All,

I have a big update for the Cooper Vortex. 377 let me take additional larger samples from his Cooper bill. I went through the largest of the pieces tonight under the SEM and found additional “hair pin” specimens. While we found these previously, the tubes were not fully intact. The latest ones are in 3D and allowed for species ID. We did not however find any entirely intact specimens with multiple spines.

Georger previously identified the “hair pins” as the diatom Asterionella and Flyjack found out that Asterionella formosa was a winter species and A. japonica was a summer species. Flyjack came up with a list of species in the Columbia and I was able to come up with pictures for most but not all of them. So I caution that new evidence could overthrow these findings but the missing species seem to be rare or contested. It turns out the only species we find on the bill is A. formosa, the winter species. The summer species japonica is WAY different than formosa so there is very little chance of confusion. So this data suggests that the money had a water transport phase that happened in winter and shortly thereafter was buried on Tena Bar.

Here is the reasoning. Given the spindly nature of these things and the fact we find a few of them together, means it is very unlikely that they would penetrate through the sand to get on the bills. One spine might get through but a couple would be highly unlikely to end up in the same place and we found several spots with multiple spines. If they could penetrate the sand we should find winter and summer species but we don’t.  We also know that it is unlikely they came from Brian Ingram washing them off in the river because he was there during the summer.

This is the first evidence based timing information that constrains when the money arrived on Tena Bar and the first new evidence since the money was found that I can think of. It supports a water transport phase before burial. It does not support a human burial on TB. It dismisses the dredge theory because that happens during the summer. It supports the timing of the jump in November but not for Cooper burying the money himself. It supports the western flight path theories where Cooper could have dropped some bundles during the free fall. It completely dismisses the multi-year transport across multiple waterways.

So this new diatom data supports a watery, winter arrival on Tena Bar. Bravo to 377 for letting me tear into his bill, he is now forever locked into the story of DB Cooper. This theory is based on research of several people, it would be good to get that verified. Pics to follow.

Tom Kaye

******* CORRECTION *********
377 I believe correctly pointed out that the Ingram's found the money in February so the possibility remains that they dunked them in the water when they found them. I will try and reach out to Brian and see if I can get an answer to that question.

Tom

FLYJACK in caPITOL lEtTeRs says:

" NO Georger, I didn't claim Kaye found only one diatom, he clearly stated he found many, I can read. I was referring to the question of whether Asterionella was the winter or summer variety, that is the context.

The real point was,, where was the bill in the packet.

I don't know if you genuinely lack contextual discrimination due to a disorder or are just being a troll, but many people are really fed up with your nonsense. You continue, without fail, to discredit yourself. You are more a hinderance than an asset to the Cooper case and your toxic behaviour toward others doesn't elevate your relevance.

You were caught lying and you refuse to admit when you are wrong which is often. You spend more time copying and pasting my comments with added disinformation than doing any of your own research. You can choose to be a positive influence."

GeRoger's REPLyy:

HUH!? 

What is "contextual discrimination" in a human language?

hinderance is spelled 'hindrance' 

behaviour is spekked 'behavior'.

What does "You were caught lying and you refuse to admit when you are wrong which is often." This is not a complete semantically viable sentence on Earth.

Or, did you mean to say:

"Twas brillig, when the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe. Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!"

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

FLYJACK in caPITOL lEtTeRs says:

" NO Georger, I didn't claim Kaye found only one diatom, he clearly stated he found many, I can read. I was referring to the question of whether Asterionella was the winter or summer variety, that is the context.

The real point was,, where was the bill in the packet.

I don't know if you genuinely lack contextual discrimination due to a disorder or are just being a troll, but many people are really fed up with your nonsense. You continue, without fail, to discredit yourself. You are more a hinderance than an asset to the Cooper case and your toxic behaviour toward others doesn't elevate your relevance.

You were caught lying and you refuse to admit when you are wrong which is often. You spend more time copying and pasting my comments with added disinformation than doing any of your own research. You can choose to be a positive influence."

GeRoger's REPLyy:

HUH!? 

What is "contextual discrimination" in a human language?

hinderance is spelled 'hindrance' 

behaviour is spekked 'behavior'.

What does "You were caught lying and you refuse to admit when you are wrong which is often." This is not a complete semantically viable sentence on Earth.

Or, did you mean to say:

"Twas brillig, when the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe. Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!"

Flyjack has a good point!  The packets reportedly were essentially solid masses when found and the Ingram's reportedly had difficulty separating the bill when they tried to do so at their house.  So if in fact the Ingram's tried to wash them in the river, only the outer bills in the packets would be exposed to the water.  That leaves about 200 hundred bills that would not be exposed to the river water and I'll bet that 377's bill is one of those. 

 377 has previously posted that he paid a lot of money for his bill.  Would he shell out a lot of money for a highly damaged bill?

Whats the special point if the Ingrams dipped their find in the river to clean it off? Are you saying that's where the money got contaminated with diatoms? Is this what FLYJACK is saying? I have no idea what FLYJACK is saying or suggesting,  since he never completes a thought anyone can pin him down with.

And since both claimed sites (Harold vs Crystal) are exposed to the river daily (tides) the money got exposed to fresh river water daily, in any event!    What's so special about Flyjack's theory the Ingrams dipped the money in the river?

Likewise what's so special about the diatoms being winter diatoms - the money was found in the late winter.

In fact the point FLYJACK is missing is: only one or two diatoms even look alive and fully developed, to me. The other toms are  'pieces of diatoms' or broken old pieces of skeletons or dead! I dont see a healthy fully developed tom in the whole bunch ?   That could mean something if true.

This diatom issue is brand new - no point in jumping to large conclusions as per FLYING JACK. Why didnt Tom's other three bills show diatoms? Diatoms are pretty hard to miss if they are present. Somebody is going to have to examine all of the bills to make any sense of this and that is probably not an option at this point. Ingram isn't going to allow it on his bills! 

In addition, I think we are dealing with a lot of mythology about the Ingrams working their tails off all night to separate bills ... Brian has said 'the bills came out in pieces' ... you can see the groupings of bills they turned in, in their plastic Wonder bread wrapper, shown in the press conference photo. The only four single bills we known they separated were the four bills they failed to turn in and were keeping as souvenirs,  which Crystal Ingram ratted them out about, to Himmelsbach . . . there is nothing beyond their word they didnt have more bills stowed away that nobody got!

 

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

FLYJACK in caPITOL lEtTeRs says:

" NO Georger, I didn't claim Kaye found only one diatom, he clearly stated he found many, I can read. I was referring to the question of whether Asterionella was the winter or summer variety, that is the context.

The real point was,, where was the bill in the packet.

I don't know if you genuinely lack contextual discrimination due to a disorder or are just being a troll, but many people are really fed up with your nonsense. You continue, without fail, to discredit yourself. You are more a hinderance than an asset to the Cooper case and your toxic behaviour toward others doesn't elevate your relevance.

You were caught lying and you refuse to admit when you are wrong which is often. You spend more time copying and pasting my comments with added disinformation than doing any of your own research. You can choose to be a positive influence."

GeRoger's REPLyy:

HUH!? 

What is "contextual discrimination" in a human language?

hinderance is spelled 'hindrance' 

behaviour is spekked 'behavior'.

What does "You were caught lying and you refuse to admit when you are wrong which is often." This is not a complete semantically viable sentence on Earth.

Or, did you mean to say:

"Twas brillig, when the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe. Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!"

Flyjack has a good point!  The packets reportedly were essentially solid masses when found and the Ingram's reportedly had difficulty separating the bill when they tried to do so at their house.  So if in fact the Ingram's tried to wash them in the river, only the outer bills in the packets would be exposed to the water.  That leaves about 200 hundred bills that would not be exposed to the river water and I'll bet that 377's bill is one of those. 

 377 has previously posted that he paid a lot of money for his bill.  Would he shell out a lot of money for a highly damaged bill?

Whats the special point if the Ingrams dipped their find in the river to clean it off? Are you saying that's where the money got contaminated with diatoms? Is this what FLYJACK is saying? I have no idea what FLYJACK is saying or suggesting,  since he never completes a thought anyone can pin him down with.

And since both claimed sites (Harold vs Crystal) are exposed to the river daily (tides) the money got exposed to fresh river water daily, in any event!    What's so special about Flyjack's theory the Ingrams dipped the money in the river?

Likewise what's so special about the diatoms being winter diatoms - the money was found in the late winter.

In fact the point FLYJACK is missing is: only one or two diatoms even look alive and fully developed, to me. The other toms are  'pieces of diatoms' or broken old pieces of skeletons or dead! I dont see a healthy fully developed tom in the whole bunch ?   That could mean something if true.

This diatom issue is brand new - no point in jumping to large conclusions as per FLYING JACK. Why didnt Tom's other three bills show diatoms? Diatoms are pretty hard to miss if they are present. Somebody is going to have to examine all of the bills to make any sense of this and that is probably not an option at this point. Ingram isn't going to allow it on his bills! 

In addition, I think we are dealing with a lot of mythology about the Ingrams working their tails off all night to separate bills ... Brian has said 'the bills came out in pieces' ... you can see the groupings of bills they turned in, in their plastic Wonder bread wrapper, shown in the press conference photo. The only four single bills we known they separated were the four bills they failed to turn in and were keeping as souvenirs,  which Crystal Ingram ratted them out about, to Himmelsbach . . . there is nothing beyond their word they didnt have more bills stowed away that nobody got!

 

Your claim that the bills were washed daily by the tide is simply not correct.  The bills were found in an area where Brian was supposedly digging a hole for a fire pit.  He would have a hard time doing that in the area that was routine washed by the tide and very well packed.  Some pictures of Brian at Tina Bar show him posing for the camera in an area which was essentially a sand pit and where it would be very easy to dig but very difficult to walk.

Your posts are not any easier to decipher than Flyjack's.

ADDENDUM:  I have just taken a look at Flyjack's post #61187 on DropZone and it is coherent and logical.  Flyjack has some other posts close to this one that explains some things.