You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The transcripts say the last contact was 55 minutes ago at the 8:52 mark. that's not 8:05. this would put Coopers last contact before Toledo. have I went too far off the deep end on this? it seemed precise by saying 55, not a half hour, or 45, but around 55 minutes?

where, what time, does the Transcript say this? ... Ok have it below:

"(8:52pm pst)  NWA -    Flight over EUC (EUG?) VOR, 100000’, 170KIAS, fuel aboard
33,5000lb, FP and configuration remained the same (on V23).  Advised that they had had
no communications with the HJ for “about the last 55 minutes” despite several attempts on cockpit to cabin inter phone and PA system. Crew has assured that fuel was more than adequate to get to RNO, that RNO weather was good, etc. SEADD  had also been actively following and participating in these events. "

The they is NWA or ATC ?  Contradicts everything Ckret, Rataczak, Anderson, etal have ever said.

Hmmm, why, or how would they leave out the 9:00 entry, and seemingly get the figures mixed up. TAT, FF (fuel flow) etc. wasn't the transcripts type in "play by play" action, or as they were being transmitted?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the two sets. the paragraph I put on here is from the PDF that explains at the top the information was taken primarily from manual recorded notes during communications connected with the hijacking, or as they said it high-jacking. on 11/25/71. should I not be stating transcripts? I understand the section Georger posted, those, if I'm correct are the Harrison papers.

So the "notes" contain any errors that may have appeared in the original documents that the FBI used to compile their notes.

I just want to make sure of what I'm looking at it correct. like the 8:52 mark. which set has the best known times frames? I remember going through this with Hominid, but it's been a while since I really started back reading them. sometimes the tools in the shed get dull on me

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It is a viable theory. Im not sure I like packets arriving separately then stacking in the same location? I would prefer packets arriving in cemented blocks held together by sediment. Of course if Dorwin's 'part of a brief case was found' is ever confirmed, then its a new ball game.

By what date do you want the money in the Ingram location? Under how much sediment?
   

Last July, Meyer Louie and I talked to a fisherman named "Jon" (or maybe "John") who claimed that he had basically visited Tina Bar just about ever day since the date of the hijacking.  And with the other fisherman who were at Tina Bar frequently, it is a bit of a surprise that the money was not found before it was covered by sand.  I don't see any rational explanation for the non-discovery unless there was snow or other bad weather that keep people away for several days or longer.


I believe Brian Ingram stated that the packets were under about 1 to 3 inches of sand.  And they were cemented together.  Also, one of the packets had obviously been exposed to water before it was cemented since some of the bills had been rotated and portions of them torn off before being buried.  You have stated elsewhere that the sand between the bills was "rounded" and that Palmer called it Columbia River "silt".  Presumably, the "silt" in question also coated the land above the level where the bills were found.  This last point could have been accomplished during earlier flooding, some of which got to 16 feet above sea level or just below the top of the "dam" for the dairy retention pond.  Jon said that he had never seen the river water level high enough to actually flow into the retention pond.

Unless you and Tom Kaye are permitted to do some additional tests that finds evidence of Columbia River water contamination, such as those missing diatoms, there is no data to indicate that the money packets were ever in the river.  This despite the obvious conclusion that the money may well have been buried in cemented form under several inches of sand, which in turn was under maybe up to 6 or 10 feet of river water.  So the packets would have been exposed to the round sand or "silt" prior to arriving at the location of their discovery at Tina Bar.

To me, this suggests that the prior location(s) of the packets would have been exposed to moving water (other than river water) on at least some occasions and that was the water that cemented the packets and "torqued" one of them.  Perhaps the cementing of the packets could occur while the bills were more or less protected to some extent by the money bag, or whatever, but the torqued packet would need direct contact without protection with moving water (perhaps rainwater) before being cemented.  This suggests that the packets spent some significant time elsewhere before they arrived at Tina Bar.  The fact that some of the bills were in quite good condition when cemented supports the idea that the cementing took place soon after the hijacking.

Do you know what the Columbia River water level at Vancouver was on the date of the hijacking?  When did it reach 10 to 12 feet?  Also, the construction of the flushing channel and the marina, just upstream of Tina Bar, may have figured into this one way or another.  Does Amazon, who used to keep her boat there, know the date of the marina's construction?

Robert99