You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

All,
So to be perfectly clear...  Yes I did talk to EU, he has a theory that Cooper retrieved the money he had buried dry, while the water was at flood level in June. Presumably Cooper waded into the water to dig the money out. Several bundles in that endeavor were uncovered, got wet and then were overlooked and got reburied. So from that description of the theory, the bills would have been exposed to the river above the sand and could presumably get diatoms on them.

I generally do not argue with theories unless they have zero grains of truth. The diatom research has sent us ALL scratching our heads trying to come up with a scenario that fits the data. I think everyone needs to get behind some theory and champion it no matter what the level of plausibility. Think tanks work best when everyone throws all their ideas on the table and then the group tries to put the pieces together in the best way. I suggest everyone mirror EU and come up with SOMETHING and throw it on the table. We can sort it out down the road.

Tom Kaye

Lets just let R99 and EU and Bruce Smith do all the talking and you take a hike?  Congrats on your research. Sorry it lasted only a day! 

Georger, why don't you take a hike?  TK has actually done some original work here.  What have you done?

another personal attack and complaint filed ... see a psychiatrist OM.

I finally got an opportunity to carefully and thoughtfully read Tom’s paper this morning. I immediately followed that up by calling him and discussing a few questions and getting some clarifications.

Here are my thoughts:

To begin with, this is exciting. The paper was well written and well documented.

It also points—quite convincingly—to contact between the Cooper bill and Columbia River water during the May-June time frame, and that time frame alone. The bill was not exposed to Columbia River water during any other time of the year.

Now, considering the manner in which the bills were found—specifically, three packets immediately adjacent to each other, 50 feet from the water’s edge and at a point approximately 10 feet above the normal Columbia River water level—I am still convinced that the only possible way for the money to have arrived at Tena Bar was via human intervention.

Therefore, factoring in Tom’s work and my belief that the money was buried by human intervention, I look at Tom’s discovery as helping answer a question that I’ve pondered many times. Specifically: When was the buried ransom retrieved from Tena Bar?

Let me explain.

I firmly believe that Cooper landed north of Tena Bar and buried the ransom at Tena Bar before walking into town (Vancouver). I also believe that Cooper retrieved the ransom at some point, however, have never had any ideas at what point.

I now think it is entirely possible that the ransom stayed buried at Tena Bar for several months while Cooper observed the activity of the FBI and others in law enforcement. Perhaps, Cooper was a suspect as part of this FBI activity—as a Boeing employee or former Boeing employee—and therefore decided to lay low and not immediately retrieve the ransom. After all, if Cooper was at all concerned about being observed by the authorities, the last thing he would want to do is direct the authorities to the ransom by way of attempting to retrieve it.

However, something changed in June of 1972.

It would have been in June of 1972 that Cooper may have learned that the Columbia River was at near-record water levels. Indeed, June of 1972 was one of only two high water events between 1971 and 1980. This was one of only two times that the river level actually reached the money burial site which, as previously mentioned, was 50 feet from the water’s edge and at an elevation about 10 feet above the normal surface level of the river.

With this in mind, I propose that Cooper recognized the need to retrieve the ransom so as to prevent it from being swept out to sea. Moreover, I propose that Cooper made his way to Tena Bar and retrieved the ransom while it was either a few inches under water—or very near the edge of the river. This would explain how it is that the three packets left behind were exposed to the Columbia River during the diatom bloom, and only during that diatom bloom.

To reiterate, the importance of Tom’s paper in my mind is that it helps answer a question I’ve had for some time—that is: When did Cooper retrieve the buried ransom from Tena Bar?

I now think the answer to that question is June of 1972.

Cheers!

I think this is an interesting theory. In other words, the bills weren't introduced to the water. The water was introduced to the bills. The bills were exposed to the Columbia water, but were not "in" the river in the traditional sense.

It accounts for the lack of other seasonal diatoms and helps explain why the bundles were all together when found. And the high-water events both happening in June align with the May-June bloom of those particular diatoms.

What is your take on the "shards" or fragments of bills that were later found under and near the bundles following the Ingram find? The fragments are what seem to trip up a lot of solid Tina Bar theories.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I think this is an interesting theory. In other words, the bills weren't introduced to the water. The water was introduced to the bills. The bills were exposed to the Columbia water, but were not "in" the river in the traditional sense.

It accounts for the lack of other seasonal diatoms and helps explain why the bundles were all together when found. And the high-water events both happening in June align with the May-June bloom of those particular diatoms.

What is your take on the "shards" or fragments of bills that were later found under and near the bundles following the Ingram find? The fragments are what seem to trip up a lot of solid Tina Bar theories.

Your description of the water being introduced to the bills, as opposed to the other way around, is perfect.

Regarding a shard field: There was no shard field.

I know Bruce has mentioned a "wide and deep shard field," that said, as I've looked into it and discussed it with Richard Fazio I have found no evidence that this is true. Sure, there were some fragments found around the immediate vicinity of the money find, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Good assessments EU.  The timing of the high water marks is pretty coincidental given that the diatoms have a summer time frame, as does the flooding.  Like anything in the case, this may add even more speculation and theories, which in turn will keep things alive.

I've basically believed that the 300 bills became separated from the original 10,000 early on, but if one were to reverse the equation, one scenario is that the 9,700 bills were taken away, leaving the 300 rather than the 300 taken away leaving the 9,700.

I like where this is going.  I'm fairly neutral on the money find/western flight path as I've chosen to focus more on where the rest of the money went, and the terrain of where he landed.  Great work from Tom.  There is lots of buzz on the wires about this.  Daily Mail makes it sound like they just found the money.  As usual, you have to go deeper than the headlines.

This has probably been discussed in the past, so I apologize in advance if it has.

Here's a great website:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

We know the money was found at a height of about 10 feet above the water level. In that area, 16 feet above is considered flood level.

An article in the Albany Democrat-Herald from May 26th, 1972 reported that the Lower Columbia was already at flood stage (16 foot) and that "many beaches were inundated". This means that by the end of May, the money would be under 6 feet of water.

An article in the May 31, 1972 edition of the Corvallis Gazette-Times states "The National Weather Service Agency said the river level...Tuesday morning... was at 18.3 feet at Vancouver, Wash."

According to an article in the Stateman-Journal dated June 1 states that officials expected the water to crest nearly 21 feet by June 2. So at the beginning of June the money was already 10 or 11 feet underwater.

An article from June 4, 1972 from the Statesmen-Journal says that "the river is expected to remain at (20 to 22 feet) for several weeks"

At it's highest crest on June 12, 1972 the Columbia peaked at 21.5 feet. That means that on June 12, 1972 the cash was still nearly 11 feet underwater, and by all indications the Tena Bar location would remain under feet of water into July.

My point is that the money would be under FEET of water well in advance of the June crest and remain under feet of water into Jul;y.. That makes the likelihood of Cooper sloshing around in ankle deep water digging up money is low. He would be swimming in the Columbia, not walking around in galoshes.

Now, I'm not pretending to be an expert on this, and my numbers may be off. I encourage others to fact-check me. Still, the numbers and the article stand.

This has probably been discussed in the past, so I apologize in advance if it has.

Here's a great website:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

We know the money was found at a height of about 10 feet above the water level. In that area, 16 feet above is considered flood level.

An article in the Albany Democrat-Herald from May 26th, 1972 reported that the Lower Columbia was already at flood stage (16 foot) and that "many beaches were inundated". This means that by the end of May, the money would be under 6 feet of water.

An article in the May 31, 1972 edition of the Corvallis Gazette-Times states "The National Weather Service Agency said the river level...Tuesday morning... was at 18.3 feet at Vancouver, Wash."

According to an article in the Stateman-Journal dated June 1 states that officials expected the water to crest nearly 21 feet by June 2. So at the beginning of June the money was already 10 or 11 feet underwater.

An article from June 4, 1972 from the Statesmen-Journal says that "the river is expected to remain at (20 to 22 feet) for several weeks"

At it's highest crest on June 12, 1972 the Columbia peaked at 21.5 feet. That means that on June 12, 1972 the cash was still nearly 11 feet underwater, and by all indications the Tena Bar location would remain under feet of water into July.

My point is that the money would be under FEET of water well in advance of the June crest and remain under feet of water into Jul;y.. That makes the likelihood of Cooper sloshing around in ankle deep water digging up money is low. He would be swimming in the Columbia, not walking around in galoshes.

Now, I'm not pretending to be an expert on this, and my numbers may be off. I encourage others to fact-check me. Still, the numbers and the article stand.

The numbers are based upon the "Zero Level" point which I do not believe is the surface of the river as you assume. In fact, if you look at today's Columbia River water levels, which are measured at the I-5 bridge, the river typically is at 5 feet during the day. Again, the "5 feet" number is based upon an arbitrary "Zero Level" setting somewhere along the bridge.

Now, for the sake of argument let's say the flood level--16 feet--puts the river right at the money burial spot--which as noted is about 10 feet above the "normal" river level-- on May 26, 1972. This timeframe is smack in the middle of the May-June diatom bloom. Therefore, in this case, DB Cooper could have retrieved the money on May 26, 1972 and been right at the water's edge. If he waited until June 1 he may have been wading in water 2 feet deep.

Regardless, the retrieval scenario does not change. As long as he retrieves it during the May-June diatom bloom the theory stands.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I think this is an interesting theory. In other words, the bills weren't introduced to the water. The water was introduced to the bills. The bills were exposed to the Columbia water, but were not "in" the river in the traditional sense.

It accounts for the lack of other seasonal diatoms and helps explain why the bundles were all together when found. And the high-water events both happening in June align with the May-June bloom of those particular diatoms.

What is your take on the "shards" or fragments of bills that were later found under and near the bundles following the Ingram find? The fragments are what seem to trip up a lot of solid Tina Bar theories.

Your description of the water being introduced to the bills, as opposed to the other way around, is perfect.

Regarding a shard field: There was no shard field.

I know Bruce has mentioned a "wide and deep shard field," that said, as I've looked into it and discussed it with Richard Fazio I have found no evidence that this is true. Sure, there were some fragments found around the immediate vicinity of the money find, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

There is actual video made by a Portland TV station of a "fragment" being dug out of the sand and handed to an FBI Agent who then walked it over to the cameraman and showed it to the camera at very close range.

In his book, FBI Agent Mike McPheters, who was one of the first agents at Tina Bar, describes digging up bill fragments "up to two inches wide" and containing serial numbers.  He bagged those fragment and wrote up his find.  He does not mention "shards" or a "shard field".

If "shards" actually existed, they would have required water action to create a "field".

Stop cherry picking single incidents and tell the rest of the story? How many fragments - found at what depths? Explain them ?

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

I think this is an interesting theory. In other words, the bills weren't introduced to the water. The water was introduced to the bills. The bills were exposed to the Columbia water, but were not "in" the river in the traditional sense.

It accounts for the lack of other seasonal diatoms and helps explain why the bundles were all together when found. And the high-water events both happening in June align with the May-June bloom of those particular diatoms.

What is your take on the "shards" or fragments of bills that were later found under and near the bundles following the Ingram find? The fragments are what seem to trip up a lot of solid Tina Bar theories.

Your description of the water being introduced to the bills, as opposed to the other way around, is perfect.

Regarding a shard field: There was no shard field.

I know Bruce has mentioned a "wide and deep shard field," that said, as I've looked into it and discussed it with Richard Fazio I have found no evidence that this is true. Sure, there were some fragments found around the immediate vicinity of the money find, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

There is actual video made by a Portland TV station of a "fragment" being dug out of the sand and handed to an FBI Agent who then walked it over to the cameraman and showed it to the camera at very close range.

In his book, FBI Agent Mike McPheters, who was one of the first agents at Tina Bar, describes digging up bill fragments "up to two inches wide" and containing serial numbers.  He bagged those fragment and wrote up his find.  He does not mention "shards" or a "shard field".

If "shards" actually existed, they would have required water action to create a "field".

So is the common belief that any fragments that were found were nothing more than just pieces of the 3 bundles that eroded off?

I've always wondered if the fragments came from Ingram's bundles or if the fragments came from additional bundles (that were not Ingram's).

If they came from Ingram's bundles, it makes things a lot simpler. If they came from other bundles or bills, it presents another layer of mystery. Is there any supporting evidence that the fragments came from Ingram's bills? (Like perhaps a serial number from the fragments matching up with one of the serial numbers from one of the bundles). Have any of the bill experiments or analysis found anything conclusive about the eroding of the bills and whether or not they would have produced fragments of that nature?

Yes. Thats the common belief. they came from Ingram's bundles. most if not all seem to have been found below the level of the Ingram find, closer to the water. One problem however is some were found as deep as 3-4 feet below the surface of the beach while the Ingram bundles were just below the surface at a higher elevation!

Cook claims two kids found 'corners of bills' laying on the surface, north of the Ingram find. No documentation of that by Cook.