If Cooper survived, how do you know the money survived with him?

Here's my view:

1. A float, even a short one, requires a plume field. And a continuing one. We should continue to see garbage floating in from the dump via the same processes that got the money there in the first place.

2. The dredge explains the bundle being intact without a plume field, or at least only a small, contained one if the FBI is to be believed about thousands of shard being found in the soil underneath the three bundles and radiating out twenty yards.

This begs a second question: why were the three bundles on top of their plume field? Was it the last to arrive? Also, it seems odd that the bundles were central to the plume field. I don't know how that could happen. Honestly, to me it suggests a federal cover story not steeped in physics or hydrology.

In addition, how the bundles got into the dredge, I don't know. Maybe the whole bank bag was down there, and all that thrown up to the beach was this little bit.

That's why I like the Human Hands scenario. I don't think it was planted to be found, unless the feds - or whoever - planted hundreds of bundles in sites all around Cooper Country and none have been found other the one in T-Bar. I suspect an intensional planting for very unusual reasons.

Here's my view:

1. A float, even a short one, requires a plume field. And a continuing one. We should continue to see garbage floating in from the dump via the same processes that got the money there in the first place.

2. The dredge explains the bundle being intact without a plume field, or at least only a small, contained one if the FBI is to be believed about thousands of shard being found in the soil underneath the three bundles and radiating out twenty yards.

This begs a second question: why were the three bundles on top of their plume field? Was it the last to arrive? Also, it seems odd that the bundles were central to the plume field. I don't know how that could happen. Honestly, to me it suggests a federal cover story not steeped in physics or hydrology.

In addition, how the bundles got into the dredge, I don't know. Maybe the whole bank bag was down there, and all that thrown up to the beach was this little bit.

That's why I like the Human Hands scenario. I don't think it was planted to be found, unless the feds - or whoever - planted hundreds of bundles in sites all around Cooper Country and none have been found other the one in T-Bar. I suspect an intensional planting for very unusual reasons.

The lack of a tight debris field after a 6 mile float is not really very significant.. How did the bank bag/money get down there?? Briefcase??

The dump theory does do something that the dredge/drop does not. It allows Cooper to have landed in or close to the FBI LZ which is the higher probability. The dredge theory forces another layer of "theorizing", to explain how the money or Cooper got into the river that far from the LZ.

BTW, I am not dismissing other theories, just trying to contrast and attempt to establish probabilities..

The probability trade,,, 

The dredge/drop theory(s), how did the money/Cooper get into river so far from expected LZ VS dump theory, how did money get into dump.

How far and difficult of a hike would it have been from the believed LZ to Tina Bar? I don't often hear the theory that he survived the jump and made his way close to, or perhaps all the way to Tina Bar and at that point separated with some or all of the money, by death or some other cause. But, like yours, this theory works with the LZ and the money find location. Did it happen this way? Probably not, but I give it a higher probability than some of the other theories, especially the theory of an intentional plant to throw off the FBI.

25 miles or so.. I know there are theories to put the LZ in the Columbia nearer TBAR and it is possible.. the dump theory doesn't require moving the LZ. The dredge theory needs to put the money in the river, that is tough as the FBIs original LZ must be rejected.

That money find is a real puzzle..

the FBI original LZ, based on conditions, evidence and experts..

Did you know the original jump area has come into question? it's further south than originally believed.

Actually, it's about 16+ miles. it's about 23 miles and change from the Lewis river to the Columbia.

the point remains valid, the dredge theory must explain "how the money/Cooper got over to TBAR"

TBAR/Columbia is a very low probability LZ, wash down, meh..

What do you think has the highest probability?

One can only speculate to a certain degree on all of this.

I see trouble with the location of the jump. moving south as time passes.
I see the plane crossing upstream close to the possible jump area, money found downstream....
I see a lot of data on dredging that discounts the FBI's version.
I read Nmiwrecks talking from experience about things preserved underwater.
I can see the money being ripped away from Cooper, and he survives the jump.
I can see a no pull close to the Columbia.
I've read many occasions where bodies sink in the water, and never seen again.
I've seen bodies floating in the water.
I've seen reports of the flight path in question.

Nothing can really be explained until it's certain....I see lots of possibilities......

All possibilities, but you don't have one that seems to have the highest probability.. Occam's razor or Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference

It's highly possible it's a very simple solution that doesn't have to have multiple events to it.

That's how things often turn out.

I am following je suis Charlie ... they may have the perps trapped in a woods north of Paris .... 800 people have surrounded the area ... hope they get them.

What do you think has the highest probability?

I would have to say something went wrong with the jump.
Something possibly is wrong with the path, or the timing.
The plane did cross the Columbia, and we have money from that plane downstream.


If we had the whole story to what happened we could have better answers, or possible conclusions. we don't have the transcripts showing everything that was said around this time period. we could be assuming things for the wrong reasons.

Testing the razor
The razor's statement that "other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones" is amenable to empirical testing. Another interpretation of the razor's statement would be that "simpler hypotheses (not conclusions, i.e. explanations) are generally better than the complex ones"