FLYJACK

I did my money spot research without checking Tom's or Eric's spot first.. I just checked Eric's spot and he did get the spot right in the 1980 images,, exactly the same as my spot. However, the GPS co-ords he posted don't seem to match the spot he ID'd in the 1980 photos. Now, it is very tricky to get the exact GPS co-ords today for the 1980 environment. I am going to try to get more precise GPS co-ords.

EU (Eric) has the spot too far from the River.. which is why he pushing a flood event narrative. The actual spot was about 20 yards from the water in Feb 1980 on the high water line and sometimes underwater.. Palmer concluded it arrived within a year of the find. For the money to come from the River all you need is (normal) high water not a flood event.

Shutter is wrong the rock is visible during the dig in 1980 from many photo/vids. R99, I don't know what is going on there most of the time, the bent tree is clear. Eric is out to lunch most of the time. This isn't rocket science, this is simple stuff..

Gaping pit.. about 20 yards from water's edge.. showed the spot where Brian Ingram found the three packages of bills.. spot that is sometimes underwater as the River level fluctuates...

The ROCK is in both of the 1980 Heli shots... Eric is 100% wrong, he is on the N side of the tree and too far from the River, that makes his claim that it was underwater only twice, false. It was found on the high water line.

According to this article four fingerprint systems were used on the money.

I flipped the 1990 map to make them the same orientation. The angle isn't exactly the same but all the marks line up.. including the trees, rock and road. Eric's spot, (the lower yellow pin) is clearly about 40 ft too far N and 25 ft too far E. (away from the River) The same spot on a 1979 map..

Here is my "TBAR MONEY FIND" spot vs Eric's.. on a 1990 map. His spot is about 25 feet further E from the River and 40 feet North from my spot. NO way Eric is correct, it just does not match the tree pattern and other markers, whatsoever. My spot is close, it could be within 10 feet of the actual spot. It is near to the S side of the most Westerly tree. The key trees match the Sept 79 tree pattern and images from the 1980 money find time. Eric's spot is on the wrong side of the tree and too far from the river.

Here it is.. a newspaper article in the FBI files.. Palmer - there was "no conclusive evidence" that the money was in fact found three feet down, and surmised that it may have been deposited there in digging actions.

Palmer said (newspaper) they may have got buried during excavation and they weren't originally at depth. Palmer Report.. "The upper layer consisted of six inches to eight inches of reworked beach sand and is the sand which contained the fragments and bundles of the recovered money. This sand also contained soda pop cans and other debris, which were not severely damaged or rusted." Fazio's claimed money spot periodically underwater at high water...

I did my money find analysis completely independent of Shutter's, in fact I have never seen Shutter's analysis though I did know he thought Tom's spot was incorrect.. I have never done a deep dive into the exact spot until the Diatom info came up. My analysis includes many other image sources and measurements.. there is no other spot that matches that tree pattern/location. The tree next to the money spot is unique as it is the most W tree along the beach. The money was not in the river for very long based on diatoms, no more than several weeks. The money was found at the high tide line based on comments and analysis at the time it was found. The money washed up within a year, was found in top layer with other "fresher" debri. Palmer Report. The money did not go into the Columbia in November. Diatoms Columbia seasonal average flow.. Best fit for evidence,, combine the location, the diatom research and Palmer Report.. The money went into the River in Spring (closer to the find, likely 79) and was washed up onto TBAR relatively soon after in the same Spring. Theory, the three packets were one bundle discarded into the Willamette River in Spring of 79, they tumbled along the gravel bottom (Willamette) rounding off the saturated bundle while rubber bands remained intact. The rounded off single bundle of packets gets washed up on TBAR within 2-3 weeks of entering the River. The rubber bands holding the packets in a single bundle deteriorated and broke apart releasing the three packets to lay separate but touching. For the money to have been embedded in the R bottom, it would have had to have gone into the R in Spring, become entirely embedded almost immediately then get released in Spring. Possible I guess but not very likely. IMO, the dredge is out.

Debri doesn't have to float on the top to get washed ashore. Almost anything not embedded into the bottom can get washed ashore. The money would have been suspended in the water.. enough force and it gets washed up. The highest seasonal flow for the Columbia is in Spring. Here is part of my analysis for the TBAR spot, there is more involved from many other images and videos but this is the only spot that fits the tree pattern. The spot is very very close. This is North of the find looking S. This is the money spot. This is the pattern of the trees. This is the only match to the tree pattern on a map, 09/29/1979. .

The takeaway from info at the time of the find is that the money was found at the current (Feb 1980) high tide line not above,, You don't need the 72 or 74 flood event.. that is a red herring. It could have been deposited by normal high water. Tom's diatom work indicated a spring, not the year. Palmer's conclusion was within a year of the find.. the money was found in the top layer with "fresher" debris. The evidence indicates money went into the River and onto TBAR in Spring time closer to the find in 1980.

After I had Id'd a spot, I measured the distance from the red dot to water's edge via Google earth and overlays = about 20 yards / 60 ft (Map is dated 9/29/79) This article.. "A gaping pit, about 20 yards from the water's edge, showed the spot where Brian Ingram found the three packages of bill's Sunday" "spot that obviously is sometimes under water as the river fluctuates"

I finally did a thorough analysis of the money find location... Based on pics, video and maps... statements during the find that it was found at the high tide line. Granted it is 40 years after the find... 1979 image.. money find = red dot

yes, but it was just an opinion based on the similarity,, I don't consider it "evidence"..

Hahneman was not co-operating after he was caught for his hijacking. Of course he was investigated, even the crew thought he was Cooper, he is briefly in the Cooper FBI files but name redacted even though he died long ago.. which is not necessary if he was dead and eliminated as a suspect. I did FOIA.. you won't prove Hahneman was Cooper from FBI files, you prove it by forensically putting him on the plane and that is extremely difficult for any suspect.

The indication via Larry Carr was that the bundles were made random,, Carr incorrectly believed that the individual "packets of 100" were made random and rubber banded, they were not. The bundles of packets were. The only conclusion is that the bundles of packets were rubber banded and made random. There is no evidence the packet "straps" were altered. Now, were the packets in rubber bands, bank straps or both? That isn't known for sure, there is more evidence for bank straps but they could have had rubber bands as well. The takeaway is... the claim that money arrived as three separate packets but together is an assumption not a fact. It is more likely they arrived in one rubber banded bundle as Cooper got them.. and as the rubber bands holding all the packets together deteriorated the packets fell slightly apart.

Somebody tell Eric that it is not a FACT that the three packets arrived separately. This is his MO,, he elevates conjecture to fact then ridicules any objections. They likely arrived as one rubber banded bundle of packets, as the rubber bands deteriorated the three packets were left. The claim that rubber bands were intact is nonsense, look at the money, no way they were "intact", there were fragments that crumbled right away. We have no evidence for the location of the rubber band fragments on the packets. The money went to Cooper in rubber banded bundles of multiple packets of 100 bills each. To arrive on TBAR separately the packets had to be removed from their bundle prior. They were in the same order and packaging as they were given to Cooper per FBI. What is amazing is that people accept this type of argument from Eric. If it isn't Eric's view, it is "magic" and "not embedded in reality". Eric... "It's amazing to me how many people simply discount that three individual packets were found, on top of each other, with rubber bands still intact yet very brittle, 8 years after the fact.Any theory that magically describes these packets floating and burying themselves together, especially months or years after the skyjacking, strikes me as not embedded in reality." The rubber bands don't last long in the wild, Palmer Report, money arrived within a year of find, in top layer with "fresher" debris Money likely arrived as one bundle of packets, Diatoms, Spring river immersion, Money found at high tide line. == Spring 1979 into the river and deposited on TBAR, (most likely) .

You are essentially claiming that if Hahneman was Cooper, the FBI would have arrested him. They didn't so he isn't Cooper. That is just a false argument. There are many reasons why they may not have charged him... They just botched it, there was high level interference or they couldn't put him on the plane. Without giving all the details I have, I believe it was all three.. based on evidence. The FBI has never eliminated Hahneman or given any reason.. they have for many other suspects.

Those witnesses are weak. Geestman was lying until he wasn't. You can't substantiate any of what they say is true. The way I look at suspects is this,, look at all the pieces that support in context, those pieces can range from very strong to very weak. So far, all suspects are circumstantial, but most are weak, some ridiculous.. My point is Hahneman is the strongest suspect, he is an excellent match for the description, the profile and the evidence plus he committed a virtually identical crime. He actually hijacked and jumped out the rear stairs of a 727 at night over a jungle with a military chute. Objectively, that puts Hahneman on another level. It just isn't debatable.

Those witnesses are very weak. People lie or imagine things all the time based on different motivations. People will say what they think you want to hear.. especially for TV. How many people claimed to be Cooper? How many in FBI files were told by somebody they were Cooper or knew Cooper? People are the most unreliable form of "evidence", especially 50 years later. I don't believe somebody can recall the exact tie clip another person wore almost 50 years ago.. Somebody just claiming that X was Cooper is not evidence. IMO, If people are claiming somebody they know was Cooper that is a strong indication he wasn't. Lots of people hid money in their house.

Yeah there are, some are major, some minor.. some are more direct match, some fit the profile. When they are all added up it is overwhelming short of forensically putting him on the plane, I am still working on that. examples... hijacked a 727, parachuted from back stairs, turkey neck, smoker (filtered), military exp, aviation crew experience, left a tie on the plane, brown shoes, left open parachute, pills for the crew, ordered military chutes, specific aviation knowledge, no accent, midwest (PA), dark suit, briefcase bomb, white collared shirt, overcoat, sunglasses, dark wavy/marceled hair, parted on right, sometimes slicked back, fly to Mexico, age 49, about 170 lbs, weight fluctuated, intelligent, low voice, latin, swarthy, dark eyes, demanded return of notes, sat in back with a stew, sunglasses, jumped at night over jungle/woods, manager/electrical engineer (tie), radar/navigation expert, a loner, estranged from family, demanded shades closed, prescription glasses, last job Vietnam ended Aug 71, has been in Seattle... etc..etc.. etc... Other - he went to Honduras from the US and established residency in Jan 72 using a modified name and incorrect birthdate. He hadn't lived in Honduras since a kid. I should compile these and all my other stuff into a presentable form but it would be a big job and I am still researching..

It isn't a fair question it is a silly one... there is lots of info beyond latin descent. Latin descent is only one, but it is a big one that gets dismissed, that was my point. I probably have 150-200 Hahneman pieces that match Cooper.. No other suspect is even close.

Eyewitness descriptions can be inaccurate, however Cooper's Latin appearance was universal. Not one said he had a tan. It is a huge mistake to assume that somebody investigated but not charged was innocent. I have reasons why Hahneman may not have been charged for NORJAK. I started looking at Hahneman trying to determine why he was NOT Cooper and he became a better suspect.