SafecrackingPLF

With apologies for those that hate logic or logic based arguments, I have put together a few. If Palmer never found the 74 layer, or if the report was wrong, or Palmer was wrong, then for the sake of argument I will call it Palmer was wrong. The subscripts and arrows did not transfer over; that makes it a bit harder to follow, my apologies. Any place where you see 8594 is an arrow to the right. I can upload a word doc if its possible. PM me if it is. There are potentially 9 solutions, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z If you do not believe in strata or Palmer, then exclude those portions from the equation. Here we go. This will give at least one of you a lot to chew on. Please PM flaws that you might find. I was flying on a 377 when I decided to dedicate this post to 377. Symbol Key: Cooper Died = CD Cooper Lost Money = C$ Cooper Lived (& did not lose money) = CL Palmer was wrong = PW Condition 72 = J72 Clocks Slow ≈ 3 min = CS3 Clocks Slow more than 3 min = CS3+ Dislodging Event = DE Dredge layer was pre 1971 = P71 Dredge layer was 1974 = L74 1974 Layer Eroded = L74E Pre 1971 Layer Eroded = P71E Spent all the money = SA Dumped Money = DM Stored Money = SM A logical reason to = R Tributary Area = T Money Traveled Naturally = MN Money Landed in the Columbia = MC Money Landed in a Tributary = MT Money is quickly covered/locked in place = QC Quick Covering Eroded = QCE All deposit above QC did erode = EE Flight Path Off by 12 miles = PO12 Major Flight Correction = MFC PDX/FAA Radar Correct = RC Flight control unaware = FCU FAA unaware = FAU Captains unaware = CPTU Captains forgot = CPTF Flight Path West of PDX = FPWST Flight Path East of PDX = FPEST Someone Found the Money = SF Passes Time = PT Returns/Comes back = CBCK Condition 72 means the money arrives at Tina Bar within 3 months of the crime. The rubber band analysis suggests the rubber would have disintegrated if they would have been in the elements longer than 3 months. Condition 72 specifically speaks to the found money arriving at Tina Bar by January or February 1972 (0-3 months). Money Traveled Naturally refers to no human intervention as the money travels to its destination. The easiest way to understand the chain is to demonstrate it in chunks and then break down those chunks in greater detail. We’ll begin with Condition 72 since this is a recent hypothesis put forward by some on this board. The hypothesis is that the money traveled to Tina Bar in less than 3 months. If this was to happen, then the money had to be quickly covered with sand locking it in place. As accumulation built up, the money would be buried deeper and deeper. In 1974, a dredge layer was dropped on top of it. After 1974, this layer eroded and any other accumulation between the years 1972 to 1974 prior to the dredge also were eroded leaving the money just under a small amount of sand, barely covered so that when boy Ingram smoothes out the sand, the money stacks are revealed. Here’s how this looks logically: J72 → [QC & -QCE & EE] → P71 & -L74 → L74E & -P71E → PW Effectively this states, if you have condition 72, then it means the money was [quickly covered and that layer did not erode and all deposits above that layer did erode]. If all that happened, then it means the layer that Palmer found was a pre 1971 dredge layer and not actually from 1974. If that was the case, then it means the 1974 layer did erode and the pre 1971 layer did not erode (effectively the older dredge layer was still there but the newer one was not). If this was the case, then it means Palmer got it wrong. Now for the logic junkies, the contra positive: -PW → -L74E or P71E → -P71 or L74 → [-QC or QCE or –EE] → -J72 If Palmer was right then it means the 1974 layer did not erode or that the layer found was not pre 1971 (it was post 71). If that was the case, then there was no pre 1971 layer or the layer was from 1974. If that holds true, then the money was not quickly covered or the quick cover eroded, or the deposit on top of the money did not erode. If that holds true there was no Condition 72. Basically, either all that stuff happened, or Palmer was right. The reason why Palmer is in dispute is because those with some brains know that he absolutely must be wrong for their hypothesis to hold any kind of merit. If Cooper died or if Cooper lost the money on the way down, then it means one of two things: either someone found the money and then dumped the money, or the money arrived naturally (because there’s no one there to help it along). Most of us discount someone finding the money and then dumping it into the Columbia, but it is a viable hypothesis supposing Cooper died or lost the money. Instead, most everyone talks about the money traveling naturally. If that happened, then the money either landed in the Columbia or in a tributary zone. If it landed in the Columbia, then it means the FBI, FAA, and Northwest all had their clocks fast by roughly 3 minutes. This allows the three of them, all monitoring and communicating with the pilots via telephone/radio hook-up in real time (this is verified by Himmelsbach BTW) to all mistakenly believe the time of the jump took place at 8:11 when it actually occurred later. If that that happened, then condition 72 must take place. The second option is that the money landed in a tributary zone. If that’s the case, then it means the flight was off by roughly 12 land miles. If that happened, then it means the FAA’s radar was incorrect AND the clocks were slow by at least 3 minutes. If this was the case, then it requires either PDX/FAA to be unaware that the flight is traveling east of PDX and also that the captains are unaware they’re flying east of PDX or that the captains corrected the flight to get it back on course so they can fly west of PDX while also allowing for both the FAA and the Captains to forget about this major correction in flight. If that sounded like a mouth full, that’s because it is. Here’s the logical articulation: CD or C$ → SF or MN SF → DM MN → MC → CS3 → J72 or MT → PO12 → -RC & CS3+ → FCU & CPTU & FAU → FPEST → J72 or → MFC & [FAU & FCU] & CPTF → J72 The contra positives: -SF & -MN → -CD & -C$ This says if someone didn’t find the money and it didn’t get there naturally, then Cooper did not die and he did not lose the money. -DM → -SF -J72 → -CS3 → -MC → -MN (If condition 72 does not exist, then the money did not arrive naturally. This is why Palmer is attacked) -J72 → -FPEST → -FCU or -CPTU or –FAU → RC or –CS3+ → -PO12 → -MT (If condition 72 does not exist, then the money never landed in a tributary. Again, why Palmer must be defeated) -J72 → -MFC or [-FAU or –FCU] or -CPTF (If condition 72 does not exist then at least one of the following is also true: there was no flight correction, the FAA was aware or flight control was aware, or the captains did not forget correcting course.) The main argument, however, is the first one listed, because if condition 72 does not exist, then effectively Cooper did not die and he did not lose the money (if you also assume no one found the money and then dumped it). If you can get around the rubber band analysis, then it will open the door to more possibilities, but many of the conditions will still have to hold true. Let’s look at what has to happen if Cooper survived and got away with the crime. If Cooper lived, then either condition X, Y, or Z must hold true. Condition X = he has a reason to dump money into the river as he gets away. If this holds true, then condition 72 must also hold true. Condition Y = he has a reason to store at least some money (has to be greater than 0) in a tributary area. If this holds true, then some event dislodges the money. Condition Z = Reason to store at least some of the money (can be in the woods or at his house or any other place he deems safe). If that holds true, he has to have a reason to pass time and not spend the money that’s been stored. If this holds true, he has to come back/visit the river or a tributary. If this holds true, he has to have a reason to dump the money into the river/tributary. When most people speak of Cooper getting away with it, they usually talk about condition X. Here’s how that looks symbolically: X: CL → -SA & R → DM → MC → J72 Y: → -SA & R → SM → R → T → DE Y2: → SF → DM Z: → -SA & R → SM → R → PT → CBCK → DM Z2: → SF → DM Effectively, if Cooper lived, then either he stored the money or he threw it in the river as he escaped. The latter can only happen if condition 72 exists. Given the highly improbable odds that condition 72 exists, then Cooper would have stored the money somehow if he survived the jump. It was then either nature, a lucky person stumbling onto the money, or Cooper himself that put the stored money into the river. If condition 72 does not hold true and a natural dislodge does not happen, then either Cooper died/lost the money OR he lived and stored the money. Anyone want to put some relative odds on each of these scenarios? EDIT: I've upload the post in PDF form; it's much easier to follow the reasoning that way.

Bruce, You forgot to mention the sinister truth that Cooper was part of the reptilian race. Why do you think he had that dark complexion? Those damn reptilians. I swear, they run the world. This why Cooper got away, he was reptilian. Next time, don't omit the truth Bruce.

I don't have much time to spend here. I would be extremely hesitant to rule out Palmer based on nothing, especially when there seems to be very little reason to do so. I'm sorry if I'm lumping everyone in the same batch. A lot of you guys weren't here when I left, and some that were, aren't around anymore. I'm speaking more to the pervasive culture of attacking evidence when it disagrees with someone's opinion. For us to say that they were totally wrong in calculating the landing area based solely on some documents is a bit of a stretch that opens the door to further mistakes. I trust Tom Kaye 100% especially since he knows a thing or two about scientific method. I do not trust some guy sitting in front of his computer looking at a few documents from the FBI file and then coming in and telling everyone that an entire team, including the military, got it all wrong... that is, without something absolute and concrete. If such evidence does exist, then my apologies. Snow, you asked me if I was saying I believed in Duane or something to that effect. No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that attacking material facts or evidence just because it suggests a different answer is wrong... and almost everyone on this board, including Jo, has done this. What I will say about Duane/Jo is the story that was printed 9 years ago in the US News & World Report was (to what I can tell) consistent with the evidence up to this point. That's more than I can say for anyone else, including all of us... none of us have come up with a viable explanation as to how all the evidence *might* fit together. Sluggo once told me he could come up with a hundred ways to fit it all together, but I've only seen one and it came from the crazy lady. If she made it all up, or he did, or she's a nutjob, then I have to at least give her credit for dreaming up the first solution that fits... does not mean it's the only solution or that he did it. The jury is still out on that and I sincerely believe Kaye will shed some insight for further discussion when he's done with his research. Message to Kaye And, the photos in the vid were taken about 50 yds from the find, and the debri seen on the beach was all stuff that floats (and there was a TON of garbage that washed up).... I have to go now. Take care everyone and keep up the fight. I'm sure I'll be back when there's some tangible findings to discuss!

My resume is as follows: I call it as I see it; I dig as deeply as I can; I don't ignore or twist for a specific gain. If you want to stick Cooper IN the Columbia River, you have a few hurdles to overcome. 1. Even if radar tracking was less than perfect, the margin of error was +/- 0.5 nautical miles. Usually margins of error are stated as 2 standard deviations which puts the likely result within the margin 95% of the time. A reasonable person would think that the standard deviation in the landing zone/flight's path was 0.25 nautical miles. Putting the jet 10 miles (or more) away is over 30 standard deviations. You do not encounter such a large error without purposeful intent. 2. If Cooper lands in the Columbia river, no body was ever found. Did he make it all the way out to sea without getting snagged up somewhere? 3. If Cooper lands in the Columbia, the money would have been attached to him (unless of course you argue that the money separated from him and they both landed in the river). In 8 years time, it can only drift a few miles to where it was found. 4. Even if your armchair logic trumps the opinion of a professional geologist, you still have to account for money lying under a few inches of sand 8 years after the fact. I imagine that you will do all you can to conquer these hurdles. That's what I mean by allowing the evidence to speak for you. 377 will tell you, this is how false convictions are made; prosecutors rationalize exculpatory evidence and they look at ambiguous evidence in a biased manner. In my opinion, by making every attempt to alter pieces of evidence that contradict your ideal outcomes, you do yourself and everyone a disfavor. You'd have me believe that pretty much everything is wrong... the clay layer was wrong, the flight path was wrong, the calculated time/location of the jump was wrong. What's more likely, that all these things were wrong and you're right 37 years after the fact, or your assumptions are wrong? Talk about statistics... I'd bet the latter every single time.

First, I happened to notice 377's sentiments about Marquis. This has been a terrible tragedy and the survivor's story has changed. Apparently the new version will be released to the public soon. Thank you for your sentiments. I wish his daughter and widow the very best. As for Tom Kaye's investigation. I'd like to URGE you to follow the evidence. This is something that has not been done in this case... hardly at all. And judging from what I'm reading in the papers, it's still not being done. quoting the Oregonian: "The hijacker's landing zone has never been pinpointed. Originally it was thought to be somewhere south of Ariel, Wash., near Lake Merwin, but Carr said the discovery of the money along the Columbia River ruled that out." When I was able to demonstrate that the landing zone could not have explained the money WITHOUT COOPER SURVIVING, all hell broke loose, but I was happy to see that this immutable fact had to be accepted. In accepting the fact, you either must acknowledge that Cooper lived, or that the landing zone was way off (and by way off, it's more than 10 miles off). When altering case facts, they fail to account for other knowns. For example, you can't just throw Cooper in the Columbia and solve the puzzle because the evidence would contradict that hypothesis. Pretty much everyone on this board has attempted to twist and turn the evidence to fit their presuppositions. This fundamental mistake has kept the truth hidden and only by looking at the evidence clearly, without bias, will any sort of truth be gleaned. If the idea is to find out where he landed, then you're making a big mistake... the mistake is in assuming that an army of people watching this flight in real time made such a large error. Just follow the evidence and allow it to tell the story for you. If you do that, you will do what no one has done in nearly 40 years, and you may just solve the mystery. Conversely, if make the same mistake that everyone else has made, you'll wind up stumped and defeated... except you will have left us clues to further your work.

Hate to be the party pooper again, but this is patently false. #1 & #3 are impossible; they do not explain the money unless you add in some "conspiracy" type thinking (ie, more than one person handling the Cooper ransom or a literal army of people monitoring the flight all got it wrong) You also ommitted a viable explanation, which is that Cooper himself placed the money somewhere in the Washougal watershed. I want to remind people that if you're thinking about the Washougal, it's quite a leap of faith. He did not land there, so he would have had to hike. It's possible, but I don't think it would be likely that he'd survive then hike up some mountains to hide the money... but whatever. Right now, the only Cooper I care about is Marquis. I knew him, and my heart goes out to him, his wife, his daughter, his family, and all of his friends. He was always nice to me and was quite a remarkable person. I hope we can all get some closure, but I'm also realistic...

Could have saved himself some time by reading my posts, but that's why I don't visit this board anymore. People have their mind's made up without having any evidence to disagree. Money does float, but it just doesn't float for very long (it's a matter of minutes) and this floatability makes a huge difference in figuring how far the money could have traveled. Good luck

I did not take any soil samples, just photos and took a look around. There's A LOT of drift wood there, all the way up the steep grade too. I even found some disposable plates that had washed up. The wash up idea, in my mind, was bolstered just through visiting the site. I highly discount any proposal having to do with the money landing there from the air or being planted there in person. There is still a cow herd nearby, located just north of where I visted & it's very reasonable to suggest possible nitrate run-off. It's also well established that the cows were visiting that area in 79-80. The Fazio family still owns all of the land in question.

I would have to get caught up on the suspect, but when I first broke this on dropzone, the story on him was too incomplete for me to believe he had anything to do with the crime; mostly because I'd put him last of all the suspects discussed on this thread. But, I haven't heard any of the new information that has been released by Galen Crook Cook. There has to be more to the story, or else he's wasting all of our time. Now, as to the "peculiar" behavior of the man at the hotel, it was a matter of his late wake-up call request and his matching the description. I don't know enough to say if the witness claimed that he "matched" the early composite sketch. The weight you give that witness is up to you. I was only pointing out that there is someone that has gone on record; and no, I don't have a copy of his signed statement, but have read some of what he had said before. He made some posts on another thread on another website. If his story is believed, then its akin to putting him not only in a parachute, but on the plane itself. Like you, I would like to see more statements from this person to make a determination if he's "full of it" or not.

If you're on the subject of witnesses, then you owe it to yourself to at least acknowledge the witnesses that are on record. As published in US News and World Report, there may not have been a witness to the actual deathbed confession, but there was a witness to the ramblings about buried money of roughly $173,000. If you're trying to decide if the deathbed confession actually took place, this corroborating witness means it's more likely than not that it actually took place and was not some figment of skyjack's imagination. You can also look to the witness that has gone on record that worked at a hotel down the street from PDX right on Airport way (or there abouts). According to his repeated (and signed) statements, he checked a man in the night before the crime. This man, according to his recollection was taller than average and matches the photos he's seen of Weber. He can recall the name of the man, and did inform the FBI of the peculiar guest back in 71. According to his statement, he joked that the guest's name was like the drink, Tom Collins... the guest reportedly wasn't fond of the joke and replied "well my name's John, not Tom" I can vouch that people DO JOKE about the name Tom Collins. It's my adoptive Dad's name, and he's told me countless stories of the joke. I've also witnessed it personally. This doesn't mean the witness is correct in all of his observations, but certainly seems plausible. You can make up your own mind as to what degree two witnesses have in measuring the merit of skyjack's story, but at least acknowledge that there's more than just one person trying to go against an avalanche of opposing evidence. At some point you have to look at all the evidence, based on only the merit of the evidence, and face the tough reality that most of you are unwilling to admit. I cannot wait to hear about the new findings that I've heard are on their way. I also recently visited Tina's Bar within the last two weeks and will create a YouTube video for you when I get some time next month.

Looks like you have some issues that you didn't account for. 1. Condition of money 2. Location of money (yes, I know you're working on this) 3. Strata of sand indicating timeline of deposit Those are three keys that must all be addressed and you're glossing over the third one completely. Look at these photos again. I posted them months ago. You're coming up with theories on dredge layers and such, why don't you just look with your own two eyes? The layer he's pointing to was well established and was not disturbed. You tell me how many inches up from the layer the money was found.... this significantly reduces the window for deposit. You're really talking about late 1979 here, and anything else simply does not add up. And if it doesn't add up, there's no possible way you can seriously conclude "air" as possible transport to the find location because air implies the 1971 flight, and if you go there you have even more issues than strata in the sand. It's a dead end to think air was the means.

Is the flop a poker reference? Hello everyone. I'm only dropping in to see if there's anything new (only about 80 pages). Hey, what's this composite sketch skyjack just posted? Is that thing legit or is it bogus? Damn thing looks like Weber. And what's this talk about Burnt Bridge Creek and transport from Vancouver Lake to the Columbia River? This is feasible, it's called Lake River. Any other means is not possible. But, you have a 800 pound Gorilla if you want to talk about Vancouver Lake as being even remotely a contributor to the money being found. Since it's 800 pounds, I'll let you discuss it amongst yourselves. Sluggo my friend, natural transport is impossible. Yet, human plant is also so unlikely that I have better odds of winning back to back powerball jackpots. The most likely answer is, a combination of the two. I'm convinced simply because it's the only way that adds up. If you guys need further information, shall I proceed with my proposed $200k float test? If I can get this done in the next 12 days, then I'll do it, otherwise maybe someone else can do it. Hey chuteless, good point, I think I'll fade into oblivion again. Well, that will be all. Take care and godspeed to all of you.

Off Topic: Ckret, I never realized you were All-American. When I lived in Seattle, I had a friend named Brad Walker. In our last yr at UW, he was honored as the male athlete of the year there. This was several years ago, but he still competes today (do a google if you never heard of him). That next year, I was in a master's program at a different school (you can probably figure out which one) and I was named the male athlete of the year at that school. Totally off topic, but thought I'd share since we're from the same tribe of accomplished athletes. I will someday get good at free falling, but I have to spend some more time in the tunnel first.

Good post. My apologies again if I happen to screw up some terminology. While I can believe people may have been amputated as a result of skydiving, it's not conclusive that it happened here. Your question is valid and I've wondered it myself. I'll rephrase it, and I looked it up so you can quote me here... Is the a max force of 187 pounds enough to pull suspension line through the core of a human body? Obviously if we're talking about severing the body, we're also talking about the spinal cord as well. Further, the max force would not be sustained. How long the max force of 187 pounds could be possible depends on the deceleration rate. I'm not skilled enough to make such a calculation. All I can say is that he starts at 170kts and then slows down horizontally as he accelerates vertically. The other thing to consider if you're trying to figure out if the sack of money cut Cooper in half is the clothing he had on. The line would have to severe whatever clothing was between his skin and the line in addition to the the core of the body. Just a guess here, but I'd guess he did not get cut in half. But if he did, someone found the money and moved it. I stick by that conclusion until Ckret updates us on the money, timeline, and location.

One last time about this too... There are several reasons to do such a test. The main one is that the predominant hypothesis is that the money arrived to its location via the Columbia River. Simple geography shows us that if this hypothesis were true, it would mean the money sack had to originate from two out of six different regions in Clark County. The two regions would be the Washougal watershed and the LaCamas Lake watershed. All other watersheds can be effectively ruled out. Between the two, the most probable from a geographic standpoint would be LaCamas Lake. There are significant issues with choosing this route, however. One of the primary concerns is that the sack of money would have to float on this lake and gradually make its way to the SE portion of the lake where there's a dam surrounded by skimmers. The sack of money could not escape the lake without floating. Further, even if it did reach the dam and skimmers while floating, there's significant doubt that it could get get pushed past the skimmers and the dam. A float test result that shows the sack of money could not float for very long would effectively rule out the LaCamas watershed. Therefore, the test is worth doing. The second part of the test, if it's even possible, would be to determine the likelihood of the sack of money making its way to where the money was recovered. While it's generally accepted that this is possible, the hypothesis has never been tested. Guru & Jumpin Jack have accurately said that the money only needs to get pushed at the bottom. The problem with just defaulting to this position is that the money was found in the sand bar 20 miles from it's "theoretical" starting point and the bottom is actually not the bottom of the river, but the western edge of the river. The significance of this is that the sack would not be allowed to make its way into the center of the river, but would have to remain on the fringe edges of the west side of the river. The fringe edges have bigger rocks than the center and has branches and screens as you travel down river. The effect of these is unknown. Further, the water on the westside of Caterpillar at the time is unknown. There's so many unknowns that even I have expressed a lot of doubt if any testing could shed light on the mystery. The best way to determine if the hypothesis is plausible isn't really practical. You would have to take several money bags, each soaked to various degrees, and chuck them into the Washougal river and track their path. If the money makes its way to the center of the water flow (where the force is greatest BTW), then it would effectively make it impossible for the money to "wash up" where it did. This would especially hold true if the money were on the bottom of the river at or before the 20 mile marker. Even if such a test could be done, the variation between 2008 and 1979 may be enough to render such a test null, however. BTW, PH would only be useful if we were testing microscopic items. The pH is a measurement of electrons in the water and it would not significantly alter any results; the pH of the river is the natural habitat to fresh water fish and it can be safely assumed that it is not an extreme number; it's likely to be at 7 +/- 1 which would not alter such a test. While there's some correlation to viscosity, any number in a normal range would not sigfnicantly alter the buoyancy of the sack. If I test the float time of a sack of money, and it only floats for say 40 minutes, a person could use that information to help them figure out the probabilty that LaCamas was the route. The test is worth doing, so quit complaining about it. If you want to put forth some testing or analysis of your own, then by all means, do it.

But points on a sketch of a face can and have changed over time. So what. The sketch hasn't changed, but three sketches were made and a fourth was done in 1988 based on one witness from 17 years earlier, whoop dee do. The test was done from photo to photo. No one ever said the sketch was a photo of Cooper. The point is, your everyday joe shmoe cannot accomplish this feat. Further, using a much less sophisticated program that I have said isn't much to rely upon has shown me that the same guy who won the database challenge has also beat every other suspect discussed on this thread against every single sketch including Ckret's hybrid sketch. Not that it means anything other than what sketch is used may not change the top rank of the suspects in how they measure up against any of the composites. Big flipping deal. You attack things that really have no reason to attack. I don't base my opinions on one test. What's interesting is the very minute I get on here and start showing everyone the evidence and what it means, people begin attacking like crazy... It makes little sense to me. Keep your opinions, I think everyone should have one and you should not let facts or truth stop you from believing what you want.

Holding grips is NOT 'holding hands My apologies. The point was that a teathered line is the not the same as a holding grip. I'm perfectly willing to accept that a holding grip won't work at said speed, or at best will not work with any level of consistenty and that the probability would favor the two objects coming apart. The crux of my "math" was only to calculate the max force of wind against the sack of money. That max force was something like 160 to 180 pounds of force (this off the top of my head so don't quote it). You can then use that information for yourself to figure out the likelihood of the secured bag coming off of Cooper at exit. This is such a minor piece of information to me that it's really not worth discussing. I base my opinion not on this calculation, but on everything else in the case. I leave and left the calculation for all to see so that they can use to determine the probabilty of the line snapping for themselves. I have no opinion other than 160-180 pounds of force may not be enough to conclusively determine that the line snapped. I don't see what my experience or inexperience has to do with anything here. I'm not basing my opinion on conjecture and I've stated that countless times.

I've been accused of using FRS in a way that it was "never intended" and relying upon this to trump reason. FRS was developed first as a way to identify undesirable casino patrons. In the old days, pit bosses and security personnel had to rely upon physical photos and the Griffen Book. In the late 90s, software emerged that made it possible to track undesirables in a database and to compare any patron to the database using computers. When the comparison is done, a photo is compared to a photo. The two photos are never the same and are never taken from the same exact angle. Further, casino undesirables are known to use disguises, so the software had to have adequate technology to sort through this and to be able to tell the difference between an undesirable and an ordinary player. The solution was a biometric algorithm that measure points on a face, points that cannot change over time and cannot change with a disguise. The tests conducted in Las Vegas regarding the Cooper case used one of these databases and the FRS technology to compare some suspects and the database against the FBI composite sketch. Like a typical comparison, the test used two photos. Instead of two photos taken from video surveillance, photos were instead scanned in. This was the primary difference and the "not designed for" aspect that I've been accused of. The only other difference is that one of the photos was a sketch, but due to the nature of FRS, the points on the face were easily identified and could be compared just any other photo. The database contained roughly 3,000 individuals including three suspects. When the comparison was done, a top choice was found. It was never said that it was an absolute match, but rather it was just a top choice out of the database. The probability for any one individual being a top choice would be about 1 in 3,000 chance. The person who just so happened to be the top biometric choice in the database also just so happened to confess to the crime. That's not me doing anything. I'm just stating what was done, how it was done, and what could be inferred from it. It's not proof. I never said it was proof. What I did say was that it was significant. How much significance you put on this is up to you, but "mathematically" I'd consider it relevant just because not just anyone can come in off the street and be a top choice in a test like this. Further, in a case with vast amounts of information and facts, it's only one small piece and should be considered in light of everything else. I'm eagerly awaiting the new evidence regarding the money, the timeline, and jump location because a change to any of these could easily alter my opinions.

One last time... "It's like a whirlwind exiting at 170 kts" I'll take people at their word on this. I have no reason to doubt it. "There's no way a teathered suspension line would hold exiting at 170kts" This is speculation. While I'll agree to the vague description of a "whirlwind," using it to conclude with absolute certainty that the bag had to come loose within the first 2 or 3 seconds due to wind is a bit of a stretch, and is actually fallacious. First, we do not know for certain how the bag was secured to his person. We can guess based on the limited amount that Tina saw. Second, the line used was suspension line. The tensil strength of the line was something like 500+ pounds. In the absence of any actual empirical observations such as "I jumped with a 22 pound bag at 170 kts secured to me with suspension line and it broke off immediately", the only way to judge such a claim is by using other evidence. Because we can figure out the approximate size of the bag and we know what the wind force was, we can calculate the maximum wind force produced. This isn't "discounting" what others say because all that has been said is that it's windy and that two people holding hands at such an exit speed cannot keep them together. Therefore, we have the known maximum force to help us in our "guess" if the money stayed atttached at exit. We also have other tidbits of evidence such as timeline, jump location, and location of the find... all of which suggest the bag remained on Cooper through the intital wind. Now please tell me, how did I just "discount" what "everyone" has told me??? Please, cut and paste a line and show me where. If you can't do it, then either ignore this post or admit that you're making assertions about me that aren't true.

Forgive me, I should have never mentioned it in the first place. But, I am very perplexed why you chose to attack the velocity of the Columbia River... it seems a little... pointless. If you don't understand what I will attempt to do (and I don't even know if it's possible) then there's really no reason to argue against something that has little relevance to anything. Do you understand what the 18 inches of sand was in reference to? I only ask because you really got defensive about it and it seemed to me that you didn't quite understand the significance of it. The 18 inches of sand is only relevant in reference to a 1974 strata identified in the sand. That's how much sand was on top of the strata, and the money was found at the top. What this has to do with whatever it is you're trying to argue, I don't quite understand, but feel free to go for it, whatever it is you're trying to do.

Do either of you two guys actually FOLLOW what's been laid out in this case? I'm just wondering. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone deserves to have one... I would just LOVE to know how you two guys support your opinions. Happy, There's no link between exit point and where the money was found. Further, there's confounding problems in assuming the money got there in 1971. Tributaries are highly dependent upon WHERE the jump occured and the possible travel routes of the cash, none of which equates (ie, not possible). Orange, I don't know why you get so mad when I use mathematic calculations. If you want posts without calculations, then look my posts with the maps of all the creeks and then look at where the money was found and then look at where the jump occured and enlighted us all on how it's possible. Again, I would love to hear it, but please don't knock me because I happen to throw in a mathematic equation that you didn't like. My experience or inexperience has pretty much NOTHING to do with any of my standpoints, so please deal with what's been laid out and not necessarily the red herrings you love to attack so much.

You seem to "miss" a lot. That's okay, I can continue posting photos over and over again if you like. Please see attached. Ckret, that's quite a crafty person who came up with the hybrid sketch. A graphic artist of some sort? Skyjack71, where did you get the idea that a Mayfield person did the sketch? As you can see, the hybrid is a statistical tie between Mayfield & Christiansen, but loses to Weber by a whopping 15%. Weber's beat Cook's suspect by 20% when compared to the 72 sketch. I've yet to see any suspect beat Weber against any sketch, including Bing Crosby, Schaffner 88, Rose 72, or this hybrid. It's still fun to play around with it though. Jumpin Jan, What makes you think I'm out to "prove" anything? All I said was that I cannot pinpoint an entry location for the money. The cash is a huge, enormous mystery that deserves much more attention than it has had in the last 28 yrs. What I did say was that I did not feel the proposed container would really fit what we know, but that's what I would like to determine (if it can be determined). Ckret, please, pretty please... let me know ASAP when you hear something regarding the bag. Guru312, your efforts are admirable, but I'd rather believe what actually happened and I'll take the word of people like Himmelsbach, the file, and the person who packed the money over some guy theorizing about a case he knows very little about. happythoughts, one thing I'll never quite understand is why people here try to argue things that really have no importance and often times the people arguing have no basis for doing so. Case in point, "Placing 3 mph as a maximum is unrealistic for a period of years". Could you please tell me what is a reasonable range of velocities? Since this has been looked up, I can tell you that the high end velocity is around 3 mph, but obviously that's "unrealistic". Another case in point, "If 150 homes were pushed 40 miles, a bag of cash could be easily moved by a smaller flood/storm." You're arguing something that has nothing to do with what I said. There's no point in arguing this. I never said the money cannot be moved by water, what I said is we need to figure out how the money washed up. Two totally different things with totally different parameters. Cool stuff posted here the last few days! I think this thread has life and I think things are progressing forward really well from what I can see.

Everything is fine, there's just little to say right now. I think that's what he meant. Sluggo is working on an in-depth study of the flight path/timeline, Ckret is off working robberies and putting criminals behind bars, I'm in the middle of some work that will take me away from the board somewhat... If you would like to nibble on something, I'll tell you where I am (mentally that is) regarding the money washing up. The Columbia River has a range of velocity depending on height of the water, and area of the passageway. The high range of velocity is somewhere around 3 mph. Because money, on its own, sinks in less than 11 minutes, it would imply the money was close to shore, dragging along the bottom (which happened to be high tide)... the distance before sinking is so small that I cannot place a drop point/entry point in the river. Further, caterpillar island may not have been an island back then. I'm not sure. I have an old map that shows land where there's water now. The likely route of the money would have come from the east side of caterpillar. There's storm/overflow drainage or resting area there on the east side. The water would be a lot more stagnant there than the main area. At the north end of the island is where the money was recovered. I would like to figure out the most logical way for the cash to get there. I'm not sure of the depth of this route of water. It could be fairly deep, or shallow... I'm not sure what it is now and especially am unsure of what it was in 78-79 timeframe. The reason this is important is because if the money were say, 10 feet down, in the channel, the odds of it "washing up" where it did would be tiny (or really non-existent) Float time of the bag is still important for the Lake & to try and determine how deep into the channel the bag would sink (ie, towards the middle as it makes its way alledgedly 20+ miles)... if it moves towards the middle, it makes the find impossible. In other words, we have cash in the river. It's found on the Washington side. The nearest tributary is 20+ miles. It had to be in a container for three stacks to be found in proximity to each other. The question I'd like to get to eventually is, what type of container? Maybe it's impossible to determine this (through process of elimination), but it's worth an honest try. I cannot make progress on this right now... at least not until I have a solid idea of what type of bag was used. The pool has water in it, and I have the cash... would love to put this to some type of test. It woudn't provide answers, but would give us some more information to work off of... Greene, if you have some insight or thoughts in these matters, I would be thankful.

People, people... it's okay, take a deep breath and let out those frustrations... I think the difference of opinion is the difference between someone who has searched for more than a decade and witnessed a confession from the man himself vs. some neutral third parties who are trying to give the blueprint to convince them. I saw the "objective" argument as some people with different opinions on what that means. Skyjack71, I think what they're trying to say is that you have an "interest"... or better, "conflict of interest". Doesn't mean its necessarily bad, but it's the same reason a surgeon doesn't operate on his family; conflict of interest. Objective just means looking at all sides without bias. In all fairness, I don't see how it would be possible to remain "objective" if a man confessed to the crime and then when you stop and think about it, you come up with 20 reasons why he was telling the truth.... tough to stay objective at that point. You actually do, but I'm guessing you'd rather deal with the devil, satan himself.

LAUGH OUT LOUD... you're right on about him spilling the beans all over the radio. Just me, I know I "welcomed" him here... but between you, me, and the hundreds of readers, I would be very apprehensive at having him here... (we thought snowmman was bad) I'd much rather you tell us some details that he may not have discussed on the radio... that is, if you're allowed to do such a thing. Orange1, my apologies for rambling. I will cut down my verbosity.