Farflung

RobertMBlevins crafts more inverse Yogi Berra diction with: “Being right or wrong about something has nothing to do with credibility.” Could this along with this infamous declaration have come from the same source? “If it turns out that Kenny isn’t DB Cooper….. then perhaps, it’s someone else.” Too complex, too many unknowns to truly understand why this sort of diction would attract venom. How could anyone possibly figure out why this would attract such vitriol? Sure, if this was some magical world where everyone graduated from ‘Romper Room’ or ‘The Polly Prissy Pants Nursery School’ but this is planet Earth the last time I checked, isn’t this Earth? Oh yeah, see because I thought this was Earth, where not everyone could afford to go to those store bought schooling places to learn good writing and talking speak language. The LAST thing credibility is associated with is being right or wrong. Credibility has everything to do with things other than being right or wrong. Let’s retract the venom guns for a moment, and allow this statement to bask in the warmth created by the droll syntax, vexatious content and imponderable meaning, while others struggle with how this could possibly, ever, even once, be considered a magnet for venom.

RobertMBlevins begs with: “Please tell me where I LIED about something on this thread.” RobertMBlevins published a book with the following then pretends to forget: “Captain Scott walked down the narrow aisle scanning the passengers as if looking for a friend, as not to alarm anyone. Captain Scott sat next to Cooper and asked ‘What’s this about a bomb?’” And who crafted this steaming pile of shit? Considering that Captain Scott NEVER left the cockpit: Is this the truth or a lie? Was telling Bruce Smith this was how the Co-pilot told the story the truth or a lie? Was claiming that you were confused by phones and emails the truth or a lie? Is claiming that only 30 copies of this were sold make it OK to lie, as long as it is only to 30 or less people? Is this a lie? What’s the name of the despicable person who made up this garbage? Shouldn’t this type of person not only attract, but receive venom? Gosh, I wonder if by asking for one example, where RobertMBlevins lied, was meant rhetorically or simply as an example of an opus magnum offering of irony? That is asking for just ‘one’ lie, when there is a bumper crop of, blue ribbon whoppers, to display at the Deception and Self Delusion Pavilion at the State of Confusion Fair. Hmmm…. I dunno, I’m not smart enough to figure that out. Sure was good to be all polite while this malignant data tumor grew and grew, instead of using some antibiotics (aka: venom) to kill this virus before the patient ended up in an iron lung.

RobertMBlevins said: “Point of order: No one has ever said that the bills were 'neatly stacked together'. THIS is what was actually said by Kaye, and then later quoted by Geoff Gray:” Quote the precise source, the Citizen Sleuth Website Makes NO mention of this. Is there some implied added value with Kaye being later (quoted earlier?) quoted by Gray? Isn’t Gray just repeating what Kaye said? Why mention both names since neither are attributed? RobertMBlevins continues with: “SOME of the bills were in such perfect alignment that the ink from the serial numbers ran into each other. SOME rubber band material was still in place, but crumbled when touched.” What is the precise source for the rubber bands that Tom Kaye touched which crumbled? RobertMBlevins gains momentum by claiming: “Kaye claimed that water tests he did with similar bundles of bills caused the bills to fan out within seconds of exposure to the water. This caused him to doubt the idea they floated down from anywhere. “ Again you need to quote a specific source. What experiment with ‘similar bundles’ (plural)? RobertMBlevins ignores the sole surviving, representative sample held by Brian Ingrham: “And I say that any questions should be directed to Tom Kaye, since he's the only outside source who was allowed access to those samples of the ransom money.” Nope, I didn’t know what you meant as I’m just as poor at mind-reading, time travel and hair splitting. I still don’t know the name of the ‘software’ YOU claimed to use doing in-depth and technical analysis of Kenny and the DB Cooper sketch. It wasn’t till later that it was discovered the ‘software’ was a zoom button on a copy machine in a Fed-Ex Kinkos. Nailing Jello-O to the wall. RobertMBlevins continues his revisionist crusade with: “I guess I should have qualified that post by saying Kaye is currently the ONLY person outside of law enforcement who has done scientific tests on the currency.” What ‘scientific tests’? A source is absent, as well as a procedure and result of the test. Pointing a microscope at something is not a test. Casual conversations about silver nitrate is not a test. Un-names bacteria identified as causing physical damage to the currency sans photographic exemplars, is not a test. Stating neatly stacked currency with photographic evidence of lateral rotation is data contention. Lacking of rubber bands in evidence, then testing generics is a, zero value add process. Is that what you are presenting as scientific? Just hours ago you were bemoaning how figuring out how the money arrived at Tena Bar proves nothing. Why this venom avoiding change in philosophy? Is it another chance to regurgitate the “perfectly aligned” bills statement which doesn’t exist, so that you can conclude that it’s proof that a person had to bury the money as you have done numerous times in the past? This isn’t splitting hairs, this is a rational, genuine approach where the results are tested for sanity. That is all.

RobertMBlevins makes another non-venom attracting statement with: “And I say that any questions should be directed to Tom Kaye, since he's the only outside source who was allowed access to those samples of the ransom money.” If inaccuracy were a grain of sand, this thread would make the Sahara look like an hour glass. Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention, but umm…… gosh…. yeah…..ahhh…. so hard to type when impeded by the gross embarrassment caused by others…. Yeah…. here we go… Ever heard of 377? He makes some comments here from time to time and ‘honestly’ can’t understand why you (RobertMBlevins) attract such vitriol. 377 owns (that right OWNS) a Cooper bill. He owns it because he doesn’t have to beg and borrow, so he owns the Cooper bill and you didn’t know that since you said….”Tom Kaye, …..he's the only outside source who was allowed access to ………. the ransom money”. WRONG! But how wrong…….this time? There was approximately $5800 of currency collected or 290 individual bills. For the sake of balance, I’ll round down to 250 in order to make a best case scenario in a fit of inverse embellishment, which this thread has never experienced. Follow so far? After all the fingerprints, photographs and cow pisses were taken, the money was then divided amongst the insurance carrier, the FBI and Brian. Brian was allowed to keep half. Of the 250 bills; Brian had at least 125 of them. Then about six years ago, Brian decided to sell half of them (50%, 1 out of 2, every other one, one for someone the other for Brian) which would release 62 bills to the wild. But they could have all been purchased by one person or individually purchased by partnerships of millions, we will never know. But there are plenty of bills, in private collections, who could answer questions. This misstatement has been brought to you by the ‘Flat Earth Society’, The Rose Mary Woods School of Data Recording, The Committee To Re-elect Thomas Dewey for President, Inventor of the Internet Al Gore, The Thalidomide Safety Commission, The Endowment to ‘Verify that If Kenny Christainsen Isn’t DB Cooper; Then PERHAPS It’s Someone Else’, The ACME Facial Recognition Software Company, Clydesdales Four Abreast Unlimited, The Jell-O Corporation, The American Nail Company, Back-Pedal Song and Dance Troupe, Upstream River Adventures, National Guard Search and Rescue, Miracle Research and Development Company - where ‘If it’s correct, it’s a Miracle!’, Rabbit Hole Data Storage, The Shitpants Tourettes Assmunch Keyboard Syndrome Fartface Politeness Cow-Piss Society, Fur Lined Sink Manufacturers Union and Barbed Wire Bath Mat Distributors

From the Skygods, so that others need not, rely upon others: “Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 91 and 105 [Docket No. FAA-2005-21829; Amendment Nos. 91-305, 105-13]” So it is written; for the Skygod saw that man had inventeth fabrics which would not mildeweth or cling when dapmeth, and he said this was good. The Skygod spoke unto the Rigger and said: “The FAA issued a rule in 1978 requiring that all main and most reserve parachutes be packed every 120 days. Before 1978, the FAA required that all parachutes be packed every 60 days. The FAA extended the packing interval to 120 days because new synthetic parachute materials like nylon and Dacron were becoming commonplace. Parachutists had found the synthetic material was just as reliable after being packed for 120 days as it was after 60 days.” The Skygods alloweth the Rigger to rest, but were angered at constantly being misquoted by Shoe Clerks who slither on their bellies, Pharisees who do whatever they do, and Buttholes who punish others with their crippling insecurities and lack of computer skills, where cut and paste functions would offer knowledge to all. So the Skygods recorded all in the book known narrowly and by few, as the CFR. Silence as the Skygods have spoken, silence fools! So there you have it smokin99, the entire sordid and lascivious history of chute packing. But here are some Farf notes: From the invention of the silkworm to 1978, the repack schedule was every 60 days. No, not two months, but 60 days. Remember this is the same group of people (gubberment) who are misquoted as making election day ‘The First Tuesday in November’. But that was a movie, where Americans get their educations, the true answer is…. The first Tuesday, after the first Monday, in November. The next repacking schedule was expanded on 18 December 2008, which is a date no skydiver has a clue about. But that’s when the schedule was expanded to 180 days (again NOT 6 months). To the original question, did anyone notice the alleged DB Cooper data card, being out of time on a skydiving forum? Nope. They were saving their research skills for things like coded messages, Sasquatches and things only they know. I’m guessing because I’m too stupid to figure any of these behaviors out.

Smokin99 asks: “Since I don't really get the repacking, inspecting date thing since none of the dates on the card look like it received regular inspections/repacking - Are you are saying the parachute was out of date and would the days out have given him pause?” In a word….. yes. (I’m not sure the standard for 1971) This is part of the- what did he know versus what did he do ethos. From the standpoint of aviation and system knowledge, I give Cooper a D- or he knows what he observed from movies or seeing the stairs extended on the ground or in a photo. He didn’t use any wicked cool flyer jargon, couldn’t open the stairs, flubbed using the interphone and asked for a destination which no 727 could make. That’s some of what I use to arrive at my present viewpoint. Now for the skydiving crap. If you hand me a parachute, force of habit, will have me pulling the data card, then looking at the last repack date, where I will accept or reject the thing. Otherwise there isn’t much reason for looking at the card. That’s really the only function of the thing. You can see the one posted in the image and it is very similar to ones I’ve looked at hundreds and hundreds of times. But since I’m a whuffo, I don’t know jack, so I left it up to the ‘experts’ to notice. Now Cooper obviously has been credited with looking at the data cards. I don’t ‘KNOW’ if that is fact. If he did, he is the world’s worst at interpreting them and accepted a training dummy, and one that was ‘timed out’ for his efforts. That alone makes me skeptical of the claim and should have a similar effect upon other’s researching this subject. As you can see, it doesn’t slow them down a bit. So I was in limbo with not wanting to taint, steer or otherwise fabricate some data where none exists. I posted the data card several times and asked if skydivers even give a shit about regulations, know what they are, or are simply all graduates of the University of Borrowed Time. The answer I got basically said there is a great deal of bombast surrounding the sport, but not a lot of ‘expertise’ in the traditional sense. If I was to go to the average DZ and did a spot inspection, I would find that chutes would likely be out of date and no one really respects the rules. Based on the lack of feedback about the pack date and hijacking, I would say that is a point of confirmation in the direction of lax rule and regulation observation. There are plenty of other items (hot fueling, hot loads) which reinforce this viewpoint. So where’s the indicator that Cooper was a jumper? McCoy and Heady brought their own rigs to avoid tampering and unfamiliar gear. Cooper checked the data card? Like other skydivers? Then robotically accepted and used a dead and out of date chute because that’s what any skydiver would do? Everything is like nailing Jello-O to the wall, EVERYTHING. No self-respecting skydiver is going to admit they ignore or jack around with inspection schedules, yet no skydivers who read this thread have noticed that Cooper’s chute was out of date, even though I felt as if I was rubbing it their faces. I’m still at a loss. I don’t think Cooper read any data cards. I don’t know if that is a reflection of knowledge or not. I went through constant ‘no-notice’ check rides, partial checks annual checks and was cross checked by ground crew, flight surgeons and fellow crew members in a collective effort to NOT crash or kill someone else. An aircraft would be refused for a broken piece of safety wire, wrapped around a cotter pin, holding a locking nut in place, which was inspected, after it was treated with Loctite and had a drop of Torque Seal on the base. That’s suspenders and a belt on a pair of coveralls, yet we still find ways to crash. Apparently skydiving does not follow the same protocol, which may not matter given the low number of jumps they have. Perhaps the margins of failure are wide enough to tolerate seeing a data card that is out of date and displaying the attributes of ignorance and or apathy. It has been over a year since the article was published and I’m no closer to an answer which would indicate one way or the other regarding Cooper, the Skygod.

I wish there was an easier way to put this dry boring stuff into something action packed and boner inducing, but I’m not a creative writer and am doomed to live with as many facts as I can find. Geroger semi-quotes: “He then opened and examined the chutes and pulled the packing cards - yes? He tossed the packing cards on the floor but, before doing so glanced or looked at them, long enough to read them. Its the juxtapositon of throwing the instructions away instamtly with the remark 'I dont need them" then not just opening to chutes to look inside, but looking at the packing cards long enough to read them –“ I’ve asked in the past what experience Tina had with parachutes and was surprised (not) that I got no response. I’ll assume (assume here) that this was likely the first time she had touched a parachute. With that assumption in hand, I gave a relatively light weighting to her opinion regarding Cooper’s handling of the equipment. This of course did not detract from her scorching hot physique and kitten with a whip persona. Time to try (I will fail again) to reconstruct with some available facts. Cossey packed both of the back pack, emergency aircrew, parachutes. The reserve chutes came from a different person who was not a rigger or jumper. Did Cooper “check” the data cards? If he checked the data cards on the reserve chute, then he would have known it was a training dummy. Why did he take that with him? If he chucked it because he was angry it was a dummy, then he would have worn the chute he jacked in the plane. Instead he sacrificed the “good”(?) chute as a supply of some line to tie the money up. Chucking the other chute as a diversion would be weak, since it would be attached (presumably) to the primary rig. If he took the dummy reserve, it appears implausible that he checked the data card (packing card). This is just deductive reasoning and nothing more, there’s plenty of room for a herd of unicorns. This leaves the back chutes. If (IF here, just if) the parachutes were pack at the same time, the data cards from the primary chute should be the same or very similar. So take a look at the surviving data card from Hayden’s (assuming this is the other chute) parachute. See the date? 21 May 1971. The hijacking was on 24 November 1971. Right away any aircrew or jumper would recognize a wee problem which may induce a wee wee. Here’s where I adjust some weightings assigned to Tina and DB. Did Tina likely observe Cooper reading data cards where he ultimately selected a dummy reserve? If Cooper read the data cards as the chutes were delivered on the plane, why did he select a dummy or accept the back chutes which were last inspected on 21 May 1971? Is this something an experienced jumper would do or fail to plan for? Heady and McCoy brought their own chutes to avoid that problem, but risked being identified via their equipment if it was found (and it was for McCoy). I’m not seeing the effects of people reacting to what they are reported as doing. Reading data cards and being observed reading them. But I’m sure there’s a perfectly complex explanation as to why this would take place.

OK, so I’ve had to set my expectations before running out to the field to sample some farm tank. It’s a force of habit in the private sector where unlimited or assigned budgets are relatively rare. But this is just a little more information which is based upon some ‘reasonable’ assumptions. I would expect that silver nitrate laced bills, would show the greatest degree of blackening and a pseudo random distribution, throughout the stacks. Make sense? The urine soaked money would (should) have a markedly different distribution since there is a macro migration of silver(?) tainted cow piss passing through the money burial site. Again I have to assume that silver is a component in cattle wee, since there isn’t anything identified as a component of the stuff. I would have assumed nitrates to be present, but since the CS report makes no mention of the stuff, outside a casual conversation, that’s all I got. The playing cards represent bundles of Cooper money, buried on Tena Bar, which have been separated in a sequential fashion.

Georger asks: “If there is a forensic match between something in the money and something in the Tena Bar dredge debris, then you must account for the coincidence. Behind and above the Ingram find was a retention ditch on Fazio's property. Rain washed things into that ditch which at least on paper had the potential to contaminate evertyhing below and down-flow of it. Is there evidence of the retention ditch and its contents in the money, in that agri setting?” I couldn’t agree more with the statement, it is the process which I have issues with. First, when I hear hoof-beats, I thing horses before zebras. This is the mnemonic which drives my thought processes, analysis and bullshit filtration. Silver was discovered on some of the money so……. what narrows the scope? Silver Nitrate? Sure I guess, was there nitric acid or some other inorganic matter which would point to the fingerprinting chemicals? Is silver nitrate MOST commonly used in fingerprint analysis versus something more pedestrian, like hair dyes or photographic processing, which would offer a higher percentage of exposure to the chemical? Why is this, the only research report I’ve read that doesn’t have a laundry list of tested and failed components? If cow pee-pee was tested, then it should be in the report, I didn’t see anything which proves that bovine urine wasn’t a culprit and what a shame if someone tests that theory in the future. But just doing things randomly makes people happy, so a second or third look into a container of cow waste is no big offense here, and I has a suspicion that some people just enjoy looking at the stuff anyway. I’m just seeing a semi-justified, random walk which is, poorly documented thus causing confusion where there should be none or at least less. Why are exemplar bills on the Bureau of Engraving and Printing website colored black which were buried? Why isn’t this documented condition eliminated before looking at fingerprint chemicals or animal tinkle? If the money would turn black while buried away from sources of silver nitrate and cow number one, then what drives or delineates checking other agents in the environment which may or will cause currency to blacken? This is what I don’t understand.

377 comments with some unknown irony: “Finding just the rig still wont tell us who Cooper was.” True, so very true, and since it won’t tell who Cooper was, perhaps we can do as RobertMBlevins suggested yesterday, and abandon this discussion about dredging, floating money and all that. Please see the wisdom in his words and stop this talk now. What could one POSSIBLY learn by retrieving a 30 pound rig, whit a history of surviving decades exposed to the elements, which matches the one Cossey packed and was owned by Hayden? VIRTUALLY NOTHING! NOTHING! Now the Amboy chute is apparently a different story, but I’m too stupid to figure out why. Here, I’ll spell it out. The only thing you could learn from finding Cooper’s unopened rig, at the bottom of the Columbia is…. that it wasn’t: Kenny Christiansen Duane Weber Sheridan Petersen Ted Braden Richard McCoy William Gossett Barb Dayton LD Cooper Or any other suspects past and present who survived the jump, or any theory which supports the survived jump approach. Virtually worthless and so silly to pursue, that some people who unfairly attract venom, repeatedly steer the conversation to more productive comments. Thank goodness the analysis on the tie tack was killed for the same reason, by the same person. Since we all KNOW that Cooper survived, there is no point trying to narrow a search area or technique, by assessing the viability of how money arrived at Tena Bar. It was buried by Cooper, because the money didn’t just bury itself, hellllooooooo. Damn, it’s all so obvious if only you people would think, I just want you to think.

377 opines with exquisite obliviousness: “I don't understand the venom. Blevins somehow is a venom magnet.” I guess there are mysteries greater than the Pyramids of Giza, Hanging Gardens of Babylon and DB Cooper.

Georger recalls: “…(all kinds of wierd explanations were tried to explain black bills including river water electrolysis/lightening ... and exposure to cow urine! The whole thing was amateurish at the time).” This is why I spanked myself for not doing a clean sheet regarding what I read about the Fazio operation, and was mired in this complex crap. I’m a lazy, lazy guy who does the least to get the most. So if I want to know about what caused the Tena Bar money to appear as it does, why re-invent the wheel? I wonder what buried, wet, American currency looks like? It would have been nice if someone had invented the internet, where volumes of information are at ones fingertips, for mere pennies per day. Off to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, or the BEP as us insiders, who are cool, call it. And what the hell, I’m feeling especially sassy today, so I’ll even visit the FRB site since they handle a buck or two every day. Not to spoil any cow urine parties out there, please continue, as I feel most of you would anyway, but this is just a STARTING POINT, just a logical place to start, it is the least complex, so I’m gonna start there. I’ve got to keep the skittish ones who think their pet is being attacked, calm with constant reassurances that what I type won’t make the world explode. Just ‘their’ worlds. But here’s what I found with a couple searches and a couple minutes. Now I’ve got to find a cow-pee store to confirm those tests.

Georger offers: “It is grouping bundles that matters. Cooper grouped the bundles in one or more containers, even if he grouped three bundles in his pocket bundles were still grouped. The Tena Bar bundles suggests that some original grouping stayed intact, because once bundles are separated you cannot have them come back togther except under special circumstances.” That should have been one of the parameters of the tests or simulations. The grouping is the significant element, but somehow silver nitrate and rubber bands have dominated the subject while being used as a foil to prove the money was buried by a surviving Cooper. Amazing. A bundle of money was cast on the River Styx, floated in a bowl, lowered into a bucket and placed into a sealed jar for reasons which had no basis in what happened at Tena Bar. There was never a single bundle and for those that flunked science, a sealed jar, filled with distilled water, will provide you with an anaerobic and sterile environment, or a mini-time distortion chamber, which will produce nothing resembling a natural state. That’s how the head of Joaquin Murrieta managed to survive as long as it has ya know. Instead, over a year has been squandered on repeated declarations that there now exists proof that Cooper lived, and the bills were ‘perfectly aligned’ with ink bleeding. The only things bleeding were my eyes as I read this oft repeated tripe. I kept waiting for someone to sound the klaxon and warn others that a Stage 3, bullshit attack was on the horizon. What did I see? Troll like silhouettes, prancing around and celebrating, the thorough soaking they and everything else were getting, from the shower of crap, which was delivered from Satan’s widely spread butt cheeks. But it takes that long to try and make the tiniest point between all the Clydesdale driving, Iditarod racing, dredging engineers, who reverse the course of rivers, engage in time travel,…. …. They can turn a grey sky blue -ah, they can make it rain, whenever they want it to, oh they can build a castle from a single grain of sand, they can make a ship sail huh- on dry land, but their lives are incomplete and they’re so blue, cuz theyyyy just don’t have clue, just don’t have a clue hey, just don’t have a clue, just don’t have a clue, JUST DON’T HAVE A CLUE….. everybody sing! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rP3Hi1f7Og

I can’t find a silver lining to this one, but perhaps someone can explain why this was consumed so readily. I’m talking about the money colored black in the Cooper trove. Some of the money was black in color, which was discovered by Brian. OK, time to pull out the old THOR-9000, with P30 interplanetary uranium modulator, and cup holder to see what this is all about. Apparently the element of silver (Ag) was detected by this sterile examination of the money, in laboratory conditions, with bubbling flasks, white lab coats and a pink carnation. What could be the cause of silver (Ag) on the money????? Quote: “…in a casual conversation, a law enforcement officer mentioned that silver nitrate was used in the early 70’s to detect fingerprints.” So the analysis initially identified silver (Ag) as the source of the blackening of the bills, THEN a casual conversation turns the element of silver, into the chemical compound of silver nitrate (AgNO3), THEN the silver nitrate is surmised to have been used on the black money in the past to detect fingerprints, BUT it was known to turn the money black (mutilating and defacing), SO rather than ‘law enforcement’ sending the presumed, ‘former evidence’ to the Treasury Department for replacement, it was THEN returned to circulation. I think I just had an aneurism. Am I the only one who is experiencing stunned disbelief at this point? Seriously, stunned disbelief? This is a classic case of bias driven conclusions with several leaps of logic and some unicorn tears. What’s the value of that analysis? That some compound which was NOT identified on the money, could have turned it black? I can’t be the only one that sees this horribly flawed premise can I? What would be a standard approach to resolving the mystery of the money, assuming one actually wanted to know the cause of the condition? Geez.

The “FBI” in the case of the Amboy chute had already determined that the thing was NOT, NOT, NOT the chute which Cossey packed, via Cossey saying, NO NOT EVEN CLOSE. But that doesn’t stop the legend. A couple local Amboy, amateur historians, speculated that it could be from a 1945 bailout, and the 1946 stamp on the canopy fabric was a “packing date”(I know, painful). It was at this point that Robbie Burroughs said that it could be true, and left it at that. Since at this point, both the FBI and the Amboy historians knew it wasn’t Cooper’s chute, so I would assume (assume here) that Burroughs just agreed with the historian’s statement and punted to them to figure it out. Sometimes people can read quite a bit into something which simply wasn’t there. Not everyone is as ‘tuned in’ and aware like me. I met Raquel Welch once and told her that I wanted to make love to her in the worst way. She smiled at me and said, “I imagine you will”. Then her butthole personal assistant told her she needed to go to an important meeting before I could get her number or arrange a date. Can you believe that? Oh well, at least I don’t live in some fantasy fuelled world filled with overcompensation, don’t have to thanks to Raquel.

Hey y’all prepare yourselves…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdiB3cISeBk I couldn’t understand the ‘Phantom Rubber Band’ testing either. The rubber bands are mentioned only by Brian and perhaps his parents. They were extremely brittle and fell apart upon touch. Where would these artifacts have survived given the eroded margins of the bundles and the removal from the sand? Would the Ingram’s know the difference between nine year old rubber bands and some other debris? From the verifiable facts (not wishful thinking) the money was last seen in the bank bag, with the top tied with line, and Cooper securing it to his body…. fade to black, transition to scene two. Aaaaaaand action! A child is running and frolicking on a snow scattered beach with his family. Let’s build a fire, the father announces. Young Brian springs to action and begins to….. umm…. do something…. but ahh….. umm…. he finds some shit and does not immediately recognize it as money. Something triggers the brain of this little American boy, who may not know the principles of division, the names of all 50 states or how to tie a bowline knot; but God bless him, he knows what money looks like. Cut to commercial, reestablish in the kitchen, focus on the table and ease out……. The family takes home this pile of heavily soiled cash and dumps it on the table to ponder. Divided into an unknown number of piles, they attempt a cleaning and drying of the currency before calling the authorities. Cut to hand knocking authoritatively on door….. You called the police? Why yes officer, we did. Cut to Tidy Cat commercial… Sound about right so far? Because it’s time for some more lore galore! The analysis of the bills revealed around $5800 OR the ‘equivalent’ of three bundles. Was it three constituent bundles or two full bundles flanked by two partial originally banded bundles, or other combination? Did the $5800 figure drive the ‘fact’ that is must have been three individual bundles? Without the rubber bands serving as some sort of dividers, even the number of bundles is an assumption. So there were ‘at least’ three bundles at the discovery site. Knowing this, what’s the next logical conclusion? Of course it’s a battery of tests using ONE bundle! This is a format which certainly didn’t exist given the evidence. The dynamics of three or more bundles would require some different assumptions, since the ties that bind are not associated with three or more bundles. That is, a single bundle is assumed to be bound by rubber bands, because that’s the last known condition it was put into. Three or more bundles were bound by a canvas bank bag and tied with line by Cooper, and that the last known condition they were put into. For some reason, this step of the analysis was skipped, obliterated or never a consideration. Why no testing with three or more bundles, bound by the last observed technique? The errors already induced make the simulation of extremely limited value, if any at all. This is the value in double blinds and testing where there is no financial motivation, beyond conducting an accurate and reliable test.

You can pick and choose whatever makes you happy 377. I’ve got an investment plan where cheap land is being acquired in North Dakota, where those idiots grow low value crops like beets. Anyway, I’ve contracted with some nurseries to deliver citrus trees by the tens of thousands and dominate the Dakota citrus market. You should send me money, cuz it’s a sure thing. I can’t believe no one has picked this location and that crop before, stupid people before me. You would be preaching to the choir in regard to the narrow timing of landing in the Columbia. It’s a binary bet using the simplest starting point, nothing more. For I live in a world where other theories can live in harmony. They just need to have the touch points and action items mapped out, as a minimum display of thinking through what they are proposing. Otherwise, the thread will be filled with half witted theories that have no basis in probability or….. never mind….. I just caught myself. I read a comment yesterday where the Citizen Sleuth report was not read by that person (hint, it’s not me or you), BUT….. wait for it…. little longer….. “it’s wrong!” That makes my brain laugh. I have added some probability to the Columbia deep six theory, where there really isn’t much of another option for a ‘no-pull’ after station passage Portland. Its 9.2 nautical miles or about three minutes from the VORTAC to feet dry Oregon. Now for some more wild-assed assumptions with a no-pull. I don’t think that Cooper landed on a street, parking lot or roof top. I know this is radical stuff and I may need to cool my jets here. Then I took a tiny cross section of suburbia and color coded roof lines and asphalt, leaving places for a no-pull to prang and perhaps, not be discovered. This in spite of the fact, that my neighbor can discover a weed in my yard. Thus illustrating the odds of NOT blundering upon Cooper’s body in the more developed areas. I know it seems obvious, but plenty of people have stated that “Cooper could be anywhere”. In the attached example, the last minute before penetrating Oregon, has two basic options. Cooper landed in suburbia and has not been discovered OR he splashed in the Columbia and delivered the money to Tena Bar. Since I’m one of the few handicapped with NO inside or special knowledge, I’m doomed to follow the data/evidence and see where it branches, THEN add complexity when information allows. Otherwise, I’ll be investing in coconut groves in Fargo.

Here’s a chapter on the various types of dredging and how they are selected: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1883e/i1883e06.pdf Looks like it was written by the British, with the extra letter ‘U’s in the spelling and the metric measurements. But they have great beer, plus British women are known for having a certain ample feature, so I don’t bust their chops too much. So I figured it would qualify for posting on this fine electronic dais. As suspected, dredge material is pretty well, if not completely known before the project. This drives the type of system which is selected. I was trying to work out how one could effectively ‘filter’ sand in an operation processing hundreds of yards per hour. It is fundamentally, preemptively filtered, by survey. So if there is a rock mixed in with the sand deposit, it will be sucked into the system also. It also lists the advantage of cutter/suction dredging, as handling sand and weeds. The disadvantage is the requirement to have the spoils be sent directly to a deposit site. So that would make the cutter/suction process the least complicated since there is no decanting or secondary transfer after removal. It would appear reasonable (although I’m cursed with not knowing as fact), that a waterlogged bag could come to rest near the same place that deposited similar, low density material. If a cutter/suction dredge was used at Tena Bar and it was moored for the entire operation, AND IF the money was the product of dredging, then the location of the money should be relatively finite. That is, using linear extrapolation of Tena Bar and 1974, divided by 10 miles (from V-23), is 3.33 miles per year of Cooper stuff to drift. Given the remaining length of the Columbia, and assuming the same rate of travel, would dump DB into the Pacific Ocean around the year 2000. But he didn’t die, so that didn’t happen, thus saving at least three pairs of underwear, from a premature washing. Since this has already been dismissed through thoughtful (as in no one has been burned alive) ‘Flat Earth’ techniques, there’s no other possible explanation other than a – ‘Man in the Loop’, active burial, near a money eating bacteria colony, on a riverbank, where hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of dredge material, just happen to be processed. Awesome!

That was the point georger regarding the report. I would have at least had an entomologist or microbiologist review my theory?...conclusion? before publishing the results? Is this really new ground on this thread? Who published a report in college, work or even for the gubberment without some review AND validation thrown at the thing? This was the result of years correct? I know it is a volunteer thing and all that, but I could have obtained advanced degrees in the subjects while waiting. So a little more precision is not an unreasonable expectation. When I do ask these questions, they are not the product of a random question generating machine which is next to my facial recognition machine. I actually take some time to do a little comparative analysis, benchmarking and sanity checking before presenting myself as the cause and circumstance, for a case of terminal butthurt to some stranger. I don’t care about the author, I do care about the data. I asked about the test protocol which rendered all this irrefutable data about dredging and can’t find a thing. Was sand imbedded in the money from high speed water flow? Under what parameters? Single bill, single bundle, loosely placed in a canvas bag, tightly packed in a canvas bag, 100 yards per hour flow rate, 250 yards per hour…… all of this is brushed off as nuisance or noise because it’s already in the web site. Where? Now the same pattern regarding the type of damage experienced by the currency. From broad sweeping generalizations like, narrowing down the damage sourced to bacteria, of which there are hundreds of thousands of varieties…. Millions? To the precision of money not being paper but cotton and linen. The mind boggles at how near impossible it is to obtain some balance in communications, while adding the burdens of being honest and concise. But it takes half a dozen iterations to get an answer about the color of orange juice and far more for the name of a facial recognition software package. It may be wishful thinking, but if 377 can find some third party, fresh, clean and unbiased college students, to do some analysis, there may be some data which actually follows some logical path of development and only take weeks instead of years. If I know enough to determine that it is bacteria, then I know enough to consult with a microbiologist, irrespective of them being on the team or a close personal friend. Why this is always like paddling a canoe in the Tar Pits of La Brea, can only, and always lead to a very unflattering answer. There now, I’m done.

What type of bacteria eat cotton and linen? Silverfish are omnivores and will consume both. I used paper as a generic term, here’s a quote from me earlier today: “But I do know that American currency is NOT made of paper but, cotton, linen and silk. That’s right, I took a tour of the Bureau of Engraving, so that makes me an expert and qualifies me to rebuke and denounce any statements I want to.” But everything has to be like nailing Jell-O to the wall, everything, E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G. I’m sure there’s some evidence of bacteria that leaves the same damage pattern, I’ll just keep looking, after all, it’s already narrowed down to seven or eight types.

I read that georger, and was stunned at the lack of detail again. I was looking for examples of bacterial damage to paper, linen, fabric or anything and could not find an exemplar. Is the type of paper eating bacteria aerobic or anaerobic? What is the consumption rate? Temperature band? Can anything be gleaned from the statement that the money appears to be damaged by bacteria? I found the margins of the silverfish damaged items to be quite similar. Also silverfish breathe air and like damp environments. Just a little bit more information to aid with the guess-ology. I think having an entomologist look at 377’s bill would be worth the cross check. Was there no bacteria graveyard in any of this stuff that a THOR-9000 microscope could have picked up? I don’t know, just asking and not too satisfied with the ‘analysis’.

Is there a fungus, among us? Or am I just fishing with this? I think it is a sterling option.

I’m no microbiologist but, I do recognize and understand bullshit when I see it. I would like to know what made those holes. Mechanical, bacteria, insect, or unknown. Is there a way to determine the length of time the bill was exposed to water and or air, numerous cycles? Is there a way to determine what, if any, forces the bill was exposed to? What cell forms or eggs are on the bill? Types of fibers, chemicals or particulate matter not associated with American currency. Potential sources of the above samples. Is there a way to geo-locate this bill, based solely upon geology (i.e.-Washougal vs Tena Bar)? Was there ever? Are there ink or material transfer(s) and what would be the cause? I’m sure georger will have many more and probably better refined.

You hold the ‘Golden Ticket’ 377, literally. You’re the only person who has an authenticated Cooper artifact, and lives in the center sanctum of all things technology. Stanford, San Jose State and the University of Santa Clara all have superb science departments. I would imagine that some department head or student would love to study this bill and see if they can find anything. You may (just may) want to go the non-destructive testing route, but it’s your call. I don’t think some model citizen, college student, would engage in the shameful behaviors paraded within the amateur circles, and would more than likely provide some objective data. You’ll know you’re in trouble if the microbiology department identifies the holes as being from ‘Noseeums’ , and just happens to ask if that bill had ever been in a French-Canadian comic book. That’s when I’ll know the Mayan Calendar thing will come true in a few weeks.

It was the best of bills, it was the worst of bills, it was the age of stupidity, it was the age of unimaginable stupidity….. I know what you’re thinking; what-the-Dickens does that mean? I was looking at the images of the twenties which georger posted and was surprised at how vast the variance was of the condition. One bill was bug eaten, but looked indistinguishable from what is in my wallet now. The bill labeled ‘Rust’ showed much more wear and represented the opposite end of the spectrum. Side by side they shared the same ‘insect’ or ‘bacteria?’ damage which indicates that whatever dined on these things, showed little preference for rusty versus clean bills. Is the ‘Rusty’ bill what it looked like before Cooper got it? Or was the rust stain transferred afterwards? The heavy rust transfer would indicate an environment favoring air over being submerged in water perhaps? The relatively clean bill, presumably from the center of the mass, appears to have avoided any great or obvious water damage. Is this correct? I can almost make out some sort of shape with the rust pattern. So is this evidence of being out of the water since rust would form and transfer more effectively that way, along with the cleaner bill? Is that the period when the bugs would have chowed down until being evicted by a watery ride to Tena Bar? Nothing like spending a day realizing how little I know about so much, now I’m depressed.