FLYJACK

Yes, but Ryan's debunking of Gryder's rig was that it was not an NB6 therefore not Cooper's... Ryan was correct the Gryder rig is not an NB6, but wrong to claim Cooper's was an NB6, that is extremely unlikely. Ryan's conclusion is correct, the Gryder rig was not Cooper's but his argument that it is not Cooper's because it is not an NB6 is wrong. A fiasco... even Larry Carr dismissed the Gryder rig because it was not an NB6.

HAHAHAHA..... Several levels of crazy... Reminds me of the Gryder chute debunking fiasco... Gryder's found chute was not an NB6 but extremely unlikely Cooper used an NB6.. We need to do a debunking video of the debunking. This video is really interesting, I posted it a while back but have a listen. The patrolman was dispatched to Issaquah pick up FOUR chutes, corroborated by Emrich who was asked for FOUR chutes, but was contacted and told they had obtained the backs and only needed the fronts.. Cossey had zero to do with obtaining chutes from Hayden.. Cossey believed all four of his chutes were being picked up from Issaquah, that is why he described his chutes he assumed were used... He never corrected it and never supplied his records because they would have conflicted with his description. Cossey's uncorroborated claim that Cooper used an NB6/8 is totally unreliable. Also, Emrich's daughter pointed out that there was an X on the dummy... Emrich corroborated this as well. It was likely a black X and it was the container that had red flaps.

Wednesday,,, https://www.discovery.com/shows/expedition-files/episodes/lost-and-found My guess is Gryder and McCoy... and another Ryan debunking.. Has Josh Gates ever solved anything?? He did do a Reca segment... so, the bar is low...

The pilot's said "American" currency. Tina said said she later learned from him that he wanted "US" currency... This does not make Cooper a Canadian... It just suggests that Cooper spent time in an environment that did not use US money exclusively. It could be Vietnam, it may be an American.. Cooper likely spent time recently outside the US.

This is odd.. physical evidence "straps of material from one of the parachutes"??? Does that mean the front reserve Cooper opened?

1979 map of the Fazio's.. the sand/gravel operation was at the southern end, money at the furthest North point of the property. It is almost 600 yards from the sand/gravel operation . The drawn circle representing the money spot is off just slightly South of the actual spot. So, the idea that somehow the money came from their sand operation is not reasonable.

One of the many reasons Cossey's description of the chute Cooper used is unreliable.. He claimed he had his packing records and serial numbers.. (a requirement for riggers) he never provided them and even claimed he gave everything to the FBI,, he didn't. There is no corroboration for Cossey's claim of a nylon sage green NB6/8 and sage green nylon harness. IMO, he didn't provide them because his initial description was wrong.

The brittle vs stuck rubber bands may have been the difference between top and bottom.. those areas would have been subject to different environments. Also the packets were about half the original size so the rubber bands were clearly not "intact" as reported.

I OCR convert them myself.. and they are big files.. Dr Edwards was converting them and posting them at one time,, I didn't use his files and don't know if he still posts them.. Here they are.. he seems to have stopped at file #80 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1O44iSvxmOgFrju0rLZu7oQu64Osf_aMe

To be fair.. the amount of case information and sources is overwhelming,, I find myself having to go back and double check notes more and more.. I have almost 10,000 files in my Cooper folder... even that is getting hard to search.

I agree.. he could have put the money in his coat pocket... the date the money arrived on TBAR is critical.. I have competing theories for close to the hijacking and closer to the find.. My latest idea that has not got any traction is that the dredge layer identified by Palmer as 1974 was actually the 1970 dredge layer,, if true that means the money was under the 1974 dredge layer which was eroded away by 1980... obviously in that scenario the money had to arrive before the 1974.. This idea fits the evidence.. One thing that always bothered me was that the TBAR banks were always being eroded while the river bottom was being filled. That is one reason the hydrologist dismissed natural means burial,, after the money arrived it would be taken back by the erosion. So, some mechanism must have kept it there. If the 1974 dredge layer was put on top that would explain it. Because Palmer identified it as the 1974 layer everyone assumes the money arrived after 1974. Then Tom questioned Palmer's identification of the layer as being from the dredge.. that is tricky after so many years of erosion.

Yup, it would have been nice if the agents back then followed up on some of these things.. but if they did a better job the case may have been solved. There is corroboration from several sources that the money was in bank bands/straps and then rubber banded into bundles when given to Cooper. There is an agent statement that the bundles were made into a random size before going to Cooper... FWW. Giving the stews money was not to be generous but to buy their confidence by implicating them and tainting them as witnesses... they would not be completely cooperative or entirely accurate. They would not want Cooper to be caught. As for Tina, she was the only one we know of that handled ransom money outside the bag other than Cooper. She had opportunity living next to the Columbia just upstream of TBAR in the late 70's. She had an piece in the newspaper right before the extensive ground search giving out case info claiming she refused the offer. The FBI was watching her when she lived in San Diego. She asked for the money claiming to be humorous, she was not humorous at any other time. Her behaviour was odd, around the time the money find she went into a nunnery, was she hiding, witness protection? During the first sketch she made comments on Cooper's face, during the second revised sketch B she claimed she never saw his face.. she is either lying to be evasive or was lying earlier. To dismiss this theory based on an assumption that she wouldn't do this or lie is the same error everyone makes, using an assumption to reject a theory, rookie stuff. Nobody knows what really happened, only Tina and Cooper knows. She claimed she handed it back citing company policy on tips,, this was not a tip. It is a solid theory based on the facts we have, it is not proven but is something that can't just be dismissed because people think it is out of character. Joking and asking for money was out of character.. If this happened and she did take the money or Cooper put it in her purse it wasn't something nefarious, she got scared and thought she would be in trouble, not true. Even if she admitted this today she wouldn't be in trouble. This is a classic Bayesian analysis... it doesn't mean it is true but it is a valid theory based on probabilities. But as I said this is a TBAR theory, there are others. Did Cooper put the Tina money in his pocket and pay for a ride after he landed to not be turned in.. Then that money ended up at TBAR when it became a liability and was tossed into the River.

No, the opposite.. Fazio's believed the money washed onto TBAR.. though that is an opinion. Bruce Smith post.. Last Monday, Al Fazio walked me through the money find, or tried to. He had a lot of memory gaps about which day what happened, but here is what I walked away with: Ingrams found the money on a Sunday afternoon. Al says they tried to pass some of it a bank on Monday. Couldn't do it, apparantly, and got directed to the FBI who got out to the beach late Monday. Al and his family were in the dark on the find, and Al first learned about the money when he was driving a load of cattle back from a sale in Oregon and the Feds had his driveway blocked out and wouldn't let him in. Once he cleared that up, he headed to the beach and saw lots of shards scattered along the high-tide line. Al says the bundle of bills was found just below the high-tide line, and Al is passionate when he says, "They washed in. They were buried there by the tide." The next day Tuesday, the feds asked Al and Richard to get their backhoes out and start digging. Al is adamant that no pieces of Cooper money were found beneath the surface of Tina's Beach. Feds were out there for a few days, and then the media came in, and that lasted for a few days. The Fazios seem to have every book written on DB Cooper and access them freely and readily. I saw no evidence of stroke on the part of Richard, as Jerry alluded to a few days ago. He's smart and conversant.

Another point is that a local,, I think it was a Fazio said during the money find search that the money find spot was recently underwater..

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.