FLYJACK

dudeman17,, I have a question for you, one that has always intrigued me.. Put yourself in Cooper's position.. you are at the end of the stairs looking into broken clouds you can see the brightest lights but not the ground. Where or when do you jump, if you pick a dark patch that might be water,, too bright and you land in a city.. What is the thought process and physical process to the jump and timing of the pull.. what would you do? FWW.. Hahneman went down the stairs and off backwards..

Nobody here has ever made the argument the no body meant he couldn't have died... that I can recall. Maybe, some on the facebook group.. I don't read it. The last place he was seen was on the plane.. not in the woods.

I think you have put yourself in a logic trap.. There are two distinct points here.. Premise A, The jump was very survivable in those conditions and terrain,, yes, very survivable if he pulled and a no pull is very rare. Premise B, There was no evidence found.. no body, no chute. You have combined them to conclude B negates A..... this is logically incorrect. Whereas, the negation of B (body is found) negates A (survival).. is True. but we have, the affirmation of B (no body) negates A (survival) is not True. There could be many reasons why nothing was found that don't include Cooper dying in the jump. Cooper dying in the jump is primarily determined by wether he pulled or not and not because a body was not found.

The general thought pattern for new Cooper people is that they initially believe he most likely died in the jump but as they learn more they shift toward survival.. that is based on learning the data and information from jumpers.. not from wanting him to have survived. Take the jump in isolation, set aside the other variables like money find, search, missing people and no body.. in Cooper's jump conditions, over that terrain the jump was very survivable if he pulled. The primary determinant for life or death for Cooper was whether he pulled or not. It is possible he pulled and died but that is a very low probability. When you fold in all the other variables it becomes a complex system that can't be analyzed easily or even linearly.

but it wasn't a risky jump if he pulled the ripcord,, I thought that it was for a long time but the data and jumpers convinced me that the jump itself in those conditions was easily survivable.

Letterman's stuff landed on concrete.. It depends where you land, there are a lot of soft spots out there, if you land in a tree or vegetation or in a field there would be something with an unopened chute and a money bag. It is possible he landed in water or in deep brush that nobody can check though it is a low probability.. Even if he was splattered the chute and money bag would be out there.. But the problem you have to get there is it requires him failing to pull the ripcord.. that is very unlikely. Jumpers have said that if he pulled the ripcord he most certainly survived.. So, your died in the jump theory hinges more on whether he pulled the ripcord or not rather than finding a body.

The ride example is not meant to be specific but an example that Cooper may have given money to somebody after the jump.. and that money ended up in river. Tom originally tossed that out.. it is not one of my theories. All other parachuting hijackers survived.. the military jump data is strong for survival.. the fact is if he pulled his survival rate is very high. It wasn't necessarily woods.. the area is mixed with open fields.. I always thought a tree landing would be fatal,, but that isn't true, I learned that a tree landing isn't a big deal. The area is not that remote. If his chute didn't open there would be a body with a chute.. not finding it leans toward survival but not conclusive. Missing person is a push,, doesn't mean anything. But, the chute may have been found and ruled out based on Cossey's wrong description.. So, we can't actually claim nothing was found, nothing was confirmed, big difference. I think his survival based solely on the conditions is in the high 90's... if he pulled he survived. Toss in the other variables and it gets more complicated.

Huh,, I never said anything about the money being dry that was Georger, take it up with him, What's on second... and I am right about the current.. after a bend the current is driven toward the opposite side. If you don't think the money could have come from the River then you are not being objective.

Boom.. we know the money was wet. You have said for years that there was no evidence on the money of paper straps so they didn't exist.. I said they would have completely dissolved in a short time leaving no trace.. which is true.. You LIED when you said Tina meant "rubber bands" she was contacted and asked.. and I am correct about the river current... I never said TBAR is on the turn, it is after. The turn causes the current to head toward the E side right at TBAR not the West side as R99 claimed. That is what rivers do.. So, everything you contribute is a lie or a distortion or a smear and now you want to play the victim.. Why are you even here, all you do is undermine and fight the advancement of this case.. For you and R99 to claim the money could not come from the River is as insane as Ulis's crazy burial/retrieval theory... It is outside the realm of objectivity.

I used to think it was more likely Cooper died, now less likely. The jump was very survivable if he pulled based on jump data. Hard to imagine he couldn't pull. Possible but not likely. No body was found and you have to move the LZ further South to have him land in the Columbia, the evidence does not support this. It is also hard to imagine Cooper intentionally jumping over a city. If he landed in Lake Merwin or the Lewis the TBAR money gets very hard to explain. So, for Cooper to have died, his body would have to be undiscovered with the chute but the money somehow got moved to the Columbia River and TBAR.. of course that is possible but less likely. Cooper could have landed safely with the money,, if for example,, he paid some random guy for a ride,, the guy gets nervous and tosses the money in the River... or he gave money to a stew and that money ended up in the River.. IMO, the most likely is Cooper landed safely between the Lewis and Battleground and either lost some/all of the money or he gave some to somebody at some point. That money ended up in the Columbia.

It is clear you don't actually read my posts I have explained this already. The money spot would be under water when the money was deposited,, it did not have to travel 20 feet up the beach. but you are completely wrong, when a River turns the flow hits and is directed across to the other side because the inside moves faster.

But I don't see Cooper himself throwing money into the River.. he worked for that money,,, if it was tossed it probably wasn't Cooper but somebody else who either found some money in the woods or got it from Cooper. There was a very messy dump site a few miles upstream of TBAR that was right on a waterway that was connected to the River.. possible but a long shot.

Yes, we don't know for certain but the most probable is that the money came from the River. To claim it could not have is intellectually dishonest and outside the bounds of objectivity. They have a bias. When the most likely or probable challenges their construct they reject it to maintain that construct. Georger even resorted to a lie about Tina and even suggested the money wasn't wet.. that paper bands would have left evidence after years,, ridiculous mental gymnastics.. R99 and Ulis need to move the flightpath, they have not done that. Ulis's burial/retrieval theory is silly. Even if Cooper somehow managed to be on TBAR nobody buries money in the sand at the high water line of a River.. there are millions of better places to bury or hide money.. then the retrieval,, just ridiculous, Eric doesn't realize the money spot was well underwater by April 72.. He just made up something to fit his narrative and even adapted it when the diatom stuff came out.. We can think up many scenarios that are far more plausible than those.. The question.. How.. When did it get into the River and Why did it go into the River. It that all the money that went into the River or only part... Was it intentional, accidental, human, nature or both... Why would somebody intentionally toss the money into the River,, only if they perceived it as a liability. But when, was there a delay.. If there was a delay it probably wasn't Cooper himself. Why would somebody other than Cooper perceive the money as a liability?? So, maybe it was accidental.... it got into the River unintentionally.. then how.. an event. Or did a bundle fall off the plane and end up in the River later?

Nope, not true. I have read reports that there is lots of debris at TBAR,, but I also studied river flow and two things are apparent.. The bend in the Columbia where it turns North causes the current to cross to the East side,, the flow pushes debris to the East side toward TBAR.. and it can even push debris up a slope if underwater, the current can actually accelerate. If the water was above the money spot which is about 5.5-7.5 ft.. it would effectively be the bottom. The money suspended in the River gets pushed along the bottom to its spot. The River is at its highest in wait for it.......... Spring. One test that would be valuable is to see what a bundle of packets does when it sinks.. how buoyant is it.. money would only be slightly heavier than the water so it wouldn't take much to move it.

Right, but there are parameters which theories must fit.. The problem for 50 years was a faulty premise,, that the money must have only arrived on TBAR as 3 separate packets. All TBAR theories had to fit that premise, that restricted us, but it was not true. So, now we can come up with more accurate theories and rank them based on plausibility, will we be able to prove it,, I don't think so. To advance knowledge we theorize or speculate then test or analyze,, if the premise was wrong restricting our theories then we can't advance the case. The three people fighting this are.. Ulis advocating a human burial.. Georger secretly advocating the suction dredge.. and R99 with a landing above TBAR and wash down.. All of those theories are more supported by either the money in the bag and/or the packets being individual. This is simple logic... if the packets were in 100's as the evidence indicates then they were given to Cooper rubber banded into bundles of packets and that is how it landed on TBAR. There is no evidence that the packets were not in 100's,, none.

1. False. Not the money itself but how it got there which must fit the evidence has the potential to lead to a suspect. 2. True 3. The three packets were not connected by paper or rubber bands when they were found. Nobody said they were. The money was given to Cooper in bundles of several packets and landed on TBAR that way when the rubber bands broke the bundles separated slightly. 4. That doesn't sound likely,,, I don't really know why the money was torqued other than it must have occurred before it became congealed. 5. Possible but not necessary, the money was not in individual packets but packets were rubber banded into bundles, that indicates the TBAR money arrived as one bundle of several packets so arrival in a container like the money bag is not necessary. 6. The River is the most likely source for arrival of the money. Your claim that it would only be on the other side is just false and sounds silly. If you look at the bend in the River and flow debris ends up on TBAR. 7. I have not ignored any basic physics whatsoever. You have.

The irony is that doesn't even matter.. any of those could be true or none of them.. evidence indicates paper bands but that is not even necessary for this.. it compliments the conclusion. If the money was in packets of 100's as the evidence shows then Georger has lost.. done. The money was rubber banded into random numbers of packets per bundle. <<< that is the key. So, for his sanity and so we don't have to deal with this years old nonsense Georger needs to go evaluate and rethink all the facts, return back and show us the evidence that proves the packets were not in 100's but were in a random count of bills.. He can't, there is no evidence because the packets were in 100's.. Unfortunately, this Georger thing has gone on for years and will continue... others have finally got this and it is best to ignore Georger.

You always make it personal,,, it isn't about me, it is the facts that you can't handle. This is really simple, you just can't understand it.

Same old crap.. you are in a hole you should have stopped digging years ago. Clearly, this issue is way above your head.

TBAR money find clip,,, pieces found within 4 or 5 feet of the original money. tbarmoneytrim.mov

Yes, even Tom suggested something like that... There are lots of theories that can be dreamed up, so it comes down to the most plausible... I have several good theories, two of the them have the potential to lead to a suspect.. long shot though. and as I have said TBAR will likely never be proven, just a bunch of theories.. What it does do is weaken theories like the dredge and a human burial.. and opens up other theories. The TBAR single bundle also moves the needle slightly away from Cooper died in the jump theories.. you don't need the money bag.. For 50 years,, the dominant TBAR analysis has been constrained by the false belief that the money could have only arrived together as separate packets. More about the money is that one packet was very twisted or torqued before it congealed.. and the holes appear to be limited to only one packet.

Nice, credit to NickyB for trying,,, but Tina may have reasons for not being truthful. We'll see and we'll know.

Wasting your time,, there is no new evidence,, Georger was given all the evidence and the argument years ago.. his stubborn ego just just won't accept it. He actually lied and made up evidence to maintain his position. He claims Tina meant rubber bands. The evidence supports paper bands but is not even the real issue. The point is simple, based on the evidence the money had to be in packets of 100's, if the money was made random in count that could only have been the bundles of several packets rubber banded together. Exactly what Himmelsbach said. So, the money went to Cooper rubber banded into bundles of random packet counts. That is consistent with how the TBAR money was found,, one single bundle of several packets. TBAR as one single bundle is the parameter by which theories should evolve. For Georger to maintain his position he must prove the money was not in packets of 100 bills.. he can't because they weren't. He doesn't even understand that is the keystone.

Georger, You don't understand the evidence or the issue, you never have.. are you now claiming the money never got wet.. the crap you make up to maintain your position up never ends,, There were rubber band frags on the money, they were from the bundle not the packet. Ingrams confirm existence of rubber bands. The rubber band vs paper bands on the packets is largely irrelevant.. The takeaway is that the packets had to be in 100 bills each.. they were not a random count as CKRET believed. That means the money went to Cooper rubber banded into randomized bundles of several packets. Confirmed by Himmelsbah and bank 302's. And that means the money that landed on TBAR was one single bundle as the FBI claimed. that changes the means by which the money arrived on TBAR.. If the packets were in a single bundle and not individual,, The money did not have to arrive in a container like the money bag. The dredge theory is extremely weak and virtually eliminated... The premise for the human burial theory is gone... that is why Ulis is still fighting this. So, now we need to look at TBAR theories that fit.. The money arrives as one single bundle. The "FBI" flightpath is maintained. Cooper jumped between the Lewis R and Battleground. and the diatoms indicate a delay with the money entering the River in a Spring.

SHHHH, don't tell anybody.. Actually that stamp was a common one from 1972.. A few of the "Cooper" letters to the FBI had the same stamp, maybe because it looks cool with a plane on it.