georger

I think the most interesting one is the one you didn't mark on the N bank of the Columbia. (Sluggo has one there, and I did too). If that one doesn't exist, and we assume the one minute error is a real error, then with some forward throw, that could put Cooper in the Columbia at a "correct" 20:15:30 or so. Otherwise it's 20:16. I guess with the inaccuracies we're dealing with it doesn't really matter that much. Maybe when you measure the length resulting 1 minute leg you have currently, there's too much ground speed. So I think another tick is there? REPLY> The attached illustrates the challenge of identifying tic marks (+). I took a conservative approach and ruled out x's and X's versus +'s. The tic on the North shoreline of the Columbia is more of the form (x) vs. (+). This is why it wasn't counted and illustrates what I mean when I say "I took a conservative approach'. I decided to do this because the final tic marks appear to be very well formed crosses in most cases, and large in most cases. What this map actually shows (revealed in the attached) is a layered series of stages where one or more people using points, marks, x's, and finally large cross + tic marks build this map. The x's and +'s and sometimes penciled dots then covered over by at least three and sometimes four layers of penciled line work. This map has revisions, corrections, and guesstimates right on its surface. You can see that easily. (The relief photo of this map I posted earlier shows the layering). This means even the makers of the map were uncertain themselves in the data! I have labeled places where multiple tics were made in a small area or where it appears a provisional pencil point was applied then the final tic mark placed elsewhere nearby. There was uncertainty in making this map and the pencil works shows it. But, where on the map is the greatest uncertainty? If the layers of lines and multiples of provisional pencil mark x's, black penciled dots, and tiny + tic marks in red, prior to final large red cross +'s means uncertainty, then the greatest area of uncertainty is in the Columbia area without question. No where else on the map do you see this multiplicity (indecision) about where to make large tic crosses (+) in red...... if these large red +'s represent radar data. Here is what may have happened. The people making the map may have had 3 or 4 sources of data they were weighing or trying to put together. This may very well have involved some PDX radar data or PDX radar estimates for one of the operators. This may account for why the PDX area is so 'complicated' in the making of this map. You can see it for yourself in the PDX area map section attached here .

I forgot to say: Give me a list of any tics you want me to check for - with times approx or positions, whichever, and I will look for them or double check them. Frankly it would provide a double check for me I wouldnt mind doing at all. Im as curious about it as you are. If Sluggo or anyone else wants to chime in, that would be good also. I will say this again. I did a number of reliability tests - many! Without going into all the gory details of what and how I defined an "+" , for recognition, I will be happy to search for any tic you want me to search for or check, because it gives me an opportunity to test my methods, and I welcome that.

Snow, you can do whatever you want with the data I posted. I honestly havent tried to scale it to see if it fits anything or how well, but it should and I know it will. I have been totally emersed in checking reliability of the software to distinguish +'s from false reports, and the like. I would rather have an under report than over report. I think Sluggo did well and my analysis proves it. I guess he did everything visually. The line of the flight is fairly well delineated in either case. I just wanted to see if this method would work and Sluggo should be happy with the confirming results. Anyone using this map is at the mercy of the tic marks and nothing based on them can be more accurate than the tics themselves are, whoever made them. I think as a historical matter it would be interesting to know how the NWA Probability Map came to evolve or was used to supplement the FBI's flight path map. Together they form a powerful tool, potentially. Let me be clear here. A professional analysis with professional tools would do better. What I did was fun and it does prove an analysis of this kind can be done, quite easily.

REPLY> Tektronix was a major lab equipment supplier toward the end of the 60s. They owned the market in their area. Suddenly they doubled their prices out of nowhere (Aug 69). This had immediate negative consequences for research programs across the country and in government (it sent NASA/JPL back to Congress for more money and R&D engineers retooling). This was the first serious inflation which rippled through the health care system in '69 because many hospitals and medical labs operated with Tektronix equipment. I remember this very well...

Attached are the + pixels I find which may be associated with tic marks. I attached the fit file for SafecrackingPLF. Sluggo's chart uses more tic marks. These are the tic marks my analysis feels comfortable claiming. You do realise this map is NOT a radar plot map at all, but some map somebody put tic marks on because they felt they had positional information. The error inherent in that far excedes any errors of other kinds discussed. ...

REPLY> I gather you know all about it - probably have Palmer's work. Thanks for letting us know. You just saved me and people Ive been talking to a ton of time, and expense. Good luck,

REPLY> Nobody is suggesting Cooper landed at Tina Bar, or the money either. The flight path doesn't support that. No one has ever suggested that. Is Palmer's right hand at the point where the money was? Or is Palmer simply showing the expanse (depth) of the whole dredge layer? I'm no mind reader! What is Palmer demonstrating int his photo? I wasn't there. I am looking with my own two eyes and I do not see - (a) the strata soil samples analysis report, by depth! (b) any soil samples. (c) any inventory. (d) any report at all! If you can read a-d out of that photo I sure as hell would like to hear/see it. Evidently, you were there? You tell me the depositon and erosion history of that spot based on that single photo. I am ready to listen. George -

oh your first pic with the threshold control is just excellent...you can really see the small tics under the flight path. I gotta learn how to do that. If you do this on the full high resolution flight path, we can get more accurate radar ticks for up around 2008-2009-2010 also? (I noted that I think the 2009 placement is dubious) I think we can get Sluggo's tics a little more accurate. Could even then imagine running a curve fitting excel thing on them, rather than doing straight line from point to point. Might be a better approximation? rather than assuming radar "happened" to catch the centerpoint of every turn? REPLY> I can do that but try this first. These are quasi 3d images based on pixel density. Everything is seen in relief so underlying tic marks and lines have good contrast. You will have to join images A & B (A = top) to get the full image. I had to break these down into two to get under the loading limit here - I am going to try one more thing later today. I going to try summing pixel densities on 1-pixel vertical columns. That is more than enough resolution to resolve anything on this map. If I can do this I will even be able to produce a pixel density graph of the map which will bring all layers right to the surface for visual inspection. later -

Yeah, like I said, they line up with what I believe are the 2018-2020 marks on the flight path...just shifted over W by 3 miles or so? (edit) The 4th seems to align with a 2021 tick that I didn't mark, but seems to be there on the flight path. When I first saw them, I was thinking predicted LZ. If they suspected Cooper jumped around there, with an East wind, that would make sense. Maybe they just guessed he might have jumped around Portland.? Or maybe it was additional radar data that was in error by some amount. This is the first time I'm thinking it's related to in-sync tics on the actual flight path. Yes it would be odd if the real flight path actually went thru the big ticks. But in my processed jpgs, you can see small tics under the real flight path. So I dunno. A mystery. A conspiracy. Who knows? REPLY> who made the tics? a committee? Im to bed -

REPLY> I just came back to post about the exact same thing. Posted then read below and here yours is. ESP. We discussed these tics earlier and Sluggo explained them away, I think, but I cannot remember how they were accounted for. All I do know is if you use these extra tics (the large red tics west of the path) to squew the FP over or merely to gather time, either way now you have potentially put Cooper right at the Columbia or in it, and this makes Rataczack's statement mean they were right at the Columbia but had not crossed it yet (when they feel the bump). more tic marks attached

IN ADDITION>>> We went over this before briefly but never resolved it. Notice the red X's (3 maybe 4) off to the left hand side of the penciled flight path in an arc. If the flightpath went through these X's and he bailed at or just near the Columbia at Vancouver, now he is bailing at a more oblique angle to the Columbia - with forward throw and drift he is now below Tina Bar somewhere around Vancouver Island. Im posting the Vancouver section again -

You guys keep stretching and stretching the time line - anything you can find that puts Cooper into the water. What I will do is show how the money got there another way thru my experiment that I will conduct. The result will be available by next spring I hope. REPLY> You dont just drop money into the Columbia and have it wind up at Tina Bar. Tina Bar requires a rather specific set of facts before anything can wind up there. The money came off a plane through the air, to wind up at Tina Bar. This involves the flight path. The money did or did-not enter the water connected to Tina Bar. Nobody questions the placard at Toutle. Why should the money at T_Bar be questioned. The flight path connects them both, somehow. The fact that Duane tossed something into the river. you say, does not mean it goes to Tina Bar! Do you understand that all of these gentlemen working on this problem take this very seriously? These people have credbility which does not proof. Thanks, George

QuoteI've been meaning to comment on Sluggo's timeline. One in particular, though, seems way off to me. The one at 20:09. I think it's too far South? Also note that from 20:15 to 20:18, it's hard to see any of the red tic marks. I believe it's reasonable to estimate that the ticks are at the places where the hand drawn line changes direction, especially if it makes sense in terms of estimated speed. Which is what Sluggo appears to have done? We should also remember the flight path could curve in between any 2 points. Straight line isn't guaranteed. Given what we know about speeds, it's hard to believe there's much curving between points, because the plane wasn't going fast enough for the distances. I was especially wondering about a curve between 20:15 and 20:16 REPLY> A couple of comments .. (a) anything that brings the flight path west favours deposition in the T_Bar area. Tina Bar became an active ingredient in this case because circumatances made it an active element. (b) Posted is the Columbia section from the original FBIMap. Note the shape of the flight path on it vs Sluggo's at the same area. Notice also the different topography in the Vancouver Lake to Tina bar area.

REPLY> Super-fine Profiles, Sluggo! I think this clarifies things and is key information. I think this slope profiles in combination with flow information for the area adjacent to Tina Bar gives us the dynamics by which money would arrive (and be held) at Tina Bar, from a hydrological scenario. The money must not only arrive but stay and be held, under any hydrological sequence. When you place the profile of Tina Bar along side the channel picture with the simplest flow estimation of this area, it is very easy to see how an object could wash up at Tina Bar, because Tina Bar turns out to be a very low elevation sand bar in the traditional sense, tucked in right up-current from Catapillar Island with a slow current channel immediately behind it, all in the current shadow of Frenchman's Bar. It is a natural feeder scenario for Tina Bar, if you are looking for a hydrological deposition scenario. The problem is, retention. Once the bag is deposited at Tina Bar how does it get retained and covered up so its not noticed, to be found years later at the depth the money was found. You have to account for yearly erosion which leaves the money at the depth it was found. (Or you have to say it arrived late and was not subject to much erosion when being discovered in 1980). I see the following options: (a) the money was deposited hydrologically in 1971-74 and then covered over by a thin dredge layer which wasted away to present the conditions found in 1980. To a geologist it would appear the money was at the top of the dredge layer and not below it because themoney was high enough up on the bar it was not covered by the thick dredging layer to begin with. (b) the money or some of it along with some of the container was deposited by the dredging itself in 1974 and wasted to present the 1980 conditions. (c) the money arrived after dredging in 1974 and was covered over and retained by some hydrological event not yet explained 'and not noticed before it was covered over'. Again I attach a regional map showing basic currents and the physical structure of the area which in conjunction with your fine profiles present a clearer picture of the situation at Tina Bar. Lastly, for me your profiles make a hydrological explanation more viable. In a backward sense however, these profiles also place demands on the flight path and Cooper's bail scenario, it order to make Tina Bar and its nature a more active option in where money would go. Let me simply post a reworked version of your original timeline (the FBI map time line). I show the Columbia, Rataczack's statement, the position of T_Bar, etc. If Cooper bailed at 20:16 his forward throw brings him very close to the edge of the Columbia itself, as I see this. His line of throw is very close to where the flight path crosses the Columbia (which sets up a brand new search area!). And under this scenario given the physical structures of the Columbia in this area, and the proximaty of Tina Bar just up stream, it activates Tina Bar as an area where something might turn up to be found, especially if Cooper did not get away clean - Let me simply post this work and see where it falls - George.

here -

mystery solved

REPLY> Its simply depth of field due to F-number of the photo lens used. Front of image is in focus - back is not. Photo taken at f1.2-f4.0. attached brings out more line detail. BTW the red violet thread in the previous money photo is because bills at that time had red, blue, red-violet curly thread segments in them, which makes sense. Used to ID real vrs fake money. If you look at other bills you will see more blue and red-violet thread segments.

Georger, Do you see a circular line of rust stain (partly broken)? Wonder what it means? I also see a couple of semi circular discolorations, will try to mark up the picture to show you. REPLY> I do now. See attached. I did some false colour processing of the original to bring out detail. The circular area is roughy in line with the Jackson oval on the front. I dont know what to make of this.

You may have just thought of a key to open that door. If someone had the gear to do the analysis and could generate the trust so that someone would loan them a particular bill, you could sell them on it. Just say, "Hey, I think that there is blood on that one bill. If it is, your bill would be the only one, and worth 5 times more immediately. Would you like me to examine it?" Nuttin' like greed as a driving force for the owner. It is probably not blood, but you'd get to look at it. REPLY> Thanks Happythoughts. The thought hasnt gone unnoticed. Im sure we have all wondered if the the 'rust' stains are blood stains? I dont speculate too far about these things until tests are done but I have to admit that curled thread does intrigue me. I may post more about it. I am not saying anything everyone here does not already know. We are all conscious of it each in their own private way. Small evidence can open doors.

Georger, Do you see a circular line of rust stain (partly broken)? Wonder what it means? I also see a couple of semi circular discolorations, will try to mark up the picture to show you. I don't think stains match up dimensionally to any steel NB 6 harness hardware, but a rigger could tell us. There is something symmetrical in that rust stain that looks a bit like a D ring, but the NB6 didnt have D rings, correct? see images at: http://boeing377.googlepages.com/imageinrustedcooperbill 377 REPLY> I just dont see the patterns you do but then again most people have seen UFO's and I havent! (I always miss out!) Seriously I dont see the patterns. Cossey said his NB6's had no D ring, if I recall. A D- ring would be larger (much larger) than these width of these bills, however there were no D-rings unless Sluggo says there were. I cant make much out of rust on one bill. Seems random to me. Now if there was rust on 20 bills ?? And all the same pattern?? Just for the record elemantal iron in ink does not leave "rust". I am pretty sure these are rust stains - dont know what else they would be. I also have wondered about stains and physical features lining up but frankly I dont get too excited about stains - UNLESS THEY ARE BLOOD! I do get excited about sand grains and micro evidence like the thread - see photo attached. This photo is in natural colour. Note the colour of the thread. Remind you of anything? (same colour as the Amboy canopy?) Who knows where that snipet of bill came from in the pile or what the thread is but the thread colour is interesting, for the time being. I would imagine there are a billion clues like this in the money if someone had bothered to look. Because, by the time you get beyond the level of those grains of sand and identify them (probably from T Bar) there may be other little things to look at, and that's when things get interesting. Here's some photos again - BTW, I havent even looked at the other money samples in any critical way - would rather examine the money itself! And so would a million other people .....

I've been away a lot so have only skimmed many of the posts, but I don't recall anyone suggesting this? HOWEVER... there are certainly real instances of clothing impeding the ability to pull, usually something like a top that hasn't been tucked (in or become untucked) blowing over the ripcord/hacky/handles. (If Cooper jumped in his suit jacket or coat the effect may have been the same?) This is one of the reasons many people wear jumpsuits.... REPLY> for me its not clothes or temps but the two motion hard pull Cossey described later - either he knew or he screwed up, it seems to me. Its the jump where this all begins ...

Spectacular! and a revelation. It is a sandbar in every sense.

Sluggo, here is something else you and Snowman might find interesting. It relates to using optical photo luminescence to date things like silicates and other minerals whose atomic clocks have been reset by exposure to sunlight after prolonged darkness (as in buried). This may or may not apply but I want to mention it so its in your inventory. There is a forensic textbook on the subject (url too long to copy here) so I will post a related pdf, and if need be can email you the url to the textbook abstract (which is very detailed). http://allendale-expedition.net/publications/MT1.PDF

It was raining. Exit temp was minus 7 degrees. Wind chill at 200 mph est at minus 60. REPLY> That is -7C = 19.4F at 10000ft for

Rust like stain on just ONE bill so far - not bills. Plus rust can localise to one spot - tanic acid with spread out to affect a large area. These (rust) stains are bright ferrus oxide like, not umber or ochre like as with tanic acid, at least to my eye?.