FLYJACK

What are thoughts on the money timeframe... I have several TBAR theories... one money goes in Columbia Spring 1972 and is deposited.. another money goes in River in Spring 78 or 79... You'd think the condition of the money would give us an indication of time.. Bills underwater don't deteriorate very quickly but diatoms indicated the money was not in the water for long.. My research shows that mold starts within about 8 months for buried money... So, could that money be buried on TBAR for 8 years? and be in that condition or is it more like 1-2 years. It seems this would be a simple thing to establish.

Nope, Sauvie Island goes all the way to and up the Willamette. The force of the Columbia hits Sauvie as it turns North

That is for surface debris. I was being general about where the money went in the River.. it could have gone in the middle or one side. But the Columbia has a big bend.. the River flow hits Sauve Island and pushes across toward TBAR. What exactly happens during a flood event in the 1970's,,, I am not sure.

Columbia River speed is 2-3mph.. Not sure about Spring flood stage.. but if the money goes in the Columbia near the Airport that is only 4-6 hours in the River to reach TBAR.. less if flood waters travel faster.

US $20 bill found suspended above bottom in very shallow lake water... This isn't definitive or scientific but raises some questions. What does a packet of US money do after it sinks in deeper water.. Does it remain suspended above the bottom where it can be moved easily by current?? at 0:53 seconds...

Even though I am Canadian I know that lying to the FBI is a felony.. the FBI can catch almost everyone in a lie if they want. Even if people just misremember something. Not a good argument. He would never lie to the FBI because it is a felony. Cossey lied.. Jo Weber lied, Coffelt, Many people lied in the case. I consider an embellishment a lie... Perhaps they didn't think embellishments are lies.. These things start as innocent and can spin out of control. He walked it back when he realized the seriousness. He gave himself an out.. There is ZERO evidence the event occurred beyond a person possibly resembling the sketch A. Even that is questionable.. The details of the event are not believable... he happened to notice and remember Raleigh cigarette coupons well before the hijacking... that is 100% embellishment. That discredits the entire thing. Then in the walk back he recalls an article from many months prior that may have inspired the person.. He is lying... Don't be so naive..

At best, he may have seen somebody that he thought resembled Cooper based on sketch A but his detailed description of the encounter was clearly embellished.. Since sketch A was a poor likeness of Cooper and he embellished then his account becomes completely irrelevant. My broader point is generally people have given too much credibility to the Elsinore incident.. there is no there there. At best he saw somebody that looked like the bad sketch. This was confirmed when he walked it all back... that indicates he was initially dishonest. Others making claims of their perceptions of some event may be inaccurate but they don't walk back their claim. That is a CYA move. He changed his story to minimize the encounter and his responsibility. IMO, it was because the FBI took it extremely seriously, he didn't expect that and had to throw doubt on his own initial claim. He overplayed it and had to give himself an out. People are amazed by and elevate the initial claim but ignore or minimize the walk back. Elsinore is a non event.. Lyle lied.

So, this is a bit baffling... We know that Tom and Chaucer did tests and a packet sinks... But these bills above, some many stuck together do not sink to the bottom but are suspended or buoyant below the surface.. The factors that affect buoyancy are… the density of the fluid the volume of the fluid displaced the local acceleration due to gravity The buoyant force is not affected by… the mass of the immersed object the density of the immersed object The difference between a few bills and a packet isn't explained by the difference in mass/density.. What sticks out is the pressure force and density of the water... I have read that depth does not increase buoyancy but density increases at depth so it changes the equation. The question is,, does a packet of money become more buoyant as the water density increases at depth.... the lowest water density is near the surface. If so, that may cause paper that sinks to become more buoyant at depth due to increase in water density.... suspended in the water column. In other words, the ratio of the object's density vs water density changes with depth.

McCoy was an interesting guy, but not Cooper.. He doesn't match the evidence.

We don't have to prove how it would benefit him... I can speculate but it isn't necessary, we don't know motivations unless they tell us. The Cooper case was a big deal in the skydiving world and we don't know his relationship with the FBI, was he paid?? If he ran the story it would have made him famous. He walked it back... he came in hot with the claims that he met Cooper then backed way off.. that is a classic sign of CYA. People lie or embellish all the time, there is no corroboration for his initial claim which IMO was never believable. It was as though he had read news reports and added it to some he guy he thought looked like the sketch. The tell is that he said the guy looked like the sketch which at the time was sketch A, the bad one,,, Cooper did not look like sketch A. The entire thing is a red herring. Lots of these land mines in the Cooper case. Frankly, I didn't believe his initial story before the walk back was published in the FBI files.. Maybe, I am just naturally more skeptical about unsubstantiated claims.... I also do not believe Tina's story about the money, it is at least partially deceptive.

No way. If I recall he was involved in a theft of government property... There is a reference somewhere about his writing a Cooper story in his publication.. perhaps he was going to and it wasn't published. He saw a guy who looked like sketch A, the bad one then embellished the rest of the story, he remembers Raleigh Coupons.... total BS. But, he walked it all back, case closed. He wanted to use Cooper as PR and when it got too hot with the FBI he walked it back,, his initial story ins't even believable. FACT, he walked it back,, that is all you need to know. Liars walk back claims.

Elsinore is a red herring. Lyle Cameron embellished his initial story and later walked it back... IMO, to promote his publication... as an FBI informant he injected himself into the case based on seeing somebody he felt resembled the sketch.. Sketch A, the bad one. "IT MAY BE COINCIDENTAL" "HE SAW AN ADVERTISEMENT" "MAY HAVE STIMULATED QUESTIONS"

UK - Money found in River... Paper, floating/suspended, some stuck together but not in complete packets/bundles.. It didn't, but this is what you'd expect if it went through a suction dredge... busted apart packets/bundles. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pictured-banknotes-found-water-spalding-2809107

I found evidence that he had planned his hijacking for a year.

That is why the FBI publicly claimed Cooper likely died... Hahneman was branded a copycat from day one in the media because it occurred later, he wasn't. Maybe he is the only exception. I have never done a deep dive on them.

Ok, never mind. Defining a copycat is subjective without evidence like for McCoy..

Then he is not a copycat.

If it exists, would that mean he was not a copycat?

To me, copycat means inspired by a previous one.. Hahneman's plan predated Norjak.. not a copycat.

Cini was a copycat.

Are you taking Alex Jones supplements? Three letter agency conspiracies exist but not everything is a conspiracy.

I don't think Cooper was a Cini copycat... because 11 days just seems too quick to plan. Cini's plan was a disaster... Perhaps just a coincidence. About 7 weeks later Billy Gene Hurst Jr. tried in January.. BTW,, What defines a copycat,,, There is evidence for McCoy,,,

Exactly. Walter lied, he was a serial liar and thief. Carl led Reca on the tape even with errors. Carl used an aging Walter Reca to overlay a Cooper narrative on him,,, but Carl got so many things wrong it becomes absurd. The plane went South, you know it, we know it, everybody knows it. Any new people to this case should avoid anything Walter Reca Peca related, it is a hoax. These people are liars and grifters... they have ZERO evidence, many errors and their narrative even proves Reca was not Cooper. It is a made up story. Anybody with a basic knowledge of the Cooper case can see that Reca was NOT Cooper.

So, he was a super duper secret CIA operative instructed in an OPERATION to use the rear door, but came up with the better idea to use the side door... Walter's tape... contradicts that. https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/solved-d-b-cooper-the-real-story-episode-3/id1473919127?i=1000447009507 @11:35 He didn't know he had hijacked a 727, he didn't realize the rear door could be opened in flight even though he entered via the rear door, he only realized it when he saw the sign for opening the door.. Of course this is complete nonsense. He wasn't trained by the CIA. He was trained by Carl Laurin to pretend he was Cooper but Carl was such a poor researcher he got many of the case facts wrong.

Wrong. They used V-23. There is ZERO evidence otherwise. They had it on many radar systems. It is in the cockpit transcripts.. The Reca hoaxers are wasting our time.