Recommended Posts
mrshutter45 21
Jo, Kaye can easily be found right here, why don't you ask him yourself and
show the findings?
show the findings?
"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI
Robert99 37
QuoteElementary lessons"
Kaye Stated:
RUBBER BANDS ANALYSIS
Tom did experiments with rubber bands in sand and water. He concludes that their lifetime in either sand or water is less than a year. He states that this suggests the money became buried at Tena Bar within a year of the hijacking in 1971.
Tom states that his data does not support the dredging theory and that, in turn, does not support the Washougal Washdown Theory.
MONEY ANALYSIS
Tom did experiments with actual bills and concluded that they would fan out on both ends (with a rubber band snugly holding the bills in the middle) within minutes of being submerged and would then sink to the bottom within a matter of minutes.
Tom also concluded that, "Bundles of money 'floating' onto a beach like Tena Bar has a low probability and would require strong enough water flow to push the bundles onto the beach."
THE REMAINDER OF THIS POST IS ROBERT99'S OPINIONS AND SPECULATIONS
In my opinion, Tom Kaye's conclusions about the money arriving at Tena Bar within a year of the hijacking is correct and supported by his data. Also, Tom's conclusions about the dredging and Washougal Washdown theories are also correct. If the money made it to the bottom of the Washougal or Columbia Rivers, it would probably never have surfaced again.
But it appears conclusive that Tom's work indicates that the money was at Tena Bar prior to the end of 1972 and that the washdown and dredging theories are invalid.
Robert99
Robert - WHAT DO YOU seem NOT able to GRASP about KAYE's statement and WHY do you twist it to FIT Your AGENDA?
My uneducated and knowing nothing about water and money does NOT translate Kaye statement as you have twisted it into YOUR opinion and REPEATED it to suit your needs - not a scientific one at that. A born and raise farm girl out of KY read Kayes statement much different than U do.
Maybe we could GET Kaye to come here and CLARIFY if YOUR grasp is what he was saying. I think NOT.
ANYONE INTERESTED IN WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE SHOULD READ MY POST #42120
Jo Weber's response is typical of her replies. There is no need to waste further time trying to explain something to her that does not agree with the results of her 17 year fruitless search to prove that Duane Weber was Cooper. He wasn't!
Robert99
Robert99 37
Quote
RUBBER BANDS ANALYSIS
Tom did experiments with rubber bands in sand and water. He concludes that their lifetime in either sand or water is less than a year. He states that this suggests the money became buried at Tena Bar within a year of the hijacking in 1971.
Tom states that his data does not support the dredging theory and that, in turn, does not support the Washougal Washdown Theory.
THIS is a PLAIN old Common Sense of what AN old COUNTRY girl thinks Kaye meant by that statement (note if does NOT sound as though Kaye wrote the above as stated but how a writer interperted what he as saying).
1. The lifetime of the band is less than 1 yr in sand or in water.
2. The money was buried within a yr of the hijacking in 1971. DOES NOT mean it was on that beach - it would have to have been in a protected area - not in the WATER and/or on THE BEACH from 1971.
Seems like for the language used that someone else was writing that for KAYE and it was also the interpretation of the writer.
I would LIKE to read a STATEMENT made BY KAYE himself AS TO what he meant!
I want to READ a clear and concise statement by KAYE - not one interpreted or written by others.
It was my understanding that his opinion came right back to the Palmer Report - that the money had been in the River and on the beach for LESS than a year - all based on the rubber bands and the condition of the money.
Where the money/band was and how it survived - wasn't in the river for 8 yrs and wasn't on the beach for 8 yrs.
Could we get KAYE to make a statement in his own words - in a simple manner that EVERYONE could understand and that would NOT be subjected to the interpretation from others? CLEAR and CONCISE! He was NOT able to discount Palmers word as I understood it!
Jo, As I have pointed out to you several times, you can read Tom Kaye's conclusions on his web site. But, of course, you will NEVER accept Tom's conclusions for reasons already discussed.
Robert99
Robert99 37
QuoteRobert99 speaking about the Tena Bar money and the rubber bands on the bundles:
Quote'Basically, Tom's conclusion that the money was at Tena Bar within about one year of the hijacking (which would mean it was probably there before the end of 1972) pulls the rug out from under one of your pet theories.
Regardless of what Duane may have buried at Tena Bar or what may have been in the paper sack he threw into the Columbia, it was seven years to late to be money from the Cooper hijacking....'
Kaye has also been quoted as saying he believes the money arrived at Tena Bar by what he calls 'non-natural means'. In other words, he rules out dredging or washdown. This really leaves only two possibilities. One, that the bills were purposely placed where they were eventually found. Two, that the bills washed up there somehow a short time after the hijacking.
The problem I have with the 'washed up from the nearby river' theory is this: How exactly did three bundles of the money end up in the exact same spot with nothing else found? I would tend to believe this theory more if the bundles were found scattered over a wider area, or if one bundle or less was discovered...OR a majority of the money. But three or more in a single spot, as a result of washing up or something, is very difficult to reconcile.
I know some of you have heard this before, but I discussed this issue with former FBI agent Bob Furhman (sic) up at the sports bar next door to Third Place Books in Seattle, when Geoff Gray was doing his book tour. And I took a lot of flak for speculating here on this site that maybe the money WAS a plant, after all. Furhman said that my theory actually made sense, and when I asked him if anyone at the FBI thought of this when the money was discovered, he said no.
Think about it for a moment. Let's suppose that the hijacker plunged to his death in the Columbia, and that the money bag somehow washed loose or whatever. Then explain how MORE than one bundle of the cash ends up in the EXACT SAME SPOT with nothing else around. The chances of three unattached bundles (no strings holding them together) ending up in a single spot are remote indeed. One bundle, sure. MOST of the money, or a great deal of it, sure. One here, one over there, okay. Three together (approximately) is tougher to explain. I say approximately because people have said the bundles came in different sizes. Okay...maybe four, maybe five, but the total was about $5,800 which means more than ONE, and that makes it tricky to explain how they ended up in the same spot due to washing up solely by river current. They would have to stay together somehow for this little water trip and that is TOUGH to explain. One packet here, one packet a foot away, one packet over there. Fine. But sticking together and ending up in the same spot? Explain that. With no other money found in the area, or any other evidence of the hijacker, it is very difficult to do.
Blevins, You do understand that Tom concluded the money would sink when it became saturated with water and would sink to the bottom of the river. If the money sank to the bottom of the Columbia River near Tena Bar it is highly unlikely that it would ever return to the surface. You do understand that there is a shipping channel, reportedly 40 feet deep, in the Columbia downstream from Portland.
Also, would you do this thread and the human race a great service by teaching Jo Weber what the purpose of words are in the human language. But that may be a Mission Impossible.
Robert99
georger 197
QuoteRobert99 speaking about the Tena Bar money and the rubber bands on the bundles:
'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan)Quote'Basically, Tom's conclusion that the money was at Tena Bar within about one year of the hijacking (which would mean it was probably there before the end of 1972) pulls the rug out from under one of your pet theories. 'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan)
'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan)
Regardless of what Duane may have buried at Tena Bar or'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan) what may have been in the paper sack he threw into the Columbia, it was seven years to late to be money from the Cooper hijacking....'
Kaye has also been quoted as saying he believes the money arrived at Tena Bar by what he calls 'non-natural means'. In other words, he rules out dredging or washdown. This really leaves only two possibilities. One, that the bills were purposely placed where they were eventually found. Two, that the bills washed up there somehow a short time after the hijacking.
'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan)
The problem I have with the 'washed up from the nearby river' theory is this: How exactly did three bundles of the money end up in the exact same spot with nothing else found? I would tend to believe this theory more if the bundles were found scattered over a wider area, or i'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan) f one bundle or less was discovered...OR a majority of the money. But three or more in a single spot, as a result of washing up or something, is very difficult to reconcile.
I know some of you have heard this before, but I discussed this issue with former FBI agent Bob Furhman (sic) up at the sports bar next door to Third Place Books in Seattle, when Geoff Gray was doing his book tour. And I took a lot of flak for speculating here on this site that maybe the money WAS a plant, after all. Furhman said that my theory actually made sense, and when I asked him if anyone at the FBI thought of this when the money was discovered, he said no.
'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan)
Think about it for a moment. Let's suppose that the hijacker plunged to his death in the Columbia, and that the money bag somehow washed loose or whatever. Then explain how MORE than one bundle of the cash ends up in the EXACT SAME SPOT with'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan) nothing else around. The chances of three unattached bundles (no strings holding them together) ending up in a single spot are remote indeed. One bundle, sure. MOST of the money, or a great deal of it, sure. One here, one over there, okay. 'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...''If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan)
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan) Three together (approximately) is tougher to explain. I say approximately because people have said the bundles came in different sizes. Okay...maybe four, maybe five, but the total was about $5,800 which means more than ONE, and that makes it tricky to explain how they ended up in the same spot due to washing up solely by river current. They would have to stay together somehow for this little water trip and that is TOUGH to explain. One packet here, one packet a foot away, one packet over there. Fine. But sticking together and ending up in the same spot? Explain that. With no other money found in the area, or any other evidence of the hijacker, it is very difficult to do.
'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan)
'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan) 'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan) 'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan)
/reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary_point
mmmm. only known stationary point in the universe has been discovered! Turns out to be a person!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary_pointhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary_point
georger 197
I find it difficult to believe that several bundles would wash up in the same spot together. One here, one there.
It is a physical impossibility because: there is only
one atom in the world, the RMB Atom.
He had previously thunk there was but one atom in
Creation. Himself. Over three years the possibility of
another atoms creeps in. Stage four has been
reached: persistent repeated denial. "Oh pleez Maah.
Say it can't be so! Pleeeeeuz!". Bwahahahaha...
Little Bobby may not be alone in the Universe after
all! What then to do !
Take out the papers and the trash Or you don't get no spendin' cash If you don't scrub that kitchen floor You ain't gonna rock and roll no more Yakety yak (Don't talk back)
Just finish cleanin' up your room Let's see that dust fly with that broom Get all that garbage out of sight Or you don't go out Friday night Yakety yak (Don't talk back)
You just put on your coat and hat And walk yourself to the laundromat And when you finish doin' that Bring in the dog and put out the cat Yakety yak (Don't talk back)
Don't you give me no dirty looks Your father's hip, he knows what cooks Just tell your hoodlum friend outside You ain't got time to take a ride Yakety yak (Don't talk back)
Yakety yak, yakety yak Yakety yak, yakety yak Yakety yak, yakety yak Yakety yak, yakety yak
Pssst* Will he see the connection. No. Will he deny
the connnection. Yes, of course. He will call it another
personal attack. He will say its disrupting HIS thread.
Yakety yak (Don't talk back)
He cannot understand why two of anything would exist
in HIS world! So, Yakety yak (Don't talk back).
mrshutter45 21
"I have explained he DID NOT exist. Note how he stands and how Duane stands - try to stand that way your self if U are right handed - doesn't work. Works only if you are left handed."
world population is just over 7 billion, 10% are left handed (700 million) millions & millions put there hands on there hips Jo.
you wish to split hairs? Duane has a distinctive way he stands, his legs are bowed top to bottom vs from the side like others
who are bow legged?
what exactly are your grounds of Marvin Doerkson not existing? I have found his name on several sites referencing him to camps none of Duane Weber? Weber is the one who doesn't exist with this information! you say you have spoken with his family, but I don't see any evidence of this other than your word.
his name is also listed in "Mennonite Weekly Review obituaries" the site below seems to be the place to find info on Marvin.
http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG001-025/dg025CCW/PartII/PartII.SeriesD-S1.htm
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=653&q=hands+on+hips&oq=hands+on+hips&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1789.6099.0.6291.13.12.0.1.1.0.86.850.12.12.0...0.0...1ac.1.8.img.LuXAV5WbDi4
you just can't take things at face value Jo......try and be mature with your response....
world population is just over 7 billion, 10% are left handed (700 million) millions & millions put there hands on there hips Jo.
you wish to split hairs? Duane has a distinctive way he stands, his legs are bowed top to bottom vs from the side like others
who are bow legged?
what exactly are your grounds of Marvin Doerkson not existing? I have found his name on several sites referencing him to camps none of Duane Weber? Weber is the one who doesn't exist with this information! you say you have spoken with his family, but I don't see any evidence of this other than your word.
his name is also listed in "Mennonite Weekly Review obituaries" the site below seems to be the place to find info on Marvin.
http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG001-025/dg025CCW/PartII/PartII.SeriesD-S1.htm
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=653&q=hands+on+hips&oq=hands+on+hips&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1789.6099.0.6291.13.12.0.1.1.0.86.850.12.12.0...0.0...1ac.1.8.img.LuXAV5WbDi4
you just can't take things at face value Jo......try and be mature with your response....
"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI
georger 197
RMB replies: Not my job unless I'm hired to do that. And I'm booked solid.
Its good to be booked solid. The gods have you locked
up. Its a trick that only gods (who are smartre than you!)
can play!
Its good to be satisfied with your condition.
Its good to be booked solid. The gods have you locked
up. Its a trick that only gods (who are smartre than you!)
can play!
Its good to be satisfied with your condition.
Its good to be satisfied with your condition...
Quote
TOO easy!
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
Robert99 37
QuoteIt's my understanding that all material presented at the Citizen Sleuths website was written, reviewed, and submitted by the three people responsible for that website. It was not a case of three people submitting their results to a site editor, and then having that site editor actually interpret the material.
Easy Version: All text at the CZ site created by Tom Kaye, Alan Stone, and Carol Abraczinskas.
Blevins, What does the above have to do with the accuracy of the results presented on the CZ site? Or anything else for that matter?
Robert99
mrshutter45 21
QuoteQuoteIt's my understanding that all material presented at the Citizen Sleuths website was written, reviewed, and submitted by the three people responsible for that website. It was not a case of three people submitting their results to a site editor, and then having that site editor actually interpret the material.
Easy Version: All text at the CZ site created by Tom Kaye, Alan Stone, and Carol Abraczinskas.
Blevins, What does the above have to do with the accuracy of the results presented on the CZ site? Or anything else for that matter?
Robert99
who writes the information on Newsvine? still has error's that were pointed out months ago....
" It was valued at around $300,000 and left to his family in Minnesota."
'J.C. Penney clip-on tie and tie tac left behind on the plane"
The Tie CLIP has never been proven to be from JC Penny's.
he needs to worry about his own accuracy IMO....
"It is surprising how aggressive people get, once they latch onto their suspect and say, 'Hey, he's our guy.' No matter what you tell them, they refuse to believe you" Agent Carr FBI
georger 197
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt's my understanding that all material presented at the Citizen Sleuths website was written, reviewed, and submitted by the three people responsible for that website. It was not a case of three people submitting their results to a site editor, and then having that site editor actually interpret the material.
Easy Version: All text at the CZ site created by Tom Kaye, Alan Stone, and Carol Abraczinskas.
Blevins, What does the above have to do with the accuracy of the results presented on the CZ site? Or anything else for that matter?
Robert99
who writes the information on Newsvine? still has error's that were pointed out months ago....
" It was valued at around $300,000 and left to his family in Minnesota."
'J.C. Penney clip-on tie and tie tac left behind on the plane"
The Tie CLIP has never been proven to be from JC Penny's.
he needs to worry about his own accuracy IMO....
Oh...that article. It's been updated.
I'll admit I was a bit lazy getting around to that. Thank you for the reminder.
Blevins, What does the above have to do with the accuracy of the results presented on the CZ site? Or anything else for that matter?
Answer the question! ?
What's da queshion?
"Blevins, What does the above have to do with the accuracy of the results presented on the CZ site? Or anything else for that matter? "
Answer the question ?
_______________________________________________
'If you can't be an example, serve as a warning...'
(From an article about Lindsay Lohan)
Robert99 37
Blevins writes:
On the subject of the money, the only way I could believe that three or more bundles happened to be in the same spot is if ALL of the money were there at some point. In other words, if Cooper's money ended up close by in total...and that the remainder somehow washed INTO the Columbia later. But there is no evidence of that to date. No parachutes, no body, no briefcase, nothing.
Robert99 replies:
Blevins, You have made an overly complicated statement above. Maybe ALL the money was there or very close by at some point. But what is your basis for saying that the rest of the money had to wash INTO the Columbia later? May it had already washed into the Columbia or maybe it is still nearby. The money that was found is evidence that at least some of the money was there. That money speaks for itself.
Blevins writes:
On the reverse, it's just common sense to me. If the money was in the Columbia first, then I just don't believe the chances that three or more bundles would somehow 'come in from the river' and end up buried in the same spot. As I said, maybe one packet here, another a few feet away, another over there, etc. This is more likely.
Robert99 replies:
You apparently still don't understand what Tom Kaye was saying. Basically, he was saying that if the money was ever in the Columbia, it is very improbable that it would come out.
Blevins writes:
There is also the problem of the flight path, which yes...is in dispute. There have been hints that perhaps Cooper landed west of the alleged drop zone. But again...no proof that this actually happened. You can go round and round with this stuff until your head spins. I still believe that it is an important clue that MORE than one bundle of the cash (yes, more than one. There are references to 'rubber bands' in the plural) somehow ended up together.
Robert99 writes:
The fact that three bundles of money were found close together just might be an indication that the rest of the money was, or is, close by. There could be a repeatability factor here.
Blevins writes:
The idea that these bundles somehow stayed together from 9,600 feet up until their arrival at Tena Bar is extremely tough to explain. In my opinion, the only way this could have happened is if the ENTIRE money bag landed close by where the bundles were found...and the remainder was washed away. Or...it was a plant. I just don't see any other explanation for this phenomenon that does not require the bundles to be attached to each other by little strings. And I am not the only one who thinks this. Bob Fuhrman (sic) agreed with this idea. Not that either of us are right, but he did think it made sense.
Robert99 writes:
Have you considered the possibility that you are right and that the money stayed together during the free fall because it WAS in the money bag? Forget about the string.
Robert99
On the subject of the money, the only way I could believe that three or more bundles happened to be in the same spot is if ALL of the money were there at some point. In other words, if Cooper's money ended up close by in total...and that the remainder somehow washed INTO the Columbia later. But there is no evidence of that to date. No parachutes, no body, no briefcase, nothing.
Robert99 replies:
Blevins, You have made an overly complicated statement above. Maybe ALL the money was there or very close by at some point. But what is your basis for saying that the rest of the money had to wash INTO the Columbia later? May it had already washed into the Columbia or maybe it is still nearby. The money that was found is evidence that at least some of the money was there. That money speaks for itself.
Blevins writes:
On the reverse, it's just common sense to me. If the money was in the Columbia first, then I just don't believe the chances that three or more bundles would somehow 'come in from the river' and end up buried in the same spot. As I said, maybe one packet here, another a few feet away, another over there, etc. This is more likely.
Robert99 replies:
You apparently still don't understand what Tom Kaye was saying. Basically, he was saying that if the money was ever in the Columbia, it is very improbable that it would come out.
Blevins writes:
There is also the problem of the flight path, which yes...is in dispute. There have been hints that perhaps Cooper landed west of the alleged drop zone. But again...no proof that this actually happened. You can go round and round with this stuff until your head spins. I still believe that it is an important clue that MORE than one bundle of the cash (yes, more than one. There are references to 'rubber bands' in the plural) somehow ended up together.
Robert99 writes:
The fact that three bundles of money were found close together just might be an indication that the rest of the money was, or is, close by. There could be a repeatability factor here.
Blevins writes:
The idea that these bundles somehow stayed together from 9,600 feet up until their arrival at Tena Bar is extremely tough to explain. In my opinion, the only way this could have happened is if the ENTIRE money bag landed close by where the bundles were found...and the remainder was washed away. Or...it was a plant. I just don't see any other explanation for this phenomenon that does not require the bundles to be attached to each other by little strings. And I am not the only one who thinks this. Bob Fuhrman (sic) agreed with this idea. Not that either of us are right, but he did think it made sense.
Robert99 writes:
Have you considered the possibility that you are right and that the money stayed together during the free fall because it WAS in the money bag? Forget about the string.
Robert99
Robert99 37
QuoteRobert99 says in part:
Quote'Have you considered the possibility that you are right and that the money stayed together during the free fall because it WAS in the money bag? Forget about the string...'
Yes. There are two problems though. First, the flight path. You are saying the hijacker jumped near Tena Bar, when the 'official' (whatever that means) version says probably not. If you believe the current 'official' flight path, then this leaves natural forces being involved somehow. You see how this can go around in circles sometimes?
There is also the lack of other evidence. No body, no money bag, no briefcase, no parachutes. Just a big zero. Maybe a plant, maybe the money landed nearby. Without additional evidence it is really hard to say. If someday someone locates just ONE more piece of verifiable evidence from the hijacking, this will answer a WHOLE lot of questions, especially depending on where they find it. Lacking that, or a breakthrough on the flight path that discounts the official version, I just don't see how a conclusion can be drawn on the money. Even establishing a slightly different flight path might not be conclusive unless another piece of evidence is located. You could say the money was still a plant, and the hijacker walked out with everything else. But if they ever find one other thing somewhere that can be definitively linked to Cooper, it might answer all the really important questions. Hopefully, this will happen someday.
BLEVINS, YOU ARE DISMISSING THE MONEY FIND INFORMATION BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT INTO YOUR OVERALL SCHEME OF THINGS!
The money location and the placard are the only two physical "facts" about the plane's location between Seattle and Portland. Yet you basically dismiss their importance because they don't fit into your scheme of how things had to happen.
Normally, investigators let the evidence speak to them. You are telling the evidence that it is not believable because you have other ideas.
Robert99
Tom did experiments with rubber bands in sand and water. He concludes that their lifetime in either sand or water is less than a year. He states that this suggests the money became buried at Tena Bar within a year of the hijacking in 1971.
Tom states that his data does not support the dredging theory and that, in turn, does not support the Washougal Washdown Theory.
THIS is a PLAIN old Common Sense of what AN old COUNTRY girl thinks Kaye meant by that statement (note if does NOT sound as though Kaye wrote the above as stated but how a writer interperted what he as saying).
1. The lifetime of the band is less than 1 yr in sand or in water.
2. The money was buried within a yr of the hijacking in 1971. DOES NOT mean it was on that beach - it would have to have been in a protected area - not in the WATER and/or on THE BEACH from 1971.
Seems like for the language used that someone else was writing that for KAYE and it was also the interpretation of the writer.
I would LIKE to read a STATEMENT made BY KAYE himself AS TO what he meant!
I want to READ a clear and concise statement by KAYE - not one interpreted or written by others.
It was my understanding that his opinion came right back to the Palmer Report - that the money had been in the River and on the beach for LESS than a year - all based on the rubber bands and the condition of the money.
Where the money/band was and how it survived - wasn't in the river for 8 yrs and wasn't on the beach for 8 yrs.
Could we get KAYE to make a statement in his own words - in a simple manner that EVERYONE could understand and that would NOT be subjected to the interpretation from others? CLEAR and CONCISE! He was NOT able to discount Palmers word as I understood it!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites