Attached is a crop from a larger FBI photo in the FBI archive taken during the excavation at Tina Bar. You can clearly see the layers  (strata) in Palmer's trench. This 'is' the trench dug at the Ingram find location. In the uncropped photo Palmer is standing immediately to the left of this crop leaning on a shovel waiting for the photographer to finish taking photos.

Clearly shown are the sand and socalled sand-clay layers found. Visible is the upper active layer and just below it the thicker "cross bedded" layer, and below that Palmer's socalled clay-lump layer . . . Most or all of the money fragments found came from: the cross bedded layer measuring 24 inches deep at some points along the trench. The Ingram money actually came from a combination of the upper active layer and most likely, the very top surface of the cross-bedded layer. So the Ingram money came from the most recent geological formation visible in this trench. That fact is what lead Palmer to initially say 'the money is a recent arrival'.

The cross-bedded layer is clearly separated and distinctly different from Palmer's clay-lump layer below it. The difference between the two layers is stark and easily discerned. You can almost trace the line that separates the two layers. The clay layer is a solid compact consolidated layer. The cross-bedded layer is more diffuse and has air pockets in it! All of this is clearly visible in this photo taken to document the layers Palmer was finding - that is why these photos were taken!

If you accept the Palmer strata chronology then the upper active layer is no more than a year old. The cross bedded layer a year to approx 4 years old (1974). And the sand-clay layer is the dredging spoil layer laid down in 1974 by dredging ... except of course according to many no dredging spoils were even deposited in this exact area! So there is a dispute about Palmer's clay-lump layer even being dredging spoils at all. 

But, the upper active and the cross bedded layers below it are clearly visible and factual. Could the cross bedded layer be older than 1974? Yes. Tom says it is. Tom says Palmer misinterpreted the clay-sand-lump layer and it is a layer which underlies the whole beach at Tina Bar and runs down deep underneath the river channel itself!

But let's back up. Whatever the true nature of the clay-lump layer, the upper active and cross-bedded layers are real and represent a passage of time with multiple water events. Years! Money frags found came mainly from the cross-bedded layer. Those money fragments may have been supplied to the cross-bedded layer by a single primary source closeby (through multiple water and erosion events over time)  or there is some other explanation.

R99's theory is that the Ingram money and any fragments associated with it 'washed in' from some distant source on land, then washed along the length of Tina Bar and were eventually deposited where Ingram found the bundles. R99's theory would require years of 'precise' deposition from some distant source south of Tina Bar on the mainland. That is a highly improbable scenario requiring a level of precision and timing over years, not found in Nature.  R99's narrative can only work if the source of the Cooper money is directly behind the Ingram site on Fazio land, then washes down across the road to the lower elevation on the beach - a again not very likely. 

Let me post this photo also - the larger hi-res version of this photo is glorious in its detail. This well known photo was taken in the same series as the strata photo sbove.  This is the black and white version. In this photo Palmer is pointing out the distance between the surface (upper active layer) and the clay-lump (socalled dredging layer) below.

Since everyone says no dredging spoils were even put at this location how in blazes did clay-lump dredging spoils layer even get to this area!    Thus Tom thinks Palmer was wrong.   

It's always been my understanding the trench was not dug on the money location...

TUESDAY Feb 12th
Sifting site
Found fragments under 3 feet of sand in afternoon (Oregonian)
Picture of agents digging up sand on south end half way to beach (Oregonian Wed) Sunny at days end
   
WEDNESDAY Feb 13th
Overcast, no shadows
Backhoe in place
Trench in place
Geologist on scene
Numbered sequence of the bills in the stack still the same (Oregonian)
FBI agent Baker from Portland said bundles were randomized (Oregonian)
“Trench dug 200 ft from site to study layers” (Oregonian Richards thurs)

I'm guessing he already had an idea from the digging the FBI did and decided to go upstream and see what the layers looked like before the money location....see if anything was different?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Last night, I was watching documentaries about the Zodiac Killer, when I stumbled onto an interesting fact about
how the FBI caught The Golden State killer. The FBI actually used a partial DNA sample and ran it against a public database shared by companies like Ancestry.com and 23andMe.com. The results found a relative that eventually led to the arrest of the killer.

This afternoon the following article popped up on my Facebook feed. Has there been any thought on using this method on the Cooper case?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Robertrand: The method to catch the Golden State Killer is useful, but they used GED MATCH, a private DNA database to catch him.  They also had a sample of the killer's DNA.  I think a sample was kept from an older case and not intentionally by law enforcement.  For the Cooper case to verify DNA through GED MATCH, they would require a relative of DB Cooper to have uploaded their DNA to GED MATCH, and for the FBI to give up what they have, which they won't do.  The only hope is that someone gets hold of the DNA profiles the FBI has, or a rouge gets it and sends it to GED MATCH.  This assumes the FBI actually has Cooper's DNA.  The good news is that even a third cousin of Cooper could upload their DNA, and that could be used to backtrack to a common relative and then with other evidence, potentially tie the suspect to the hijacking.  I believe in the Golden State Killer case they had a full DNA profile (13 genetic markers).  If the FBI actually has Cooper's DNA from his hair, the cigarette butts, or the tie, and it is not a full profile, say only 6 markers, that may not be enough to match against GED MATCH.  But, with only a few of the 13 markers in place, they could still narrow down the possibilities, but not necessarily get a conviction.  Long response, but we really would need the FBI to give up the DNA.  Wiki Leaks let out a lot of damaging info, but somehow none of those folks thought to release the DB Cooper files.

Thanks for the info. I've always wondered what happened to the limb and head hair recovered. Now is the FBI sitting on this evidence or were they disposed off like the cigarettes?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Last night, I was watching documentaries about the Zodiac Killer, when I stumbled onto an interesting fact about
how the FBI caught The Golden State killer. The FBI actually used a partial DNA sample and ran it against a public database shared by companies like Ancestry.com and 23andMe.com. The results found a relative that eventually led to the arrest of the killer.

This afternoon the following article popped up on my Facebook feed. Has there been any thought on using this method on the Cooper case?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Robertrand: The method to catch the Golden State Killer is useful, but they used GED MATCH, a private DNA database to catch him.  They also had a sample of the killer's DNA.  I think a sample was kept from an older case and not intentionally by law enforcement.  For the Cooper case to verify DNA through GED MATCH, they would require a relative of DB Cooper to have uploaded their DNA to GED MATCH, and for the FBI to give up what they have, which they won't do.  The only hope is that someone gets hold of the DNA profiles the FBI has, or a rouge gets it and sends it to GED MATCH.  This assumes the FBI actually has Cooper's DNA.  The good news is that even a third cousin of Cooper could upload their DNA, and that could be used to backtrack to a common relative and then with other evidence, potentially tie the suspect to the hijacking.  I believe in the Golden State Killer case they had a full DNA profile (13 genetic markers).  If the FBI actually has Cooper's DNA from his hair, the cigarette butts, or the tie, and it is not a full profile, say only 6 markers, that may not be enough to match against GED MATCH.  But, with only a few of the 13 markers in place, they could still narrow down the possibilities, but not necessarily get a conviction.  Long response, but we really would need the FBI to give up the DNA.  Wiki Leaks let out a lot of damaging info, but somehow none of those folks thought to release the DB Cooper files.

According to one source who posted and claims to know: 

"Partial or partials?

Multiple contributors?

Yes, yes and yes.

To answer the second question first: Yes there are multiple donors--three--on the tie.

Regarding the first question: All of the DNA related to the three donors is partial.

[Translation: All of the profiles obtained for each donor is a partial profile. ]

Finally, there was one donor who contributed saliva to the tie. It is likely that this is Cooper's DNA given it is easy to envision Cooper smoking, drinking or eating and inadvertently contributing the sample.

None of this explains what happened to the cigarette butts and shaft of hair. Or, why the FBI feels certain enough about their partial DNA profile to publicly exclude Weber and LD by virtue of that DNA while avoiding questions about Sheridan's results."

Who knows how accurate any of this is! Of course we don't know what partial means for any of these profiles? Others go on to claim multiple tests (at least 3) were required for each donor to even obtain a partial in each case! Still SA Carr maintained the profiles they have are good enough to "exclude" people. It's a mess with conflicting stories, but it never prevents Cooperfiles from writing about it ... 

There is another guy who states: "The FBI has 14 partials enough to eliminate but not include..." 

So I pose a question for you: How many loci (in Codis-13) do you consider the minimum for a partial? Which loci do you consider most likely to register after 3 runs? Could we assemble our own 'partial model' as a guesstimate of what the FBI must have at minimum?   

According to one source who posted and claims to know: 

"Partial or partials?

Multiple contributors?

Yes, yes and yes.

To answer the second question first: Yes there are multiple donors--three--on the tie.

Regarding the first question: All of the DNA related to the three donors is partial.

[Translation: All of the profiles obtained for each donor is a partial profile. ]

Finally, there was one donor who contributed saliva to the tie. It is likely that this is Cooper's DNA given it is easy to envision Cooper smoking, drinking or eating and inadvertently contributing the sample.

None of this explains what happened to the cigarette butts and shaft of hair. Or, why the FBI feels certain enough about their partial DNA profile to publicly exclude Weber and LD by virtue of that DNA while avoiding questions about Sheridan's results."

Who knows how accurate any of this is! Of course we don't know what partial means for any of these profiles? Others go on to claim multiple tests (at least 3) were required for each donor to even obtain a partial in each case! Still SA Carr maintained the profiles they have are good enough to "exclude" people. It's a mess with conflicting stories, but it never prevents Cooperfiles from writing about it ... 

There is another guy who states: "The FBI has 14 partials enough to eliminate but not include..." 

So I pose a question for you: How many loci (in Codis-13) do you consider the minimum for a partial? Which loci do you consider most likely to register after 3 runs? Could we assemble our own 'partial model' as a guesstimate of what the FBI must have at minimum?

My understanding is that the above is correct.

It also poses an outstanding question at the end.

I asked the FBI this very question and received the "can't discuss it" response from them. I really do not understand this because they've already stated it's only partial and can exclude some suspects...why not attribute a tangible figure to these statements?

I will say this much, the DNA sample they used for LD Cooper did not come from LD, rather it came from a relative (perhaps daughter). My understanding is that the profile has to be of "reasonable" strength to make that connection. Also, apparently the profile is strong enough for the FBI to actually make the comparisons and exclude Duane and LD.

Two final questions: After taking Sheridan's DNA the FBI investigated him in Nepal and Deer Park, WA...why wouldn't they do this after receiving the DNA results? Did they do this after receiving the DNA results?