FLYJACK

Tom looked for info on them back when he had access.. he found nothing. Nothing in any of the later released files. There is no evidence of rubber bands collected with the money, all we have is the Ingram's statements about the condition of the TBAR money.. I know you want new evidence but it isn't coming. It has been over 50 years.. we have to work with what we have.

Bands are long gone, nothing new will be generated... unfortunately.

The hot environment was most likely from being in the sand. Sand can get hot.. "Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Portland Oregon, United States. In Portland, the summers are short, warm, dry, and mostly clear and the winters are very cold, wet, and overcast. Over the course of the year, the temperature typically varies from 36°F to 84°F and is rarely below 26°F or above 95°F." "Sand can be over 100 degrees Fahrenheit when the outside temperature is only 75 degrees; indeed, when the ambient temperature is 90 degrees, the sand can be over 120 degrees. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6970441/

We have nothing on Cooper after he was seen on the plane.. He could have died in the jump, but not likely based on jump data, conditions and experts... or he could have died within a year,, we have no idea.. the speculation on that is wide open.. I just don't think that unknown can be used to support the idea that he died in the jump. There are too many unknown unknowns.

That isn't a fair comment.. I shifted to a survival bias before I had a suspect... That shift was solely based on getting a better understanding on jump data, evidence, conditions and expert opinions. I had thought landing in a forest was deadly, that isn't the case. The terrain was mixed and landing in a tree isn't a big problem. The lack of confirmed evidence on the ground is and always has been irrelevant.

Flight 370 is not even close,,, Cooper was trying to disappear undetected, the plane passengers were not. The plane had limited fuel, it had to come down.. the probability was very high that it crashed in the ocean.. and the passengers were dead. The plane landing on some Island was extremely unlikely.. The "obvious" here is the most likely conclusion.. Nothing like Cooper.. he was trying to not be detected. The "obvious" for Cooper is the most likely based on the jump conditions not lack of substantiated evidence on the ground.. What you claimed "to assume the obvious" is really a subjective opinion not based on evidence. Most people start there and drift toward survival as they learn more about the case. Cooper was not a lost hiker, he wanted to disappear..

A poor analogy, the plane disappearing had to have crashed in the Ocean.. those people were not trying to evade notice. The missing passengers can be presumed dead. Cooper once on the ground was trying to escape notice, so a missing Cooper or no body does not mean he died. To draw the conclusion that no body supports Cooper dying in the jump is not logical.

Vultures are different from Buzzards but they are often conflated.. Washington State has both. I found this area and it is a bit far from the flightpath.. 12-13 miles East.. circling buzzards/vultures is common.

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.