30 30
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

Inevitably, the same question always comes up when trying to discuss the Palmer Report and the Ingram Find at Tena Bar.

Q: If the 1974 dredging spoils were dumped at two different locations on the Tena Bar side, neither of which is the Ingram location, how did Palmer find 1974 dredging spoils at the Ingram site, at all! ?  It's a contradiction.

Palmer identifies his "clay lump layer" found at the Ingram site, and at a second trench site south of the Ingram site, as being the 1974 dredging spoils layer. But, if no spoils were even dumped at those locations in 1974, so what is Palmer talking about?  His report doesn't even try to resolve that basic contradiction. Instead of resolving that contradiction, Palmer avoids the issue completely by saying: 'The Ingram find was in the upper active layer, in any event - and the fragments found also.' 

Maybe the Ingram find got to it's location on the bottom of somebody's shoes, as per the Ulis explanation!

Never mind people's shoes. The problem with the money find is a lack of credible people!

Edited by georger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, georger said:

Inevitably, the same question always comes up when trying to discuss the Palmer Report and the Ingram Find at Tena Bar.

Q: If the 1974 dredging spoils were dumped at two different locations on the Tena Bar side, neither of which is the Ingram location, how did Palmer find 1974 dredging spoils at the Ingram site, at all! ?  It's a contradiction.

Palmer identifies his "clay lump layer" found at the Ingram site, and at a second trench site south of the Ingram site, as being the 1974 dredging spoils layer. But, if no spoils were even dumped at those locations in 1974, so what is Palmer talking about?  His report doesn't even try to resolve that basic contradiction. Instead of resolving that contradiction, Palmer avoids the issue completely by saying: 'The Ingram find was in the upper active layer, in any event - and the fragments found also.' 

Maybe the Ingram find got to it's location on the bottom of somebody's shoes, as per the Ulis explanation!

Never mind people's shoes. The problem with the money find is a lack of credible people!

I think there was more dredging activity on TBAR than the 74 operation.. locals in 1980 stated that there was beach replenishment often. The 74 operation may have been the only channel operation but not the only dredging.

Palmer assumes the layer was from the 74 dredge operation but it might not have been.

but, the 74 dredge spoils were deposited upstream of the money find spot in large mounds that migrated into the river..

The river likely spread the dredge material downstream over the money find spot.

 

Screen Shot 2022-08-04 at 12.29.45 PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I think there was more dredging activity on TBAR than the 74 operation.. locals in 1980 stated that there was beach replenishment often. The 74 operation may have been the only channel operation but not the only dredging.

Palmer assumes the layer was from the 74 dredge operation but it might not have been.

but, the 74 dredge spoils were deposited upstream of the money find spot in large mounds that migrated into the river..

The river likely spread the dredge material downstream over the money find spot.

 

Screen Shot 2022-08-04 at 12.29.45 PM.png

I agree - but we need a loot more specifics. A lot more SPECIFICS .... be my guest! Anything you can document will be a breakthrough.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I posted this image before but...

The TBAR shoreline right at the money spot looks to have been replenished before the famous 1974 dredge operation and after Sept 71.. 

Remember, the 74 dredge operation shows South of the money spot, this is exactly at the money spot.

September 1971 on the left and Jul 1973 on the right.

See the two shoreline bumps on the right side image,, right at the money find spot..

That image suggests a potential dredge operation exactly at the money spot between September 1971 and July 1973..

I have not been able to find any records..

(The money spot is in line with the bottom of the triangle of trees, follow the bottom line right to the river)

 

image001.jpg.c982685ac3d90f2d4cd7e1652c1f82ff.jpg

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I think I posted this image before but...

The TBAR shoreline right at the money spot looks to have been replenished before the famous 1974 dredge operation and after Sept 71.. 

Remember, the 74 dredge operation shows South of the money spot, this is exactly at the money spot.

September 1971 on the left and Jul 1973 on the right.

See the two shoreline bumps on the right side image,, right at the money find spot..

That image suggests a potential dredge operation exactly at the money spot between September 1971 and July 1973..

I have not been able to find any records..

(The money spot is in line with the bottom of the triangle of trees, follow the bottom line right to the river)

 

image001.jpg.c982685ac3d90f2d4cd7e1652c1f82ff.jpg

That's a compelling picture. Question -- how do we know what role the high and low tides could play with these pictures i.e. is the difference in shore line in the pictures related to dredging or where the tide was at the time the picture was taken?  I am guessing that high and low tides would be much more subtle and maybe even not noticeable in these types of satellite pictures but I just wanted to ask because if tides can be ruled out as an explanation, then it MUST be evidence of dredging or some other type of shore replenishment activity.

Edited by JAGdb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JAGdb said:

That's a compelling picture. Question -- how do we know what role the high and low tides could play with these pictures i.e. is the difference in shore line in the pictures related to dredging or where the tide was at the time the picture was taken?  I am guessing that high and low tides would be much more subtle and maybe even not noticeable in these types of satellite pictures but I just wanted to ask because if tides can be ruled out as an explanation, then it MUST be evidence of dredging or some other type of shore replenishment activity.

Like most things in the Cooper case, nothing is certain,, the tide range is about 1.5 - 2.5 ft.. the water level looks very close in those images.

 

It is clear the shoreline at the money find spot changed between 1971 and 1973, a dredge/beach replacement is most likely but not confirmed. There was also the '72 flood.

Whatever it was, there was a change in the shore at the money spot between 71 and 73..

 

75410340_ScreenShot2022-08-05at8_58_06AM.png.eeb6c72e74e8b8053e00ef2c5d75797d.png

Here is a higher water level in 1970,, no undulations in the shoreline.

1189712866_ScreenShot2022-08-05at7_46_51AM.png.de1bac08edd41db0bfa2c4a837f7907f.png

image001.jpg.bf025f09314a01988e0c636a0a52d8c7.jpg

 

Edited by FLYJACK
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JAGdb said:

That's a compelling picture. Question -- how do we know what role the high and low tides could play with these pictures i.e. is the difference in shore line in the pictures related to dredging or where the tide was at the time the picture was taken?  I am guessing that high and low tides would be much more subtle and maybe even not noticeable in these types of satellite pictures but I just wanted to ask because if tides can be ruled out as an explanation, then it MUST be evidence of dredging or some other type of shore replenishment activity.

Likewise, are all bottom spoils alike, over time? Same chemistry? Clay lump? USGS chemist told me the area where the 74 spoils were collected was known to be 'manganese rich'. He asked: "Does manganese flash on the money?"  He said bottom spoils in different areas differ in chemistry - that these bottom spoils have to be routinely tested because of Hanford and other issues. Palmer doesn't tell us anything about what bottom spoils should look like or how they differ. Likewise, how can money be in the top surface layer but also deeper in the sand closer to the water's edge? Palmer has no explanation or gave one.  Palmer 'looks like' a professional geologist in his dress and his pipe for the camera, but he isnt communicating like one! 

BTW, it was Schreuder's idea to treat the dig like an archaeologist would and do screening - that wasn't Palmer's idea. Schreuder and Palmer weren't even there at the same time. They never communicated.

Edited by georger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Like most things in the Cooper case, nothing is certain,, the tide range is about 1.5 - 2.5 ft.. the water level looks very close in those images.

 

It is clear the shoreline at the money find spot changed between 1971 and 1973, a dredge/beach replacement is most likely but not confirmed. There was also the '72 flood.

Whatever it was, there was a change in the shore at the money spot between 71 and 73..

 

75410340_ScreenShot2022-08-05at8_58_06AM.png.eeb6c72e74e8b8053e00ef2c5d75797d.png

Here is a higher water level in 1970,, no undulations in the shoreline.

1189712866_ScreenShot2022-08-05at7_46_51AM.png.de1bac08edd41db0bfa2c4a837f7907f.png

image001.jpg.bf025f09314a01988e0c636a0a52d8c7.jpg

 

In the news clipping above where it is stating that the Army Corps of Engineers continuously dredge the shore by where the money was found -- do we assume that this continuous dredging was always done with the same suction dredging machine with the 24 inch diameter and said wiper bar as in 1974 ?  Reason I am asking, I am still having a hard time grasping the money surviving the dredge processing and winding up how it did on the beach.  If some of this pre 1974 dredging referenced was done with a different dredging machine like a clam shell excavator type, I would find it easier to believe.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at 1952-1960:  In 1960 Tena Bar as we know it didn;t even exist! The whole history of Tena Bar is a history of reclamation - its very existence is reclamation which means: DREDGING BOTTOM SPOILS.

So Palmer's strata are what happens in between events of reclamation one after the other, and sands eroding and moving around in a waterway! Multiple bottom spoil layers interspersed with inter-reclamation natural deposits and removals of river sand! Palmer was a "dandy" who gave us no working model of Tena Bar! He took no core samples, he did no chemistry, he simply appealed to his lofty credentials asking all agents to believe him because he was 'the biggest geologist dog in the yard since 1952', whoopie! Due to Mr Palmer we dont know much more than when we started and we may even know less. Disregard the whole Palmer Report, socalled.

What artifacts would dredging that encounters a bag of money leave?  Thousands of small pieces of cut money spread over an area mixed in through multiple strata layers. A few cut-chopped bundles of money that escaped. As time goes on erosion starts to move everything back toward the river and could leave the less mobile bundles of money at a higher elevation joined with a newer upper active layer where the Ingram bundles were found - until at length everything erodes and goes back into the river. And that is exactly what DS thinks he found at Tena Bar. After reclamation stops the whole beachhead erodes and disappears. 

52 - napp_14565 07-02-1952 x2 Cgs.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1960 image shows the money spot,, TBAR is there but it had more trees.

There are two different issues,,

Did the money get tossed up by a dredge,, I don't see the money going through a suction dredge and you have to account for the diatoms..

What was the layer Palmer identified as the 1974 dredge layer.. was he correct or was it an earlier later.. not sure, but from my reading 1974 wasn't the only dredge operation at TBAR and definitely not the only dredge operation in the area. Material was moved and dumped on the other side and even in the middle of the River, both upstream. 

The money found at depth was probably moved during the excavation process..

but, it is impossible to know for sure how the money got onto TBAR,, the question is how did it get into the River and where did it go after the hijacking.

No, Cooper did not bury the money the night of the hijacking in the wet sand in the winter next to a River then return to retrieve it when it was 6 ft under water..

Edited by FLYJACK
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palmer says some very strange things in his report and one glaring omission in his tutorial about how beaches work. He doesnt say one word about erosion. And " He also added that he felt certain that the money did not work its way up through the post dredging sand to the upper layer."

In other words, erosion can affect everything else on a beach but not MONEY!  Especially not Cooper money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

The 1960 image shows the money spot,, TBAR is there but it had more trees.

There are two different issues,,

Did the money get tossed up by a dredge,, I don't see the money going through a suction dredge and you have to account for the diatoms..

What was the layer Palmer identified as the 1974 dredge layer.. was he correct or was it an earlier later.. not sure, but from my reading 1974 wasn't the only dredge operation at TBAR and definitely not the only dredge operation in the area. Material was moved and dumped on the other side and even in the middle of the River, both upstream. 

The money found at depth was probably moved during the excavation process..

but, it is impossible to know for sure how the money got onto TBAR,, the question is how did it get into the River and where did it go after the hijacking.

No, Cooper did not bury the money the night of the hijacking in the wet sand in the winter next to a River then return to retrieve it when it was 6 ft under water..

So you are saying the money spot was never covered over or affected by dredging ?

Anything that is exposed to surface water is exposed to diatoms, irrespective of when or how it got to the surface to be exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like no matter what theory is explored for the money winding up on Tena Bar, a dead end is reached.

If the money was deposited on the beach from dredging, then how on earth did the money wind up in the Colombia given the official flight path ?  
      Wash Down Theory: While the Washougal wash down theory was used as an explanation, after lots of scrutiny and vetting, most don't see how this could have been possible give the distances involved.  Dead End reached.
    

     Alternate Flight Path:  Again, at this point, good theory to explore, but nothing concrete at the moment to prove. Dead End reached.
    

     Human Intervention: Somebody through the money in the river.    Again, make up your favorite scenario here, Cooper himself,       someone who found the money and decided to get rid of it, Tina took money from Cooper on the plane and put it there after feeling guilty or   scared.  Coming up with these scenarios is fine and even entertaining, but they can't be proven and one individual's imagination is as good as another's I suppose.  Dead End reached. 

 

If the money was not deposited by the dredge:
    

      Flooding deposited it there: For this to be possible, the money had to be somewhere in the vicinity for it to be within the flood plain so to speak.  This kind of goes back to the same issue above, how did the money get to this area for it to be within the flood waters reach      based on where we believe the flight path was? Dead End reached.
    

      Human Intervention: See above.  Dead End reached.

I may be missing some other possibilities, but still they run into a dead end.  The equation can't be solved with the given data, too many missing variables.  We need another piece of data/fact.  

The diatom discovery was a positive new piece of data, but in some sense introduced even more questions.  And it is only based on the testing of 377s one bill.  It would be great if TK could examine another bill in the same way and see if produces the same diatom profile or results.  These bills were all together, so one would think the results would be the same, but who knows?  Maybe bills in the middle would yield different results than bills closer to the end ?  The key diatom take away is spring/summer diatoms were found and therefore the bill was only exposed to the river water during that time frame and this implies that the money did not hit the water in November of 1971....but it does not say which spring/summer, was it 1972, 73,74, 75,76,77,78,79?  Or every year from 72 through 79 ? Meanwhile, Palmer stated that he thought the money was there for roughly a year.  In other words, when did the money arrive and how did it get into the condition that it was in when found?

I know everything I am saying has been said and thought of before, just framing this for my own mind.  To me, trying to focus on how long it takes and under what conditions a bundle of money like this would solidify and harden could potentially give us some idea of how long it was there which then may be able to rule some scenarios in or out.  Another area to explore more, TK indicated that there were some signs of potential bacteriaI colonies at work, could more be done on this?  Which bacteria ?  Where does this species live ? I thought that TK or other folks were conducting more testing in this area, (putting test money outside in varying conditions), to see if they could simulate or reproduce the conditions of the bundles.  If so, maybe there will be some more data to look at soon.  Sorry for the long ramble, cheers !

Edited by JAGdb
formatting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, georger said:

So you are saying the money spot was never covered over or affected by dredging ?

Anything that is exposed to surface water is exposed to diatoms, irrespective of when or how it got to the surface to be exposed.

No, the only issue I have is the money going through that suction dredge and ending up on the beach in that condition and order.. I don't see it.. remember the money went to Cooper in rubber banded bundles of several packets of 100's.. the FBI said it was it the same order and packing as it went to Cooper. If it went through that dredge it would have been more dispersed and destroyed..

So, IMO the packets of money most likely landed on TBAR as one single rubber banded bundle..  most people don't seem to agree but that is my interpretation of the evidence.

As for the dredge spoils,, I believe there was more activity than the 1974 operation but I don't know how that would affect the money or the timing of the deposit. We have no certainty there.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JAGdb said:

It seems like no matter what theory is explored for the money winding up on Tena Bar, a dead end is reached.

If the money was deposited on the beach from dredging, then how on earth did the money wind up in the Colombia given the official flight path ?  
      Wash Down Theory: While the Washougal wash down theory was used as an explanation, after lots of scrutiny and vetting, most don't see how this could have been possible give the distances involved.  Dead End reached.
    

     Alternate Flight Path:  Again, at this point, good theory to explore, but nothing concrete at the moment to prove. Dead End reached.
    

     Human Intervention: Somebody through the money in the river.    Again, make up your favorite scenario here, Cooper himself,       someone who found the money and decided to get rid of it, Tina took money from Cooper on the plane and put it there after feeling guilty or   scared.  Coming up with these scenarios is fine and even entertaining, but they can't be proven and one individual's imagination is as good as another's I suppose.  Dead End reached. 

 

If the money was not deposited by the dredge:
    

      Flooding deposited it there: For this to be possible, the money had to be somewhere in the vicinity for it to be within the flood plain so to speak.  This kind of goes back to the same issue above, how did the money get to this area for it to be within the flood waters reach      based on where we believe the flight path was? Dead End reached.
    

      Human Intervention: See above.  Dead End reached.

I may be missing some other possibilities, but still they run into a dead end.  The equation can't be solved with the given data, too many missing variables.  We need another piece of data/fact.  

The diatom discovery was a positive new piece of data, but in some sense introduced even more questions.  And it is only based on the testing of 377s one bill.  It would be great if TK could examine another bill in the same way and see if produces the same diatom profile or results.  These bills were all together, so one would think the results would be the same, but who knows?  Maybe bills in the middle would yield different results than bills closer to the end ?  The key diatom take away is spring/summer diatoms were found and therefore the bill was only exposed to the river water during that time frame and this implies that the money did not hit the water in November of 1971....but it does not say which spring/summer, was it 1972, 73,74, 75,76,77,78,79?  Or every year from 72 through 79 ? Meanwhile, Palmer stated that he thought the money was there for roughly a year.  In other words, when did the money arrive and how did it get into the condition that it was in when found?

I know everything I am saying has been said and thought of before, just framing this for my own mind.  To me, trying to focus on how long it takes and under what conditions a bundle of money like this would solidify and harden could potentially give us some idea of how long it was there which then may be able to rule some scenarios in or out.  Another area to explore more, TK indicated that there were some signs of potential bacteriaI colonies at work, could more be done on this?  Which bacteria ?  Where does this species live ? I thought that TK or other folks were conducting more testing in this area, (putting test money outside in varying conditions), to see if they could simulate or reproduce the conditions of the bundles.  If so, maybe there will be some more data to look at soon.  Sorry for the long ramble, cheers !

Yes, we will never know beyond a bunch of competing theories.. I have about four that are all viable within the parameters of the evidence.... there are probably some nobody has yet thought of..

Understanding how the money got into the River may help us understand what happened to Cooper or maybe not..

All we know for sure is that there was at least 3 packets of 100 bills separated from him..

The big mistake people make is to use the money find location to reject all the flightpath and LZ evidence.. 

The evidence..

The so called FBI flightpath is solid.. within the 1 mile plotting error..

The LZ between about Merwin and Battleground is solid.

The money was given to Cooper in rubber banded bundles of several packets.

At least three packets were separated from Cooper.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JAGdb said:

It seems like no matter what theory is explored for the money winding up on Tena Bar, a dead end is reached.

If the money was deposited on the beach from dredging, then how on earth did the money wind up in the Colombia given the official flight path ?  
      Wash Down Theory: While the Washougal wash down theory was used as an explanation, after lots of scrutiny and vetting, most don't see how this could have been possible give the distances involved.  Dead End reached.
    

     Alternate Flight Path:  Again, at this point, good theory to explore, but nothing concrete at the moment to prove. Dead End reached.
    

     Human Intervention: Somebody through the money in the river.    Again, make up your favorite scenario here, Cooper himself,       someone who found the money and decided to get rid of it, Tina took money from Cooper on the plane and put it there after feeling guilty or   scared.  Coming up with these scenarios is fine and even entertaining, but they can't be proven and one individual's imagination is as good as another's I suppose.  Dead End reached. 

 

If the money was not deposited by the dredge:
    

      Flooding deposited it there: For this to be possible, the money had to be somewhere in the vicinity for it to be within the flood plain so to speak.  This kind of goes back to the same issue above, how did the money get to this area for it to be within the flood waters reach      based on where we believe the flight path was? Dead End reached.
    

      Human Intervention: See above.  Dead End reached.

I may be missing some other possibilities, but still they run into a dead end.  The equation can't be solved with the given data, too many missing variables.  We need another piece of data/fact.  

The diatom discovery was a positive new piece of data, but in some sense introduced even more questions.  And it is only based on the testing of 377s one bill.  It would be great if TK could examine another bill in the same way and see if produces the same diatom profile or results.  These bills were all together, so one would think the results would be the same, but who knows?  Maybe bills in the middle would yield different results than bills closer to the end ?  The key diatom take away is spring/summer diatoms were found and therefore the bill was only exposed to the river water during that time frame and this implies that the money did not hit the water in November of 1971....but it does not say which spring/summer, was it 1972, 73,74, 75,76,77,78,79?  Or every year from 72 through 79 ? Meanwhile, Palmer stated that he thought the money was there for roughly a year.  In other words, when did the money arrive and how did it get into the condition that it was in when found?

I know everything I am saying has been said and thought of before, just framing this for my own mind.  To me, trying to focus on how long it takes and under what conditions a bundle of money like this would solidify and harden could potentially give us some idea of how long it was there which then may be able to rule some scenarios in or out.  Another area to explore more, TK indicated that there were some signs of potential bacteriaI colonies at work, could more be done on this?  Which bacteria ?  Where does this species live ? I thought that TK or other folks were conducting more testing in this area, (putting test money outside in varying conditions), to see if they could simulate or reproduce the conditions of the bundles.  If so, maybe there will be some more data to look at soon.  Sorry for the long ramble, cheers !

Key to all of these issues are two things: (a) a working model of Tena Bar  that includes erosion and how things move at that beach, including the actual history of deposition on that beach, and (b) a true description of the money fragments vs Ingram bundles that were found during the excavation. Palmer didnt fully document anything!

Different people always claim different evidence based on something of their own choosing.

The Tena Bar excavation was the worst documented excavation in the history of Mankind! I just cant believe that the Egyptian pyramids were built in Hungary then moved to Egypt, on the backs of swans banded with straps and rubber bands. What I want is some documented facts for a change ! 

Its difficult to believe that so many people who were involved got so many basic facts wrong!  Maybe 305 went up and circled the north pole and never landed in Reno at all. This may come down to willpower on forums vs facts.

 

Edited by georger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, georger said:

What I want is some factual facts!

That is problem and lure of the Cooper Vortex...

I have gone through and tried to list all the info we have on Cooper for a profile and we actually have very few facts.. lots of inferences but few hard facts. You can question almost everything.

It is like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle with only 40% of the pieces for that puzzle, 30% are from a completely different puzzle and 30% is missing/unknown..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

30 30