georger

Really? 0.0043 inches is approximately 0.00038 feet (or 0.000000068 miles). The number of significant digits is a measure of accuracy. Using your bizarre definition of significant digits, you are saying if you measure in feet (or miles) instead of inches, you can increase your accuracy. Your calculator can display 8 or 10 or 12 digits, but that doesn't make your calculations any more accurate. This goes to the issue of exit point, winds aloft, and landing area calculations, too. The results of any calculations cannot be more accurate than the starting points of those calculations. Mark In case there is any doubt I agree with your position. "False accuracy", as we call it here, often appears in sales people going out to express in long decimal runs, something a lab cannot deliver, or Nature deliver either. Standards matter. That can prove very irksome and qiestions the integrity of the whole enterprise ... maybe you can find a nice website that speaks to the issue in a simple (compelling) manner. False accuracy takes many forms. I agree with you, completely. Its common sense.

After Ckret's post a science panel was formed that did more research, doing some lab analysis of the money, interviewing lots of people including retired agents, people who worked at the excavation site, doing research with the USGS and people who worked with Palmer, etc etc. That, in a nutshell, is how Ckret's post has developed ... to date.

I'd like to at least get access to the damn briefcase, which itself may be evidence. what is the deal here anyway? I have to get a $20 out of a briefcase that may or may not still be where I last saw it, or not be taken seriously, while none else have any proof to back up their claims? this is said including those who claim he died in the jump. not a damn one of you have produced any $20's or any other evidence. so far the FBI are the only ones who have. alot of plausible theories out there, just no solid evidence. $20's found on a shore do not equate a man dying in a river, or forest, or surviving for that matter either. all it means is some norjack ransom $20's wound up on that shore. If you find some twenties in that case here is a website where you can check the serial numbers. Good luck. http://www.check-six.com/lib/DBCooperLoot.htm If you find a Cooper $twenty$ contact me immediately and share the loot! You and I and several FBI agents will all go out to dinner and throw a BIG party! Never mind that we might all wind up spending $twenty$ years in the BIG HOUSE!

Yeah. I have a question. How do you get accuracy to 5 significant digits when the original number is accurate only to 1? Mark 0! = 1 0! twice = 2.

QuoteOkay, I apologize for assuming the bag was actually thrown from the bridge. I think there have been a few references to it and they mention the bridge. Well, maybe your theory works. I don't know. It would help your story if you actually saw the money go into the bag, though. If I tried to put out a story like yours, Georger would rake me over the coals like a roast chicken. reply] In Jo's defense, I dont recall Jo saying "from a bridge". I do recall her saying ' from the base of the bridge'. It may have been Bruce Smith who started 'from on top of a bridge' and then people picked that up and used it, including 377. There are plenty of posts which use 'on top of a bridge', but I honestly dont recall Jo ever saying that. What Jo said was near the Red Lion in (or behind it), in a parking lot, near the base of a bridge, above the river (high up overlooking the river). So a drop of some kind was involved, and a projectile "throwing" was involved ... which goes to the physics you tried to eleborate, correctly. Jo's stories and different posts however do have inconsistencies, so at the end of this I will simply copy her different remarks over many posts, as they apply specifically to this matter... you can read them for yourself. Key points: The bills had already deteriorated (after being buried in a bucket and retrieved by Duane), Duane applied NEW rubber bands, placed bundles in a sack, and threw the sack into the river ... and in one account Jo arrives after the fact to see the 'sack' flowing down the river. The bills the Ingrams found did not have newly applied rubber bands on the deteriorated money. That's just a fact. In most posts Jo never saw Duane place whatever he placed in the bag - she just assumes it was the Cooper money. Jo openly says she does not know what was in the bag and in one posts says it was trash. The rubber bands are interesting, forensically. The bands are a collection of molecular and atomic clocks which can be seen running in 6 month increments.... as per thermal transition Tg, the glass transition Tg2, crystalline transition, all from the amorphous high entropy state they were in when Cooper received them. These bands tell a story which may or may not comport with Jo's story... but they are one of the clocks in the whole money story. Below are Jo's posts as I could find them: or I can just post a Word doc with her full posts on this matter if required - JAN 21 08: where he tossed something in the river - but this package was already in the car - I thought it was trash - I went to the restroom and when I returned he had already discarded this bag. June 4 08: As you know already I and others have explainations of how that money got into the Columbia. I have maintained that the money was stored in a bucket (probably plastic paint bucket) in the ground not too far from the Columbia. That part of it was found in 1979 and thrown into the Columbia around late Sept or Oct of that yr. June 04 08: He also left me in the Car on the WA side of the river West of the airport and went down to the river and that we stopped before we left the area at the Red Lion ( on the WA side at the main bridge to Portland) where he threw into the Columbia a paper sack he said had trash in it. Oct 3 08: Just before I 5 goes acrass the river was a Red Lion Inn on the river. We went to the bakc of the river - I heard there is lost of construcion there now. It was park like in 1971 and you could walk way out. on the ground West of the bridge about a food ball fields lenght. The area was raised above the water. That is where he thru the package into the water. It was floating down the river by the time I got out to there (I made a necessary trip before going out for R&R before we left.) Was a brown paper bag - medium weight bout 6 to 8 inches long and maybe 12 inched deep - the top was rolled over and it had a band around it. This was Sept. and at the lastes mid Oct. and the money was found in Jan or Feb of 1980. Hope that helps. Oct 4 08 – Snowman: It's also important to understand that most of the decomposition happened before Duane threw the money in the river. There was too much for it to happen in just the 3-4 months between Duane's throw-in and discovery... This was then tossed in the river. The paper bag and rubber band were apparently new in '79, provided by Duane. Nov 12 06: (reply to Snowman above): The rubber band was ONLY suggested by me as a way of securing the bag - we had them in the car. He could just as well have tripled the top over and threw it that way. He was watching it go down stream when I got there. … Dec 17 08: I do not know how many bundles could have been in that paper sack Duane threw into the Columbia at the old bridge in down town Vancouver. Large enough for 3 to 6 bundles. I am sure he would have bundled them within the package in groups of 2's or 3's. - (just going on what I knew about him). He secured the bag some way with what he had in the car - it was rolled over several times but I didn't see him actually throw it into the water. We kept clips and rubberbands in the car in our travel kit (for work as we sold insurance (on the road) and always had a portable office with us). Who knows what was in that bag? But the money was found just down the river only 6 months or so later. I have to estimate we where there in Sept...because I questioned what kind of clothes to take - it was warm enough 5 days prior to the river incident to wear short on the way to Salt Lake from Ft. Collins, Co. but fall weather the rest of the trip. Dec 18 08: (in reply to Tom Kaye): I do not know what was in that bag (I can only speculate), but it was a very odd thing to do. The fact that he turned in his resignation the day after the article appeared in the paper in Ft. Collins Co. about the money being found seems suspect (I was unaware of that until some else made a connection between the dates recently)…. I am open to how the money got in the Columbia - but the things he told me and the things he showed me -that is not open to discussion at all. Those are things I know. What his little trips meant and what he did on that trip are my recalling the trip. They are strange events for a man who supposedly never lived in WA or worked there. May 13 09: It was the Red Lion in Vancouver - I don't know if it is still there or what it is called now. It as at the foot of the bridge and I call it the Sentimental Journey. Sept 7 010: In 1979 is when Duane and I went to WA and when he threw a paper bag into the Columbia from the back of the Red Lion Inn at the foot of the I-5 bridge from the Vancouver side. NO one has ever substantiated to me that the money found had actually been in a paper bag.

And this last conclusion is supported by ..... Robert Nicholson Gurny came through.

47-deg vs 45-deg .... what? What is this about? I must have missed this. Has something to do with the money? Farenheit or Centigrade? MW = ~ 1,000,000 examples: hevea braziliensis (rubber band!) Tg = -70C Mp = 68F You secretive guys with special info are driving me mashuganah!

Find that briefcase and produce a Cooper $20 and I assure you the world will sit up and pay attention. Short of that, its just another story - right?

Harold and Pat Ingram are the parents of the boy who found the money right? are you basing this notion that the mush might have been cotton fibres and/or biological from their opinions? ,photos? or some kind of tests? Harold and Pat Ingram are the parents of Brian Ingram. The $20 bills given Cooper were printed on standard cotton fibre banknote paper emulsified with titanium dioxide. The fibres and chemical constituents of the paper are easily seen or determined with testing even after the paper decomposes ..... has nothing to do with the Ingrams; is just a fact about the bills. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_paper

can we be sure the mush would be decomposed bills? visual and chemical tests would make this an easy identification. plus, there are some advantages to dealing with a ground up mixture of a thing; makes assays easier (in bulk). Harold and Pat Ingram described 'decayed material' being in the vicinity of the found money. So obviously they probed and inspected the area where the bundles were pulled from and very likely they were observing decayed money or perhaps a combination of decayed cotton fibres and some biological material. The group Brian pulled out was wet.

Did you read what Georger wrote about the total mass? He said that by all accounts it was at least twice that, but the $5800 was the amount that was what could be pieced together into recognizable bills. In any case, the reason i posted that bit was to show there is a way the money could get there without human intervention. Jo had claimed it was impossible. That's clearly wrong. Okay. Twice that amount. That still leaves a whopping 94 packages of twenty-dollar bills unaccounted for out of a hundred packs. Without dredging being the means of how the money ended up there, then you still have to believe that six bundles (or so) managed to land together at the same exact spot on the riverbank. And if they floated down the river in separate packs, this is a tough sell. And if they floated down the river together in the canvas bag...it's STILL a tough sell, because if most of it arrived there together, you have to ask where the other 94 packs went. I also wonder what the chances are that the found bills (after dredging) would somehow end up within a few inches of the surface. Didn't somebody say the dredge results were spread along the beach after they were pulled from the river and dumped? Wonder why no one saw a bill then, if they were so close to the surface? I'm not challenging your theory. It's a question, really. Truth is, I don't have the answer either. Several points: The dredge material (2 separate piles) were presumably spread over an area of 50 yards linear (parallel to the river). That was in the contract and testified to by the Army Corps. The Fazios had to wait for the material to settle before they could spread. Al Fazios says the bulk of the spreading was toward the south. I think the coordinates I gave place the Ingram bundles just off the northeast section of the north-most dredge pile. Prior to the Ingram find no one noticed any money (or artifacts related to this case) anywhere on Tina (Tena) Bar ... at any time. Think about that. However the money got to Tina Bar, and whenever it got there, nobody noticed money on Tina Bar at any time up until Feb of 1980. Once the excavation began subsurface fragments were seen (and collected) very easily. The fragments raked from just below the surface looked like "clean crisp pieces of $20 dollar bills - easily recognizable". 1978 had been a very dry year, a drought. '78 broke in December with storms and heavy rains and some flooding at Tina Bar. This in combination with thefact no one had ever seen any money on Tina Bar before is what lead to several people telling the FBI they thought the Cooepr money arrived at Tina Bar in 1979, just before the discovery in 1980. That is the standard theory to date.

Did you read what Georger wrote about the total mass? He said that by all accounts it was at least twice that, but the $5800 was the amount that was what could be pieced together into recognizable bills. In any case, the reason i posted that bit was to show there is a way the money could get there without human intervention. Jo had claimed it was impossible. That's clearly wrong. The $5800 quoted by the FBI is based on 290 unique serial numbers identified by the FBI. The original list was updated but is classified, but added at least 30 more serial numbers, possibly more. When Brian turned his fragments over to the auction company the restorationist there was able to identify somewhere between 12-15 more serial numbers not previously counted. (Brian could elaborate on this). The insurance company was able to add more serial numbers not originally counted; their list is classified. All of the above in addition to frags collected and not collected, which may or may not represented unique serial nos. not counted. Add to that the biodegraded 'mush' at the site which represents who knows how many bills not accounted for. All of the above is actual physical evidence.

or, Syracuse-Kansas last night and the infamous Excessive Celebration call on Hilburn by Big Ten ref Richard Head. It changed the whole course of the game. Ive never seen anything like that before ... holy tomatoes@! BTW: Big Congrats to the Huskies last night. But of course I have ulterior motives

Thanks Jo. Have a good 011. There could be lots happening .... or maybe nothing. Its almost in the hands of the gods, but people will be trying to make progress a finish a few things up. Shalom.

sorry, I should have stated that (meant to). Site 1 = Tina Bar. Site 2 = south end of the Fazio property ( sand for their reclamation business as per contract with the US Corps of Engrs). Site 3 is on the Oregon side basically straight across from T_Bar. Site No.4 is south of site No. 3 near the 97+17ft marker. Obviously, different areas of dredging went to different sites ... basically that which was closest to the dredging work at the time. Now, I know you will refer to the USGS photos (74) to confirm these locations. The two slump piles on Tina Bar are obvious, material at site-2 less obvious, site-3 barely shows at all (or I need better glasses), and site-4 is even less obvious. All of the sites are officially documented.

Thanks Orange, and a very happy New Year from us here to you & yours.

Yes. Fragments were noted just below the surface in the area of the bundles. Fragments fell of the group that the Ingrams retrieved and were left behind. Fragments fell off the bills as the Ingrams manipulated the bills in their kitchen. The majority of the bills were in a highly deteriorated condition. The photos we have seen here of the money represent the very best of the bills that were recovered. Considering the amount recovered was about $5800, what would you estimate the total mass of recovered, scattered fragments and nearly unrecognizable decomposed matter would be? What I'm really asking is, do you think we're looking at the recovered core surrounded by ALL of the (heavily deteriorated and decomposed ) money Cooper was given, or just three straps of $20s? Quade, it's more than 5800 by any conservative estimate. Twice that would not be unreasonable based on the testimony of those who were there, the number of fragments recovered and bagged and sent in for examination, the distribution of fragments, etc - and I am still under restriction talking about this. Your "nearly unrecognizable decomposed matter" hits at a vital issue affecting any estimate. Those on the scene were more interested in collecting and bagging 'recognisable fragments' as opposed to 'mush'. This is why Ive always said I wish there had been core sampling, throughout the area. Laboratory examination of those cores taken throughout the field could have proved decisive in making estimates, and in the forensic issues at stake. But core sampling was not done for a variety of reasons not the least of which was a time factor. Let me defer this if I may until a later discussion. But I am giving you an accurate direction to reflect on. It's more than any handful of cash Cooper may have offered anyone on the plane. That is certain. While I have you: I have followed your discussion with Robert about upper winds. I agree with your basic sentiments on this issue (its common sense) but I also know exactly where Robert is coming from and why ... the problem is being worked - you can bank on that. PS: Let me add this. Of the fragments bagged and recorded well over 50% were about the size of a quarter and easily recognisable as pieces of money, some smaller than a quarter, some larger, and some much larger. Most of the fragments collected and bagged came from within 4 inches of the surface. (This was all at site no.1 which is the Tina Bar site. Site No.2 further south of T_Bar was given a superficial surface examination and nothing found there. Sites No.3 and 4 were not examined during Feb of 1980. Later in 1980 site No.3 was given a superficial surface & subsurface examination but nothing was found there. Site No.4 was never examined (to my knowlegde) unless Tosaw looked it over later. It is worth noting that one of the areas Tosaw had his divers examine was the wing dam piling areas adjacent to where 1974 dredging had been done.

Yes. Fragments were noted just below the surface in the area of the bundles. Fragments fell of the group that the Ingrams retrieved and were left behind. Fragments fell off the bills as the Ingrams manipulated the bills in their kitchen. The majority of the bills were in a highly deteriorated condition. The photos we have seen here of the money represent the very best of the bills that were recovered.

unless the money was transported via submarine to a base in Bangor Maine? I thought maybe it was a joke to see if people were awake, and maybe it is? In any event just take those circles on Larry's USGS maps, 1979-70. By most accounts the money was found within those circles. (use 45.717344 -122.759608 which falls within the circle on the 1974 usgs map.) This coordinate complies with the location the Ingram parents and the sister- in-law identified on site in 1980. The coordinate is also supported by forensic evidence. If you look at the excavation photos you will see a navigation warning light(s) across the river from where agents were digging at Tina Bar. This photo alone supplies a coordinate and comports with the circles on the USGS photos Larry presented. You will notice that the coordinate above sits just off the north edge of the northmost dredging dump pile, as seen in the 1974 usgs photo. Please note* This 1974 photo shows the dredging dump piles 'prior' to any tractor work and spreading of the dump piles which are slumping back into the river. Any alleged spreading work was done after this photo was taken and allegedly involved spreading over an estimated 50 yard area, only. A total Approximately 91,100 cubic yards of fill were dumped in the two slump piles noted in usgs 74 and came from the channel location between river mile 96 plus 38 feet and river mile 97 plus 17 feet. This material was deposited in 4 separate locations of which the Tina Bar location (consisting of 2 slump piles) is one.

Georger's ban has expired. If he's not here, it's not my doing. georger gets a time out, jamie pops up. and then you pop up with this. I am not Jamie. I am not Rita Hayworth either.

One of you posted this: to Jo: re Carr People here are not as stupid or ignorant as you seem to think they are. Your protestations notwithstanding, 377 was spot on, on ALL his points. Then Georger posted this: Moreover - WE LIVED THIS! If Jo doesn't like the company why doesnt she get off the boat. GEORGER, I have LIVED this for more than 14 yrs and I have conducted my own investigation with limited resources. I have always tried to be nice and appreciate the resources the DZ provides - where as you are insulting not only to me, but to others. Makes me wonder how much you have had to drink sometimes. What is your REAL motive in being on the thread Georger? I think your answer to this will interest a lot of people - if, you dare tell the truth. Betcha hem and haw around the truth. Everyone knows why you got upset about who you are and were you live. I was ASKED to be quiet in regards to you - as there are others who consider you a valuable assets to some on going research. I chose to do as was requested - but, I expect you to at least act like a gentleman. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright©2009 by Jo Weber Quote Jo you are DELUSIONAL. And sick in your mind.

Moreover - WE LIVED THIS! If Jo doesnt like the company why doesnt she get off the boat!

Good for you Georger. We knew there was a kind and charitable heart in there somewhere. It just goes to show you cannot accurately judge a person by their Internet personna. No Quade, I am not going to segue into a plea for Snomman amnesty... until later, maybe around Christmas. 377 ... and, the guys and gals at Rockwell give equal support to the Boys Scouts and more. They deserve full credit. Its one thing to write out checks - its another thing to invest personal time and EVERYONE CAN INVEST PERSONAL TIME! IT ALL COUNTS. Sermon over. Thanks, G.

It says set the differential equal to zero, solve... and you get the optimal value for the DBC model matrix determinant. I'll save you the calculation Georger, the answer is Jo's story about Duane Weber. That could be different from Duane Weber's actual story. No lies implied, just that with every additional stage of amplification or translation, distortion enters the transfer function. With Safe's TTLOL series, the term "bag lady" becomes more respectable in the DBC context. Safe doesnt say Duane was Cooper but he does say Jo's account of Duane throwing a paper bag (impliedly containing decomposed Cooper loot) off the bridge matches up with the Tena Bar money find. Do you remember Bobbie Gentry's song? What did Billie Joe McAllister and his girlfriend throw off the Tallahatchie Bridge, and why did Billie Joe commit suicide? Put that TTLOL Safe. 377 funny. I agree!

Hmmm....Looks like someone got shorted on their order of Thin Mints this year ...... Funny. We "endow" the Girls Scouts of America. We supported 32 programs for GS this year and hosted the Regional Conference in July. and your contribution ? I have all the mints I can handle... Tell me what Safe's third line says ... any idea?