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

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

Wrapped tightly inside the money bag, the interior cash would have been protected from the elements.

In a no-pull situation, Cooper would have impacted at a speed of about 180 MPH.  At that speed, after impact the money would not be as tightly wrapped as you might think.

Lots of variables there:

The angle he hit
Whether he hit water or land
How securely fastened the bag was

Also, you’re assuming a no-pull when it’s possible he did deeply the chute only to drown after landing in the water.

At 180 MPH, the "angle" doesn't make much difference.  Whether het hit water or land doesn't make much difference either.

How securely the money bag was fastened does make a difference.  But if he landed in the water, how did the money bag get several feet above the tide line for that period of time?

If he deployed and then landed in the Columbia and drowned, he probably would have gone downstream past Tina Bar within a few hours at most.  So by daybreak, he would be downstream of Tina Bar and so would the money bag.  And both would probably be on the west side of the Columbia when they went by Tina Bar.

I’d be interested in seeing your data on th those two points - particularly as to the currents along that area of the Colombia.

Chaucer, what are your specific questions?

Specifically, your data and evidence as it relates to the currents in that part of the Columbia. You seem quite sure that debris only goes around the west side of Caterpillar Island and any debris south of that could never ever end up on Tena Bar. I’d like your source on that.

I’m not challenging you. I’m just curious.

Re: georger

Some of you act like entitled millennials who have never been told you’re wrong ever in your life. Georger might be indelicate at times, but at least he is willing to call out BS when he smells it. Some of you need to grow up and accept the fact that if you are going to share a theory, you might be told it’s wrong and/or stupid. It’s part of the deal.

Countering someone's theory while providing something of actual substance is one thing. But the dumb ass shit that guy posts on a daily basis contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. He is childish and immature and strikes me as a bitter and lonely old man. It's like when my wife and I are having an important discussion and our 4-year-old is interrupting us because she wants us to watch her balance on one leg. All he does is mock what everyone else says while never actually saying anything of his own. There's a proper way to call out B.S. And then there's Georger's way. He is the very definition of an internet troll. It's such a tired act. It's gone on for years. Frankly, it's a troubling pattern of behavior and I think the guy has some serious issues he probably needs to address. 

If he disagrees with something I put forward, great. Let's engage in an adult, civilized dialogue. But he is clearly not capable of that. Instead, he resorts to name calling, mockery and bizarre, confusing rants that sound like the town drunk. Most of all, his blatant disrespect of so many members here is just flat-out unacceptable and I'm so tired of seeing it day in and day out. Look at the exchanges that EU and I have had over the last couple days. There are certain aspects of his theory that I question, and we engage in civilized back-and-forth while dissecting those things. There's no childish mocking, no immature name calling, no nonsensical buffoonery. That's how adults interact with one another. Then take notice of how George interacts with people. See the difference?

For him to call himself an "academic" is laughable. He may be an academic on paper, but he acts like a freaking kindergartner. It's sad, because I bet he actually has a lot that he could contribute. Unfortunately, I've never seen it. 

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

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

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Wrapped tightly inside the money bag, the interior cash would have been protected from the elements.

In a no-pull situation, Cooper would have impacted at a speed of about 180 MPH.  At that speed, after impact the money would not be as tightly wrapped as you might think.

Lots of variables there:

The angle he hit
Whether he hit water or land
How securely fastened the bag was

Also, you’re assuming a no-pull when it’s possible he did deeply the chute only to drown after landing in the water.

At 180 MPH, the "angle" doesn't make much difference.  Whether het hit water or land doesn't make much difference either.

How securely the money bag was fastened does make a difference.  But if he landed in the water, how did the money bag get several feet above the tide line for that period of time?

If he deployed and then landed in the Columbia and drowned, he probably would have gone downstream past Tina Bar within a few hours at most.  So by daybreak, he would be downstream of Tina Bar and so would the money bag.  And both would probably be on the west side of the Columbia when they went by Tina Bar.

I’d be interested in seeing your data on th those two points - particularly as to the currents along that area of the Colombia.

Chaucer, what are your specific questions?

Specifically, your data and evidence as it relates to the currents in that part of the Columbia. You seem quite sure that debris only goes around the west side of Caterpillar Island and any debris south of that could never ever end up on Tena Bar. I’d like your source on that.

I’m not challenging you. I’m just curious.

Re: georger

Some of you act like entitled millennials who have never been told you’re wrong ever in your life. Georger might be indelicate at times, but at least he is willing to call out BS when he smells it. Some of you need to grow up and accept the fact that if you are going to share a theory, you might be told it’s wrong and/or stupid. It’s part of the deal.

Oh, my!  Chaucer, I believe that you have described yourself as an academic and I think Georger views himself as one as well.  As academics, I suspect that neither of you like to be told that you are full of shit.  Nevertheless, I will do so when the situation warrants it.  And I also suspect that both of you are much more likely to have an "entitled millennial" viewpoint that myself.  As you point out, it's part of the deal.

To respond to your original question, which is basically why does debris end up on the west side of the Columbia when making the turn to the north, we need to understand some very fundamental physics. 

How does the river turn to the north in the first place?  Basically, the river turns to the north because the west bank turns to the north.  It is as simple as that.  The river water just doesn't hang a right turn because it wants to.  It is forced to turn because it can't go further west.  And it can't just stop in its tracks since it is moving downhill.  So the river water follows the line of least resistance and goes north.

The debris is going to go with the flow and the fastest flow will be on the west side of the Columbia.  The 40 foot deep shipping channel is on the west side of the Columbia and that means that the largest volume of the river water is on the west side.  It would take some unusual activity for the debris to move from the west side of the Columbia to Tina Bar in the relatively short distance from the turn north to Tina Bar.

And so it goes. 
 

I think your original statement was 'no debris collects at Tina Bar' - ' all of the debris collects on the west side'. These two statements you made are WHY Chaucer asked his question! Because in the first place debris does collect, ie float up on, Tina Bar. That's just a fact. Can you present a photo showing ALL OF THE DEBRIS collecting on the west side but no debris collecting on the east side (slower current). I would like to see documentation of your statement with my own eyes.

Then you say something really weird! Quote  "It would take some unusual activity for the debris to move from the west side of the Columbia to Tina Bar" . Who said anything about debris moving from the west side of the river to the east side? Chaucer didnt say that. I didnt say that. What does 'debris moving from the west side of the river to the east side' got to do with ANYTHING!?  Chaucer didnt say that or bring that up as a serious issue, so far as I know. THE ISSUE IS: HOW DO THINGS GET ON TINA BAR FROM THE RIVER? Then you say it basically can't happen ........... but once again that is why Chaucer asked his question. I dont recall anyone in the history of Cooper discussions that has ever said 'debris cannot collect on the east side of the river, which is where Tina Bar is! Or "It would take some unusual activity for the debris to move from the west side of the Columbia to Tina Bar". That isn't an issue. I am confused by your re-directions ?

And your hydrology misses a basic fact!

True the v of current is fastest on the west side of the river. Everyone knows that. So what!?  As the river makes it turn (see map attached) the river widens creating a lagoon! In that lagoon sits what? Caterpillar Island. And immediately above Caterpillar Island is what?  Tina Bar sticks out directly into the oncoming flow of the river just north of Cat Island. The water is slower on the east side, I will give you that, but the section of the river that has just flowed by Cat Island is now right up against the southern land mass of Tina Bar ... so its no wonder debris washes up on Tina Bar .. the river and the southern end of Tina Bar literally collide! Anything in the river flowing by Cat Island can wash directly up on to Tina Bar at that point, and it does. And we havent even mentioned debris brought up by tides. 

So Robert, your description of debris flowing in the whole river, is incomplete as you have given it! During floods especially, there is debris flowing in the whole river, not just on the west side as you describe it. And the Fazios have described how debris flows up on to their sandbar starting at the southern end of T-Bar etc and during tides. One of the Fazios remarked to Dorwin that he thought the Ingram find had arrived with the last high tide and he pointed to the tide line. All of this is old news.

As for your other extraneous comments about (academics etc) are just "gobblewobble".
   

Just more misquotes from Georger.  So rather than repeat those misquotes, let me just point out once again what I have been saying for the last 10 years.

Debris going west in the Columbia River is going to end up on the west side of the river after the turn to the north just upstream of Tina Bar.  That debris is not going to get to Tina Bar.

Anyone who has visited Tina Bar, and Georger hasn't, is going to notice how relatively debris free it is.  In three visits there, I have not seen more than five pieces of debris total.  And they were soft drink cans.  They could have been, and probably were, left by fishermen. 

Or they could have come from the marina that is in the channel between Caterpillar Island and the east bank of the Columbia River.  Some people, including DZ's Amazon, have lived on their boats in that marina.

There is no "lagoon" anywhere near Tina Bar.  Further, Tina Bar does not "stick out directly into the flow of the oncoming river".  Basically, Tina Bar is just the eastern shore of the Columbia River.

The rest of Georger's post is nonsense.  He should pay a visit to the location before pontificating on the matter.

Lagoon, cavity, call it what you want. Oncoming water must fill a larger space on the East side, and it does! Slower water on East side. In that space sits Cat Island. Debris is left on the Fazio beach. More debris on west side vs east side - don't know (confirm with locals). Water moves south-to-north in this location of the Columbia River including across the Fazio property during high water/tides according to USGS hydrologists. Dredging spoils dumped on Fazio property in 1974 to combat severe erosion. Cooper money found on Fazio property near north-end property line in 1980. Those dredging spoils spread out and migrated north across money find site due to water flow pressure according to USGS hydrologists.
Photo attached: debris on Tina Bar on 6-13-13.   

1) The photos are not of the money find spot.

2) There were no high water events between the last dredging in August 1974 and the money discovery in February 1980. Therefore, no dredge spoils migrated across the money find spot.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Lagoon, cavity, call it what you want. Oncoming water must fill a larger space on the East side, and it does! Slower water on East side. In that space sits Cat Island. Debris is left on the Fazio beach. More debris on west side vs east side - don't know (confirm with locals). Water moves south-to-north in this location of the Columbia River including across the Fazio property during high water/tides according to USGS hydrologists. Dredging spoils dumped on Fazio property in 1974 to combat severe erosion. Cooper money found on Fazio property near north-end property line in 1980. Those dredging spoils spread out and migrated north across money find site due to water flow pressure according to USGS hydrologists.
Photo attached: debris on Tina Bar on 6-13-13.   

1) The photos are not of the money find spot.

2) There were no high water events between the last dredging in August 1974 and the money discovery in February 1980. Therefore, no dredge spoils migrated across the money find spot.

Well according to Kaye:

". A sand slope angle of 10∘ was measured during a site investigation which would place the burial site ~3 m = 9.84252ft  vertically above the water line. This location would only be immersed during times of high water and wave action."

9.84252ft  vertically

From the water level data R99 uses, that would suggest 5-6 high water periods which covered the Ingram site between 1972 and Feb 1980.

I am gratified that after 20 years people are finally acknowledging that water flows south to north across Tina Bar! Getting that simple fact accepted only took 20 years!

You can place the Ingram find wherever you want at Tina Bar. Im going with Kaye's data for a host of very good reasons. The FBI failed to survey the site to give it coordinates so we really dont know! In addition to that Crystal Ingram testified the site Harold took the FBI to was bogus! Crystal claimed the actual site was close to the water's edge in 1980. Read your Palmer Report!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Lagoon, cavity, call it what you want. Oncoming water must fill a larger space on the East side, and it does! Slower water on East side. In that space sits Cat Island. Debris is left on the Fazio beach. More debris on west side vs east side - don't know (confirm with locals). Water moves south-to-north in this location of the Columbia River including across the Fazio property during high water/tides according to USGS hydrologists. Dredging spoils dumped on Fazio property in 1974 to combat severe erosion. Cooper money found on Fazio property near north-end property line in 1980. Those dredging spoils spread out and migrated north across money find site due to water flow pressure according to USGS hydrologists.
Photo attached: debris on Tina Bar on 6-13-13.   

1) The photos are not of the money find spot.

2) There were no high water events between the last dredging in August 1974 and the money discovery in February 1980. Therefore, no dredge spoils migrated across the money find spot.

Well according to Kaye:

". A sand slope angle of 10∘ was measured during a site investigation which would place the burial site ~3 m = 9.84252ft  vertically above the water line. This location would only be immersed during times of high water and wave action."

9.84252ft  vertically

From the water level data R99 uses, that would suggest 5-6 high water periods which covered the Ingram site between 1972 and Feb 1980.

I am gratified that after 20 years people are finally acknowledging that water flows south to north across Tina Bar! Getting that simple fact accepted only took 20 years!

You can place the Ingram find wherever you want at Tina Bar. Im going with Kaye's data for a host of very good reasons. The FBI failed to survey the site to give it coordinates so we really dont know! In addition to that Crystal Ingram testified the site Harold took the FBI to was bogus! Crystal claimed the actual site was close to the water's edge in 1980. Read your Palmer Report!

"From the water level data R99 uses,"?  What water level data are you talking about?

I'm all for letting TK's data stand on its own merits.  I don't think it needs any support from other people on this thread.

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

Just more misquotes from Georger.  So rather than repeat those misquotes, let me just point out once again what I have been saying for the last 10 years.

Debris going west in the Columbia River is going to end up on the west side of the river after the turn to the north just upstream of Tina Bar.  That debris is not going to get to Tina Bar.

Anyone who has visited Tina Bar, and Georger hasn't, is going to notice how relatively debris free it is.  In three visits there, I have not seen more than five pieces of debris total.  And they were soft drink cans.  They could have been, and probably were, left by fishermen. 

Or they could have come from the marina that is in the channel between Caterpillar Island and the east bank of the Columbia River.  Some people, including DZ's Amazon, have lived on their boats in that marina.

There is no "lagoon" anywhere near Tina Bar.  Further, Tina Bar does not "stick out directly into the flow of the oncoming river".  Basically, Tina Bar is just the eastern shore of the Columbia River.

The rest of Georger's post is nonsense.  He should pay a visit to the location before pontificating on the matter.

Lagoon, cavity, call it what you want. Oncoming water must fill a larger space on the East side, and it does! Slower water on East side. In that space sits Cat Island. Debris is left on the Fazio beach. More debris on west side vs east side - don't know (confirm with locals). Water moves south-to-north in this location of the Columbia River including across the Fazio property during high water/tides according to USGS hydrologists. Dredging spoils dumped on Fazio property in 1974 to combat severe erosion. Cooper money found on Fazio property near north-end property line in 1980. Those dredging spoils spread out and migrated north across money find site due to water flow pressure according to USGS hydrologists. . . . .

Social facts:  Fazio property originally owned by Hudson Bay Co. Property divided into two segments: southern segment purchased by Tell Tena of Switzerland who changed his name to 'Tell Tina", then to 'Dell Tina'. Sold property to Fazio family c.1950s. Crops: commercial cabbage, potatoes, turnips processed on site or delivered to commercial processors, Fazio Sand & Gravel Co. est. 1970s. After Cooper money found on Tina's Bar the whole area came under intense inspection by FBI, salvage people, etal looking for more Cooper money/artifacts - nothing found.

Photo attached: debris on Tina Bar on 6-13-13.   

Dr. Meyer Louie and I were at Tina Bar in the summer of 2013 and those photos do not look like anything I saw there at that time.

As Georger would know if he had ever paid a visit to Tina Bar, the soil is exceptionally sandy and erosion does cause some trees to fall over from time to time.  But those trees are not debris coming down the Columbia in the first place.

I will ask Dr. Meyer Louie about it.   

The rest of the story Robert, is a myriad of people have testified to debris arriving from the river at Tina Bar then moving northward across the beachfront due to water flow. This aint rocket science, Robert!

Georger, Are you are claiming that debris moved west to east until it was on the Tina Bar beachfront, then it took a left turn and moved to the north on Tina Bar?  How did it do that?

You are right that this "aint rocket science", and it aint Voodoo either.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

R99-
As an academic, I get told I am wrong ALL THE TIME. It’s literally part of my job. When Tom’s paper was released, the first thing I did was accept that perhaps my theory was wrong, and re-think based on new evidence. I didn’t whine. I didn’t twist the new evidence to fit my narrative.

Also, you have provided no evidence that “all the debris” ends up on the west side of the Columbia other than anecdotal evidence. I was hoping you’d provide a peer-reviewed study or a quote by a published hydrologist. As it stands now, the best you can say is “Take my word for it; I’ve been there.”

EU -
“ I value an intelligent and robust discussion.”

Thanks for the laugh because you have demonstrated you have no desire to have “discussion” unless it involves people telling you how smart you are and how on target your theories are. You seem incapable of having a factual back and forth, so when someone like georger pushes back on your ideas, you get your panties in a twist.

You are not unique in that regard. I have researched the Zodiac case for years and there are lots of people who cheerlead for a particular suspect or theory and no evidence to the contrary would dissuade them. It’s like being a Cleveland Browns fan. No matter how many games they lose, people will still root for them.

If you were truly interested in robust discussion, you’d start with the facts, form a theory, and then be willing to change your mind. Not form a theory, find facts that fit and dismiss or explain away those that don’t, and then rage at those who point out your theory’s flaws.

I’ve said enough about this topic. I won’t contribute anymore to this message board’s toxicity. I’ll only discuss facts.

Chaucer, you apparently have not been paying attention.  I didn't whine and I didn't twist TK's evidence to fit my narrative.

In fact, I "thanked" TK for his post.  And I objected when Georger tried to hijack TK's work and do one of Georger's famous re-interpretations of that work.

"I'll only discuss facts.", please do that.

You seem to have taken my original post personally. Did you stop to consider that it wasn’t directed at you?

A kicked dog barks?