FLYJACK

Both, they later picked off stuck pieces of rubber band and they crumbled when picked up. Per Tina, the packets had "bank type bands", but the packets were rubber banded into a bundle of several packets. That convinced me it was not a recent plant long before the diatoms were analyzed.. The diatoms confirmed it.

This is contradicted by the evidence.. The rubber bands crumbled when the packets were picked up and the money was tested for soil/sand.. It was only Columbia River sand. Shards were also present in the sand. Plus, the money was exposed to the River in spring/early summer. So, the money was buried for maybe 2-9 years. Not a short time. Palmer concluded the money was buried within a few years of the find.. The recent burial plant find idea just doesn't work.

Nope, the rubber bands crumbled when picked up. That proves the money was there for a long time and not recently placed there.. How do you get spring diatoms on the money. It doesn't fit the evidence. And I have looked at many many ideas including Ingram placing it for Brian to find. The FP went almost right over Ingram's workplace.. Ultimately, no... the money was there for a few years to 9 years.. It would be helpful if somebody could figure out when the money landed there.

Kamkisky, you have some errors and some things right. 1)The mechanical theory can't be it. Way to viloent for the money to stay together. It doesn't matter if it is through a hose or a scoop, the money wouldn't stay together and land stacked neatly. TRUE, the money arrived as it went to Cooper. No aggressive handling. 2)Natural means theory has serious holes since we have a hydrologist saying there is no natural means for money to be buried below sand. FALSE, sort of, the hydrologist made that call based in limited information about TBAR. He even had a caveat, based on what he knows about TBAR. TBAR was a natural garbage dump and there was other debris buried in the same sand layer as the money. When the money was found there was a hydrologist on the team, they all concluded the money came from the RIVER. There was no mention of an intentional human burial. The money may have been in a container like a brown paper bag which floats but if it wasn't and sank it would still have some buoyancy on the bottom and get rolled along to the money spot, if the money was spot was under water at the time it would effectively be the bottom of the River. If the 1974 dredge operation was on top of the money not under as Palmer believed the money would be buried for many years.. also locals claimed there was beach reclamation projects all the time, these are not found in the records. The records show channel dredging.. in 1970 and 1974. There is also the idea that the money was upstream and covered/out of the water and eventually fell in and floated to TB. This has the same issues, the money doesn't float and wouldn't naturally bury itself on a beach couple dozen feet from the waterline. False, it could bury itself if the water level was above the money spot... the River was seasonally high in the Spring above the money spot. In Spring '72 the money spot was about 5-6 feet underwater. Money does not need to float to reach that spot. However, it is assumed by all that the money was not is some container and must have sunk, it was probably in something. 3)Human intervention theory. Many variations. In this category resides the Tena for Tina theory. There are documented cases of criminals communicating/taunting victims afterwards and T4T can fit that pattern. Between Cooper and TBAR there was most likely some human intervention. I doubt TBAR has anything to do with Tina's name. The money went into the River upstream and it was pure coincidence that it landed on TBAR. 4)To get rid of it. The DZ is discussing the idea that Tina Mucklow put the money there. Or someone else found the money and put it there or throw it in the river to get rid of it. I'll call this the get rid of it theory. The problem with this theory is it's bonkers. If you have cash and are afraid you'll end up in prison you burn it. No one is driving/boating to a river bank and burying it. There are dumpsters everywhere too if someone need to ditch it super quick. FALSE, it is NOT bonkers, you might burn it but that is an assumption you claim everyone would do the same. You don't know what somebody would do. Tossing it in a dumpster may have fingerprints... To use your own assumption to reject a theory is bad reasoning.. you test a theory with facts. Somebody could have easily gone to the River and tossed a paper bag of money that they wanted to get rid of... Tina's brother in law, somebody paid for a ride or somebody found some cash in the woods. Nobody would expect money tossed into the Columbia to land on TBAR and be discovered. Assumptions misused as facts to eliminate theories is my pet peeve in this case, it prematurely ends intellectual inquiry. Too many people do it. Burying the money on a river beach to get rid of it makes no sense. No sense at all. Agree. Somebody intentionally buries cash unprotected in sand at the high water line when there are thousands of better places close by to bury money is hard to imagine. IMO, a TBAR theory needs to fit... The money most likely came from the River. Not human burial. The money arrived in the same condition as given to Cooper. No aggressive handling. The money went into the river in spring/early summer. Spring from '72 to '79. The money did not come from Cooper landing in the River. He jumped at 8:11 about 12 miles away. The money was most likely moved at least partially by human intervention. Tina, somebody found some or was paid for a ride.. or any other ideas. Figure out some reasonable theories that fit these and rank them..

She came forward with her story in case Cooper was caught and money found missing some packets.. if he said hey that stew asked for and took some money and that is missing,,, by telling the FBI she gave it back would front run that possibility. The FBI was watching Tina when she moved to San Diego,, Clearly, it goes against her character.. however, she claimed she asked for the money to be humorous.. she isn't,, I can't think of any time during the hijacking she was humorous, that was also out of character. If she had possession of some money but was never asked about it and was scared that she would have been in trouble I can see her just never mentioning it. She moved to the Portland area around 1978... that puts her close enough to TBAR to toss the money.. if she was never near there the theory wouldn't work.. She is the only one who handled some of Cooper's money outside the ransom stash and she lived just upstream of TBAR when the money could have entered the River,, it works well, just can't prove it. Not sure what you mean about her changing her story... For the structure theory, It does make sense, I have a specific incident, specific structure, specific time that would have caused contents to enter the River just upstream of TBAR.. I haven't explained this theory before it is very comprehensive and takes a lot of time. It is really good,, still can't prove it though. This particular theory has a bonus, people can be identified who are associated with this structure. I have been investigating those people. Doubtful Cooper knew how the money got to TBAR.

Should be, search for "snowmman" two m's

People lied in the 70's and 80's.. Cooper was somebody the more criminal element aspired to be.. lots of made up stories about being him or knowing him. Guys would tell girls they were Cooper as a pick up line in the bar. Point is there is no corroboration for any of it.. just like many confessions to being Cooper.. made up, people lie all the time.. You need some actual evidence..

No dredge,, too violent. For a bundle of money packets to go into a dump truck, get dumped and migrate to the money spot is just not very plausible. First, the money spot was not close to the sand and gravel operation, that would be too violent as well, and the Fazio's got their sand from the river. Anything that was trucked in would be minor.. I don't see it as being something that a reasonable explanation. None of it is supported by evidence.. There are a few parameters that a good theory should fit otherwise you can make up almost anything. Most likely, somebody was given or found some money and it became a liability so they tossed it in the River to discard it.. it was not planted for any reason, it was discarded. I have one other really good theory that is a variation, the money was stashed next to the River in a structure, that structure was destroyed and the money went into the river upstream of TBAR.

Haven't seen that for a long time but it relies on stories from sketchy people, no evidence.. Cooper was regarded as a hero back then,, to brag many people claimed to know him or even be him... I don't give Briggs or the party story any credibility.

That was a 1975 Incorporation.. those docs are meant to describe the widest business operation foreseeable but not necessarily carried out. It does not show that they imported sand from other operations. They obtained their sand from the River. It may be possible something was brought in to mix but I don't see any way the TBAR money could be trucked in, dumped and then migrate 500 ft to its spot intact. Not only is that an extreme long shot but the money would not remain in its condition. The money landed there in the condition it was given to Cooper. For three packets to remain bundled and largely intact limits the mechanism by which it was moved. The best explanation is that somebody tossed it into the River. The big problem I have and go back and forth on is when.. Did the money arrive in a spring soon after the hijacking or was it in the late 70's. Palmer thought within a few years of the find. If we knew that we could narrow down some of these theories. My latest idea,, if the money arrived close to the hijacking is that the 1974 dredge operation went on top of it. That eroded to 1980 and exposed it. The dredge layer Palmer identified as 1974 being beneath the money was actually a pre-Norjak 1970 dredge layer.

No, the Fazio exported sand from the River... it was also about 500 ft south of the TBAR find.. The TBAR money money spot was a few feet from the border of the next northern property. The money alone would sink but still have some buoyancy to be pushed along the river bottom.. Granted TBAR is speculation, there are some theories that are better than others.

First, these are theories, not fact.. I have several competing TBAR theories. The key is that the money offered to Tina was the only known money separated from the ransom in the bag, perhaps the money offered to the other stews but we don't have clear info on that. Logical inference suggests it is likely the money that ended up on TBAR. Tosaw initially suggested that the money offered to Tina ended up in Cooper's coat pocket, he landed in the Columbia and it ended up on TBAR. I don't think Cooper went into the Columbia but the idea that the money in his coat pocket somehow ended up on TBAR is reasonable. For Tina, if one claim is switched it all falls onto place. She said she handed the money back, if she didn't or Cooper snuck it back into her purse then the TBAR money likely came from Tina. If Tina somehow got that money and was too scared to report it, she kept it until the late 70's and when she lived near Portland just one mile from the Columbia River. She told her brother in law and he threw it in the Columbia to protect her. The most likely process was that the money was thrown into the Columbia to discard it, not human buried. That may may have been via Tina or perhaps Cooper paid somebody for a ride from money in his coat pocket and they tossed it. The most likely spot is just 2 miles upstream at Frenchman's Bar, a public park with easy beach access. If somebody is carrying money it would likely be in some type of container and tossed into the River in a container.. some type of bag perhaps a brown paper bag.. which will float for some time.. So, when people claim the money sinks, true on its own but it is more likely that it went into the River in some type of container. IMO, TBAR will never be solved.. just some theories.

I know the case is riddled with these things,, did he put it in his coat pocket. Was the package one packet or one bundle of packets. Agent Baker said the bundle sizes were made random,, were there bundles of 3 packets delivered to Cooper... Since the money Cooper gave to Tina and possibly offered the other stews was the only money we know of that was separated from the ransom money bag.. it is reasonable to theorize that it was the money that ended up on TBAR.

That is a big mystery... only Tina and Cooper know what happened to that money.. IMO, it is even possible that Tina didn't hand back the money. Her story never really made sense to me. To be humorous... Tina asks for some money. Cooper hands her "one package". She claims she handed it back telling Cooper she was not allowed gratuities.. citing a later incident when all stews were offered the tip money. Then right before they launch that big search in March, a short comment pops up in her local paper claiming Cooper offered her money but she refused.. The only inside case info coming out publicly from Tina.. It sounds like she was front running the search in case the money was found and some was missing.. Can't prove it but the entire thing is suspicious. This was undisclosed case info,, she did not publicize any other case info.. She also lied,, she asked for the money.

Ryan's video.. It is good,, Ryan clearly put a lot of work into it. Tina did not say one "packet" of $2000 was handed to her. The FBI file for Tina says only "one package" that may be one packet or several in a bundle. This is important because the TBAR money may be the money Cooper offered to Tina.