snowmman

Great one snowmman!!! You have great potential as an author. 377 :) The dramatic moment needed to be stronger. The camera zooms in on the quarter. The date: 1979. For the first time, it's obvious to the audience and Ckret, that Cooper survived. Cut to Ckret in his boss's office blubbering about the new evidence. "I'm proud of you, Ckret" the boss says. "You're getting a task force".. Ckret spends that night in front of his computer, tapping out notes for his first big meeting with his task force. Cut to next morning, Ckret opening the door to a meeting room, expecting to see a bunch of ex-athletes like himself, in crisp suits and ties. Instead, going around the room, there's a handful of the most pathetic creatures scoured off the Internet you can imagine. Personalities so deviant, that the audience has to suspend disbelief that people like this actually exist, since it goes against everything Darwin theorized. Ckret's shoulders drop, the notes fall to the floor. He realizes, if anything, he's in worse shape now.

one thing I noticed in the 1980 news reports. They mentioned that access to Tena Bar had a requested 25 cent fee. This has been mentioned before, I think an unattended box was there or something, and I was wondering if it was fact, but apparently it was. If there was enough human traffic to warrant putting out a box for quarters, then yeah I'd say it was semi-popular. Maybe just fisherman and such, or picnickers. This article mentioned that the 25 cents was apparently for parking or a "car" fee.? Children Find Tattered Pieces Of Cooper Loot . Bulletin Journal - Google News Archive - Feb 12, 1980 "wet bills late Tuesday along the river on the Fazio Ranch five miles west of ... which the ranch owners allow people to use for a 25 cent per car fee. took..." (edit) Movie Scene. The frustrated agent, Ckret, stands in the parking lot, kicking at the loose gravel. His pretty co-agent says "Let it go, he probably died. If he lived, so what, he probably didn't get any money". Suddenly Ckret stops, his back stiffens. "You said Fazio had a box out for quarters, right". "Yeah, so". Ckret starts running towards the old Fazio ranch building. The widow is there in the kitchen cooking a pie as he runs up. She looks up. "The quarters Al got, what did he do with them?" More attentive to the pie than Ckret, she looks over to a huge milkcan by the fireplace "Oh, Al never cared about that, he just emptied the box in that milkcan every month or so..Come to think of it, I don't think he ever emptied the milkcan". Ckret runs to the milkcan. Flipping the lid off, we see thousands of quarters. [dissolve to FBI lab dusting thousands of quarters for prints,, one after the other after the other]. [dissolve to lab technician looking up from microscope to tell Ckret "It's a match"]..A slow grin starts to spread over Ckret's face.

First snippet is when they bought Egger's land in 1998. Second is in 1995 when they were reconsidering it. The land in that area was part of our discussion for possible pathways to Tena Bar from inland water routes. (Lake River etc) STATE ACQUIRES 600 ACRES IN LOWLANDS Article 6 of 9 found ALLEN THOMAS, Columbian staff writer November 12, 1998; Page E1 Section: Northwest Life Article ID: 1998316021 -- 333 words An additional 600 acres of the Vancouver Lake lowlands have been acquired by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to be preserved as habitat. Ray Croswell, lands manager for the agency in Southwest Washington, said the state paid slightly more than $1.6 million for the property of Hans Egger. The land is west of Lake River, east of Lower River Road and north of the department's current holdings. It includes the northern tip and eastern shore of Shillapoo Lake, BPA RETHINKS SHILLAPOO PROJECT Article 9 of 9 found ALLEN THOMAS The Columbian May 23, 1995; Page A3 Section: A section Article ID: 1995143020 -- 502 words The Bonneville Power Administration is reconsidering its proposal to buy approximately 1,000 acres of wildlife habitat in the Vancouver Lake bottoms. At risk are years of work by community activists plus state and federal wildlife officials to acquire the property, sandwiched between Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge to the north and Shillapoo-Vancouver Lake Wildlife Area on the south. In April, the BPA recommended buying the former Shillapoo Lake bed owned by Al Fazio, Hans Egger and

CONFLICTS IN THE COUNTRY< THE STENCH OF MANURE, THE RACKET OF FARM MACHINERY, THE VANDALISM OF CROPLAND - SUBURBS AND FARMS DON'T COEXIST PEACEFULLY Article 4 of 9 found KATHIE DURBIN and DEAN BAKER, Columbian staff writers December 5, 1999; Page A6-7 Section: World/Nation Article ID: 1999339019 -- 1483 words Al Fazio calls the cops to his farm a dozen times a year. He needs them to haul burned-out stolen car shells off his fields or break up rowdy parties on his land in the Vancouver Lake lowlands. "It used to be we could leave tractors in the field, but now when we go home, we have everything locked tight because people come down here and vandalize or dump loads of garbage, or bring stolen vehicles. They take them down here and strip 'em and set them afire,"

searching at www.columbian.com for articles from The Columbian about Al Fazio. The bought the place in 1956. He says they had three or four "100-year" floods in 40 years. says it flooded in 1964 and 1956 1996 had 18 foot flooding at their place. also mentions that by 1996 they were typically doing 600 head of cattle? (edit) I bolded the stuff the mentions the floodline on his office. STILL DIGGING OUT RANDALL BLACK Columbian staff writer July 8, 1996; Page A1 It might take lowland farmers more than a year to recover from the February flood It's all part of being a farmer, even though it didn't feel much like it at the time. Up to 18 feet of water covered the Fazio farm in the Vancouver Lake lowlands in February. But the worst wasn't over. The wet spring made cleanup and recovery worse. The result is that the Fazios and other lowlands farmers still haven't recovered from the floods. Al Fazio owns the farm with his wife, Nancy, and his three brothers, Richard, Jack and Joe. "The ups and downs are part of farming," Al Fazio said. "If you're not tough enough to endure 'em, better get the heck out." The Fazio family bought the farm, near the end of Northwest Lower River Road, in 1956. They have 805 acres and lease more grazing property from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. They raise cattle, small grains, cabbage and potatoes. This year, though, they cut the size of their cattle herd in half and planted only about 200 acres. Fazio said it is hard to estimate how much the flood cost his family. But this is a banner year for grain prices, for instance. "To farmers down here, it's in excess of several hundred thousand dollars in lost revenues," Fazio said Friday. The farm has gone through floods before, of course. The property was flooded in 1956, just before the family bought it. Fazio laughed when he said there have been three or four "100-year floods" in the past 40 years. But this one was different. First, it came later in the year than, for instance, the December 1964 flood. That left less time to do cleanup and repairs. Beyond that, the river stayed high after the flood, and the weather stayed wet right to the end of May. "We had a window from the beginning of June until just about now that we had to do our farming in," he said. Normally farming can start in April or May. His crews had to clear debris -- especially tons of tires -- out of the fields. Some fences were carried away entirely. For two weeks in February, the only way to get to the farm was by boat. Still, the Fazios were as prepared as possible when the floods hit. They moved cattle to higher ground and got equipment put up where the water couldn't reach it. "You're never completely prepared, but we were lucky that having gone through it before we didn't waste any time when we knew it was imminent," he said. "We got busy." But there was damage to some buildings. For instance, the floodwater line in Fazio's office is nearly to the windows. "If you'd been sitting in here in February, you'd been blowing bubbles," he said. The lack of grazing land meant the Fazios only ran about 350 head of cattle, rather than buying up to 600 head, as normal. In addition, wild geese came in and consumed the grasses to the point that not much was left for the cattle. Usually, the geese do their grazing earlier in the year. But the floods prevented that. That meant that the farmers had to buy feed for the cattle for a month longer than normal. There are fields that still aren't cleaned up, fences that aren't repaired. It might be more than a year before things are back to normal. But Fazio said he'll keep farming. "We've been lucky over the years," he said. "We've got a lot of good people working for us. Everybody pulls together and we'll survive." Cutline: TOM BOYD / The Columbian * Flood aftermath: "I had three 100-year floods in 30 years," said Al Fazio, lowlands farmer, standing in a field that still has last year's corn stalks.

just ran into this. Not very good quality. Photo of the Ingrams at home, was in 2/13/80 paper. They look like I would expect a young couple in the '70s. relaxed...legs bent up on their couch at home. Seem pretty relaxed, stress-free. Nothing interesting, but it's always fun when I find something not seen before. Our other photos of the ingrams back then are better quality, but where at the FBI office. From the same newspaper (2/13/80), there was two interesting things also: the sketch they distributed to the press in 1980 for Cooper, and also a mostly correct location indication of where the money was found. (see relative to Vancouver Lake (black) in the map) (edit) Interestingly, the photo caption, like the article that accompanied, had the story with Denise, and them showing the money to Pat. I think the firepit money story, was more involved with dad..i.e. dad+brian making a fire and smoothing out the fire pit. It's interesting to muse which was the first adult to really see the money. Harold or Pat?

the cow theory could be real, as we've discussed. You jokingly mentioned sturgeon before. Here's another one. There are actually seals that show up in the Columbia around Caterpillar Island, at least now. So, a reasonable transport theory might be via seals. Priceless. Is seal urine acidic? ph ? Sea lions also go as far as Bonneville Dam, which is 40 miles east of Portland and 140 miles from the Pacific Ocean. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002241109_damlion14m.html And they survey for Bald Eagles on Caterpillar Island. Hey I know this will sound tasteless, but there's a good photo of the 11 bills recovered from near the Fossett crash site at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-steve_fossett-pg,0,446285.photogallery While it's unclear how long they were exposed to the elements, they were at approx 10k ft, for about a year [of max exposure]. Probably protected for some period of time, so

the cow theory could be real, as we've discussed. You jokingly mentioned sturgeon before. Here's another one. There are actually seals that show up in the Columbia around Caterpillar Island, at least now. So, a reasonable transport theory might be via seals.

to be clear, I don't take anything supposedly said by Christy, if it was her, on face value. What I was interested in was the tone of what she was saying, not the exact little things. Like I don't think anyone in the Ingram clan was Cooper. That's a little nutty. (although it's weird Brian eventually joined an airborne division as a medic after high school) She (Christy) apparently says she learned most details from her own research. So she could have even picked up the cousin thing from press articles. But, the cousin angle wasn't widely reported, as you folks know, cause you weren't aware of it. I remember reading an article where Brian was joking about how he didn't tell his new wife (either while dating or all the way until after marriage?) about the money right away. He implied it was because of all the weird attention. But it got me thinking about whether it really was something "not talked about in the family"...possibly for some very minor reason, like disagreement about the story that was told or something. Another odd thing was the father's (Harold Dwayne Ingram) apparent use of the middle or first name at different times? and the attached thing. It was minor, and was waived/dismissed pretty quickly. But it's interesting. Just completing random thoughts on stuff on the web.

Okay, Jo, you'll know all this, from your 12 years of logs :) Christy Axxxx, Brian's first wife, they divorced. Christy gets all uppity about child support payments, article in the Oregonian ((edit) or was it The Columbian), she posts to suite101 with you(Jo) there, talking about it, she also claimed that the cousin was involved in the money find, and that the family didn't talk about it much. Now this all could have been divorce rage. Now in suite101, the following was posted, along with some others (which Jo actually interacted with). I traced back thru some stuff. And I think the poster really was Brian's divorced wife. I think some of the things she said were too far out there, and just flaming. But it caught my eye that she mentioned the cousin thing. (following is quoted from suite101) I am in the process of submitting information I have to the FBI, but how in the world do you think a little boy and his cousin knew exactly where to dig in the sand on that beach. I know their family led them to it.... And, in response to the movies out there, 3/4 of that is not true. That's not even close to what the real story is.... Brian Ingram's father actually looks like the FBI drawing of DB Cooper. I could go on ALL DAY, I have so much information on this subject... When I was married into the family, it was so hush-hush, I wasn't allowed to ask questions and this was never discussed. Most of the information I have is because I have researched and found it out for myself.... The Ingram family has the answers.... I feel sorry for all the false leads out there. I also saw the story about the widow that thinks her deceased husband is DB Cooper; I know she truely believes this...I cried watching her story, because that's how strongly I believe the INGRAM family is connected to all of this.... -- posted by satelliteman501 (endquote) she also flamed in a comment to this article at the bottom. http://newsok.com/article/3200118/?print=1 She was also interviewed by the Oregonian, (edit) or was it The Columbian?, so a reporter really did speak to her about the child support claims. basically, from what I could tell, all the flaming was coming from Christy, and she was Brian's ex-wife. Possibility of being wrong, but I'm pretty confident what I say is correct here. (edit) Note that Christy sold or tried to sell a cooper bill on Ebay before the Brian auctions. Apparently mentioned daughter's name "Kara" in the ebay auction listing. She says she got some of them as part of the divorce? May be remarried with different last name now.

Jo. Nothing happened recently. You misread my posts. The article is from 2/80. You're the only one fixated on money. No-go. The contract is no-go! Got it? No-go!

it's nothing really new. Like I mentioned, I was wondering about this back in May. There's no smoking gun. Just possibilities. What's new for me, is that the FBI info/resolutions/claims are somewhat less credible to me than maybe I was willing to believe in May. Not thru any evildoing. It's just that it seems the FBI data, in some areas, is not as solid as Ckret sometime seems to present it as. I can see that Ckret is in a mode of wanting to rule out possibilities. But like I say, Black Swans. And Ckret likes to think in terms of his perception of "probabilities" even when it's obvious there's no data to calculate statistics off of. (edit) Although we're not mentioning it, I'm more curious about the additional fragments found "deeper" ...true or false. We've touched on this before, and waffled, with no clear statements from Ckret. hmm..sometimes when he says "no" ..I'm not sure I believe he's gone thru all the files anyhow..Catch 22 I guess! (edit) as an example of bag myths: the bag was postulated to be the only "preserver" of rubber band integrity. This was presented, without proving that sand and water wasn't. I think sand and water would be even better at preserving rubber than the bag!

I just found another article that is mostly the same UPI press release I previously posted. This one though, names Christal Ingram as the mother of the cousin Denise. She was 25 at the time. The article implies she's Brian's mom, but that's not true. (actually the article kind of doesn't say that, but could be misread that way) Christal adds detail that the kids were digging in the sand with sticks when they found it. So who knows. The article also gives a name of an FBI agent giving details about money the FBI found: from the article: FBI agents dug up more fragments of wet $20 bills late Tuesday along the river on the Fazio Ranch west of Vancouver, Wash. .. "They're very small pieces of money, about the size of a nickel," said FBI agent Tom Nicodemus. He said some of the pieces of money were as deep as three feet beneath the surface. "It indicates to us there's been a lot of sand shift there and the money has been there for some time." Nicodemus said. (Source: google has announced they are scanning newspapers now...which has created some additional source info, in addition to my more typical NY Times/Newspaper Archie sources...This apparent wire? article was on page 18 of the Bulletin Journal, 2/12/80. A Missouri paper. I've noted before that small town newspapers are good for carrying unedited wire releases in full.) (edit) They didn't find out about the dredging right away. The quote above about sand shift was before they found out about the 1974 dredging, as far as I can tell, from later articles around 2/14/80.

I found NO post on May 27 about the money on the beach...perhaps it is in a PRIVATE email to you. You betcha. Shocker! Note I didn't say "posted". I said to myself, "what would Bodhi do?" new article coming in next post!

This was from back May 27, 2008 Ckret said: "there were many family members at the beach the day the money was found and some said Brian's cousin helped find the money and had a claim to it." Ckret can clarify or extend or ignore. In re-reading that, I noticed Ckret used the phrase "some said" which to my reading would imply some adults beyond the 5 year old Denise. Now those adults may have just been replaying what Denise said. Or who knows. But like I said, the story is all fuzzy. Apparently some people think "they know" what happened. I know I don't know.

REPLY> The article proves the child Denise was interviewed for the article and claimd a role in finding the money. The child's mother was on hand with the child during the interview. Many people have talked to witnesses, Jo. Most of them years ago. You are not the only person who talked to witnesses, but you may be the only person who maintains a continual relationship? Georger sometimes I have to re-read Jo's posts a couple of times, before I see she doesn't really read other people's posts in detail before she goes off. (Jo: stop reading here, just reply and call me an ignorant clod and refer to your 12 years of logs again) There is probably no point in calling Brian? If you remember this thread, Ckret called Brian to talk about the money a while back. Ckret pressed him about the rubber band question, and Brian had to call his parents to check. That tells me Brian's memory is unreliable today. Also Brian gave varying descriptions of the bundle positioning during his interviews for the money auction. I posted on that before, although it's weak since it's a function of the article writers also. At the very least I thought it odd how often Brian talked about how the bundles were found close to each other in his auction interviews...almost like he was regurgitating stuff that seemed important to others, or his memory was kind of weak. on the "lifeline" Brian used: May 1, 2008, 9:33 AM Ckret posted (snipped) .. So I then started putting calls into Brian Ingram. He called me back and we spoke about the discovery of the money. What I found was that the money was not recovered near the water but about 20 to 40 feet from the edge. He said he found it in an area that had recently been covered in water. So I thought, "well not really much of a difference." I then asked for the details about the condition of the money when he found it and he confirmed, after speaking with his parents, that the money absolutely had rubber bands around the bundles.

Hi Ckret. I'm guessing at why you say "most probable" based on things you've said before. Based on that, if you were on the witness stand and I was the defense attorney, I believe I could cross-examine, and produce experts of my own, to convince a jury that what you state is "most probable" is not, and at best, of equal probability to other outcomes. Saying something is "most probable" is pretty strong. If you were a gambler, it would mean that you'd be able to lay money on it and make a living. I'd also start my closing statement to the jury like this: "Black Swans. Nassim Taleb. What has this got to do with this case?"

it was 37 years ago. When they interviewed the 5 year old it was just 2-3 days ago. A judge ruled a 5 year old competent to testify in the murder of her Afghan mother recently http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20080125/ai_n21218150 What strikes me about the supposed quote from Denise in the article, is the comment "I thought it was play money". That's an odd thing for a 5 year old to say if it wasn't true...i.e. wasn't involved in the find. Here's the thing Jo. You tend to say things indirectly and try to 'imply' things. I say them directly. Ckret has already confirmed there was some dissent about who actually found the money. The final decision was that Brian found it. But we don't know enough about it. Neither does Ckret. So it's a possiblity thing. It's possible the story went as the Denise quotes say. Imagine a scenario where Denise finds it and tosses into the area where Brian is digging/smoothing. Then Brian "finds" it. Who knows. Here's the thing: We all say "it's odd that 3 bundles were found while 'smoothing" out a fire pit..there must be some other story' well there is another story..but when it's told, we're [evidently] supposed to say "impossible!...that's not the story we want!"

1) The Ingrams went to the FBI Monday? or latest Tuesday? I think it was?. Interestingly, the previous article I posted already mentioned the Washougal theory, based on the money find. That was printed for 2/14/80...just 2 days after Tuesday 2/12/80 So in 2 days, the FBI (Himmelsbach) formulated the Washougal theory. Obviously very little evidence could have been processed properly in two days. So any quotes by Himmelsbach about money grinding in streams, or Washougal, are total bullshit created in 48 hours or less. 2) Here's a new article. No new info, but interesting to read. This is from 2/13/80. (Wed.) (quote) "I thought it was play money," said Denise Ingram, 5, of Vancouver Wash., in an interview after the FBI disclosed that the money was from the Cooper hijacking. She said she and her cousin, Brian Ingram, 8, "both found it. It was buried in the sand. I gave it to Brian, so he could hand it to my aunt Pat." The child said she was on a family outing at a popular fishing sand bar for several Ingram relatives and their children. (endquote) The article goes on to say that the father Harold apparently told the story of Brian finding the money while scooping out the firepit. (quote) Brian's father, Harold Ingram, told reporters the family was scooping out a spot for a fire on the river bank when Brian pulled the wet and tattered bills out of the sand. (endquote)

I've mentioned this a couple of times but here's another article (from 2/14/80) There were a number of reports, including supposed quotes from Himmelsbach, that the FBI found additional fragments of money when they searched after the Ingram find. There were even some reports they were found deeper. [than Brian's reported find depth]. The depth info may be wrong though...maybe a incorrect mixture of "3 foot deep digging" plus "money found". In any case, here's another article from 2/14/80 (attached) some interesting things 1) A photo of the [early period of the] dig that we already have in high resolution, is in the article. 2) There is a quote that one agent said he dug up a "formless, fist-size clump of money he described as 'a wadded up bunch of $20 bills'". This is hard to believe. But let's think about it: Maybe was describing the Ingram find. But when Ingram turned the money in, it was separated into 12 bundles. It wasn't a fist-sized clump. So that's interesting. 3) Himmelsbach is quoted as saying more money was dug up by agents Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning. georger has commented on the lack of official fact. For instance the exact details of the dig. I bet no one knew that a backhoe on a tractor was eventually involved until I produced that AP picture. We knew deep trenches were dug. Early pictures showed college students with shovels and rakes. But that AP picture suggests that careful digging with shovels and rakes didn't produce the deep trenches. Which suggests that we don't know what else could have been there. Basically, there's enough fuzzy information, that we can't make firm detailed analysis of what the money find tells us. (combined with the multiple descriptions Brian has provided of the bundle find). (edit) Oh I just noticed. For all you Level 3 certified Cooper experts out there: this article is one of the few that reference Denise as being part of the money find. There was an interview elsewhere where Denise (5) claimed to have found the money and then Brian (8) got involved. So even the "brian found it first" thing is questionable.

I didn't suggest the money was buried there by humans in my last post. I said the bag wasn't required for protection or transport by water. You jumped to the conclusion I implied human burial (although I have said that before). There's nothing that says the bag was needed for protection or transport by water. That's the myth you've created. You've assumed 3 bundles couldn't move together without the bag.

Ckret has stated two theories that seem to have entered the myth/fact area 1) myth: That the bag was needed to protect the money and/or rubber bands, given it's condition. There's no data that supports that. A thin layer of sand would provide equal UV protection, and physical support also. (to prevent wind or other motion-related damage). Both sand and bag would be wet, so decomposition rates should be similar, when comparing money+bag under sand, vs just money under sand. (same with rubber bands) The real question should be how much sand and water covered the money over the years, and how it changed over time. More would delay composition more? The bag is probably immaterial to any "protection" issues. 2) myth: The bag is needed to keep 3 bundles together when they arrive at Tena's Bar from some other DZ, by water transport. We know single dollar bills stick together when wet. It's reasonable to believe multiple bundles might also stick together, especially if they decomposed together before moving. This would be supported by the statements from Ingram saying the bundles were on top of one another (although he described the bundle find in multiple ways) Basically, I'm pointing out that Ckret focused on the need for the bag, without proving the bag was needed..i.e. he just assumed it was needed. Since no bag was found, it's just as reasonable to decide, that the bag was never at Tena's Bar, and there is nothing that says it needed to be. (edit) I welcome the mythbuster's episode that demonstrates the maximum size stack of dollar bills that will stick together and be moved in water by current flow. Pop Science Quiz: If 2 bills stick together, then why not 3? If 3 why not 4? If 4...continue to N. What causes the limit when the resulting "mashup" is in water?

Thanks Snow. But surely not west of I5 during the whole flight (SEA-PDX). Perhaps only near PDX which might explain the four or five mystery X's west of the penciled fp at Portland ? In any event, the fp on the FBI map does intersect I5 at Portland, briefly G. I dunno. I updated my last posts here. Now I think the whole thing about flight path estimates being changed is all hearsay. I had never really doublechecked all this stuff about H./Scott etc, and took it for granted that there was some change of predicted flight path. But now I'm thinking after looking at it now, that it's all a bunch of mixed up, bad articles, and misreporting after H. suggested further east (Washougal) based on no data. In 1971, the news articles seemed to talk about Woodland and Lake Merwin/Amboy search area...so I guess I assumed there was fuzziness. Woodland is right next to I5, at the columbia/lewis confluence. I think that dual mention helped make me think there was fuzziness back then, when there wasn't?

No, the Scott - Himmelsbach meeting is not a myth, but somehow the faulty information you have was a myth. There was never any discussion of the plane being West of I-5. I also spoke to the Co-pilot yrs ago and nothing was said about being West of I-5. It was due to the Money Find and there was lots of Speculation about WHY the money was found where it was. The only explanation they had was the Washougal so the myth was created to justify the Money Find. Being West of I-5 is a myth or speculation by a reporter. As I have said before talk to the Co-pilot and rely on the reports made by the Chase planes and the communications taking place between the plane and the land. I am unable to handle the technical language - since Sluggo left we do not have anyone who has the experience and knowledge to put this Myth to bed. Sluggo is just a random guy. He wasn't there either. I've read your post and still am not sure what data you're sharing. You have nothing that confirms a H./Scott meeting right? You're not saying H. told you he met with Scott, are you? If so, why isn't it in the book? I'm totally confused about what you're saying. It sounds like you just have some hearsay stuff?

If it was after 1980 that you talked to Himmelsbach, or after he wrote his book in '86, then yeah he was suggesting further east then (which is why he says Washougal)...but it's based on no information, really. He throws out the Bohan meeting as implying wind direction prediction was wrong. I think it's myth that this idea of "further east" came from "the pilot". I think maybe it's all just muddied information. The trutv article thing was written in 2003, I believe. If H. had information like you said, by 1986, how come it's not in the Norjak book? Can you find it in there Jo? I can't.