FLYJACK

Yup, it would have been nice if the agents back then followed up on some of these things.. but if they did a better job the case may have been solved. There is corroboration from several sources that the money was in bank bands/straps and then rubber banded into bundles when given to Cooper. There is an agent statement that the bundles were made into a random size before going to Cooper... FWW. Giving the stews money was not to be generous but to buy their confidence by implicating them and tainting them as witnesses... they would not be completely cooperative or entirely accurate. They would not want Cooper to be caught. As for Tina, she was the only one we know of that handled ransom money outside the bag other than Cooper. She had opportunity living next to the Columbia just upstream of TBAR in the late 70's. She had an piece in the newspaper right before the extensive ground search giving out case info claiming she refused the offer. The FBI was watching her when she lived in San Diego. She asked for the money claiming to be humorous, she was not humorous at any other time. Her behaviour was odd, around the time the money find she went into a nunnery, was she hiding, witness protection? During the first sketch she made comments on Cooper's face, during the second revised sketch B she claimed she never saw his face.. she is either lying to be evasive or was lying earlier. To dismiss this theory based on an assumption that she wouldn't do this or lie is the same error everyone makes, using an assumption to reject a theory, rookie stuff. Nobody knows what really happened, only Tina and Cooper knows. She claimed she handed it back citing company policy on tips,, this was not a tip. It is a solid theory based on the facts we have, it is not proven but is something that can't just be dismissed because people think it is out of character. Joking and asking for money was out of character.. If this happened and she did take the money or Cooper put it in her purse it wasn't something nefarious, she got scared and thought she would be in trouble, not true. Even if she admitted this today she wouldn't be in trouble. This is a classic Bayesian analysis... it doesn't mean it is true but it is a valid theory based on probabilities. But as I said this is a TBAR theory, there are others. Did Cooper put the Tina money in his pocket and pay for a ride after he landed to not be turned in.. Then that money ended up at TBAR when it became a liability and was tossed into the River.

No, the opposite.. Fazio's believed the money washed onto TBAR.. though that is an opinion. Bruce Smith post.. Last Monday, Al Fazio walked me through the money find, or tried to. He had a lot of memory gaps about which day what happened, but here is what I walked away with: Ingrams found the money on a Sunday afternoon. Al says they tried to pass some of it a bank on Monday. Couldn't do it, apparantly, and got directed to the FBI who got out to the beach late Monday. Al and his family were in the dark on the find, and Al first learned about the money when he was driving a load of cattle back from a sale in Oregon and the Feds had his driveway blocked out and wouldn't let him in. Once he cleared that up, he headed to the beach and saw lots of shards scattered along the high-tide line. Al says the bundle of bills was found just below the high-tide line, and Al is passionate when he says, "They washed in. They were buried there by the tide." The next day Tuesday, the feds asked Al and Richard to get their backhoes out and start digging. Al is adamant that no pieces of Cooper money were found beneath the surface of Tina's Beach. Feds were out there for a few days, and then the media came in, and that lasted for a few days. The Fazios seem to have every book written on DB Cooper and access them freely and readily. I saw no evidence of stroke on the part of Richard, as Jerry alluded to a few days ago. He's smart and conversant.

Another point is that a local,, I think it was a Fazio said during the money find search that the money find spot was recently underwater..

Both, they later picked off stuck pieces of rubber band and they crumbled when picked up. Per Tina, the packets had "bank type bands", but the packets were rubber banded into a bundle of several packets. That convinced me it was not a recent plant long before the diatoms were analyzed.. The diatoms confirmed it.

This is contradicted by the evidence.. The rubber bands crumbled when the packets were picked up and the money was tested for soil/sand.. It was only Columbia River sand. Shards were also present in the sand. Plus, the money was exposed to the River in spring/early summer. So, the money was buried for maybe 2-9 years. Not a short time. Palmer concluded the money was buried within a few years of the find.. The recent burial plant find idea just doesn't work.

Nope, the rubber bands crumbled when picked up. That proves the money was there for a long time and not recently placed there.. How do you get spring diatoms on the money. It doesn't fit the evidence. And I have looked at many many ideas including Ingram placing it for Brian to find. The FP went almost right over Ingram's workplace.. Ultimately, no... the money was there for a few years to 9 years.. It would be helpful if somebody could figure out when the money landed there.

Kamkisky, you have some errors and some things right. 1)The mechanical theory can't be it. Way to viloent for the money to stay together. It doesn't matter if it is through a hose or a scoop, the money wouldn't stay together and land stacked neatly. TRUE, the money arrived as it went to Cooper. No aggressive handling. 2)Natural means theory has serious holes since we have a hydrologist saying there is no natural means for money to be buried below sand. FALSE, sort of, the hydrologist made that call based in limited information about TBAR. He even had a caveat, based on what he knows about TBAR. TBAR was a natural garbage dump and there was other debris buried in the same sand layer as the money. When the money was found there was a hydrologist on the team, they all concluded the money came from the RIVER. There was no mention of an intentional human burial. The money may have been in a container like a brown paper bag which floats but if it wasn't and sank it would still have some buoyancy on the bottom and get rolled along to the money spot, if the money was spot was under water at the time it would effectively be the bottom of the River. If the 1974 dredge operation was on top of the money not under as Palmer believed the money would be buried for many years.. also locals claimed there was beach reclamation projects all the time, these are not found in the records. The records show channel dredging.. in 1970 and 1974. There is also the idea that the money was upstream and covered/out of the water and eventually fell in and floated to TB. This has the same issues, the money doesn't float and wouldn't naturally bury itself on a beach couple dozen feet from the waterline. False, it could bury itself if the water level was above the money spot... the River was seasonally high in the Spring above the money spot. In Spring '72 the money spot was about 5-6 feet underwater. Money does not need to float to reach that spot. However, it is assumed by all that the money was not is some container and must have sunk, it was probably in something. 3)Human intervention theory. Many variations. In this category resides the Tena for Tina theory. There are documented cases of criminals communicating/taunting victims afterwards and T4T can fit that pattern. Between Cooper and TBAR there was most likely some human intervention. I doubt TBAR has anything to do with Tina's name. The money went into the River upstream and it was pure coincidence that it landed on TBAR. 4)To get rid of it. The DZ is discussing the idea that Tina Mucklow put the money there. Or someone else found the money and put it there or throw it in the river to get rid of it. I'll call this the get rid of it theory. The problem with this theory is it's bonkers. If you have cash and are afraid you'll end up in prison you burn it. No one is driving/boating to a river bank and burying it. There are dumpsters everywhere too if someone need to ditch it super quick. FALSE, it is NOT bonkers, you might burn it but that is an assumption you claim everyone would do the same. You don't know what somebody would do. Tossing it in a dumpster may have fingerprints... To use your own assumption to reject a theory is bad reasoning.. you test a theory with facts. Somebody could have easily gone to the River and tossed a paper bag of money that they wanted to get rid of... Tina's brother in law, somebody paid for a ride or somebody found some cash in the woods. Nobody would expect money tossed into the Columbia to land on TBAR and be discovered. Assumptions misused as facts to eliminate theories is my pet peeve in this case, it prematurely ends intellectual inquiry. Too many people do it. Burying the money on a river beach to get rid of it makes no sense. No sense at all. Agree. Somebody intentionally buries cash unprotected in sand at the high water line when there are thousands of better places close by to bury money is hard to imagine. IMO, a TBAR theory needs to fit... The money most likely came from the River. Not human burial. The money arrived in the same condition as given to Cooper. No aggressive handling. The money went into the river in spring/early summer. Spring from '72 to '79. The money did not come from Cooper landing in the River. He jumped at 8:11 about 12 miles away. The money was most likely moved at least partially by human intervention. Tina, somebody found some or was paid for a ride.. or any other ideas. Figure out some reasonable theories that fit these and rank them..

She came forward with her story in case Cooper was caught and money found missing some packets.. if he said hey that stew asked for and took some money and that is missing,,, by telling the FBI she gave it back would front run that possibility. The FBI was watching Tina when she moved to San Diego,, Clearly, it goes against her character.. however, she claimed she asked for the money to be humorous.. she isn't,, I can't think of any time during the hijacking she was humorous, that was also out of character. If she had possession of some money but was never asked about it and was scared that she would have been in trouble I can see her just never mentioning it. She moved to the Portland area around 1978... that puts her close enough to TBAR to toss the money.. if she was never near there the theory wouldn't work.. She is the only one who handled some of Cooper's money outside the ransom stash and she lived just upstream of TBAR when the money could have entered the River,, it works well, just can't prove it. Not sure what you mean about her changing her story... For the structure theory, It does make sense, I have a specific incident, specific structure, specific time that would have caused contents to enter the River just upstream of TBAR.. I haven't explained this theory before it is very comprehensive and takes a lot of time. It is really good,, still can't prove it though. This particular theory has a bonus, people can be identified who are associated with this structure. I have been investigating those people. Doubtful Cooper knew how the money got to TBAR.

Should be, search for "snowmman" two m's

People lied in the 70's and 80's.. Cooper was somebody the more criminal element aspired to be.. lots of made up stories about being him or knowing him. Guys would tell girls they were Cooper as a pick up line in the bar. Point is there is no corroboration for any of it.. just like many confessions to being Cooper.. made up, people lie all the time.. You need some actual evidence..

No dredge,, too violent. For a bundle of money packets to go into a dump truck, get dumped and migrate to the money spot is just not very plausible. First, the money spot was not close to the sand and gravel operation, that would be too violent as well, and the Fazio's got their sand from the river. Anything that was trucked in would be minor.. I don't see it as being something that a reasonable explanation. None of it is supported by evidence.. There are a few parameters that a good theory should fit otherwise you can make up almost anything. Most likely, somebody was given or found some money and it became a liability so they tossed it in the River to discard it.. it was not planted for any reason, it was discarded. I have one other really good theory that is a variation, the money was stashed next to the River in a structure, that structure was destroyed and the money went into the river upstream of TBAR.

Haven't seen that for a long time but it relies on stories from sketchy people, no evidence.. Cooper was regarded as a hero back then,, to brag many people claimed to know him or even be him... I don't give Briggs or the party story any credibility.

That was a 1975 Incorporation.. those docs are meant to describe the widest business operation foreseeable but not necessarily carried out. It does not show that they imported sand from other operations. They obtained their sand from the River. It may be possible something was brought in to mix but I don't see any way the TBAR money could be trucked in, dumped and then migrate 500 ft to its spot intact. Not only is that an extreme long shot but the money would not remain in its condition. The money landed there in the condition it was given to Cooper. For three packets to remain bundled and largely intact limits the mechanism by which it was moved. The best explanation is that somebody tossed it into the River. The big problem I have and go back and forth on is when.. Did the money arrive in a spring soon after the hijacking or was it in the late 70's. Palmer thought within a few years of the find. If we knew that we could narrow down some of these theories. My latest idea,, if the money arrived close to the hijacking is that the 1974 dredge operation went on top of it. That eroded to 1980 and exposed it. The dredge layer Palmer identified as 1974 being beneath the money was actually a pre-Norjak 1970 dredge layer.

No, the Fazio exported sand from the River... it was also about 500 ft south of the TBAR find.. The TBAR money money spot was a few feet from the border of the next northern property. The money alone would sink but still have some buoyancy to be pushed along the river bottom.. Granted TBAR is speculation, there are some theories that are better than others.

First, these are theories, not fact.. I have several competing TBAR theories. The key is that the money offered to Tina was the only known money separated from the ransom in the bag, perhaps the money offered to the other stews but we don't have clear info on that. Logical inference suggests it is likely the money that ended up on TBAR. Tosaw initially suggested that the money offered to Tina ended up in Cooper's coat pocket, he landed in the Columbia and it ended up on TBAR. I don't think Cooper went into the Columbia but the idea that the money in his coat pocket somehow ended up on TBAR is reasonable. For Tina, if one claim is switched it all falls onto place. She said she handed the money back, if she didn't or Cooper snuck it back into her purse then the TBAR money likely came from Tina. If Tina somehow got that money and was too scared to report it, she kept it until the late 70's and when she lived near Portland just one mile from the Columbia River. She told her brother in law and he threw it in the Columbia to protect her. The most likely process was that the money was thrown into the Columbia to discard it, not human buried. That may may have been via Tina or perhaps Cooper paid somebody for a ride from money in his coat pocket and they tossed it. The most likely spot is just 2 miles upstream at Frenchman's Bar, a public park with easy beach access. If somebody is carrying money it would likely be in some type of container and tossed into the River in a container.. some type of bag perhaps a brown paper bag.. which will float for some time.. So, when people claim the money sinks, true on its own but it is more likely that it went into the River in some type of container. IMO, TBAR will never be solved.. just some theories.

I know the case is riddled with these things,, did he put it in his coat pocket. Was the package one packet or one bundle of packets. Agent Baker said the bundle sizes were made random,, were there bundles of 3 packets delivered to Cooper... Since the money Cooper gave to Tina and possibly offered the other stews was the only money we know of that was separated from the ransom money bag.. it is reasonable to theorize that it was the money that ended up on TBAR.

That is a big mystery... only Tina and Cooper know what happened to that money.. IMO, it is even possible that Tina didn't hand back the money. Her story never really made sense to me. To be humorous... Tina asks for some money. Cooper hands her "one package". She claims she handed it back telling Cooper she was not allowed gratuities.. citing a later incident when all stews were offered the tip money. Then right before they launch that big search in March, a short comment pops up in her local paper claiming Cooper offered her money but she refused.. The only inside case info coming out publicly from Tina.. It sounds like she was front running the search in case the money was found and some was missing.. Can't prove it but the entire thing is suspicious. This was undisclosed case info,, she did not publicize any other case info.. She also lied,, she asked for the money.

Ryan's video.. It is good,, Ryan clearly put a lot of work into it. Tina did not say one "packet" of $2000 was handed to her. The FBI file for Tina says only "one package" that may be one packet or several in a bundle. This is important because the TBAR money may be the money Cooper offered to Tina.

This guy looks familiar.. he still doesn't have 8 deep forehead lines..

The anatomy of deception.. Skip Loran Hall IS NOT DB Cooper. Skip Loran Hall is 100% eliminated based on his unique facial features, fact, Limbach can write a thousand books, Skip is NOT Cooper. Anybody who defends Skip's facial features as being compatible with Cooper is just not being honest and engaging in propaganda. Skip has severe forehead lines, deep, numerous and they go right up into his receding part, not normal, not Cooper. Skip parts his hair on both sides, the forehead lines go way up into the part on both sides. Cooper parted his hair on the left and had normal forehead lines. Skip has severe lines from his eyes down his face, Cooper did not have these. Skip has a mole on the left side the side Tina would be facing it and never mentioned it. No mole mentioned for Cooper. Skip also has at least 4 large lumps/bumps near his mouth, these are clear in the video of him without the moustache/goatee, it hides most of them. Cooper did have a moustache and they would have been noticed by witnesses. Never mentioned for Cooper. These were not reported by Cooper witnesses and are so unique they would not all be missed by every witness. Hall is 100% eliminated. Stick a fork in him, he is done. Here is how Ryan lies to manipulate, influence and deceive.. a lot of people seem to get duped by him. Lie by commission.. Ryan claimed my argument was Cooper had no forehead lines. False, Ryan is creating a strawman by completely making up and distorting my argument. Cooper had normal forehead lines I have never said he did not. Ryan often falsely restates my arguments to attack them. This tactic works when the target audience only hears one side and does not realize that Ryan is misrepresenting my argument. Lie by omission.. Ryan only focusses on the forehead lines, he ignores the 4 large lumps/bumps on Skip's face, the mole on the left side, the severe lines from the eyes and hair part on both sides. Lie by distortion.. Ryan claims Skip's forehead lines make him more like Cooper. No, Cooper had normal forehead lines Skip's are severe lines in depth, number and coverage. Lie by distraction.. Ryan claims Hahneman had no forehead lines. False, he does have normal forehead lines. Ryan used a poor photo of Hahneman to claim he had no lines, this is also a lie by deception. He also compared it to a poor image of Skip to minimize his forehead lines. Lie by distraction #2. Attack the messenger,, Ryan attacks Hahneman to discredit me.. Hahneman has nothing to do with Skip's sever facial features. If Hahneman never existed Skip still has those unique facial features that eliminate him. Lie... by appeal to authority... Ryan claims that Skip ranked #1 his on his matrix.. (Hahneman is #1 BTW) and won a poll to give credibility to Skip. Limbach touts this as some achievement. Both are irrelevant. It is strange because Ryan claims Hall isn't Cooper but irrationally defends him... My guess is Limbach will be doing a significant presentation at CooperCon of Skip and Ryan doesn't want to undermine the ticket draw. Skip is an interesting guy for sure, but he is not Cooper and has no place at CooperCon.. There may be good reasons to go but not for Skip... IMO, it is irresponsible and deceptive to present a "suspect" who is provably not Cooper. Not Cooper,, hair parted both sides severe forehead lines, deep, numerous and travel right up both receding hair parts,, Cooper's forehead lines were normal. You can't explain these lines away.. this is NOT DB COOPER. Skip's video in 1968... once you see these things you can't unsee them... Two of the facial bumps clear in video grab next to moustache,,, at least four can be seen in that video. Severe eye wrinkles, Cooper did not have these. Mole left side of face, upper cheek, Tina would have seen it. Large bump also clearly visible at corner of moustache.

Both facts and speculation for this. I found a gross FBI error early on, fact.. It would eliminate him if they used it, I assume they did though the FBI has never admitted why he is not Cooper. My speculation is also a high level coverup later at the State Department for political reasons, not FBI level. I have circumstantial evidence, not direct facts, so still a theory. However, Cooper has to be put in context, the FBI met in 1976 and concluded that there was no case unless Cooper cooperated. They said the evidence was just too weak... That was 1976 not 1972 but the evidence was weak, that is why we have a new suspect pop up every week that ticks many boxes. The evidence is vague enough to interpret tens of thousands of people to fit. It is extremely difficult to put somebody on the plane and may even be impossible. So, until somebody is put on the plane the case can't be 100% solved. None of this is new I have mentioned this before.. My point in using Hahneman for Ryan's matrix (he is #1 BTW) is to expose his hypocrisy and bias, that matrix doesn't make somebody Cooper.. did I mention Hahneman is #1.. That matrix is so basic that thousands and thousands of people can check the boxes. My suspect matrix is almost 200, not 400 as Hyperbolic Ryan keeps claiming, far more detailed and Hahneman does not tick every box.

Ryan will never admit that Hahneman is #1 on his OWN matrix.. no, that doesn't make him Cooper, it exposes Ryan's bias.. The only thing he doesn't get a point for is being a pilot, he claimed to be a pilot but there is no proof of that. But Ryan still has the height range wrong. He claims he is just using the FBI's 5-10-6 ft.. but they didn't... Ryan is misleading, claiming his opinion is backed by the authority of the FBI.. it isn't. That is an ESTIMATE of the hijacker standing in shoes based on Tina. the initial published estimate was 5-9 to 5-10, that one included Gregory's and Mitchell's 5-9.. the description closet to the event.. there is no evidence Tina was right and the two guys were wrong. Clearly, the witness estimates included shoes.. But the FBI used 5-8 as the lower bound for suspects, not 5-10. They used 5-8 to search Elsinore records and there is a warning notice to agents to NOT eliminate suspects based on height down to 5-8.. A self reported height is almost always without shoes, usually an inch less in average shoes. We don't know the height of Cooper's shoes. Laceless ankle something's.. So, Ryan is directly comparing two contextually different datasets. Self reported heights vs height estimate range of the hijacker by Tina in shoes.. You can't do that. The Cooper witness estimates started from 5-9... so the FBI used 5-8 to account for shoes and Tina's claim that Cooper was taller than her... we don't know the height of Cooper's shoes. Ryan's actual height range for Cooper in shoes is defacto 5-11, not 5-10 because he doesn't account for self reporting variability. Bottom line, based on all witnesses and self reporting variability and shoes.. the fact is the FBI used 5-8 as the lower bound.. Ryan uses 5-10 as a cutoff which is incorrect. If you agree with the FBI and disagree with Ryan you are just biased and have an agenda. This is really simple.. You can't directly compare reported heights to Tina's Cooper estimate in shoes to eliminate. It is irrational.

I got Ryan's matrix wrong.. a suspect gets 2 points for aviation experience not 1.. Hahneman goes up 1 point. Ryan only gave Hahneman 9 points, he should update his data and tell everybody that Hahneman is #1. Ryan’s matrix for Hahneman.. he gives him only 9 points.. Ryan obviously has some things wrong. I count 15 points on Ryan’s matrix, 16 minus 1 for height.,, should be 17 if you use the FBI height minimum not Ryan’s personal opinion. Either way Hahneman wins Ryan’s matrix… almost a perfect score. But he can't be Cooper. Ryan's matrix.. Hahneman's scoring on Ryan's matrix.. 1 opportunity 1 point 2 height -1 FBI disagrees with Ryan,, should be a 1 FBI used 5-8 and said do not use to eliminate. What does Ryan know that FBI didn't. 3 Complexion 1 point 4 Age 1 point 5 Drinker 1 point 6 Parachute training/experience 1 point 7 Pilot 0 points 8 Aviation history 2 points 9 727 knowledge 1 point he flew on extensively, not sure if that counts or does it mean specific technical knowledge. 10 Criminal history 1 point committed serious crimes but wasn’t charged. No evidence Cooper had a criminal history. FBI believed he didn’t. 11 Spent time in PNW 1 point 12 Know McChord 1 point must have in air force, Pacific region navigator. 13 Tie particles 1 point 14 Family 1 point 15 Dropzone incorrect (-3) 0 16 Eye witness photo (-3) 0 17 Eye witness see later (-1) 0 18 Demolition 1 point 19 Smoker 1 point 20 Neutral accent 1 point

Yup, Ryan claims those who don't accept his opinions have an agenda.. He can't fathom that he may actually be wrong. We just agree with the evidence and FBI when they said sketch B was the best likeness.. and I agree with the FBI when they used 5-8 as the lower bound.. So, the FBI has an agenda against Ryan as well since 1971/2.. odd argument. But I admit I do have an agenda.. pursue the truth. and Ryan's vid was a train wreck of lies and misinformation.. he completely altered my position on issues to attack and mock them.. completely dishonest and a form of lying.

RyanBurns-NORJAK •1h ago If only we knew what he knew….That’s literally how a 9 year old tries to win a debate. This is the problem, I am not trying to win a debate. I don't need to.. the issue is you have opinions that are not supported by facts, your information base is mediocre.. reasoning poor.. many facts you claim are not true. My goal working on this case is to get to the truth for myself not convince others of anything.. not hand you my research to win an irrelevant debate. I've already won this you just don't realize it yet.