Speaking of diatoms, I spoke with Tom yesterday and will be obtaining samples of sand from the money find spot at various depths. Also, I'll be obtaining a sample from the clay layer.

Tom has insisted that diatoms--at least the A. Formosa--cannot migrate down through sand even while underwater. Therefore, if Tom is correct, the money could have only acquired the diatoms via direct expose to the Columbia. I hope he his right because this places significant barriers on the story of how the money arrived and how it departed and readily brings the truth into focus.

Those three packets got separated from the other 97 packets somehow. Moreover, the other 97 are gone...not just down the beach 50 feet. This is all very important because any theory has to reasonably explain how and why the 3 packets responded differently to their environment than the other 97 packets.

The money was not hermetically sealed. It was bound in a canvas bank bag. There have been a lot of theories here about bags of money and packets of money floated down the river via the surface, via the bottom, or some combination of both. To me this strikes me as fantasy. Again, I welcome anyone to chuck a 20 lb bag of cash into the Columbia miles upstream and see what happens. Good luck seeing some tortured series of fantastical events delivering three packets alone to Tena Bar.

I'll be there soon. If someone wants to send me some packets of cash I'm certainly willing to throw them into the Columbia to see what happens. That said, be prepared to never see any of your cash again. In fact, I'll hazard that I could try the same experiment over and over my entire lifetime and never once see the money do anything other than sink, disappear from sight and eventually rot at the bottom of the river--whether it be in a canvas bank bag or three individual packets bound by rubberbands.

I simply do not understand why it is so difficult for people to accept that the money was buried by DB Cooper. It's by far the most plausible theory. It is the easiest theory to envision as well. Frankly it's the only thing that makes sense.

Speaking of diatoms, I spoke with Tom yesterday and will be obtaining samples of sand from the money find spot at various depths. Also, I'll be obtaining a sample from the clay layer.

Tom has insisted that diatoms--at least the A. Formosa--cannot migrate down through sand even while underwater. Therefore, if Tom is correct, the money could have only acquired the diatoms via direct expose to the Columbia. I hope he his right because this places significant barriers on the story of how the money arrived and how it departed and readily brings the truth into focus.

Those three packets got separated from the other 97 packets somehow. Moreover, the other 97 are gone...not just down the beach 50 feet. This is all very important because any theory has to reasonably explain how and why the 3 packets responded differently to their environment than the other 97 packets.

The money was not hermetically sealed. It was bound in a canvas bank bag. There have been a lot of theories here about bags of money and packets of money floated down the river via the surface, via the bottom, or some combination of both. To me this strikes me as fantasy. Again, I welcome anyone to chuck a 20 lb bag of cash into the Columbia miles upstream and see what happens. Good luck seeing some tortured series of fantastical events delivering three packets alone to Tena Bar.

I'll be there soon. If someone wants to send me some packets of cash I'm certainly willing to throw them into the Columbia to see what happens. That said, be prepared to never see any of your cash again. In fact, I'll hazard that I could try the same experiment over and over my entire lifetime and never once see the money do anything other than sink, disappear from sight and eventually rot at the bottom of the river--whether it be in a canvas bank bag or three individual packets bound by rubberbands.

I simply do not understand why it is so difficult for people to accept that the money was buried by DB Cooper. It's by far the most plausible theory. It is the easiest theory to envision as well. Frankly it's the only thing that makes sense.

I don’t see how suggesting the money was transported by the Columbia River via other debris is anymore “fantastical”, “tortured”, or  “implausible” than believing the FBI, NWO, and the USAF totally got the flight path wrong, that Cooper landed in the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, hiked out in the middle of the night with a 20lbs bag of money despite being middle aged, and then decided to bury that money on the edge of a major river prone to flooding, and then didn’t come back to retrieve it until several months or several years later.

I’ll say it one more time:

I don’t think the money floated on its own independently. The money would sink.

I don’t think the money rolled along the bottom. I think that would make it difficult for it to appear on shore.

I do think the money could have attached itself to river debris such as a log or large branch or even Cooper’s corpse and was washed downstream in the flood water.

Regarding your statement about how the three packets got separated from the rest:  who knows? Nature is chaotic, unpredictable, and entropic. If you put loose change in your pocket and jump on a trampoline, some change will fall out and some won’t. Can you explain why?

Start with the absolute ironclad basics:

1) The jet departed Seattle.

2) Cooper jumped.

3) The money was found on Tena Bar.

4) The jet landed in Reno.

Start your investigation knowing only that and start working outward.

Human error DID occur. It's all through the files. It's in the Palmer Report.

That said, physics and science do not lie. They are never wrong.

The physics involved with the three packets staying together yet separating from the other 97 packets and everything else that completely went missing, then somehow floating downstream on a branch or something--but only in June--and then burying itself for eight years is impossible. Does anyone really believe this can be replicated?

It's simple. The money was buried by a human being, left behind, and discovered eight years later.

Human error could be in the post you just made. nothing has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt. that leaves room for error, human error? logic is not immune to human error..

Shutter, human error could also be in the above post. 

I very much doubt there is any human error in my post regarding the ironclad things we know.

I'm not sure what you mean and how that is relevant.

The money was buried where it was buried. It got there somehow. Certainly the easiest explanation is that the guy who last had the money buried it there...while he was alive.

Yes. Brian Ingram discovered the money buried under a few inches of sand. That is buried.