the old gravel road doesn't lie. And it didn't move." Eric is relying on images of a road from 1980.. nearly the entire road has been eroded into the River and YES, it has moved. At the money spot the old road is gone. That is why I have looked at many maps and multiple markers over the years. You can't determine the spot standing there today as everything has changed, including the road.

Water displacement from passing Freighter on Columbia River.. Water gets sucked out then rises.. hard to get perspective on level, it could be a two foot range..

Here is the 72 and 74 flood timeframe in June, the 21 ft floods are about 60-70 ft beyond the money spot. This indicates you don't require the extreme 72/74 flood event for the River to reach the spot. Much lesser high water events would reach the spot and that was confirmed in 1980 when the money spot was noted to be at high water mark and sometimes underwater.. The diatoms indicate the money went into the River in spring (fanned out), that could be 72 to 79..

It is an Abbott and Costello routine over there... you guys are arguing at cross purposes.. This is all you need to know.. Eric and I ID'd the same spot on 1980 images/video. Eric tried to get the GPS in person at TBAR. Very difficult now. I did it by triangulating many maps and using markers and Google Earth. Tom's co-ord is 200 ft South. The difference is the accuracy in transferring the location to a GPS co-ord. Checking the GPS co-ords on the map, mine is closer.. Eric is about 50 ft off. Tom 200 ft off. The white object isn't even relevant.

Everybody seems to agree on the spot in the 1980 images, the hard part is transferring those visuals to a GPS co-ord.. Here is a 1990 map and a USGS 7-26-1981 map on the right. Here is my spot, Eric's and Tom's GPS on Google Earth.. I checked and Google Earth's accuracy is about 2m.... Eric's GPS mark is about 50 ft from mine and Tom's spot is about 200 ft South of mine. The exact spot is the bottom point on the pin.. my pin is covering a tree. It is perfectly clear. I downloaded a 1981 USGS map, it is massive.

If we get GPS within 10 feet that is good enough and probably the best that can be achieved. Eric went to the location and took a GPS but the area has completely changed. When I put his GPS co-ords into a map, it looks off about 60 ft.. The problem is accurately converting the visual 1980 money spot location to a current GPS co-ord.. You can't be sure you are in the right spot at the location.. it is subjective and very difficult also GPS on maps can be slightly off. I have obtained a bunch of digital maps over the years and will triangulate.. Eric and I have the same spot visually ID'd on the 1980 images. It looks like his GPS co-ord is off that spot. When I mark the spot with a GPS on maps I get a different co-ord.