13 13
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

I support people monetizing their work but Ulis's work was stolen from Sailshaw and others and used to build a BS narrative by adding extreme speculation, bias and conjecture while ignoring facts.. He stole my research and perverted it to support his theory. He was never a true researcher seeking the truth and facts, he was goal seeking from the start to sell a narrative. He launched personal attacks when I challenged his speculation with facts from the FBI files. That was the tell..  His agenda was to sell his extremely speculative theory and himself. He was never pursuing the truth.

Production companies are not motivated by the truth either, they seek stories that gain audiences..  to make money.

Eric is the man behind the Cooper Con. He found a sucker.

 

I'd expect a rush of Cooper productions as we near the 50th Norjak anniversary.

 

but, I have to chuckle at the idea of Ulis getting paid to lead a production crew through a forested area looking for Cooper evidence based on an entirely bogus narrative.. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I support people monetizing their work but Ulis's work was stolen from Sailshaw and others and used to build a BS narrative by adding extreme speculation, bias and conjecture while ignoring facts.. He stole my research and perverted it to support his theory. He was never a true researcher seeking the truth and facts, he was goal seeking from the start to sell a narrative. He launched personal attacks when I challenged his speculation with facts from the FBI files. That was the tell..  His agenda was to sell his extremely speculative theory and himself. He was never pursuing the truth.

Production companies are not motivated by the truth either, they seek stories that gain audiences..  to make money.

Eric is the man behind the Cooper Con. He found a sucker.

 

I'd expect a rush of Cooper productions as we near the 50th Norjak anniversary.

 

but, I have to chuckle at the idea of Ulis getting paid to lead a production crew through a forested area looking for Cooper evidence based on an entirely bogus narrative.. 

 

Flyjack, you post is a bunch of self-serving nonsense.  I doubt if Eric Ulis has stolen anything from anyone and he has certainly done his homework.

Congratulations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Flyjack, you post is a bunch of self-serving nonsense.  I doubt if Eric Ulis has stolen anything from anyone and he has certainly done his homework.

Congratulations!

Eric certainly has you fooled.. He also used your self serving theory to concoct his factless narrative. 

A am sure he has done his homework, he has just completely failed the assignment. While ignoring facts, Eric has layered assumptions, speculation, opinion and conjecture into a sellable narrative. It is a fact-less one created in his own mind.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

Eric certainly has you fooled.. He also used your self serving theory to concoct his factless narrative. 

A am sure he has done his homework, he has just completely failed the assignment. While ignoring facts, Eric has layered assumptions, speculation, opinion and conjecture into a sellable narrative. It is a fact-less one created in his own mind.

 

My "self serving theory" is one of only a handful of things in Cooper World that is actually based on facts.  Have you actually done anything that is based on proven facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

My "self serving theory" is one of only a handful of things in Cooper World that is actually based on facts.  Have you actually done anything that is based on proven facts?

Your theory is speculation.. it is not a fact. I have uncovered many facts and most I haven't even posted.

I have no interest in discussing the details of your theory or Eric's fictional narrative. You are both intellectually dishonest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Robert99 says in part:

Quote

" I doubt if Eric Ulis has stolen anything from anyone and he has certainly done his homework..."

Check-in time at the Reality Hotel Robert99:

I already know enough about Eric to understand what he is all about. There is nothing inherently wrong with going on TV for a Cooper documentary, or organizing a convention, or for that matter...inviting people to come and party around a campfire while discussing the different angles of the Cooper case. 

The REAL question is whether when you do these things, if you are dealing with people in an honest manner and Eric has shown he isn't above bullshitting people to get what he wants. Sometimes it works for him, (documentary perhaps) and sometimes not so well. (Last two conventions) 

Our best information here at AB of Seattle shows that Eric most likely decided to hit up on a married lady at convention one, and only backed off around the time she came to us about it. Eric claimed this was his ex giving him a hard time. But we discovered the emails didn't come from Scottsdale. 

For Convention Two, he agreed to host a similar event that was being organized down in Portland, and instead turned his back on that without a word, insulted some very nice people who were planning to come from all over the USA to support it...and ended up with a rather lame event down in Vancouver. I didn't find out the whole truth on what happened until later, and somehow Eric and his friends managed to poison pen some of the other organizers of the Portland event and turn them against us. The final result was that it was mostly the Eric Show, and a bit on the boring side. Our plan was to bring the cast of Decoded on the stage, and a famous Hollywood star, who was also a TV series regular, and was in sixteen other films...and Eric offers you Captain Smith's daughter.

All of his program based on lies and deception from the start. The weird part is that our program in Portland didn't go south until we decided to invite Eric to host. He accepted the job knowing all the while his REAL intention was to ensure it didn't happen, and he accomplished that to the detriment of the Cooper public. We discovered later that he was secretly working with other people to actually have another program in Vancouver, and never had any intention of participating in the Portland event. He took the hosting job simply to make the event vanish, which he did. 

Oh, I learned from that experience and did a couple of YouTube videos about it. You bet I did. After that, I wanted nothing to do with either Eric or whatever program he has going now. Basically, he cheated both the public and the people he invited. Most of them never realized what Eric had done until later. They would have been speaking to an easily packed house, with a crowd mostly dressed like characters from the Cooper case...hoping to win their share of a thousand bucks in Amazon gift cards. Eric 1, Cooperland 0. The public was cheated and got less than zero. 

Now THAT'S a convention, folks. I was asked to help organize this event, so I did. My efforts were wasted. You can believe I won't waste my time and effort for such a thing a second time. 

Eric's aim is to become King of Cooperland, with Bruce Smith and a few others as his subjects. MY aim is to present the KC story in a feature film distributed worldwide. Maybe they will, maybe not. 

No more documentaries for me. And no more conventions either. The people involved in the current conventions, in my humble opinion, simply cannot be trusted. Eric sold out the people who participated in his version, and the really weird thing is that they actually supported him doing that. He reminds me of our current Prez in one respect:  His followers support him no matter what he does, even if it hurts THEM to a degree. B)

You cannot work with people like that. 

Meanwhile, I am planning the final Cooper Campout for this summer and I will be more than happy to extricate myself from the Cooper Vortex afterward. Practicing exclusion and taking sides has accomplished little or nothing in the way of promoting different investigators' points of view, or making their points available to the general public in REAL events. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

From the Palmer report..

"The upper layer consisted of six inches to eight inches of reworked beach sand and is the sand which contained the fragments and bundles of the recovered money. This sand also contained soda pop cans and other debris, which were not severely damaged or rusted. The (lower) post dredging sand contained older soda pop cans, rusted nails and spikes, and other rusted artifacts, which were in a much more deteriorated condition."

 

The money was in the upper 6-8 inch sand layer which contained other debris that was not severely damaged or rusted..

That indicates the money was deposited recently.

 

According to Ulis, to support his fictional narrative he made up the fallacy that the money can't self bury but miraculously the other "fresh" debri in the same layer can... 

 

 

palmer1.jpeg.b0cf438a6bf683beaeb53a8195bb7528.jpeg

palmer4.jpeg.566d14594c8056a65db5e23e08fac3f7.jpeg

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Also,, dredge unlikely..

 

"The channel is maintained at 40 feet in depth and all the material above 40 feet is dredged out. The dredge "Washington" of the General Construction Company did the dredging on this project. It had a 24 inch pipe with wiper bar inside the pipe. The wiper bar keeps larger objects such as rocks from passing through the pipe. _______ stated that it would be possible for a 16x16x4 inch package to get through the pipe; however, it is likely that a package that size or a human body or parts thereof would be broken into pieces by the auger then passed through the pipe and deposited on the beach. The material deposited on the beach was spread with tractors probably over a area of 50 yards in each direction."

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


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

I support people monetizing their work but Ulis's work was stolen from Sailshaw and others and used to build a BS narrative by adding extreme speculation, bias and conjecture while ignoring facts.. He stole my research and perverted it to support his theory. He was never a true researcher seeking the truth and facts, he was goal seeking from the start to sell a narrative. He launched personal attacks when I challenged his speculation with facts from the FBI files. That was the tell..  His agenda was to sell his extremely speculative theory and himself. He was never pursuing the truth.

Production companies are not motivated by the truth either, they seek stories that gain audiences..  to make money.

Eric is the man behind the Cooper Con. He found a sucker.

 

I'd expect a rush of Cooper productions as we near the 50th Norjak anniversary.

 

but, I have to chuckle at the idea of Ulis getting paid to lead a production crew through a forested area looking for Cooper evidence based on an entirely bogus narrative.. 

 

 

22 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I support people monetizing their work but Ulis's work was stolen from Sailshaw and others and used to build a BS narrative by adding extreme speculation, bias and conjecture while ignoring facts.. He stole my research and perverted it to support his theory. He was never a true researcher seeking the truth and facts, he was goal seeking from the start to sell a narrative. He launched personal attacks when I challenged his speculation with facts from the FBI files. That was the tell..  His agenda was to sell his extremely speculative theory and himself. He was never pursuing the truth.

Production companies are not motivated by the truth either, they seek stories that gain audiences..  to make money.

Eric is the man behind the Cooper Con. He found a sucker.

 

I'd expect a rush of Cooper productions as we near the 50th Norjak anniversary.

 

but, I have to chuckle at the idea of Ulis getting paid to lead a production crew through a forested area looking for Cooper evidence based on an entirely bogus narrative.. 

 

These shows always have to add some excitement to hook the audience. I’m curious to see if they “find” any clues out there. I think it is highly unlikely that Cooper landed there or was there, so it will be interesting to see what pieces they find out there and how they add excitement to the show. 
 

At this point I’m glad to see shows about the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
27 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

 

These shows always have to add some excitement to hook the audience. I’m curious to see if they “find” any clues out there. I think it is highly unlikely that Cooper landed there or was there, so it will be interesting to see what pieces they find out there and how they add excitement to the show. 
 

At this point I’m glad to see shows about the case. 

It depends on context...

If they represent Ulis's theory as highly speculative and critically challenge it then that is good. However, I expect them to present it as fact and that taints the public perception. The public will be sold Eric's nonsense theory and that is a CON.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

The upcoming documentary won't go very far with the viewing audience if at the end the audience feels cheated, as they did in D.B. Cooper - Case Closed?

That was a complete fiasco because Rackstraw (smartly) refused to speak a word to them, and also because Tina Mucklow rejected Rackstraw as the hijacker. That show went from possible boom to an absolute bust at the end. NYT reporter Billy Jensen was a part of that production, and later distanced himself from it. I was emailing him back and forth for a while after the show came out. He said two basic things:  He was frustrated because the more senior members of that production were ignoring things that Jensen thought pointed to Rackstraw's innocence. His second 'big point' was that he wanted nothing further to do with the show, or the pursuit of Rackstraw as the hijacker. I don't want to go overboard talking for Jensen, so I won't add any further to this assessment. Truth is, he never ventured anything more to me than those two points. 

(Although let's face it...if we're talking about Rackstraw, he wasn't exactly Mr. Perfect LOL. He may have even killed his own stepfather and gotten away with it.)

But he certainly wasn't DB Cooper. 

The one thing I could never figure out with Tom Colbert and his team was how they came to the idea that a guy 29 years old with blue eyes was Cooper. Geez, Louise. Nothing told them they might be on the wrong track with that? They had to be led into the Reality Hotel by Tina Mucklow. She booked them a room on the top floor, penthouse suite, and went on her way back to Springfield.

It was also supremely foolish of them to offer up a six-photo array to Mucklow where NONE of the other pictures were of a DB Cooper suspect. Only Rackstraw's mug, and five unknown people. If they had laid out ALL the main suspects and Mucklow ID's someone other than Rackstraw as the hijacker...at least they could have taken credit for it. Instead, they bet everything on Rackstraw and got burned. I was able to get a screenshot from the show to show this is what they did...it's buried on either C or D drives somewhere, maybe one of the backup flash drives, but I did post it here once at Dropzone after (guess who) Shutter challenged me on it. It's back there in pages somewhere. 

This upcoming documentary featuring EU will attempt to prove that Sheridan Peterson is Cooper. EU will probably sprinkle in a few lies about Peterson here and there to 'prove' his point. Then you have some people boonie-crashing around the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge looking for 'evidence' in an effort that EU probably knows himself is hopeless. When they come up with zip, all it will do is make EU look more foolish than he already is now. We're probably looking at D.B. Cooper - Case Closed: The Sequel. 

I don't mind watching another Cooper documentary, though. I just don't expect much will come of it. If Eric Ulis has Candyland dreams of a movie pointing to Sheridan as the hijacker, he can forget it. I found out long ago that any movie that accuses someone of a crime, someone who has not been formally accused...and that person's family is still living...that studios won't go near such a project, especially with a private citizen...unless they can get a signed release from either the person himself (Sheridan) or if he is no longer living...the family. And I can assure you that Sheridan Peterson's family will sign no such document. Not in this life, not even in the next. I was required to get a release from KC's family in order for THAT project to move forward. EU will never get such a release from Sheridan's family. 

Why? Because Sheridan himself, as well as his family members, are PISSED OFF at anyone and everyone who has proposed he was Cooper. They know better, and they don't like it. And they know all about EU, I can tell you that with confidence. It's even possible that the legal eagles at the production company doing the documentary will tell the director that they can't bring up Sheridan's name publicly in the show. It invites an instant lawsuit, made easy by the fact that Sheridan was already investigated by the FBI, freely gave a DNA sample, and cooperated with them fully without asking for a lawyer. If the show is dumb enough to bring up his name...they would just be asking for it. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Email came into the box asking which was my favorite video at YouTube. I think he expected me to name a Cooper video, maybe even one of my own.

Not a chance in hell. 

It was the one done a decade ago by a dad celebrating the lives of his two daughters with a unique approach and a famous song by Van Morrison.

Pure genius, it's my all time favorite. But then I am slanted. I have two girls as well, Phoebe and Sara.

 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


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

The upcoming documentary won't go very far with the viewing audience if at the end the audience feels cheated, as they did in D.B. Cooper - Case Closed?

That was a complete fiasco because Rackstraw (smartly) refused to speak a word to them, and also because Tina Mucklow rejected Rackstraw as the hijacker. That show went from possible boom to an absolute bust at the end. NYT reporter Billy Jensen was a part of that production, and later distanced himself from it. I was emailing him back and forth for a while after the show came out. He said two basic things:  He was frustrated because the more senior members of that production were ignoring things that Jensen thought pointed to Rackstraw's innocence. His second 'big point' was that he wanted nothing further to do with the show, or the pursuit of Rackstraw as the hijacker. I don't want to go overboard talking for Jensen, so I won't add any further to this assessment. Truth is, he never ventured anything more to me than those two points. 

(Although let's face it...if we're talking about Rackstraw, he wasn't exactly Mr. Perfect LOL. He may have even killed his own stepfather and gotten away with it.)

But he certainly wasn't DB Cooper. 

The one thing I could never figure out with Tom Colbert and his team was how they came to the idea that a guy 29 years old with blue eyes was Cooper. Geez, Louise. Nothing told them they might be on the wrong track with that? They had to be led into the Reality Hotel by Tina Mucklow. She booked them a room on the top floor, penthouse suite, and went on her way back to Springfield.

It was also supremely foolish of them to offer up a six-photo array to Mucklow where NONE of the other pictures were of a DB Cooper suspect. Only Rackstraw's mug, and five unknown people. If they had laid out ALL the main suspects and Mucklow ID's someone other than Rackstraw as the hijacker...at least they could have taken credit for it. Instead, they bet everything on Rackstraw and got burned. I was able to get a screenshot from the show to show this is what they did...it's buried on either C or D drives somewhere, maybe one of the backup flash drives, but I did post it here once at Dropzone after (guess who) Shutter challenged me on it. It's back there in pages somewhere. 

This upcoming documentary featuring EU will attempt to prove that Sheridan Peterson is Cooper. EU will probably sprinkle in a few lies about Peterson here and there to 'prove' his point. Then you have some people boonie-crashing around the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge looking for 'evidence' in an effort that EU probably knows himself is hopeless. When they come up with zip, all it will do is make EU look more foolish than he already is now. We're probably looking at D.B. Cooper - Case Closed: The Sequel. 

I don't mind watching another Cooper documentary, though. I just don't expect much will come of it. If Eric Ulis has Candyland dreams of a movie pointing to Sheridan as the hijacker, he can forget it. I found out long ago that any movie that accuses someone of a crime, someone who has not been formally accused...and that person's family is still living...that studios won't go near such a project, especially with a private citizen...unless they can get a signed release from either the person himself (Sheridan) or if he is no longer living...the family. And I can assure you that Sheridan Peterson's family will sign no such document. Not in this life, not even in the next. I was required to get a release from KC's family in order for THAT project to move forward. EU will never get such a release from Sheridan's family. 

Why? Because Sheridan himself, as well as his family members, are PISSED OFF at anyone and everyone who has proposed he was Cooper. They know better, and they don't like it. And they know all about EU, I can tell you that with confidence. It's even possible that the legal eagles at the production company doing the documentary will tell the director that they can't bring up Sheridan's name publicly in the show. It invites an instant lawsuit, made easy by the fact that Sheridan was already investigated by the FBI, freely gave a DNA sample, and cooperated with them fully without asking for a lawyer. If the show is dumb enough to bring up his name...they would just be asking for it. 

They will find something. A tin can or a shoe, and it will be blown out of proportion like the media always does every day. A&E can’t do a show just about a search in the woods. Eric is not a guest either, he’s helping produce it, so it will likely feature Sheridan too. I have to imagine the Rackstraw people are a little bent out of shape about another suspect getting attention.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Tom Kay's update...

"All,
Attached is the last and most conclusive diatom picture from 377's bill. It shows a completely intact A. formosa sandwiched between two layers of bills.  This finding shows that the formosa had to float into that position while the bills were fanned out in the water.  It would be impossible for a diatom to work its way in between the bills while they were buried and under compression. We have now examined all the fragments from 377's bill so this will be the last update."


Tom Kaye

 

This indicates the money was in the Columbia River around May/June... it rules out the human burial and demonstrates there was a delay between Norjak and the money landing on TB. It eliminates many of the theories. (including one of mine)

IMO, this plus the Palmer report indicating the money was found in the top sand layer with "fresher" debri suggests the money landed on TB within a few years of the 1980 find.

 

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I only believed for *a while* that the money was actually buried at Tina Bar. I think it came from somewhere else on a water delivery, somewhere close by, and NOT as a result of the jet being miles off course. I think it was a deliberate action in response to the FBI's successful acquisition of the John Doe warrant in November 1976. Must have been a real bummer for Cooper when he heard about it on the Northwest TV news, or in the paper. The fact that the Statute of Limitations was coming up on the Cooper hijacking had been news for some time PRIOR to the issuance of the warrant, and when the FBI went around it, this caught everyone by surprise, even the media. I had this vision once of the real Cooper tossing things around his house, breaking dishes, swearing, etc. B) You know the drill. You spend five years jumping out of your skin every time someone knocks at the door, or taps you on the shoulder, and then just at the last second when you think you will be free and clear, BAM....that nasty FBI talks some friendly Federal judge into going around the Statute. A real dirty trick for sure. 

I did see an interesting article today on another Cooper-related subject.  

A short history on Sky Sports in Seattle and its eventual closure in 1987. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

The John Doe indictment should have been sealed..

Maybe it was intentionally publicized to keep people quiet. There would have been a better chance at identifying Cooper if it was sealed.

You know what, Flyjack? That is a very good point. I never thought of that. 

Well, it figures. Another dumb move in the investigation by the FBI. You are right. They SHOULD have kept it quiet. Cooper might have come out of the woodwork, or at least became a bit looser in his behavior, maybe letting the wrong thing slip to the wrong person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, Andrade1812 said:

To what depth are diatoms found? 

That is not a simple question,, it depends on the diatom and the material.

A. Formosa in non-motile, some diatoms are motile.

I found a sampling that had A. Formosa down to 10cm in lake sediment. Other diatoms much further. That is a soft nutrient rich environment under water not a course sand bar. 

I am still looking for more on A. Formosa specifically in sand...

Kaye seems to suggest the A. Formosa wouldn't penetrate the course sand or into a tight packet. The seasonal bloom doesn't match Norjak.

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

If you want to analyze diatoms, or their behavior (if you can call it that), you have to make it a scientific specialty. No one, and I mean NO ONE on Planet Earth understands everything about them, or even close. I figured that much out just by doing some basic research lately. They don't even know how many different species there are, maybe 100,000 and up to 200,000, and probably 10-15% actually identified and cataloged. 

One of the few studied experts on diatoms in the United States is probably Andrew Alverson at the University of Arkansas. Tom Kaye might want to brief him a bit and then send his results to Alverson to see what he says. His contact info at the university is HERE.

As far as the rest of us discussing all this in regards to the Tina Bar money, this effort is much like two ants standing atop an anthill in the middle of the Sahara desert...and trying to speculate on what the rest of the world is like. 

EDIT: Current plan for the final 'Cooper Campout' has been finalized. This is what we will do:  Plan is for Greg the Techie Guy and yours truly to take a trip to the Spider Lake area and set everything up as if it were the Real Deal, see if everything works. (Power, media stuff, bath provisions, communications, shelter, etc) and do this over the first weekend of April. 

If all goes well, we do the public campout in June. So far we have six firm committals on the June trip, with some of them jumping on board from the Nissan support group website where I hang out a lot. I will run the Craigslist Event notice two weeks prior to the June date and god help us. (*laughs*) I have no idea what will happen after that. We're hoping people don't go crazy on us, but then my experience has been that mostly sensible and nice folks bother driving 20 miles off road for a thing like this.

We hope. :/ 

One more thing: I have a message in to the producers of this *alleged* upcoming feature film on Cooper. I have asked them WHEN CAN WE DO A PUBLIC RELEASE OF INFORMATION? It's been three years, we have a script now, a major Hollywood star is on board the production staff, as well as the production company HE owns. How much longer do they expect ME to keep their secrets? Frankly, I'm tired of it. 

EDIT: I have received an answer to the message. "They" have told me that an announcement will be made in the trades as soon as the script is deemed complete. Right now everyone is working on it, including myself. In other words, not too much longer I hope. I am plain sick of keeping secrets, that is the truth. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

My minor contribution to the Cooper case today: I finished my red pencil work on the script. Over a hundred pages to cover. My back hurts. My neck hurts. My BRAIN hurts. B)

Running the results through a copy machine tomorrow (so I have a copy) and then mailing off the other copy to the production guys. 

I am literally brain dead and exhausted. I should make them pay ME the money they wanted to give to Bruce Smith. I will admit that editing a screenplay is a bit easier than editing a book, though. I'm just glad I got some rights on script changes. Mainly because they got some of the historical facts wrong. For example, they moved Himmelsbach to SeaTac on the night of the crime, instead of him initially working the case out of Portland. I had to 'adjust' that. And a few other things. But I think it is reasonably accurate now. I also tightened up the dialogue, which is one of my strong suits in editing. 

LATE NOTE: I was allowed to post a partial notice about the film. You can see it HERE. 

Eat your hearts out, Bruce and Eric. ^_^

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Andrade1812 said:

Where are the diatoms found in the water column? Are they in the top meter or do they appear deeper?

Deeper, but there are variables, light/water mix/diatom/nutrients..

 

I have read A. Formosa has been found at a depth of 10 m in a lake (study not the Columbia R)

 

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.

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.

13 13