FLYJACK

It was just a theory,, but I am not suggesting the money was hidden in the dump to be retrieved.. that makes no sense. It could have been either intentionally discarded and thrown into the garbage to get rid of it or hidden somewhere in something that was eventually tossed into the dump.. An example might be hiding the money in a house wall, the house is torn down and the debri is tossed in the dump.. or something like that. There are probably other theories that fit,, I still like the "Tina kept it theory",,, She handled money from the bag and she was a few miles upstream of TBAR a 1978/79.

It suggests the money went into and out of the Columbia in a very short timeframe around late spring/early summer.. IMO, within a few years of its discovery. That does limit the theories... that could be human possession but not necessarily that simple. I did come up with another theory long ago that actually fits. There was a dump called St John's Landfill just upstream W side of Portland on the Columbia Slough. It was a mess, people dumped stuff everywhere illegally. If the money were stashed or hidden in debris/garbage and thrown into the dump area it and made it into the Slough, it is an easy trip to TBAR.. https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2011/03/portlands_st_johns_landfill_on.html

Yes, it suggests the money arrived from the river on TB around May/June... a delay between NORJAK and the money arrival. IMO, per the Palmer Report, the money packets were found in the upper "fresher" debri layer.. the older more deteriorated debri layer was lower. This also supports a later timeframe. Kaye believes the diatoms could only have entered the interior of the packet when fanned out in the river in late spring/early summer. The money packets spent some time somewhere between NORJAK and landing on TBAR. "Objects in your TBAR theory are closer than they appear"

Deeper, but there are variables, light/water mix/diatom/nutrients.. I have read A. Formosa has been found at a depth of 10 m in a lake (study not the Columbia R)

That is not a simple question,, it depends on the diatom and the material. A. Formosa in non-motile, some diatoms are motile. I found a sampling that had A. Formosa down to 10cm in lake sediment. Other diatoms much further. That is a soft nutrient rich environment under water not a course sand bar. I am still looking for more on A. Formosa specifically in sand... Kaye seems to suggest the A. Formosa wouldn't penetrate the course sand or into a tight packet. The seasonal bloom doesn't match Norjak.

The John Doe indictment should have been sealed.. Maybe it was intentionally publicized to keep people quiet. There would have been a better chance at identifying Cooper if it was sealed.

Tom Kay's update... "All, Attached is the last and most conclusive diatom picture from 377's bill. It shows a completely intact A. formosa sandwiched between two layers of bills. This finding shows that the formosa had to float into that position while the bills were fanned out in the water. It would be impossible for a diatom to work its way in between the bills while they were buried and under compression. We have now examined all the fragments from 377's bill so this will be the last update." Tom Kaye This indicates the money was in the Columbia River around May/June... it rules out the human burial and demonstrates there was a delay between Norjak and the money landing on TB. It eliminates many of the theories. (including one of mine) IMO, this plus the Palmer report indicating the money was found in the top sand layer with "fresher" debri suggests the money landed on TB within a few years of the 1980 find.

Received a Mexican Dan Cooper comic, it is legit, published by a Mexican publisher in Spanish for distribution throughout Latin America...

It depends on context... If they represent Ulis's theory as highly speculative and critically challenge it then that is good. However, I expect them to present it as fact and that taints the public perception. The public will be sold Eric's nonsense theory and that is a CON.

Also,, dredge unlikely.. "The channel is maintained at 40 feet in depth and all the material above 40 feet is dredged out. The dredge "Washington" of the General Construction Company did the dredging on this project. It had a 24 inch pipe with wiper bar inside the pipe. The wiper bar keeps larger objects such as rocks from passing through the pipe. _______ stated that it would be possible for a 16x16x4 inch package to get through the pipe; however, it is likely that a package that size or a human body or parts thereof would be broken into pieces by the auger then passed through the pipe and deposited on the beach. The material deposited on the beach was spread with tractors probably over a area of 50 yards in each direction."

From the 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. The (lower) post dredging sand contained older soda pop cans, rusted nails and spikes, and other rusted artifacts, which were in a much more deteriorated condition." The money was in the upper 6-8 inch sand layer which contained other debris that was not severely damaged or rusted.. That indicates the money was deposited recently. According to Ulis, to support his fictional narrative he made up the fallacy that the money can't self bury but miraculously the other "fresh" debri in the same layer can...

Your theory is speculation.. it is not a fact. I have uncovered many facts and most I haven't even posted. I have no interest in discussing the details of your theory or Eric's fictional narrative. You are both intellectually dishonest...

Eric certainly has you fooled.. He also used your self serving theory to concoct his factless narrative. A am sure he has done his homework, he has just completely failed the assignment. While ignoring facts, Eric has layered assumptions, speculation, opinion and conjecture into a sellable narrative. It is a fact-less one created in his own mind.

I support people monetizing their work but Ulis's work was stolen from Sailshaw and others and used to build a BS narrative by adding extreme speculation, bias and conjecture while ignoring facts.. He stole my research and perverted it to support his theory. He was never a true researcher seeking the truth and facts, he was goal seeking from the start to sell a narrative. He launched personal attacks when I challenged his speculation with facts from the FBI files. That was the tell.. His agenda was to sell his extremely speculative theory and himself. He was never pursuing the truth. Production companies are not motivated by the truth either, they seek stories that gain audiences.. to make money. Eric is the man behind the Cooper Con. He found a sucker. I'd expect a rush of Cooper productions as we near the 50th Norjak anniversary. but, I have to chuckle at the idea of Ulis getting paid to lead a production crew through a forested area looking for Cooper evidence based on an entirely bogus narrative..

"There's a sucker born every minute" and no shortage of bad DB Cooper docutainment programs.. Ulis is good at self promotion,, Cooper research not so much. "The Final Hunt For D.B. Cooper follows D.B. Cooper expert Eric Ulis, who has spent over 7,500 hours investigating the mystery including analyzing evidence, interviewing witnesses, reading 20,000+ pages of FBI case files and exploring important locations. Ulis believes that he’s found the true location where Cooper landed during his daring dive. He has assembled a team of specialists to explore the untouched Washington backcountry, federally restricted wildlife refuge land, to hunt for the missing evidence Cooper left behind. Armed with new information, the team will travel to parts of Washington state that have never been searched attempting to solve the only unsolved skyjacking in United States history. It is produced by Lost Arts Pictures in association with 3BMG. Grant Cross, Ross Weintraub, Myles Reiff and Eric Ulis serve as executive producers. Max Micallef serves as executive producer for History." https://deadline.com/2020/02/laurence-fishburne-historys-greatest-mysteries-titanic-roswell-1202861301/

Two interesting and weird news accounts.. Cooper gave two the Stews a packet of $2000 bills each. He also tried to tip Schaffner with his own money, but she refused it.. and.. Cooper demanded V-23.

Tom Kaye has found more data.. He writes.. "So now this info suggests: The money got wet around July and was then buried.The money find does NOT support the western flight pathIt does not support Cooper digging a hole on the beach on his way out of town. It brings the dredge theory back into play (but it is still weak in that you can't get bundles intact through a dredge) It suggests that the money event happened in a displaced time frame from the jump event." A displaced time frame is big...

He claimed he did get one back... From Cossey's perspective he thought/claimed both chutes sent to Cooper were his and Cooper used the NB8. That leaves the one left on the plane. However, that was Hayden's so IF Cossey did get one back it was the one he sent in that didn't go to Cooper. I think you have to put yourself in the minds and perspectives of the people at the time.. Hayden isn't lying, he is expressing his belief based on his perspective at the time. That doesn't mean he is correct. Both Cossey and Hayden believed theirs were the only two back chutes sent in and used. Therefore, each believes the other is a liar. Bottom line is,,, Based on the packing cards not matching both of Hayden's chutes are accounted for and Cooper could not have jumped with either of his. So, we have to move to determine the source for the chute Cooper used. Cossey is just the best explanation regardless of his sometimes unreliable statements.

The State Patrol delivered the two chest chutes from Skysports. Hayden's two back chutes were delivered by cab and Cossey claimed he sent in two back chutes by cab but that isn't confirmed elsewhere.

The packing cards are evidence.. You still don't understand, Deltor NEVER EVER states that both of Hayden's chutes went to Cooper. Hayden has ZERO knowledge of his chutes after he sent them in. Deltor, Hayden and Cossey's conjecture are all irrelevant and do not explain or undermine the discrepancy of the packing cards. You are defending and repeating your position without any real argument. You need to explain the packing card discrepancy and you haven't done that, not even close. I tried to figure out a plausible explanation and could only come up with one explanation.. the chute Hayden received back wasn't the one left on the plane. So, which chute did Cooper jump with?

You miss the point.. and focus on the minutia. I am not basing this on Cossey.. It is based on the packing cards not matching,, that means one thing,, Cooper didn't jump with either of Hayden's back chutes. Then where did it come from... most likely Cossey's story was true and Cooper jumped with his modified NB8. I've explained this over and over and posted the packing card and relevant FBI information. Hayden's packing card for the chute he received is in Bruce's article. The year and serial number for the chute found on the plane are in several places in the FBI files. The packing dates and rigger Cossey match as they should, but the year and serial number do not.

"bellypacks" are completely irrelevant in this. Yes, they came from Skysports. Not sure why you think they are part of this issue. Cossey sent in two back chutes from his home,, separate from the two Skysports chest chutes. Hayden thought Cooper had used one of his chutes so in his mind only one was available to be returned, the one left on the plane. The FBI initially denied the request claiming it was evidence in the case. They eventually sent him one of his chutes, not the one left on the plane, the packing card didn't match.

Just because Cossey was wrong on things like the Amboy chute doesn't mean he lied to the FBI and committed felonies for decades.. what makes me believe his claim is that early on he had mentioned the modified handle on the chute he thought Cooper took. Hayden received two emergency chutes packed by Cossey to meet regs and I can't see one having a modified handle. There is no proof other than Cossey's statements and muddled FBI docs.. it fits the evidence of the Hayden chute packing cards not matching. The problem is the FBI.. their files are not conclusions, they are investigation notes, some facts with errors, vagueness, opinions and interpretations.. The files we get to see are redacted and selected to control information. The FBI's top priority is and always has been to maintain the perception of integrity with the public and present the FBI in the best light. Anything that makes the FBI look bad won't be released to us.. we are getting a small a fraction of the files. If they mixed up the chutes and later discovered it they wouldn't admit it. Initially, my concern was that Cossey believing his chute was used by Cooper was comparing the found chutes to the wrong one. But, when the packing cards didn't match, it became clear Cooper didn't take either of Hayden's chutes. That only leaves Cossey's as one he used. Now, it is entirely possible that the FBI is hiding some other scenario.. but the bottom line is Cooper did not take either of Hayden's chutes, they are both accounted for by their packing cards.

Diatoms.. I couldn't find that Anderson 72 original research,, I found this... it indicates (Anderson 72) Asterionella Formosa was dominant in the Columbia River for winter in 1972 and Asterionella Japonica was dominant in the summer. In 1980 Asterionella Formosa was found in April/May in the Columbia River Estuary.. Hard to get to the bottom of it without the original research, but the difference besides date is the Columbia River vs the Columbia River Estuary.. the Estuary is the area near the Ocean and affected by Ocean tides.. it isn't clear exactly where the Anderson 72 research was conducted. We have two variables to sort, location and time (climate variability). https://books.google.ca/books?id=MtATAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=diatoms+in+river+sand+columbia+river&source=bl&ots=uAM440FIbI&sig=ACfU3U0SWtbI6Ow-srDi-KWibYv__Xmkaw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjdrtzJsc_nAhXHup4KHYvUCoEQ6AEwDXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=diatoms in river sand columbia river&f=false

You keep making the same error in logic.. Deltor never said both of Hayden's chutes went to Cooper. And... Hayden has no knowledge of his chutes after he sent them in. They are stating what they believe and that doesn't contradict the fact that the packing cards didn't match. Believing them is completely irrelevant. You have also set up a false choice between Hayden or Cossey, you falsely believe one is lying and one isn't. If you believe one the other must be lying. You pick Hayden because Cossey made errors. They both can be telling the truth from their perspectives. Both sent in two back chutes by cab and both assumed the two that went to the plane was theirs.. It isn't one is right and one wrong, both can be wrong expressing what they honestly believe. The FBI or somebody receiving the chutes mixed them up and the FBI themselves in the FBI docs have conflicting information. The FBI itself isn't even a reliable source on this. Lying to the FBI is serious felony, I don't think Cossey would do that, there is no upside. He may have got things wrong and joked with the media but he has been given a bad rap. You have to explain how that packing card found in the pocket of the back chute Cooper left on the plane does not match the packing card for the chute Hayden received back from the FBI. Hayden's chute left on the plane by Cooper wasn't the one he received back from the FBI. Cooper did not use either of Hayden's chutes. Discrediting Cossey or believing Hayden or Deltor or space aliens doesn't reconcile this issue. This FBI doc suggests that there were two sets of back chutes delivered.. one set earlier.