You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Hypothetically, I don't see any inconsistency, if the fragile bundles were buried in shallow sand, then dug up, you'd expect fragments to become dislodged and dispersed in the sand. More digging and searching may disperse the fragments slightly further.

You never know, maybe the bundles were brought to the sand bar in sandwich bag or container, then dumped into a shallow hole, the bundles and fragments are deposited initially. The fragments don't really impact the plant theory unless they were a significant distance..

In fact, in a plant situation, it is more likely that the bundles were brought in some container.

Flyjack, How long do you think the bundles would have to be buried at Tina Bar before they would start "fragmenting"?     I believe that some reports are to the effect that the bundles themselves had become compacted or essentially solidified and that there was quite a bit of difficulty separating those bills.  So how far ahead of their "find date" did the bills have to be planted at Tina Bar?

See Tom Kaye's web page for a fuller discussion on how money acts in water, and especially read his discussion on the bill packet that appears to have been "torqued".

At least two FBI agents have said that they picked up bill fragments at Tina Bar.  One of those agents wrote in his book that he placed those fragments in small evidence bags and put his initials on those bags.  The agent in charge of collecting the evidence at the site then, presumably, sent those bags to the Seattle FBI office.

Why would anyone plant money at Tina Bar in the first place?  The money would be in a much better condition before the planting and just as likely to have been redeemable or subject to a reward.  In my opinion, planting the money doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever.

This is theoretical, but the money would have been planted right before the discovery in its deteriorated condition. If it were transported/stored in a bag/container, the fragments would have been included in the shallow burial.

It could have been found (buried/hidden) elsewhere and earlier by Dwayne or David. why plant??  who knows, having the children find it may be "financially" advantageous in some way, did the adults have debts, or they may have needed to hide the original location or source of money, another party or perhaps Coopers identity. Maybe stolen?? There could be many reasons,,

Did they have a shovel with them on a picnic?

What is Davids background, how long had he been in the area? Which home had the serious fire? Cause? insurance?

This theory would explain the distance from the flightpath and the movement of the cash after 1971..

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Hypothetically, I don't see any inconsistency, if the fragile bundles were buried in shallow sand, then dug up, you'd expect fragments to become dislodged and dispersed in the sand. More digging and searching may disperse the fragments slightly further.

You never know, maybe the bundles were brought to the sand bar in sandwich bag or container, then dumped into a shallow hole, the bundles and fragments are deposited initially. The fragments don't really impact the plant theory unless they were a significant distance..

In fact, in a plant situation, it is more likely that the bundles were brought in some container.

Flyjack, How long do you think the bundles would have to be buried at Tina Bar before they would start "fragmenting"?     I believe that some reports are to the effect that the bundles themselves had become compacted or essentially solidified and that there was quite a bit of difficulty separating those bills.  So how far ahead of their "find date" did the bills have to be planted at Tina Bar?

See Tom Kaye's web page for a fuller discussion on how money acts in water, and especially read his discussion on the bill packet that appears to have been "torqued".

At least two FBI agents have said that they picked up bill fragments at Tina Bar.  One of those agents wrote in his book that he placed those fragments in small evidence bags and put his initials on those bags.  The agent in charge of collecting the evidence at the site then, presumably, sent those bags to the Seattle FBI office.

Why would anyone plant money at Tina Bar in the first place?  The money would be in a much better condition before the planting and just as likely to have been redeemable or subject to a reward.  In my opinion, planting the money doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever.

This is theoretical, but the money would have been planted right before the discovery in its deteriorated condition. If it were transported/stored in a bag/container, the fragments would have been included in the shallow burial.

It could have been found (buried/hidden) elsewhere and earlier by Dwayne or David. why plant??  who knows, having the children find it may be "financially" advantageous in some way, did the adults have debts, or they may have needed to hide the original location or source of money, another party or perhaps Coopers identity. Maybe stolen?? There could be many reasons,,

Did they have a shovel with them on a picnic?

What is Davids background, how long had he been in the area? Which home had the serious fire? Cause? insurance?

This theory would explain the distance from the flightpath and the movement of the cash after 1971..

Did the Ingrams have a model 13B-74 Maldum Fornax Generator? Could be! They may have borrowed one from Fermi Lab in Chicago, for the weekend. 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Forensic evidence of "stirring" at money find site:

If the Ingram find was a plant, when was it planted, because all accounts of the find including Ingram's account include the fact of fragments or tiny pieces, of one kind or another. In Ingram's account the pieces were so tiny and insignificant that they were not collected and all in the immediate vicinity, or in the same 'hole' as the Ingram bills themselves. The FBI account has fragments sized from tiny to nickle size, to quarter size and larger, distributed in an area around or near the Ingram find. Smith says "in a circle around the Ingram find"? Let's further stipulate that evidence for a "flow field" is unproven. But evidence of small fragments immediately associated with the Ingram bills either around the site, or in a circle around the site, seems the minimum set of detail which people say they saw when examining the area of the Ingram find. It takes time and conditions for pieces to break free of the main body of bills. This has to be prior to the finding of the bills.

The Ingrams don't say once thy pulled the money from the ground they shook like a mop scattering pieces around! They say they slipped the money into a sandwich bag and protected it so as to preserve their find for redemption at a bank. So there is nothing the Ingrams did which accounts for pieces adjacent to the main find.

If this was a plant how can there be lose fragments at any distance from the Ingram bills themselves unless you also introduce the notion of stirring in the area of the Ingram money. Something has to cause the fragments. The Ingram bills did not just 'walk around leaving dust and small fragments in an area around the Ingram bills. Either wind or water is required to "stir" the layered bills, leaving fragments and small pieces outside the zone of the find.

If it was wind then the Ingram bills had to be near or very near the surface for wind to work on the bills and deposit pieces elsewhere.

If it was water and the bills are near the surface, then the last high water period according to Vancouver gauge records was in mid January 1980 - see USGS graph below. This means at minimum the Ingram find had to be planted far enough in advance of actual discovery for water-stirring and/or wind-stirring to occur and create the forensic scene found at the site.

The chart attached shows a water level at Vancouver of 12 feet. Would this have been high enough to affect the Ingram find and stir the area and the Ingram bills, to create the forensic scene found?

But, if the plant was immediately before the Ingrams found the money, there is nothing to account for the forensic details at the scene of the find, ie dust and fragments dis-articulated from the bills.
 

Hypothetically, I don't see any inconsistency, if the fragile bundles were buried in shallow sand, then dug up, you'd expect fragments to become dislodged and dispersed in the sand. More digging and searching may disperse the fragments slightly further.

You never know, maybe the bundles were brought to the sand bar in sandwich bag or container, then dumped into a shallow hole, the bundles and fragments are deposited initially. The fragments don't really impact the plant theory unless they were a significant distance..

In fact, in a plant situation, it is more likely that the bundles were brought in some container.

"Hypothetically" has nothing to do with it. It's the forensic facts of the crime scene. Something must account for those forensic facts, which includes timelines (ie. clocks). 

Examination of Plant Theory #2 - Condition of the money.

The found money was in a degenerating condition. Ongoing processes were breaking the money down; which requires time. Any plant theory changes and/or interrupts that process. Degenerative processes in progress in the money must be consistent with the environment; any change of the environment changes the processes at work. You cannot have bacteria species working on the money over time if those bacteria don't exist in the environment. The Ingram find stopped the clock on several types of degeneration in progress, and started other processes of entropy.

 

If it was unburied elsewhere and reburied right before the discovery that would be consistent..  they took the cash home and began to dry it, that alone contaminates the find.

Now you are guessing! Any plant theory, yours or anyone elses', MUST account for the forensic facts; all oif which you have no knowledge of!  Stop guessing and making stuff up.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Now you are guessing! Any plant theory, yours or anyone elses', MUST account for the forensic facts; all oif which you have no knowledge of!  Stop guessing and making stuff up.

Which forensic facts don't fit?

Go back to sleep. There are no forensic facts in the Cooper case. Just dreams and made up stuff.  Feel free to have Cooper riding a camel. That can only mean the Ingrams were raising camels in their apartment, as evidenced by all the date palms found at Tina Bar! Case closed! Case solved by FLYJACK on December 18th, 2015!

 

It is just a hypothesis that raises questions for possible further investigation, I am not stating it as fact..

The Cooper matter is overflowing with hypotheticals and has an acute shortage of facts.

There are probably no more than five facts in the Cooper hijacking and I personally have my doubts about two or three of them.

So...

Long story short, analysis of the sand (which Georger is familiar with) found between the bills showed the material to be consistent with material found in and around the Columbia river, and strongly contraindicates any plant theory, especially if it concerns the Ingrams.

And hey, it's the Internet, everyone gets their lumps.

I was not referring to any "conspiracies" I'm not Bruce, or Blevins!

HELP!  I'm caught in an ideological cross-fire! And I'm supposed to jump into a fox-hole with Bobby? Are you kidding me?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

...and strongly contraindicates any plant theory...

Can I get a ruling from the Grammar Police on this? Shouldn't "contraindicates" be hyphenated? Ug. I just saw that the spell checker here approved it.

Hmmmm...where's that Twequila...

Just wanted to note, I used the 1980 print edition of the Oxford English Dictionary when resolving some of your hyphen usage, just to give you the benefit of the doubt (and also, I believe we've removed the hyphens from way too many words in the last twenty years).  So you're the last guy I want to hear from when it comes to hyphen usage.