SafecrackingPLF

Well I agree with you regarding getting back to retrieve the dough. I know you believe the money was seperated from Cooper and just was in limbo out in the elements for 8 years... a much bigger hole than divining the thoughts and intents of Weber (if he was Cooper) because you have so many huge obstacles to cover; that was the only point when I said "comparitive" small hole. When comparing all the submitted theories, the he hid it and came back for it later theory has the least holes. First, you're operating under the supposition that Cooper would have hidden all of the money. I don't think anyone (certainly not me) has submitted that idea. I don't believe it for a second. You would have to weigh Cooper's motivation for doing such a thing verses the theorized actions. If Cooper had to leave the bag of cash behind in fear of being caught, that does not prevent him from packing money into something less noticable. I play a lot of cards. I can tell you that card players are prone to carry large sums of cash (over $100k) on their person from time to time. Nowadays we have money belts. Back in the olden days, we had to stuff cash wherever we could without it being noticable. Like I said, a guy can carry over $100k on himself even without a money belt... if you reduce the denominations from 100s to 20s, you can carry between 20 to 30k depending on what you're wearing. In those days, you could purchase two houses outright with 30k, so it's no small amount of money. There are other factors that can play into the general theory I outlined in #315 such as prison time, injury, (I guess even death but it would require a second person)... If it were me (and probably if it were you or anyone else on this board), I would have gone back for hidden money well before 8 yrs later. Especially if I had already gotten away with it. I suppose the only things that would cause me to hesitate would be: 1. I'm doing really well for myself and don't need any additional funds (sort of a weak excuse) 2. I can't get away for some reason (prison, commitments) 3. If I fly, I fear being recognized 4. Train, car, are too slow (see #2) 5. Have authorities found the stash and are they hoping someone will come around to get it? 6. Statute of limitations; I can still get busted for this, so I'll wait. 7. I cannot find the money and have tried unsuccessfully (this fits the general theory, but not necessarily the Weber theory in particular) That's about it. Maybe there are other factors, but those are what I can come up with. As for sideburns, I definitely have thought of what you're saying (they were in fashion). I think that's definitely valid and perhaps likely, but it's still a preference that may or may not change over a person's lifetime. For example, the Mayfield photo was taken recently. The Weber photo was from the mid 60s (not 70s) and photos of him in the 80s show him with bigger/longer sideburns. Christiansen had a clean cut look with no burns. Cook's guy appears to have the same. McCoy's was more of that early 70s fashion you're talking about, but the Cooper description doesn't fit this fashion model.... maybe not worth discussion, but certainly something that I find a bit entertaining.

In post #1149 of the old thread, Ckret submitted the following description of Cooper: Mucklow "W/M, mid 40's, 5-10" 6', 180 to 190, med to dark complexion, medium build, dark straight hair with narrow sideburns to mid ear parted and combed back, dark plastic wrap-around sunglasses, dark top coat, dark brown suit possibly with a thin black stripe, brown socks, brown ankle length pebble grain shoes, not the tie type, he had a low voice with no accent, she did not see scars, marks or tattoos, the man did not have on any jewerly she could see." While this post I'm submitting right now has little to do with anything, it's sometimes fun to play around with the description. First, men rarely change their hairstyles. Yes, they do, but it's a lot less frequent than women. Sideburns might be one of those things that men don't change too much over their lifetime. Perhaps the length of them, the style, but wearing them verses not wearing them might be more constant throughout a man's lifetime. I personally, have never worn sideburns. This is probably why I'm gravitating towards that element of the description. All of that is just conjecture on my part. I can only speak for myself and other males that I've known throughout my life. I'd love to hear your thoughts as well. Cooper had "narrow sideburns" that went down to mid ear (less than the full length of the ear). My question is, which Cooper suspects liked to wear sideburns, and which didn't? Please look at photos of all the popular suspects. Who is wearing sideburns? In the only published photo of Christiansen, he did NOT wear sideburns. I've zoomed in on that photo and he's totally whitewalled. Conclusion: No Cook's unnamed suspect is tough to decipher. It doesn't look like he's wearing sideburns, but I can't tell with this photo or another published photo. Conclusion: inconclusive Every photo of Weber where he doesn't have a butched haircut, he's wearing sideburns. In this photo, he's wearing narrow sideburns that go down part way the length of the ear. Conclusion: Yes McCoy is famous for his sideburns. In this photo, his sideburns were actually too large. If he was Cooper, then he certainly grew them out and styled them much differently. Conclusion: Yes In this photo taken of Mayfield's interview with Inside Edition, you can see his thick sideburns. They aren't very long, but knowing that he was to appear on national television, I'd think he'd get himself a haircut and that these sideburns weren't just a function of his hair growing out. Conclusion: Yes The only person we can conclusively say did not wear sideburns was Christiansen. Granted, we only have one picture of him, but as a person who does not wear them at all, I think it may be an odd thing to change. Personal theory is that sideburns are a preference and that the preference may not change too much over a guy's lifespan. I know this post means nothing, I know it's not proof of any kind, and it does not matter. But, I thought it would be fun to hear other guy's perspective on sideburns.

From Jan post on websleuths: Albert, that's an interesting opinion. I wouldn't dismiss the other features, because I would think the sketch artist would go down the line and try and match the facial features as best as possible. They have a protocol for this type of thing (but I don't know what it is). Anyone who's familiar with police sketches would be welcomed to post some insight. Albert, since you mention the mouth, I want to post the following picture. What you will see is a sketch of the first revision done by Rose. I've isolated just the mouth. His next revision altered the mouth once again to what we see today. Here's what he originally drew along side one of the suspects often discussed here and other forums. I think the mouth depicted in the original Rose sketch is very odd. It's a crooked frown and if you were to look at dozens of mouths, you would quickly see that this type of mouth shape is not normal. Why he changed the mouth on his subsequent drawing would be debatable. My theory would be that Cooper's mouth was too pursed in the original Rose sketch, and that's why it was flattened out on revision. I'm still left to question what it was that Rose was trying to depict. Could this be what Pasternak learned when speaking to the artist himself? No one knows, it has never been disclosed and skyjack never answered my question about the two meeting each other when I asked on the other thread (maybe she couldn't get a hold of him?).

I don't know Skyjack's exact theory (tough to follow), but my post #315 second part, did go through a theory that would explain why. I'm not sure if my "why" matches what Skyjack thinks, but it's at least "a" reason. Simple answer: not from the area & had to use some form of public transportation to get back home (the further Cooper's home is, the better this fits). Weber's home was in Georgia. He had family that lived in a Modesto suburb if I understand, so that would be another option. It's not without its holes, but personally, I think the holes are relatively small comparitive to pretty much every other theory that has been proposed.

Good post. Maybe revised was a stretch. They did however revise this sketch completely with Roy Rose & another revision of THAT sketch. I will say this, on the FBI wanted poster, they had the lithographically reduced image not the grayscale. The more detailed photo didn't turn up in the media (from what I can tell) until television shows in the 80s and in published books of the 80s and 90s. Either way, the perpetuation of the first sketch (whether it was revised or not) probably added enough ambiguity to facial details, that it may have helped Cooper get away with it... that is, if he did get away with it. Why they would use the original sketch throughout the media and even still to this day, when witnesses have complained that the sketch did not look like Cooper, is beyond me. But that's just one person's opinion. Thank you for continuing to add to the discussion Quade.

The sketch that appeared in the morning newspapers and on television was absolutely horrible. If you take the Bing Crosby sketch and reduce a lot of the detail, you'll have the initial sketch that was released to the press. (found a copy of it online and have attached it). The revised "Crosby" sketch is continued to be used by the media, even to this day! (For example, in the NY Magazine about Christiansen, they use the old sketch) That means, even though the FBI revised the sketch at least twice more, the media kept using the old sketch. My personal opinion is that using the first sketch may have been the biggest mistake made in this case. Granted, the FBI doesn't control what the media does, but perhaps they could have strongly urged media outlets to update their picture in subsequent articles and television shows. If Cooper lived, a poor sketch may have been the reason he got away with it. If Cooper died, I would hope the FBI would have perused the missing person's files for the first decade.

According to Ckret in posts #436 & #1529 -He had brown eyes (Schaffner saw his eyes before he put on the glasses, he looked directly at her several times urging her to read the note) My guess is he didn't want to stick out too much while boarding, etc and waited to put on the glasses until there was a reason to do so. Not sure if that was a good idea or not, but that's how it went down.

Good question. The answer is yes. Many have theorized that Cooper wore make-up, wig, and perhaps even a total disguise. The McCoy theorists tend to favor this idea since McCoy lacked the complexion and was not old enough to be Cooper. To quote post #1529 on the old thread, Ckret said: -He had olive skin (no make-up, neither Mucklow, Schaffner or Hancock made comment on make-up which would have been very obvious. Again, do the math, put dark makeup on someone then sit next to them with your shoulders touching, you can see the make-up.) -He had dark hair, receding with sideburns (no wig, this would have been painfully obvious, if a man was wearing a wig with a receding hair line and side burns everyone would have noticed, especially Mucklow and Schaffner.) As it was 377, Cooper did wear a disguise; his sunglasses. Hair coloring would certainly be possible as well, but we'll never really know that (unless they figure out who he was and the guy had red hair or something).

Albert, I think that's a very astute observation. I concur with your reasoning and your conclusion. The sketch artist's job is to nail the facial attributes. The olive skin and latin look was in reference to skin color, but not facial attributes. Makes sense to me. Good take.

Not all police sketches are created equal. I think everyone here would agree on that. I admitted as much in my previous post. The Son of Sam sketch was exceptionally weak. It was drawn after Berkowitz shot Donna Lauria and Jody Valenti at 1:10 in the morning. From wikipedia After her parents were inside, Lauria opened the car door to depart, and she saw a man approaching them quickly. Startled and angered by the man's sudden appearance, Lauria said, "Now what is this…" From the paper sack he carried, the man produced a handgun and, crouching as he aimed, fired three shots. Lauria was struck in her chest by one bullet that killed her almost instantly, Valenti took a bullet in her thigh, and the third missed both girls. The shooter turned and quickly walked away. It's not a fair comparison to equate the Cooper sketches to a sketch devised by a witness who saw an attacker in the middle of the night, was subsequently shot, traumatized by the death of her friend, and had very little time to burn an image of the attacker into her mind. Further, it's been fairly well documented that eye witness accounts of a violent attacker brandishing a gun are highly unreliable. Even Ckret, who works bank robberies, made mention of this phenomena in one of his posts. The attention to detail, the number of witnesses, and the number of revisions to get the picture just right should all tell you that the Cooper sketch would not be as weak as the Son of Sam sketch. Remember, I was only playing around. I never said my fun and games meant anything, but I do think the much more sophisticated FRS test conducted back in 2001 holds merit. I thought I'd throw some funny comparisons into the mix just to show my point... these things are meaningless! Since the Son of Sam sketch was described as looking like a middle aged black man (and I agree), the first comparison is of Berkowitz verses Black Panther Squire. The second one is of Berkowitz verses Kevin Cooper. The third one is of Berkowitz verses Mayfield... People, it's just fun and games. I was just playing, but I think we all made some good points.

The point was, Galen Cook said his suspect matched the photo(s) better than anyone he ever saw. I was just horsing around to see if I could get an objective point of view. I can't speak to the accuracy of criminal sketches. I've seen some that have been put together very haphazardly and aren't inspiring, like you say. I've seen others that were very detailed and well put together and have been spot on (see the KTT example that I posted above). I can tell you that some law enforcement now uses FRS to sift through thousands of suspect photos in comparison to criminal sketches. They could not nor would not even 1. use sketches to begin with or 2. take the second step of matching sketches to criminal databases, if there was no merit to the sketches in general. I would judge the various Cooper sketches based on their attention to detail, but would also take into consideration the number of revisions that were done to get it right (there was at least 3 revisions). While I wouldn't expect a perfect match if they ever nailed Cooper, I would expect some semblance to them. I also wouldn't trivialize the accuracy of the most sophisticated FRS out there, such a program weighed a confessor to the crime against an entire database and lo and behold the confessor was the top biometric match to the sketch. Certainly not proof on its own, but not to be trivialized either since the odds of such a thing are 1 in 3,000 (and you told me you used odds all the time and thought 20% was not worth discussing, 99.97% therefore should be significant to you).

Out of curiosity, I went in search of any FRS that I might use to compare photos of Cook's unnamed suspect against the composite sketches. Unless I invest a lot of money into sophisticated software, it's just not feasible. However, I did find an online geneology site that has some crude FRS integrated into their features. One of the tools you can use is a comparitive look a like test. It's designed to tell you which parent most resembles a child, but I decided to test it out using sketches and photos. First, I ran Galen Cook's suspect against a convicted killer and probably the best sketch of the killer ever made; the resemblence between the two is the best I've ever seen between a sketch and a photo. Not surprisingly, Cook's suspect lost to the convicted killer by 22%. This is probably the biggest margin we could ever hope for from such a test. Next, I ran Galen Cook's suspect against Christiansen and Weber. He lost to Christiansen by 5% and to Weber by 6%. The margin decreased slightly when I used the Bing Crosby sketch (4% & 5%). The only sketch that really produced anything different was the Florence Schaffner sketch of 1988. When I ran Cook's suspect against Christiansen using the Schaffner sketch, Galen's guy beat him by 5%. I then ran the same test against Weber and it was a statistical tie. While my little experiment is far from scientific and I would never, ever put much weight onto it, it was still interesting to see if I could challenge Cook's assertion that "it's the closest match I've ever seen". If I had expensive software and a huge database, I would rely a little more on that. Such a test has only been done once, and Weber beat out the entire database (3,000 people) including some top suspects (guessing McCoy). Wish we could play around with that FRS, but regardless I don't consider that experiment small potatoes. The photos are only for fun & to illustrate my little experiment.

If there's a scenario that we haven't discussed or thought of, I hope we think of it, or someone comes on here and points it out to us. I have no interest of leaving any stone unturned. As it is, I don't know what else we could be missing. We know where the waterways are, and they have not changed location. We know where the FBI & NWA originally calculated the jump point. We know where the money was found (within a hundred yards or so). There's only so many possibilities: plane was in a different location and the timeline was later OR someone found the money/body and decided to chuck it into the river (or adjacent location) in 1979. Wind couldn't reasonably account for the 12+ mile disparity. Without busting the rules, water doesn't account for it. Is it really likely that an animal or animals carried multiple bundles of cash 12+ miles? Like I said, we're left with location of the plane (it would have to be either right on the river or it would have to be east) AND (because the jump is too far north) the timeline would have to be adjusted. Adjust these two and we have a prayer of coming up with an alternate explanation (but even then we'd have to contend with the geology of the beach and the 1979 timeline of the money deposit). I suppose you're right, Mayfield, Christiansen, etc were not really explained much better than the unknown suspect. One guy spent more money than his family thought he'd have, and the other was an expert skydiver who apparently called authorities shortly after the jump. I didn't necessarily mean to joke about his legitimacy, I was just commenting that Cook never really gave the listener a reason to conclude his guy was Cooper. He really needed to talk more about any comments he made to his family over the years; it wasn't discussed at all in the very lengthy interview, but alluded to. His theory on the money doesn't disqualify his guy. His idea on how the money got there was certainly worth discussing, but it's essentially impossible. I think all theories on the money are worth discussing regardless of who's idea or agenda it argues, because a legitimate discussion of the money can eventually give us a much more accurate idea of what truly happened. I believe this is why Ckret told us the money deserved the most amount of "investigation". No investigation was really ever done, otherwise they would have known fairly quick what all of us already know as a result of discussing the details.

The following is a statement by Ralph Himmelsbach given in 1988 on the Unsolved Mysteries segment covering DB Cooper. It's quoted verbatim: He told her to go back into the cockpit and to close the curtain between the coach and the first class cabins. As she turned around to close the curtains, she said she saw him tying something to his waist with what she thought was rope. Later in the cockpit, the light flashed indicating that the highjacker was attempting to operate the door. At 8:12, the pilot told us that they were experiencing a rapid change in the air pressure reflected in a ears popping experience. When we discuss(ed) the case with Ckret, he went off of the written files. Himmelsbach, on the other hand, was based out of Portland (not Seattle) and he had a working knowledge of the case beginning from the first moments when the crime was underway. I would weigh his words very strongly. I'm not sure if he was speaking metaphorically, or if he was literal, but he made it sound as though the time of the pressure bump was determined by the FBI in real time. When he said "the pilot told us they were experiencing" he effectively phrased it in such a way that suggests the FBI was updated almost continually. What's interesting is that the teletype mentioned an oscillation at 8:12, and it has been thoroughly discussed by Cooper experts/authors that the pressure bump occured simultaneously with the oscillation and that both of these events were reproduced in the testing that happened in Jan 72. The two people who would know the most about the reliability of the timeline would be William Rataczak and Ralph Himmelsbach. Captain Scott died 7 years ago yesterday.

The clip-on is a whole different discussion, and no one has any definitive answers about it (that I'm aware of). I'm not even sure what my "theory" is on it. You're correct about the handling of the tie; it's not beyond the scope of reason to think that agents handled it after it had been processed. The DNA: Multiple male donors found "on the tie" (I'm assuming the metallic clip). DNA retrieved from Jo (which may or may not have been Duane's) did not match any of the male donors on the tie. I remembered that I forgot the "strongest" link of the unnamed suspect: his brother's name was Dan. So you have a military trained parachuter, the appropriate age, who's brother is named Dan, and he likes to dress up. That apparently adds up to him being Cooper. I'd hope he'd have more to it than just this (and there probably is)... he has a pretty bad reputation in the "Cooper" world for reasons you noticed in that interview (giving out private information about Tina publicly). My next post below will be one worth discussing

I'd love to hear your opinion on the interview Jim. I left out one of the pieces of "evidence"... Cook says his unnamed suspect used to enjoy dressing up. I wonder if he enjoyed dressing up with clip on ties. IMO, the interview was intriguing and worth a listen, but the case against the unnamed suspect was fairly weak. Maybe I missed something somewhere (perhaps a prior interview?). In particular, I enjoyed the argument between Cook and the McCoy theorist who called into the show. It was also plainly obvious that this Galen Cook has not visited this DZ thread, which IMO, is a mistake if you're thinking of making the rounds and proclaiming a theory out in public. Such people should be armed with as much expert opinion as possible, and the opinions offered up by experienced skydivers cannot be gained elsewhere.

Galen Cook is an attorney/former PI who has spent a lot of time theorizing about this case. He has also been known to harass key witnesses over the last several years, and he actually sued the FBI in 2004 to get all of the Cooper evidence released to the public. On Feb 28th, he appeared on coast to coast talk radio. Evidently, it's an "Art Bell" type of show, and he presented "evidence" of an unnamed suspect in this case. I am hereby pleading for Galen Cook to join the discussion. Though I do find your ambition to find Tina Mucklow to be somewhat tasteless, the more experts on Cooper we can get here, the stronger the discussion will become. Please join us. As it is, I will summarize the "evidence" presented in this radio show (that I found through google). 1. Suspect had military parachute training. This is backed up by an emblem that he wore on his uniform. His eldest son also said that he used to do "HALO" jumps in preparation for the Vietnam war that included night jumps. 2. In 1971 he served as a ROTC trainer at an unnamed university in Utah. The regional headquarters for ROTC training was apparently Ft. Lewis AFB (according to Cook). 3. According to Cook, the suspect appears to be "the best" match he's ever seen to the composite sketch(es). See attached. 4. This was insinuated but not declared; the suspect "confessed in not so many words" to his family over the years (quotes are mine). I'm sure all of us on this DZ thread would love to ask you more questions regarding the suspect and to bounce theories off of you. He's submitted fingerprints to Ckret about a month ago, but no announcement has been made by the FBI that this case has been solved. (we may be able to conclude that no match was found, but that may also be a premature conclusion). The entire interview is posted on YouTube and on the coasttocoastam(dot)com website if anyone is interested. He has a fairly solid understanding of the facts, but some of his information is faulty. Regardless, his explanation of Ingram's money find is significantly flawed. Most everyone on here knows that I'm a stickler to that particular detail because it tends to flaw almost every theory out there (but we are still debating that). His "theory" is as follows: Cooper offered to give Tina some of the money. This has been documented and was confirmed by Ckret in the previous thread. According to Galen Cook, Cooper placed the refused stack in his coat pocket. Upon exit, the money in his pocket came flying out. It was later found on the river bank. Cook's theory does mention pack(s) not pack. That's good because three packs were found, not one. However, in Ckret's post #678, he says "Cooper reached into the bag and gave her a bundle of money. Tina then said to him she was just joking and that she could not accept gratuities and handed the bundle back to Cooper." This would imply that Cooper did not offer Tina $6,000 but a mere $2,000. Galen Cook contends that this offer was extended to multiple people (which would mean multiple packs). I will put in a message to Ckret to see if he can confirm or deny this. In addition to that discrepency, we've discussed at great length when the money arrived on the sand bar (1979) and the condition that it was in and had to of been in when arriving (rubber bands still intact). Both of which would point away from such a theory. Further, and this goes without saying, the jump occured 12 miles from where the money was subsequently found and there are no water ways that would explain the find (unless you break the timeline, location of the plane, accept LaCamas Lake, and figure out how to get a stack of cash to float for longer than 11 minutes). Galen, please join the best Cooper theorists in the world, the ones right here on DZ, to discuss the ins and outs of the case. We're waiting!

You asked about the probability of the money landing in the Washougal watershed. This was addressed on the previous thread, post 1443, the very first question I answered. It's impossible. The distance is too far and the wind direction make it beyond possible. The plane would have had to been 12 miles to the east meaning they'd be so far off course that they'd require a massive correction that would have been noted somewhere in addition to mandatory sobriety tests issued to the captains in Reno. From my 1443 post on the prior thread: "The closest possible point from the flight path to the Washougal River is 11.24 miles. In addition, Cooper would have to jump at approximately 8:17-8:18 and travel in a perfect easterly direction." The "perfect easterly direction" was impossible due to the wind direction. Further, the plane would have been miles east of PDX and not west of PDX as the route dictates. Washougal is so out of question, it's not even funny. I have a better chance of being Cooper than of the money landing in that area. I wasn't alive when the crime occured, so that should give you an idea of the probability on that one. I concur with Orange1. It's not the FBI's job to explain Duane's intricate knowledge of the area. It's their job to investigate the crime; something they quit doing in the early 80s. Once Himmelsbach retired two weeks after Ingram's find, the case, IMO, was dead. The level of examination and analysis that all of us, and especially those of the DZ community, have brought in this thread and the previous thread could have been done by the FBI by the end of March 1980. As it is, they never really took the time to figure out all the implications of the evidence. As for my discussion of LaCamas Lake and your discussion of LaCamas Lake, it's pure coincidence. I'm discussing it because it's the only route that would explain "no intervention". That's just true from a pure geographic standpoint.

The lake is stocked with about 25,000 different fish each year; taken from the (Bonneville?) fish hatchery. There used to be indiginous fish, but they've all died out due to environmental changes. I think your question refers to fishermen on the lake. YES. Always. It's been a big fishing spot for decades (including the 60s & 70s)... and the obvious thing to consider is the likliness of the bag floating all that time in the (very) large lake without any fishermen getting curious and checking it out. IMO, not likely...

You may have been wondering what the bag would look like as it floated. This time I'm going to show the work to illustrate how this type of question can be answered mathematically. The dimensions of the money were approximately 9x12x17 and it weighed 22 pounds (rounded up slightly). The bag may have added up to 3 pounds of weight, but for argument's sake, let's say the bag weighed nothing (since we don't really know its weight yet). I've already stated that it would float on its largest surface, one of the 12x17 sides. 1 gallon of water = 8.34 pounds 22 pounds/8.34 = 2.64 gallons of displacement 1 gallon = 231 cubic inches 12x17x1 = 204 cubic inches per inch of depth 2.64 gallons x 231 cubic inches per gallon = 610 cubic inches (of displacement needed). 610 cubic inches / 204 cubic inches per inch = 2.99 inches This means 3 inches of the bag would be below water and 6 inches would be above water. Incidentally, if the bag added 3 pounds to the total, then 3.4 inches would be below water and 5.6 inches would be above water. I realize none of this solves anything, nor does it actually "do" anything. I'm only making this post for future reference should these calculations be needed. As it is, how the (dry) bag floats in water might actually influence how someone considers the odds of the bag getting past the skimmers in front of the dam at Round Lake. It would also be extremely valuable in determining the approximate waterflow that would be required to move the bag itself from the farm area to the lake. As you can see from the calculations, you would need a channel greater than 3 inches deep of water and at least 12 inches wide (to clear the bag) with no obstacles in the way. Otherwise the bag would stay in place. I can't speak to how likely this is, but can certainly say the further you move away from the lake (in a north direction), the less water flow you will have to push the bag towards the lake. It should be noted, however, that as the canvas and the bills soak up water, the bag and contents would become heavier and the bag would be pushed lower down into the water (which would accelerate the sinking process in the lake & increase the flow requirements to move the bag into the lake in the first place). These calculations were for a dry bag only. For the reader trying to picture what it would have been like for the money bag to float in the lake, I've included pictures. The first one was taken from the NE section of the lake (looking SW to the West side of the lake where there are now a lot of homes). The second picture was taken by the local ski club when they set up a slalom course. From other photos with skiers, it appears these buoys stick up about 6 to 7 inches, maybe slightly higher than a dry money bag would have, but the bag would have been more than twice the size of these buoys. The final picture is of the skimmers again (but different photo)

I went online to see if I could find some photos of this dam. That way we wouldn't have to wait until August (when I will be able to visit in person). The lake was formed a long, long time ago by using these dams. That's plural, because there's one at the southern area of Round Lake and another at the south end of Mill Pond. The Mill Pond route does not lead to Washougal; we would be more concerned with round lake. As it is, there's a thick screen preventing fish or debris from entering Mill Pond. There's another screen several feet out from this spot to act as a skimmer. The dam is not hydroelectric, it's functional; it's what creates the lake. Please see the first photo to see an overview of LaCamas, Round Lake, and Mill Pond. Then see photo 2 to view Round Lake with some arrows pointing at the dam and the mill pond screen. In photo 3 you can see the logs placed in front of the entire dam area to create a skimmer effect. These logs are tied into place with chain. In photo 4, you will see a little bridge that also has screening that goes all the way down to the bottom of the lake. It keeps fish and debris from entering the pond. In photo 5, you will see the back side of the dam. In photo 6, you will see a shot taken from the dam looking out over Round Lake (towards LaCamas Lake). Take note on how still the water is and how the barriers sift debris before permitting water to enter the dam area. In photo 7, you will see LaCamas Creek. Please note the type of creek including rocks and the level of waterflow. If the 22 pound, 5+ gallon sized bag were to arrive via "natural" means, it would have to flow down this creek before ever adjoining the Columbia. To summarize, if the money had "no help" then it would certainly have had to made it's way from farm area to LaCamas Lake where it would have to float, exit the Lake (which we haven't even discussed yet) into Round Lake, make its way past any skimmers, and get pushed over the skimmers of the dam. It would then have to travel down LaCamas Creek a few miles before adjoing Washougal River and then adjoin the Columbia. It would then travel the distance from the mouth of Washougal to the sand bar where the money was found. The distance from the dam to Washougal is 1.82 miles if you follow the creek. The distance from that point to where the money was found is 20.41 miles. I was curious how far it was from the dam to the farm area and I traced the path 10.62 miles until I just said "good enough" at the southeastern most border of the general vicinity (which means the actual travel path may be up to a mile further). Totaling these together, it's at least 32 miles of creeks/streams/lakes/and river. The last 20 miles of the journey would be the quickest. As stated previously, the bag would measure approximately 9x12x17. This is the reason why float time is so important. My understanding is that Himmelsbach himself said there was no closure to the top of the bag, which really causes me to pause when I think about such a miraculous trek... but ultimately, I will let the reader draw their own conclusions as to the viability of LaCamas Lake.

I want you to know that I appreciate this debate! This is good Orange... When you said the bag could drift 2 miles and that a person can drift 1 mile, did you factor that the jump in question was made from 10k? I'm sure you did, but thought I'd ask just as well. There was a person on DZ mentioned as having extreme expertise in calculating this type of thing. The winds themselves were blowing away from the Columbia river. Depending on where you place the plane at the time of the jump, you're most likely still looking at a living intervention being needed to support the theory. Let's put it this way, the landing area as originally calculated by NWA & FBI was 9 miles from a tributary, and at least that far from where the money was subsequently found (but in the opposite direction). The wind & flight path, however, would preclude the money from drifting west towards where it was found. If you need the money to fall into a creek or river, then you're really talking about one that feeds LaCamas lake. This is why float times matter. The lake is 2 miles long, and it's a lake (ie, fairly still water) and this lake has a dam at the south end. These aren't trivial issues if you stick to a natural means explanation. I can't rule anything out on float time of the bag, but I know the float time of a stack (under 11 min). The float time of the bag would need to be long enough to allow the bag to float in the lake, softly drift 2 miles, go through the dam turbine, drift down LaCamas Creek, adjoin Washougal River, adjoin the Columbia, and then float 20 miles to where it was found. Make no mistakes, the float time matters; I just don't know what it is; I also need to know more about the opening of the dam turbine(s). As per Mayfield, yes he lost his leased land as someone who knew him posted in the previous thread. Maybe Albert18 could tell us more about why Mayfield may have been the perpetrator. The only question regarding Christiansen would be why in the world would he take money to the river in 1979? (or at least some level of explanation there) I hear what you're saying regarding the paradox... it's all relative to where you think the plane was when the jump occured. I still have some research to do on LaCamas and its viability; without LaCamas Lake, any "natural" theory would require the Washougal river or *only* the Columbia, and that would eliminate a huge percentage of Clark County (and pretty much all wiggle room in the FBI file). The dams at the southern end of LaCamas were there in 1974, I'm confident they were there also in 71 but will have to research this. 1974 is almost good enough since the money arrived to its final destination in 79. This goes without saying, but for a bag to enter a turbine, generally it needs to be sinking since the turbine intakes are usually a few feet below the surface of the water (needed water pressure). I will have to call someone out there that knows a thing or two about this particular dam though. The point is, in the end, the "he lost the money" argument might be forced into throwing out the timeline completely (to land at/on the Columbia) OR into accepting some level of intervention. It's too early to conclude those needed variants yet. I can admit that much.

Intellectual dishonesty means you argue a position that you don't agree with; it can also mean taking a position contrary to known facts and arguing against them without disclosing the known facts that you're disputing. It's neither here nor there. I will quit using the term. You can't sincerely say that a float time would have no relevance. It does have relevance in eliminating possibilities. At this point, neither myself, nor anyone else is ruling out everything. I can't rule out anything based on float time of the money bag, because I don't know its float time. What I will concede to is that money can travel on the airborne descent. How far? I don't know! I stated that on my "myths" post in the other thread... taking out the timeline arbitarily to 8:15, the bag had to travel 2 miles just to land near a tributary that would feed LaCamas. Taking the known winds and the terminal velocity of the bag, you could figure the max amount of distance. However, thinking the bag is under canopy without Cooper is a stretch, no?? This point is only relevant in dealing with the "it floated its way to where it was found" idea. In other words, no living intervention. If you introduce living intervention, then a whole host of theories can emerge and still fit the facts. That's why I'm much more receptive to these ideas than I am to the old FBI theory that money made it's way naturally. That theory is 99% dead, and I have the other 1% waiting to be dropped. The exit from LaCamas lake goes through a Dam. I need to find out more about this Dam to drop the hammer on the remaining 1%. All theories involving living intervention are viable, IMO. Thank you Orange1 for pointing it out. Now your argument is truly a solid argument.

You're twisting my words Erroll. Intellectually dishonest means someone does not account for facts when they theorize. Your point of view is perfectly valid. However, to tell us that money found on a waterway does not at least suggest that the waterway contributed to the find is a little disingenuous. We now have three possibilities as to how the money wound up on the sand of the Columbia: Via the Columbia itself Being placed there by someone. Being dropped from the air by someone or something. All three of these would have had to take place at some point in 1979. The airborne transport would likely require some type of container; it seems inconceivable to me that three packs of bills would stay together through the fall and land basically one on top of the other. Using this same argument, the bills being placed would hold the most merit. However, if the bills were contained in some way, then all three would have equal viability. My point on the previous thread was that no matter which way you think, human intervention is required. Who the person(s) was is up for debate. To suggest there was no intervention is intellectually dishonest unless the person making the assumption at least admits the significant leaps of faith that they must hold onto, including the direct refutation of facts. PS. Please don't project your own thought process onto me. Please read the words before making a snap judgement. That's all we can ask of each other.

Thank you much for the discussion. I was hoping my comments would prompt such a debate. I can't speak to the difficulity of the jump or surivival. I only know that some skydivers have felt that it could have been achieved. The skydiving community has not been unanimous on this. I can tell you that the "he lost the money" theory violates the following "rules" Timeline of the jump. (it has to be later) Location of the plane. (has to be east of v23) Float time of money (has to float in a lake) There may be a fourth rule (viability of the lake), but I won't be able to answer that until August when I can put some boots on the ground and examine how water leaves the lake. The more rules a theory breaks, the less likely it is of being accurate. That's just managing probabilities. I therefore cannot see how a person can "honestly" say it's the "most solid theory". I do agree with you though. If he lost the money mid-air, it's sort of like believing in a conspiracy. Sure, no one is really conspiring, but all the moving parts that would have to hold true would be akin to the moving parts in a conspiracy theory.