Chaucer

The hydrologist I spoke with works for the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership. Part of their job is track river debris and where it washes up. Yet again, you think you're smarter than everyone else, when you're not. You're arrogance blinds you, and that's why this case has left you behind.

This is simply categorically untrue. I've spoken with hydrologists who work on the Columbia about this, and you are simply wrong. 100% wrong. From an article dated February 13th, 1980 From my interview with a hydrologist and GIS specialist who lives and works on the Lower Columbia: Could marine debris that begins in the Columbia River between the I-5 and I-205 bridge arrive at Tena Bar? "Yeah, I think it probably could. It would be reasonable to assume that something from that location could deposit at Tena Bar. In fact, I’m fairly certain that it could. If it originated on the Washington side of the river then it would likely remain along that same shore." Would debris that originates from this location end up on the western shore near Sauvie Island or some other location near there? "I don’t think there’s a high certainty of that. Again, it’s going to depend on the particular piece of debris. I would say no. Any debris that is deposited near that shore would remain along that shore. There would be no guarantee that it would end up on the western side of the turn."

I don't think it tumbled along the bottom. My theory calls for a ride on river debris (branch, log, bush) to Tena Bar. This would lessen any trauma to the bag. But, as we have all said, there's no way to prove any of this.

Wrong. Multiple hydrologists have utterly refuted this notion.

The two enemies of rubber bands are UV light and oxygen. In a tightly packed and wrapped bank bag, both of these things would be limited. Nicky, Whiskers, myself, and a few others conducted an experiment and demonstrated that in a shaded, low oxygen environment rubber bands could survive intact for several months. Bill Grinnell, the gentleman who took the money from the bank to the airport, told me that he has rubber bands in his drawer from banks that shut down 40 years ago.

I don't know why it posted the article twice. I tried to delete it but it's not working. Oh, well.

Regarding Marine Park, I have been researching a more southerly jump for some time. I was hoping to present my findings publicly at Cooper Con this year, but plans changed. I'll find another, more appropriate venue, to present them - likely a YouTube video. All of that said, I won't post all of my evidence here because it would be a lengthy unwieldy post and, frankly, the written word is not the best way to present it. What I will say is that I believe Cooper jumped over the Vancouver as the aircraft approached the Columbia River. Whether he survived is irrelevant to this particular theory. Either he deployed his chute and lost the money ala Martin McNally or no-pulled and went in with the money. Who's to say? Nevertheless, my feeling is that the money ended up not in the river that night, but in the flood plain of Vancouver along the river bank. It had to have arrived in a location that would hide it for at least 7 months and in a location that would be prone to flooding. I think that location was an area that is now known as Marine Park. In 1971, it was known by various names including "Portco" which was the name of a company near by. This area is directly under the flight path. It is within the flood plain. It is also within the 8:05 to 8:15 time range provided by the crew. Here is another article dated June 10th, 1971 indicating that this area was virtually a swamp with little built up around it. Interestingly, here is an article dated June 2 1972. Not only can you see the very bad flooding at Marine Park, but it also shows significant flooding at Lower River Road were Tena Bar is located. At the time of the hijacking, this was a wooded, brushy, wetlands area that was flanked by the abandoned shipyards on the west and a dump on the east. In 1971, construction on what would become Marine Park had only just begun, and at the time of the hijacking was only a place to launch boats and for high school kids to party at night. I hypothesize that the money bag came down in this location, was picked up by flood waters - likely in 1972, but could be later - and transported via river debris to Tena Bar where some of the money spilled out and was buried by flood sediment while the rest continued downstream. Can I prove any of this? No, but it does fit all of the constraints place upon it by the diatoms. I'm not an absolutist, so I won't say this is exactly where the money and/or Cooper ended up, but I think this location makes the most sense if the jump occurred where I think it did.

I wanted to add to this comment of mine, that bringing in many new people to the case isn't at all a bad thing. It also brings in bright people with varied backgrounds and fresh perspectives. Unfortunately, for every one of them, we get three cranks, two kooks, and one crazy.

As that group expands, it is going to pull in more cranks, kooks, crazies, and those folks who are very new to the case, yet very opinionated about it. I think EU wants it that way: more and more people, so those issues are going to get worse unless he decides to do something about it. In the meantime, I'd like to see the private Research Group become an oasis for smart, serious, affable researchers. I'd love for you to be more active on there, P-Head.

I put him on ignore EARLY. I'd rather put up with the cranky old know-it-alls on here than bat shit nonsense. Best decision ever.

Army Corps of Engineers: The post-1974 dredging was apparently placed on the Oregon side of the Columbia from Tena Bar, but dredging did occur. Would seem that the area of the money find was last touch with dredge spoils would be 1974.

All I have is what I shared here which are records from the Army Corps of Engineers acquired by me through FOIA. These files seem to indicate that the money find location was located within a dredge spoil location, and that there was further dredge action done in that area after 1974. Other than that, I'm just curious how others might interpret this information.

Here are the Willow Bar dredge volumes: To be clear, this doesn't mean that ALL of this was dumped on Tena Bar, but it is interesting that dredging did occur in this area after 1974, specifically 1975 and 1977.

A couple of years ago, I did a FOIA request with the Army Corps of Engineers for information about dredging operations along the Columbia River. I shared a photo on Shutter's site last year showing the money find spot and a dredge spoil location. The picture seemed to indicate that the money was found on the southern edge of a dredge spoil location they called "96.6" which is approximately its mile marker designation. It brought up more questions than answers, and the matter was eventually dropped. I haven't had time to put much thought into it since then. So, I have decided to just share all the information from the Army Corps of Engineers FOIA records. Here's the link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11o6PCCNgnigx384ZfiAkmkfMDTbjiPO8?usp=share_link Here is a picture of dredge spoils from 1974: The mile markers are circled and the approximate location of the money find is marked with the black "X" Interestingly, these records indicate that 1974 was not the last time "Willow Bar" (the ACE's name for the Tena Bar area) was dredged: It's my hypothesis that the Tena Bar money arrived naturally via flood debris, but was subsequently buried under dredge spoils which eventually eroded and exposed it enough to be found in 1980. Happy to hear anyone else's thoughts on this. I know georger has put a lot of time and thought into this, so his opinion is greatly appreciated.

Here's another break-in report. Seems to be a rash of break-ins in the FBI DZ the night of the hijacking. I doubt Cooper was responsible for all of them.

The choice of bourbon with 7 Up is interesting considering the most popular highball at the time was 7&7. Typically if you mixed a liquor with 7 Up, it was with Seagram's Crown 7. Bourbon is a sweeter booze that doesn't necessarily require a mixer where a harsher Crown 7 does.

Which doc?

Going to change the subject completely for a minute. Alcohol. Cooper ordered one bourbon and 7 Up at the beginning of the flight to Seattle, spilled it, and did not order another. A drink menu from around 1959 has circulated listing the various bourbons available en route. However, by 1970, as near as I can tell, NWA had ceased listing brands and had resorted to listing styles such as Canadian, rye, bourbon, etc. So, that said, in the 1970s, one of the most popular drink orders was a "7&7" which was Seagram;'s Crown 7 whisky and 7 Up soda. Catchy name, and that meant catchy marketing. Today, if you order a 7&7 you're probably in your 70s. Also, today, Crown 7 is considered a "cheap booze". It's a dive bar whisky intended for bar flies and homeless people. Bourbon was, and still is, a more sophisticated choice for drinkers. While there are varying tiers of bourbon - some expensive and some not - by and large, bourbon is a better whisky than Seagram's 7. Why then, would Cooper choose a bourbon over the ubiquitous Seagram's 7? Was Crown 7 not available on board? Seems unlikely considering its popularity at the time. Perhaps Cooper chose bourbon to appear more sophisticated? To appear above his station in life? If that's the case, then why mix it with a cheap soda like 7 Up? Whisky snobs will tell you that bourbon is sweet enough to be indulged in neat or over ice. They eschew using bourbon as a mixer in a high ball. To me, this indicates that Cooper was trying to appear like a sophisticated, well-to-do man with high brow drink choices, but was still a blue collar or middle class guy who enjoyed his 7&7s and Schlitz beer. This was his one chance to show off, yet he failed by mixing a good liquor with a crummy soda. Also, bourbon is made from corn mash. This makes it sweeter than rye whisky which is made from rye wheat, or scotch which is made from barley. Thus, mixing a sweet whisky with a sweet soda might indicate that Cooper had a bit of a sweet tooth. Lastly, the fact that Cooper ordered just one drink and did not order any after he spilled his first, indicates that Cooper was not a heavy drinker. His ordering the drink was probably more for show than to actually get intoxicated. So, in the end, Cooper's order of a bourbon and 7 Up demonstrates an inexperienced drinker trying to appear sophisticated and upper class while revealing his true blue collar or lower middle class social standing. It might also demonstrate Cooper's sweet tooth. This is all elaborate conjecture based on a very small detail of the case, but I got tired of hearing people argue about people who obviously aren't DB Cooper.

You sound like Trump with your "alternative facts". The truth is you stopped investigating this case years ago. Instead, you chose to mock, condescend, and insult those people who continued to pursue the facts - particularly those inconvenient to your pet theories. The problem for you is that those same people - like me - ignored you, persevered, and carried the torch. Now, you and your ridiculous, completely unsubstantiated claims of an FAA/FBI coverup and westerly flight path are burning up in flames before your eyes. I expect a panicked, directionless series of posts before you finally fade away. Your feeble attempts at being a smug, know-it-all at at an end. You're ten years behind the rest us, and it's impossible to keep up. My biggest shame is that I wrote all of this knowing you read about a third of it. Either way, I'm still right.

I have. Many times over many years. Have you now actually read the FAA Airmen's Information Manual, May 1976?