Recommended Posts
I realize that my posts have been on the long side, and I never intended to stifle the discussion. My approach to this case has always been to work with the facts at hand and use the process of elimination. Many on this board have been willing to turn a blind eye to the facts as they were presented. That's okay, just be honest with yourself about it.
There's a paradox in this case. Since 377 asked what my "theory" was (even though I once told him privately), I should at least answer this better than I did, just to be fair.
The paradox is as follows:
The money washed up. We don't know how much of it washed up, but it was at least 3 stacks (280-300 bills). It could have been more, but it may not have been. But we can reasonably assume that the money itself did get to its final resting place via the Columbia River.
However, there's only two tribuarities to the Columbia that will work with the location of the money because the rest of the tributaries all adjoin the Columbia further downstream from the find. Your choices are Washougal & LaCamas lake. The later may not even be viable. Neither one fits the facts as they have been presented (the jump occured in NW Clark County, 9 miles from the nearest LaCamas tributary).
We are left with the paradox: the money did arrive to its location via the Columbia, but the money could not have traveled either tributary on its own.
The money washed up at some point in 1979.
Yes, the paradox does leave us with questions, and for some of us, it leaves us with a desire to throw out facts. I've previously shown, however, that even when throwing out facts arbitarily, the odds that the money traveled via a tributary are extremely slight (and it may even be impossible).
If you look at almost every single "theory" that each of us has, pretty much all of them will violate one of the facts (or rules).
For example, if you think McCoy did it, you have the age problem, the alibi problem, and you fall victim to the paradox.
If you think Christiansen did it, you have the description problem and you also fall victim to the paradox (but to a much lesser degree than McCoy).
If you think Mayfield did it, you have alibi issues and the paradox really bites (worse than Christiansen).
If you think Cooper had a getaway car stashed in a remote location that he used to get away, you violate the paradox.
If you think Cooper had an accomplice, you violate reasonable deductions of facts and the paradox.
If you think Cooper lost the money, you violate the paradox.
If you think Cooper died on impact, you violate the paradox.
In eliminating all these possibilities, what are some solutions?
Well, saying that someone found the money and/or body will still leave significant questions (why does the money then wind up in the Columbia?)... again, a paradox problem.
There has been only one theory put forth on these boards that does not violate any of the rules. My theory isn't really based on "who" did it, but rather how it happened.
The story that makes the most sense is that Cooper was not from the area. He landed, maybe hurt, and needed to avoid people (he's carrying a large bag of money and wearing a suit and he's a wanted man). Therefore, he evades people as he attempts his escape by foot. If he wanted to leave the area, ultimately, he will have to enter civilization (to drive, bus, or train out of town)... but in traveling by foot, he would have to consider being made literally because of being caught holding the "bag". This is the only reason I can think of (other than death) as to why Cooper would purposely leave behind the ransom.
I highly doubt if Cooper wanted to leave ransom behind that he'd leave it all. He would most certainly grab what he could fit and stash the rest of it.
If he's from the area, he can return quickly, but if he's from outside the area, he would not return right away.
For whatever reason (jail, lack of need, injury, etc) he did not return (or could not locate the stash). My personal opinion is that he did take about 3x the average household salary (30k) and was doing okay; after this, he was waiting for the statute of limitations to pass before risking retrieval.
At some point in 1979, something happens that causes the money to enter the Columbia. I can tell you through simple float times that it most certainly was placed in the river itself. We don't have enough information (yet) to know where or how.
I cannot think of a logical reason as to why Cooper (or anyone else) would purposely throw money into the river in 1979. The only reason would be that the money was damaged. After 7+ years, regardless of the "bag" or container the money was in, it would have been moldy. The only way it would not be moldy is if it were kept indoors or in an airtight container. Neither of these are likely. The rubberbands suggest a container that shielded the money from sunlight and constant wet/dry cycles (that would cause the bills to become brittle and break).
"hot" money is an inadequate explanation; the money was not hot because 8 years had passed and no one was still sifting through 20 dollar bills trying to find a needle in a haystack.
I do think this is the *most likely* scenario. It's certainly not the only scenario that will not violate any rules, but unquestionably, a similar story would have to hold true if the facts are truly facts.
As of now, I'm guessing that the money was held in some type of plastic container, if not multiple containers, perhaps a 5 gallon sized one (that's the volume of the money). If the money was damaged, and he retrieved it in 1979 after he thought the statute of limitations was long gone, he would have had to throw the whole container into the water (or else he'd have to throw it within 10 minute's river distance of the sand bar).
Yes, it's a paradox. But it doesn't mean there aren't answers to it.
I'd love to hear everyone's else's theories; if you break a "rule" just acknowledge which ones you think are inaccurate as you submit your theory. Maybe we'll get Ckret to chime in eventually to tell us we're all full of it (or we hit it on the head).
There's a paradox in this case. Since 377 asked what my "theory" was (even though I once told him privately), I should at least answer this better than I did, just to be fair.
The paradox is as follows:
The money washed up. We don't know how much of it washed up, but it was at least 3 stacks (280-300 bills). It could have been more, but it may not have been. But we can reasonably assume that the money itself did get to its final resting place via the Columbia River.
However, there's only two tribuarities to the Columbia that will work with the location of the money because the rest of the tributaries all adjoin the Columbia further downstream from the find. Your choices are Washougal & LaCamas lake. The later may not even be viable. Neither one fits the facts as they have been presented (the jump occured in NW Clark County, 9 miles from the nearest LaCamas tributary).
We are left with the paradox: the money did arrive to its location via the Columbia, but the money could not have traveled either tributary on its own.
The money washed up at some point in 1979.
Yes, the paradox does leave us with questions, and for some of us, it leaves us with a desire to throw out facts. I've previously shown, however, that even when throwing out facts arbitarily, the odds that the money traveled via a tributary are extremely slight (and it may even be impossible).
If you look at almost every single "theory" that each of us has, pretty much all of them will violate one of the facts (or rules).
For example, if you think McCoy did it, you have the age problem, the alibi problem, and you fall victim to the paradox.
If you think Christiansen did it, you have the description problem and you also fall victim to the paradox (but to a much lesser degree than McCoy).
If you think Mayfield did it, you have alibi issues and the paradox really bites (worse than Christiansen).
If you think Cooper had a getaway car stashed in a remote location that he used to get away, you violate the paradox.
If you think Cooper had an accomplice, you violate reasonable deductions of facts and the paradox.
If you think Cooper lost the money, you violate the paradox.
If you think Cooper died on impact, you violate the paradox.
In eliminating all these possibilities, what are some solutions?
Well, saying that someone found the money and/or body will still leave significant questions (why does the money then wind up in the Columbia?)... again, a paradox problem.
There has been only one theory put forth on these boards that does not violate any of the rules. My theory isn't really based on "who" did it, but rather how it happened.
The story that makes the most sense is that Cooper was not from the area. He landed, maybe hurt, and needed to avoid people (he's carrying a large bag of money and wearing a suit and he's a wanted man). Therefore, he evades people as he attempts his escape by foot. If he wanted to leave the area, ultimately, he will have to enter civilization (to drive, bus, or train out of town)... but in traveling by foot, he would have to consider being made literally because of being caught holding the "bag". This is the only reason I can think of (other than death) as to why Cooper would purposely leave behind the ransom.
I highly doubt if Cooper wanted to leave ransom behind that he'd leave it all. He would most certainly grab what he could fit and stash the rest of it.
If he's from the area, he can return quickly, but if he's from outside the area, he would not return right away.
For whatever reason (jail, lack of need, injury, etc) he did not return (or could not locate the stash). My personal opinion is that he did take about 3x the average household salary (30k) and was doing okay; after this, he was waiting for the statute of limitations to pass before risking retrieval.
At some point in 1979, something happens that causes the money to enter the Columbia. I can tell you through simple float times that it most certainly was placed in the river itself. We don't have enough information (yet) to know where or how.
I cannot think of a logical reason as to why Cooper (or anyone else) would purposely throw money into the river in 1979. The only reason would be that the money was damaged. After 7+ years, regardless of the "bag" or container the money was in, it would have been moldy. The only way it would not be moldy is if it were kept indoors or in an airtight container. Neither of these are likely. The rubberbands suggest a container that shielded the money from sunlight and constant wet/dry cycles (that would cause the bills to become brittle and break).
"hot" money is an inadequate explanation; the money was not hot because 8 years had passed and no one was still sifting through 20 dollar bills trying to find a needle in a haystack.
I do think this is the *most likely* scenario. It's certainly not the only scenario that will not violate any rules, but unquestionably, a similar story would have to hold true if the facts are truly facts.
As of now, I'm guessing that the money was held in some type of plastic container, if not multiple containers, perhaps a 5 gallon sized one (that's the volume of the money). If the money was damaged, and he retrieved it in 1979 after he thought the statute of limitations was long gone, he would have had to throw the whole container into the water (or else he'd have to throw it within 10 minute's river distance of the sand bar).
Yes, it's a paradox. But it doesn't mean there aren't answers to it.
I'd love to hear everyone's else's theories; if you break a "rule" just acknowledge which ones you think are inaccurate as you submit your theory. Maybe we'll get Ckret to chime in eventually to tell us we're all full of it (or we hit it on the head).
Erroll 80
QuoteWe are left with the paradox: the money did arrive to its location via the Columbia, but the money could not have traveled either tributary on its own.
I have not come across any evidence in this or the locked thread that points to the money having arrived there via the Columbia River.
There is also no evidence whatsoever to suggest that 'Cooper' was the only person to have handled the money from the time he exited until it was found by the boy.
I see no paradox, only lots of gaps and missing facts.
QuoteIf you think Cooper died on impact, you violate the paradox.
How's that? All in all its the most solid "theory" out there. Its supported by many years of skydiver's experience with the gear that he used, the conditions he jumped in and the aircraft he jumped from.
Just because someone doesn't believe it doesn't make it untrue. Sort of like conspiracy theorist. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not being followed.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
QuoteI have not come across any evidence in this or the locked thread that points to the money having arrived there via the Columbia River.
There is also no evidence whatsoever to suggest that 'Cooper' was the only person to have handled the money from the time he exited until it was found by the boy.
Awesome stuff. I think it's a bit dishonest to say there's no "evidence" that points to the money washing up via the Columbia. It was found on the shore of the Columbia River. That definitely would "point" towards how it got there.
I never said that Cooper was the only person to handle the money. What I did say is this idea can answer some of the question, but not all of it. If Cooper has an accomplice OR if someone found the money, why did the money wind up in the river? It's a stretch to say that they thought the money was "hot". If you suscribe to my proposed solution, at least you can say is that the money was in bad shape when they found it, and that the person(s) decided to chuck it instead of report it or try to use it.
QuoteJust because someone doesn't believe it doesn't make it untrue. Sort of like conspiracy theorist. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not being followed.
Thank you much for the discussion. I was hoping my comments would prompt such a debate.
I can't speak to the difficulity of the jump or surivival. I only know that some skydivers have felt that it could have been achieved. The skydiving community has not been unanimous on this.
I can tell you that the "he lost the money" theory violates the following "rules"
Timeline of the jump. (it has to be later)
Location of the plane. (has to be east of v23)
Float time of money (has to float in a lake)
There may be a fourth rule (viability of the lake), but I won't be able to answer that until August when I can put some boots on the ground and examine how water leaves the lake.
The more rules a theory breaks, the less likely it is of being accurate. That's just managing probabilities.
I therefore cannot see how a person can "honestly" say it's the "most solid theory".
I do agree with you though. If he lost the money mid-air, it's sort of like believing in a conspiracy. Sure, no one is really conspiring, but all the moving parts that would have to hold true would be akin to the moving parts in a conspiracy theory.
Erroll 80
QuoteIt was found on the shore of the Columbia River. That definitely would "point" towards how it got there.
How so? The money could have been dropped from a hot air baloon for all we know.
PS. Labelling everyone who disagrees with you as being
You're twisting my words Erroll.
Intellectually dishonest means someone does not account for facts when they theorize.
Your point of view is perfectly valid.
However, to tell us that money found on a waterway does not at least suggest that the waterway contributed to the find is a little disingenuous.
We now have three possibilities as to how the money wound up on the sand of the Columbia:
Via the Columbia itself
Being placed there by someone.
Being dropped from the air by someone or something.
All three of these would have had to take place at some point in 1979.
The airborne transport would likely require some type of container; it seems inconceivable to me that three packs of bills would stay together through the fall and land basically one on top of the other. Using this same argument, the bills being placed would hold the most merit. However, if the bills were contained in some way, then all three would have equal viability.
My point on the previous thread was that no matter which way you think, human intervention is required.
Who the person(s) was is up for debate.
To suggest there was no intervention is intellectually dishonest unless the person making the assumption at least admits the significant leaps of faith that they must hold onto, including the direct refutation of facts.
PS. Please don't project your own thought process onto me. Please read the words before making a snap judgement. That's all we can ask of each other.
Intellectually dishonest means someone does not account for facts when they theorize.
Your point of view is perfectly valid.
However, to tell us that money found on a waterway does not at least suggest that the waterway contributed to the find is a little disingenuous.
We now have three possibilities as to how the money wound up on the sand of the Columbia:
Via the Columbia itself
Being placed there by someone.
Being dropped from the air by someone or something.
All three of these would have had to take place at some point in 1979.
The airborne transport would likely require some type of container; it seems inconceivable to me that three packs of bills would stay together through the fall and land basically one on top of the other. Using this same argument, the bills being placed would hold the most merit. However, if the bills were contained in some way, then all three would have equal viability.
My point on the previous thread was that no matter which way you think, human intervention is required.
Who the person(s) was is up for debate.
To suggest there was no intervention is intellectually dishonest unless the person making the assumption at least admits the significant leaps of faith that they must hold onto, including the direct refutation of facts.
PS. Please don't project your own thought process onto me. Please read the words before making a snap judgement. That's all we can ask of each other.
Orange1 0
QuoteI'm not really dealing with theory, I'm dealing with physics.
..sigh...
you can use all the physics you want, but you are still ending up with theories at the end of it.
If a bag of cash came separated from Cooper at or soon after exit, it could have travelled much further than a skydiver would, either in freefall or under canopy. Fact.
If a bag of cash came separated from Cooper at or soon after exit, just because it was found in water at some stage does not mean it landed in water immediately, so 'float theory' means nothing. It could well have landed somewhere else and then being dislodged & transported by human, animal, weather or water to where it was finally found. Fact, or at least you are not able to disprove it as not being a fact.
By the way, dictionary definition: "Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false." This is not what you claim to have meant by it. Fact.
Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.
Intellectual dishonesty means you argue a position that you don't agree with; it can also mean taking a position contrary to known facts and arguing against them without disclosing the known facts that you're disputing.
It's neither here nor there. I will quit using the term.
You can't sincerely say that a float time would have no relevance. It does have relevance in eliminating possibilities. At this point, neither myself, nor anyone else is ruling out everything. I can't rule out anything based on float time of the money bag, because I don't know its float time.
What I will concede to is that money can travel on the airborne descent. How far? I don't know! I stated that on my "myths" post in the other thread... taking out the timeline arbitarily to 8:15, the bag had to travel 2 miles just to land near a tributary that would feed LaCamas. Taking the known winds and the terminal velocity of the bag, you could figure the max amount of distance. However, thinking the bag is under canopy without Cooper is a stretch, no??
This point is only relevant in dealing with the "it floated its way to where it was found" idea. In other words, no living intervention.
If you introduce living intervention, then a whole host of theories can emerge and still fit the facts. That's why I'm much more receptive to these ideas than I am to the old FBI theory that money made it's way naturally. That theory is 99% dead, and I have the other 1% waiting to be dropped.
The exit from LaCamas lake goes through a Dam. I need to find out more about this Dam to drop the hammer on the remaining 1%.
All theories involving living intervention are viable, IMO.
Thank you Orange1 for pointing it out. Now your argument is truly a solid argument.
It's neither here nor there. I will quit using the term.
You can't sincerely say that a float time would have no relevance. It does have relevance in eliminating possibilities. At this point, neither myself, nor anyone else is ruling out everything. I can't rule out anything based on float time of the money bag, because I don't know its float time.
What I will concede to is that money can travel on the airborne descent. How far? I don't know! I stated that on my "myths" post in the other thread... taking out the timeline arbitarily to 8:15, the bag had to travel 2 miles just to land near a tributary that would feed LaCamas. Taking the known winds and the terminal velocity of the bag, you could figure the max amount of distance. However, thinking the bag is under canopy without Cooper is a stretch, no??
This point is only relevant in dealing with the "it floated its way to where it was found" idea. In other words, no living intervention.
If you introduce living intervention, then a whole host of theories can emerge and still fit the facts. That's why I'm much more receptive to these ideas than I am to the old FBI theory that money made it's way naturally. That theory is 99% dead, and I have the other 1% waiting to be dropped.
The exit from LaCamas lake goes through a Dam. I need to find out more about this Dam to drop the hammer on the remaining 1%.
All theories involving living intervention are viable, IMO.
Thank you Orange1 for pointing it out. Now your argument is truly a solid argument.
Orange1 0
QuoteYou can't sincerely say that a float time would have no relevance. It does have relevance in eliminating possibilities. At this point, neither myself, nor anyone else is ruling out everything. I can't rule out anything based on float time of the money bag, because I don't know its float time.
What I will concede to is that money can travel on the airborne descent. How far? I don't know! I stated that on my "myths" post in the other thread... taking out the timeline arbitarily to 8:15, the bag had to travel 2 miles just to land near a tributary that would feed LaCamas. Taking the known winds and the terminal velocity of the bag, you could figure the max amount of distance. However, thinking the bag is under canopy without Cooper is a stretch, no??
This point is only relevant in dealing with the "it floated its way to where it was found" idea. In other words, no living intervention....
Thank you Orange1 for pointing it out. Now your argument is truly a solid argument.
I may not have been clear, the "either in freefall or under canopy" refers to the skydiver, not the bag. How far the bag could have travelled would inter alia depend on how full it was (linked to how much drag). 2 miles is not a stretch at all, a skydiver in freefall drift can do a mile in high winds aloft and a lighter bag especially if not full could probably do 2 easily.
Thanks for saying you can't rule out anything based on float time - i had recalled, presumably incorrectly, that in a previous post you were using that as an argument for why the money could not have been separated from Cooper in flight, apparently assuming it immediately landed in water.
I still don't accept living intervention necessarily happened. Let's say the bag floated 3 miles in the air, then somehow got stuck in a tree or something where it was well and truly lodged until 7 years later or whatever it was when massive storm knocked the tree over and the bag fell into the river. Or the branches it was stuck in started decaying and then a wind strong enough to lift it out came along. etc. all improbable perhaps, but not impossible.
fwiw i have stated all these elements before. my argument (such as it was) was always solid
To me the real "paradox" still remains the much-discussed fact that no-one reported Cooper missing. Either he died and was such a complete loner, had given his landlord notice, resigned his job etc with the aim of this caper, that no-one missed him (possible, though not many think it likely), or he survived without the cash and went home to lick his wounds and no-one was any the wiser, or he survived with the cash had a nicer life than he had before. If we accept (and i know not everyone does but it is most likely) that to survive the descent he would have had to be either an experienced skydiver who got lucky or a paratrooper, then there are only 2 suspects that I am aware of who have been put forward who would work - Mayfield (presumably lost the cash from the financial evidence given by someone a while ago), or Christiansen (who must have had a pretty good disguise).
Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.
I want you to know that I appreciate this debate! This is good Orange...
When you said the bag could drift 2 miles and that a person can drift 1 mile, did you factor that the jump in question was made from 10k? I'm sure you did, but thought I'd ask just as well. There was a person on DZ mentioned as having extreme expertise in calculating this type of thing.
The winds themselves were blowing away from the Columbia river. Depending on where you place the plane at the time of the jump, you're most likely still looking at a living intervention being needed to support the theory.
Let's put it this way, the landing area as originally calculated by NWA & FBI was 9 miles from a tributary, and at least that far from where the money was subsequently found (but in the opposite direction). The wind & flight path, however, would preclude the money from drifting west towards where it was found.
If you need the money to fall into a creek or river, then you're really talking about one that feeds LaCamas lake. This is why float times matter. The lake is 2 miles long, and it's a lake (ie, fairly still water) and this lake has a dam at the south end.
These aren't trivial issues if you stick to a natural means explanation.
I can't rule anything out on float time of the bag, but I know the float time of a stack (under 11 min). The float time of the bag would need to be long enough to allow the bag to float in the lake, softly drift 2 miles, go through the dam turbine, drift down LaCamas Creek, adjoin Washougal River, adjoin the Columbia, and then float 20 miles to where it was found. Make no mistakes, the float time matters; I just don't know what it is; I also need to know more about the opening of the dam turbine(s).
As per Mayfield, yes he lost his leased land as someone who knew him posted in the previous thread. Maybe Albert18 could tell us more about why Mayfield may have been the perpetrator.
The only question regarding Christiansen would be why in the world would he take money to the river in 1979? (or at least some level of explanation there)
I hear what you're saying regarding the paradox... it's all relative to where you think the plane was when the jump occured.
I still have some research to do on LaCamas and its viability; without LaCamas Lake, any "natural" theory would require the Washougal river or *only* the Columbia, and that would eliminate a huge percentage of Clark County (and pretty much all wiggle room in the FBI file). The dams at the southern end of LaCamas were there in 1974, I'm confident they were there also in 71 but will have to research this. 1974 is almost good enough since the money arrived to its final destination in 79. This goes without saying, but for a bag to enter a turbine, generally it needs to be sinking since the turbine intakes are usually a few feet below the surface of the water (needed water pressure). I will have to call someone out there that knows a thing or two about this particular dam though.
The point is, in the end, the "he lost the money" argument might be forced into throwing out the timeline completely (to land at/on the Columbia) OR into accepting some level of intervention. It's too early to conclude those needed variants yet. I can admit that much. 
Guru312,
My apologies if I took your hypothesis out of context.
Let's have the discussion, shall we?
There's a big difference between accepting facts from the FBI file, and challenging every one of them. Ckret specifically said "handles with no zipper". If anyone comes along and says otherwise, there should be significant reason other than what they think SeaFirst did.
If you have 14 feet of line, and all you do is wrap it around the bag, you have enough for three wraps and a foot of line to knot it. This is based on using the narrow dimensions, although we can debate if he'd secure it on all six sides (more likely).
17+9+17+9=52 inches is the narrow side.
17+12+17+12=58 inches is the wide side.
It's likely he'd tie line around both sides. He would then have slightly less than 5 feet to do something else (tie it around his waist, or wrap it one more time). He cut two lengths of line, not one, so assuming he used one to secure the bag only is certainly a valid thought.
I will come back to your "waterproof" idea in a moment.
The bag will float. The bag will still float even if the top isn't cinched. The question is, how long will it float?
A bag with no zipper (this does not preclude drawstrings however) will not keep water out no matter how you cinch the top. You didn't mention this in the post, but you're assuming that the top of the bag would not be in the water and the material not able to saturate with water. The fold staying out of the water isn't possible because the large surface of the bag (17 inches) would be the side the bag floats on. If the bag had 17 inches vertically, it would be unstable and wobbly (top heavy) and it would tip to the lower center of gravity. With one of the 17 inch sides being the one the bag is floating on, the seal at the top would be pivotal to determining the rate of air escape. No matter how you shake it, however, the seal itself would not be airtight, and thus, very sinkable. Having excess to fold up implies that the location of the handles aren't attached to the very top edge, otherwise the handles would have been folded under to get the seal you describe.
That's certainly a possibility, but we need to know more about the handles or types of handles this bag may have had.
I'm fairly sure though that the bag would float with the fold horizontally. This is because the width is only 9 inches, which having the fold vertically when floating would require a 12 inch height. The Bag would tip to one of the 12x17 sides which would force the fold horizontal. While you can say this fold could stay above the waterline, there would be a point where enough water would soak through and weigh the bag down to force the fold underwater. At that point, the bag would be in serious trouble.
If we assume your hypothesis, the "some time later" is actually about 7 years later. "One" packet is not consistent with the facts. There were three packs that were found.
One single pack can only float for 10 minutes and 25 seconds. The bag would need to be within this distance and the pack would need to be completely dry, even after seven years in the elements, including the canvas bag itself floating in water. Therefore, your hypothesis actually requires that the entire bag itself make it's way to the sand bar and get snagged on something. Not to fret though, this was Ckret's hypothesis as well.
Yes, a few bills made their way onto eBay, but none of them have actually been sold there to my knowledge (the price was too low).
Bernie, you know I was enthusiastic about you contacting the bag supplier. I'm now 100% confident that you and him never discussed makes and models of the likely bag; you knew that I was researching vintage bags for this test. The most important element of this debate is to figure out what bag was used, or the type of bag that was used.
I don't disagree with the general crux of your hypothesis, but your hypothesis violates three key pieces of information that have been established:
1. The bag had no zipper
2. The time of the jump was between 8:10-8:12
3. The location of the plane at this time was near Merwin Dam / La Center.
Even if everything you say is true, we would still be left with the money floating in LaCamas lake indefinitely. As I stated yesterday, I'm not even sure it's a viable waterway. We need to determine how water escapes from the lake to complete the hypothesis. Otherwise it's beyond speculative.
One last thing, if I understand what you're saying, are you telling me that dirty air will have more force of power than straight wind? Are you suggesting that calculating 3 dimensions of force will make the forces themselves greater?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites