Carr reports this in December of 2007.

There were multiple bundles recovered under 3 to 6 inches of sand, just at the waters edge (according to the Ingrams) no bricks of money. I found reference to four bundles, of which the rubber bands were still around them, there were 290 20's. I can't imagine the bundles broke from the bag and entered the river at some other location and then multiple bundles land at the same beach several miles down stream. Once in the flow of the river there would be nothing to keep the bundles together to allow several of them to land at the same beach. What I think that means is the bag had to have landed. at the beach with all of the money inside. While on the beach or just at the waters edge the bag finally snagged something that broke it open.

Once open, several bundles fell from the bag and stayed on the beach. Due to the flow of water, the bag, along with the rest of the money drifted off in the Columbia.

Define "waters edge"

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote

Carr's suggestion as to how the money came out of the bag and stayed together seems reasonable.

Agreed, but we need reasonable proof to prove it. that's the toughest part of it all....

I respectfully disagree.  Everybody in that region heard the news of the skyjacking and was on the lookout for parachutes, a white bag, or bundles of $20 bills.  I can't see money laying out in the open for the lengthy amount of time it would take to become buried.

I've spent any years in the UP. Michigan is warmer than Superior. Lake Superior has long been known for "never giving up her dead". Too cold. Gases can't develop as they can in warmer (Lk Michigan) waters.

In the water scenario it means that if he landed
in deep water he surely did not hit bottom, but simply suffered the usual injuries and moved on
with the current.

we are just basically covering a no-pull into the river. it's entirely possible he could of also landed in the water deployed. if he wasn't experienced enough I could only imagine he drowned. the question for this scenario would be disappearing from the surface? would that happen?

Quote

I looked for it but couldn't find it.  One thread with 56,000+ posts.... like trying to find a needle in a haystack. 

I'll see if I can find something on it Buckwheat. a better answer could have been given. all kinds of factors would go into I would guess. how he hit the water, the depth, what the bottom consisted of etc.

What I can see is Carr giving a time frame of 8:10 to 8:15. at 8:17 the plane is at the Columbia! the estimate was 5-10 minutes after the 8:05 mark. I believe Carr has even stated 8:20 which would put them over the "suburbs". we are now dangerously close to the Columbia by using the time data supplied on the transcripts. as I mentioned the other day. it could be as simple as being at the wrong place, at the wrong time.


Update: Georger Oct. 2010

Calcs show at a terminal velocity of 120 mph (53.6m/sec) Cooper in free fall may not have penetrated open water by more than 3-6 feet depending on angle ... and a mud base 16" thick no more than a foot again depending on angle ... all of which was a little surprising to me. I am using the standard formulae and estimated drag coeficients for water mud. The (low) terminal velocity of a human body turns out to be crucial vs say a meteorite, and in the case of mud a surprising amount of energy is dispersed outward quickly (even at relatively step angles).

This may give definition to the matter of
"augering in" which some speculated about.

In the water scenario it means that if he landed
in deep water he surely did not hit bottom, but simply suffered the usual injuries and moved on
with the current.