DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 654]

9 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I'm not following. You're saying the bundles were random. I'm not seeing anything pre-Tena Bar mentioning bundles or bundling of the cash. The only actual evidence is "packets" of 100 bills held together with bank bands. Whether these WERE bundled, we can assume so given the TB find. However, there's nothing at all about bundling pre-Tena Bar in the actual evidence. 

See, you don't know everything..

There were reports that the Cooper ransom money was randomized to make it look hastily prepared and Carr talked to a guy at the bank who said he rebanded the bundles.. Carr screwed that up and thought he meant the packets of 100.. << that is a source of the confusion.

So, the evidence is that the Cooper money was randomized, we know that the packets were not. 

Therefore, the randomization could only be the number of packets in a bundle and those are only held together with rubber bands. 

Simple, and it is confirmed by Himmelsbach's statement.

 

We don't know what Cooper did with the money on the plane, he could have pulled packets from a bundle to stuff in his pockets or hand to stews..

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

11 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Holding it back from whom? Themselves? We have the 302's now. 

When the money was found, the FBI stated that the money was found in the same condition and order as given to Cooper and they said that only the hijacker would know what that is... So, the packaging was hold back information. As for the 302's, remember we only have a small fraction of the documents.

Edited January 20, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 464]

5 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

See, you don't know everything..

There were reports that the Cooper ransom money was randomized to make it look hastily prepared and Carr talked to a guy at the bank who said he rebanded the bundles.. Carr screwed that up and thought he meant the packets of 100.. << that is a source of the confusion.

So, the evidence is that the Cooper money was randomized, we know that the packets were not. 

Therefore, the randomization could only be the number of packets in a bundle and those are only held together with rubber bands. 

Simple, and it is confirmed by Himmelsbach's statement.

 

I get what you're saying now. However, I just don't see what difference it would make to a hijacker to see a rubber banded bundle of 3 packets and then another rubber banded bundle of 4 packets? If they still have the bank bands on them then they may as well all be thrown in a bag willy-nilly like so:

[FLYJACK 654]

12 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I get what you're saying now. However, I just don't see what difference it would make to a hijacker to see a rubber banded bundle of 3 packets and then another rubber banded bundle of 4 packets? If they still have the bank bands on them then they may as well all be thrown in a bag willy-nilly like so:

The idea was that randomized bundles would look hastily prepared vs uniform bundles,,, I don't know the variation,, 3 packets to 6 packets per bundle?

A hijacker would be given a degree of false confidence that the money wasn't marked/recorded and try to pass the money..

That was the thinking behind it..

Edited January 20, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 464]

3 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

The idea was that randomized bundles would look hastily prepared vs uniform bundles,,,

A hijacker would be given a degree of false confidence that the money wasn't marked/recorded and try to pass the money..

That was the thinking behind it..

I get it. I'll ask Larry and Tom about it.

fwiw, here are agents describing the condition of Mac's money when it was found. 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

15 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I get it. I'll ask Larry and Tom about it.

fwiw, here are agents describing the condition of Mac's money when it was found. 

 

Larry was the one who screwed this up by conflating bundles and packets... 

I don't think Tom even knows about this.. actually I think I sent him info on it a while ago but he may not remember.

The dominant long held belief was that the money arrived as three separate packets because it was found that way.. and that restricted how the money could have arrived.. For example,, how could three individual packets land in the river 5 miles upstream and end up together.. or go through a dredge..

But three separate packets doesn't fit the evidence... I caught this years ago and was rejected and even told to shut up about it..

Logically, it never made sense. If the money was randomized and the packets of 100 were not then they must have been in bundles.

It is almost a certainty that the money arrived as one single rubber banded bundle of several packets but few people have come around to this. Not sure why, Himmelsbach confirmed it went to Cooper like that.

People will still fight this... their loss.

Edited January 20, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 464]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

It is almost a certainty that the money arrived as one single rubber banded bundle of several packets but few people have come around to this. Not sure why, Himmelsbach confirmed it went to Cooper like that.

 

I'm not sure how that's even a question for some people. Clearly, however it got there, by human force or natural means, it was three packets of $2000 each held together with rubber bands as a single bundle. The evidence of the band bands would have long disintegrated (presumably). That's just thin paper. 

[FLYJACK 654]

21 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I'm not sure how that's even a question for some people. Clearly, however it got there, by human force or natural means, it was three packets of $2000 each held together with rubber bands as a single bundle. The evidence of the band bands would have long disintegrated (presumably). That's just thin paper. 

I know, but until recently I was the only one. I fought this for years..

Everybody believed that the rubber bands were on each packet and they arrived as three separate packets..

That is Ulis's premise for the narrative to claim the money had to be buried... and others claim it had to arrive in the money bag..

Once you realize that the money arrived as one bundle then the means by which it could have arrived opens up.

I believe the money came from the River as one bundle of packets during a Spring when the water level was well above the money find spot.. the money sinks so it tumbled along the bottom to the spot..

The mystery is how, why and when did the money go into the River.

I have a few theories for that but they are speculative and we will never have proof.

Edited January 20, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 37]

24 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I get what you're saying now. However, I just don't see what difference it would make to a hijacker to see a rubber banded bundle of 3 packets and then another rubber banded bundle of 4 packets? If they still have the bank bands on them then they may as well all be thrown in a bag willy-nilly like so:

Olemisscub, you have just jumped into the ongoing argument between Flyjack and Georger on rubber bands and paper tape.

Here, going from memory, is what happened with the money in Seattle.  The bank had about $500,000 of used randomized bills of various denominations set aside for just such matters as the hijacking and this may have been done at the request of the FBI.  This money had been run through a business microfiche machine that made an image of each bill that was in that $500,000 and recorded the serial numbers.

While Cooper didn't specify any bill denominations, the FBI reportedly decided to use $20.00 bills to provide a rather hefty package and no one bothered to put them in a backpack as Cooper had wanted.  So when the bank got the word that $200,000 in $20.00 bills were needed, they packed them in different size bundles with approximately 100 bills per bundle to give the impression that they were hastily assembled and that the serial numbers had not been recorded.

The Seattle detective was given the job of transporting the money from the bank to the NWA facility at SEATAC.  Within a very few minutes, the detective and Al Lee drove out to the airliner with the money, all four parachutes, and a box with several crew meals plus aeronautical charts and approach plates.  Presumably, they used an NWA car or truck for the drive to the aircraft.

I have not seen anything in the records to indicate that anyone other than the bank, the Seattle detective, and NWA personnel had possession of the money.  There is no record of anyone doing anything to the contents of the money bag with the possible exception of taking a look in it to be sure it was money.

Whatever the bundles were wrapped with appears to have been done at the bank.  Since the small bundles were reportedly found with rubber bank wrappings, it would seem reasonable that the bank did it.  Since the FBI was not involved directly in preparing the bundles, any reference to the way they were wrapped would probably not come in a 302 as something an agent directly witnessed.

[CooperNWO305 146]

7 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I know, but until recently I was the only one. I fought this for years..

Everybody believed that the rubber bands were on each packet and they arrived as three separate packets..

That is Ulis's premise for the narrative to claim the money had to be buried... and others claim it had to arrive in the money bag..

Once you realize that the money arrived as one bundle then the means by which it could have arrived opens up.

An interesting tidbit I picked up at CC was that In Search Of with Leonard Nimoy aired in December of 1979, and the money is found just a few months later.  Might be a coincidence, might not. If you were holding onto that money and saw that show, you might be thinking hard about getting rid of it.  I would have burned it personally.

So many out of the ordinary things have to happen for the money to have landed at Tina Bar or be buried there.  Regardless, it is only 3% of the actual money, and Tina Bar is right on a major river, and Cooper likely landed 10-15 miles away.  It's fun to speculate, but there is still $197k out there. 

There are many options on how the $ got into the Columbia. I'm still not ruling out that it washed down from another section of river, or that it fell out of the plane after Cooper jumped (if he lost it on the stairs).  It does seem odd to me that he took money out and handed it to the stews, then supposedly took it back.  I'd suspect the money became separated from the original $200k as a packet of $6k and then somewhere along the line got thrown in the river. Could have been by Cooper, Tina, someone else.  I don't need the diatoms to tell me that the money did not land in the river that night.

[olemisscub 464]

5 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I know, but until recently I was the only one. I fought this for years..

Everybody believed that the rubber bands were on each packet and they arrived as three separate packets..

That is Ulis's premise for the narrative to claim the money had to be buried... and others claim it had to arrive in the money bag..

Once you realize that the money arrived as one bundle then the means by which it could have arrived opens up.

I believe the money came from the River as one bundle of packets during a Spring when the water level was well above the money find spot.. the money sinks so it tumbled along the bottom to the spot..

The mystery is how, why and when did the money go into the River.

We agree 100%. Chaucer and I just did an hour and a half Facebook live about this. 

Wherever the money came from, it was NOT buried on Tena Bar IMO. We know the packets don't float (Tom's experiment), so Chaucer just did an experiment with 300 bills in three packets bundled together just to see if it would make any difference (the bands keeping the bills from fanning out). His bundled floated in the tub for about 7 minutes before submerging. 

 

[CooperNWO305 146]

Do we know what type of dredging was done on the Columbia post-hijack? Was it suction dredging or bucket/backhoe dredging.  I have not ruled out the dredging theory, especially if buckets were used vs suction. Both were common.  It is less likely that the money went through a suction dredger, but possible given the shards.  A while back on one of the boards, someone with dredging experience had mentioned seeing all sorts of material survive a suction dredge.  I think the general assumption has always been that suction was used.

[FLYJACK 654]

8 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Do we know what type of dredging was done on the Columbia post-hijack? Was it suction dredging or bucket/backhoe dredging.  I have not ruled out the dredging theory, especially if buckets were used vs suction. Both were common.  It is less likely that the money went through a suction dredger, but possible given the shards.  A while back on one of the boards, someone with dredging experience had mentioned seeing all sorts of material survive a suction dredge.  I think the general assumption has always been that suction was used.

Suction dredge was used to put material on TBAR... I don't see a suction dredge as a possibility,, a bundle of rubber banded money is too fragile..

However, there was clamshell dredging up and down the River and material was dumped upstream of TBAR,, that is a possibility for moving the money upstream from the Lewis R, but not my favourite theory.

I don't like the Washougal theory either because you would need to move the flightpath/LZ East and South to reach the closest water for that basin,, but even then the route to the Columbia is a really tough one.. down a stream, across a lake, through a gate and down another stream,,,  not feasible.

Edited January 20, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 464]

5 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Do we know what type of dredging was done on the Columbia post-hijack? Was it suction dredging or bucket/backhoe dredging.  I have not ruled out the dredging theory, especially if buckets were used vs suction. Both were common.  It is less likely that the money went through a suction dredger, but possible given the shards.  A while back on one of the boards, someone with dredging experience had mentioned seeing all sorts of material survive a suction dredge.  I think the general assumption has always been that suction was used.

I'm assuming this reference to pipe size refers to suction dredging?

[CooperNWO305 146]

18 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Suction dredge was used to put material on TBAR... I don't see a suction dredge as a possibility,, a bundle of rubber banded money is too fragile..

However, there was clamshell dredging up and down the River and material was dumped upstream of TBAR,, that is a possibility for moving the money upstream from the Lewis R, but not my favourite theory.

I don't like the Washougal theory either because you would need to move the flightpath/LZ East and South to reach the closest water for that basin,, but even then the route to the Columbia is a really tough one.. down a stream, across a lake, through a gate and down another stream,,,  not feasible.

I had kind of stopped thinking of any washdown theory, but then at CC, Tom gave his talk and showed this pic (it is in his video).  A card attached to a packet of money traveled 5 miles in 18 months (the money was gone, maybe taken, maybe fell off).  I don't see the plane flying this far East, but will all the tributaries around there, I guess it's possible for a bundle to make it down a river (maybe in a trench coat).  A separate bundle open to the elements would not likely have stayed in tact, and for the whole bag to land in a tributary and make it to Tina Bar would be unusual.

There really are so many ways that money could have gotten to Tina Bar.  It's just such a small portion of the money.  I tend to think the bills were rubber banded to keep them together, but if there was some way to get conclusive proof that they were not rubber banded, then that would be real interesting.  

Although Himmelsbach has said some things that don't fit with the 302's (dirty rotten crook, bad language, -7 degrees, etc.), I have trouble discounting everything he says or what Tosaw said. 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

42 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

I had kind of stopped thinking of any washdown theory, but then at CC, Tom gave his talk and showed this pic (it is in his video).  A card attached to a packet of money traveled 5 miles in 18 months (the money was gone, maybe taken, maybe fell off).  I don't see the plane flying this far East, but will all the tributaries around there, I guess it's possible for a bundle to make it down a river (maybe in a trench coat).  A separate bundle open to the elements would not likely have stayed in tact, and for the whole bag to land in a tributary and make it to Tina Bar would be unusual.

There really are so many ways that money could have gotten to Tina Bar.  It's just such a small portion of the money.  I tend to think the bills were rubber banded to keep them together, but if there was some way to get conclusive proof that they were not rubber banded, then that would be real interesting.  

Although Himmelsbach has said some things that don't fit with the 302's (dirty rotten crook, bad language, -7 degrees, etc.), I have trouble discounting everything he says or what Tosaw said. 

 

Himmelsbach was personally upset that Cooper was being viewed as some sort of hero so he pushed back with false character claims to discredit Cooper in the minds of the public..

He had no reason to present inaccurate info about the money.. but it only confirms the evidence we have..

Edited January 20, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 37]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

We agree 100%. Chaucer and I just did an hour and a half Facebook live about this. 

Wherever the money came from, it was NOT buried on Tena Bar IMO. We know the packets don't float (Tom's experiment), so Chaucer just did an experiment with 300 bills in three packets bundled together just to see if it would make any difference (the bands keeping the bills from fanning out). His bundled floated in the tub for about 7 minutes before submerging. 

 

If the money came from the river it would have to be by way of the dredge.  The money is going to stay on the bottom of the river and is simply not going to get above the nominal tide line by flooding.

The only way that flooding can move the money is by moving it from a higher elevation to the elevation that it was found at Tena Bar and the money's movement has to be downhill all the way.

For the money to move up hill requires an intervention by a dredge or some other mechanical means that adds energy to the money.  This is elementary physics.

[FLYJACK 654]

29 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

If the money came from the river it would have to be by way of the dredge.  The money is going to stay on the bottom of the river and is simply not going to get above the nominal tide line by flooding.

The only way that flooding can move the money is by moving it from a higher elevation to the elevation that it was found at Tena Bar and the money's movement has to be downhill all the way.

For the money to move up hill requires an intervention by a dredge or some other mechanical means that adds energy to the money.  This is elementary physics.

If the water was well above the money find spot at the time, then the money can be pushed along the bottom to that spot.. when the money arrives the money spot is effectively the bottom of the river. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

Most lighter debris will be suspended on the bottom.. unlike rocks, the money would be easily moved.

Here is a video starting at mile 98 moving downstream right past TBAR located at about mile 97.. 

The bottom is relatively smooth and sandy... suspended debris on the bottom could be easily moved along by current..

BTW.. at mile 97.3, for that entire 1 mile section on the map 200,000 cu yards of fill was dumped in 1976/77.. it is across and upstream of TBAR. The debris was clamshell dredged and barged from other areas of the Columbia River. That is a potential method to move the money upstream from the mouth of the Lewis River..

 

video..

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by FLYJACK

[JAGdb 69]

Went back to re-read Tom's rubber band tests on the CS web site.  He performed a water submersion test and a sand burial test.  For the water test, all the rubber bands broke by 234 days, (some broke earlier).  For the sand test, all of the bands broke by the 355th day, (some broke earlier).   

Tom's tests were relatively static and ideal in the sense that they weren't subjected to movement on the bottom of the river, rubbing against sand and other debris, dredge forces, etc.  So the integrity or life span of the rubber bands might be even less in the actual Columbia River. 

So if we accept Tom's results, there's less than a year in the best case, where once the rubber bands were out in the elements (oxygen, water or buried in sand) for them to be able to hold the three packets together long enough for the money to come to rest at Tena Bar as it was found.  When did that ~one year clock start ticking ? 11/24/71 ?  Or did someone deposit it at some later point in time ?  

Based on this, I'm kind of skeptical that the rubber bands could have held the three packets together very long in some of the dynamic conditions it would have been exposed to in the river.  For example, could it really have been resting on the bottom of the river for several years and still be able to be sucked up and spit out ?  or carried by a flooding ?

The one wild card for me is the congealing or solidifying of the money into a single brick like mass.  Under what conditions and how long does it take a packet of 100 bills to stick together like they were found?  Once in this state, could they survive the forces of a suction dredge ? Could they survive the forces of a clam shell bucket digging it out of the bottom and then dumping it on Tena Bar ? But even if the solidified packets could, wouldn't rubber bands have snapped or washed away ?

Another question, were the three packets stuck together into one 300 bill packet when found ?  

[georger 194]

7 hours ago, JAGdb said:

Went back to re-read Tom's rubber band tests on the CS web site.  He performed a water submersion test and a sand burial test.  For the water test, all the rubber bands broke by 234 days, (some broke earlier).  For the sand test, all of the bands broke by the 355th day, (some broke earlier).   

Tom's tests were relatively static and ideal in the sense that they weren't subjected to movement on the bottom of the river, rubbing against sand and other debris, dredge forces, etc.  So the integrity or life span of the rubber bands might be even less in the actual Columbia River. 

So if we accept Tom's results, there's less than a year in the best case, where once the rubber bands were out in the elements (oxygen, water or buried in sand) for them to be able to hold the three packets together long enough for the money to come to rest at Tena Bar as it was found.  When did that ~one year clock start ticking ? 11/24/71 ?  Or did someone deposit it at some later point in time ?  

Based on this, I'm kind of skeptical that the rubber bands could have held the three packets together very long in some of the dynamic conditions it would have been exposed to in the river.  For example, could it really have been resting on the bottom of the river for several years and still be able to be sucked up and spit out ?  or carried by a flooding ?

The one wild card for me is the congealing or solidifying of the money into a single brick like mass.  Under what conditions and how long does it take a packet of 100 bills to stick together like they were found?  Once in this state, could they survive the forces of a suction dredge ? Could they survive the forces of a clam shell bucket digging it out of the bottom and then dumping it on Tena Bar ? But even if the solidified packets could, wouldn't rubber bands have snapped or washed away ?

Another question, were the three packets stuck together into one 300 bill packet when found ?  

The last question is no. Read the thread!

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by georger

[georger 194]

12 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

If the water was well above the money find spot at the time, then the money can be pushed along the bottom to that spot.. when the money arrives the money spot is effectively the bottom of the river. 

of course.

Edited January 21, 2023 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

Just to check..

If the money floats for 7 minutes then it would travel 1/3 mile on the surface of the River before it sinks..

Using the TBAR money spot as the centre, this show a 1/3 mile circle.. for the money to arrive on TBAR before it sinks then it had to enter the River within the lower left quadrant of this circle.

[Robert99 37]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Just to check..

If the money floats for 7 minutes then it would travel 1/3 mile on the surface of the River before it sinks..

Using the TBAR money spot as the centre, this show a 1/3 mile circle.. for the money to arrive on TBAR before it sinks then it had to enter the River within the lower left quadrant of this circle.

Flyjack, you are assuming that the location where the money was found was under water at the time of the jump.  There is nothing to support that assumption.

The flooding of the Tena Bar area takes place during the spring snow melt run off which was several months after the jump.

[FLYJACK 654]

30 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

Flyjack, you are assuming that the location where the money was found was under water at the time of the jump.  There is nothing to support that assumption.

The flooding of the Tena Bar area takes place during the spring snow melt run off which was several months after the jump.

No, I am not.. 

For this diagram.. I am assuming the money went into the River when the water level was at the money spot and floated on the surface to the money spot. Somebody could have tossed it in the River in Spring... or whatever..

IMO, It is far more likely the money went into the River further away and sank to the bottom.. but for the money not to sink it had to go into the River within that lower left quadrant.

I am not suggesting this happened, it is a what if analysis.. beyond that circle the money would have sunk..

Edited January 21, 2023 by FLYJACK