Author Topic: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation (Read 40326 times)

georger · « **Reply #315 on:** August 08, 2018, 03:07:32 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not certain what the above discussions are attempting to ascertain. In my previous post I stated the following:

"Also, you should note that the agent (standing near the middle of the picture, wearing a plaid shirt, with dark brown hair, turned away from the camera and with his right shirt sleeve rolled up to his elbow thereby revealing a shirt underneath the plaid shirt) is the same agent who discovers the small piece of currency during the filming of the newscast footage that is available on this site."

Indeed, as demonstrated by the picture Shutter later posted (also posted below), the agent noted above is the same agent who found the shard while filming was taking place.

There is also additional footage that briefly shows an agent (white long-sleeve shirt, black pocket protector, black gloves--not Schreuder) looking at what may be another piece of currency (not certain). Regardless, this agent is on a lot of the other footage throughout the news coverage so it is very easy to determine where he was digging in relation to the "plaid shirt, blue sleeve" agent. In fact, they're digging in the same larger hole and appear to be about five to ten feet from each other.

Finally, the footage with Schreuder being interviewed merely shows him displaying all of the pieces that have been found by all of the agents collectively.

Therefore ... ? What's your point?

The sand that's on the beach is the same sand that's on the beach.

Wow, the condescension never stops with you Georger. Sheridan is the same way. Hey...has anyone ever seen Georger, Sheridan and DB Cooper in the same place at the same time? We could have a break through in this case.

Now to answer your question:

I contend that the money was deliberately buried on Tena Bar. Some have stated that this cannot be true because money was found in many different locations on the beach. I have seen nothing that supports the assertion that there were multiple money find locations.

As noted in my report and on this forum, I have discussed the money find with Richard Fazio several times. He is adamant that everything that was found was found in the immediate vicinity of the original money find spot. He may have mentioned that some tiny fragments were found along the tide line (I cannot recall). Nonetheless, I would expect some fragments on the tide line given that the occasional wave action stripped away the sand over the money and presumably took some of the fragments with it as well.

That said, nothing of substance was found buried on some other part of Tena Bar as far as I've been able to determine.

HERE'S WHERE MY POINT ABOUT THE PICTURE COMES IN...WAIT FOR IT...

Even the news footage, which actually shows a small buried piece being unearthed, proves that this piece was found right by the original money find spot. Remember, the picture I posted from Richard Fazio (posted below) is THE spot that the money was found according to the man who was there and owns the beach. Furthermore, the news footage helps us identify the agent who actually unearthed the small piece of currency, and, we also see that same agent in the Fazio pic (below). Therefore, this supports Richard Fazio's assertion that the shards found were found in the same spot as the original money find.

Anyone who can materially demonstrate that pieces of currency were found buried on the beach somewhere else in addition to the original spot is welcome to post that evidence here. NOTE: Even if there was a second Tena location where money, or shards, were found buried this does not prove that the money was not buried by Cooper. After all, I expect that as he buried the money, chute, reserve, and attache case, Cooper probably dug multiple holes.

I welcome all INTELLIGENT discourse with respect to my post.

Cheers!

You could be right - I dont know. The only condescension going on here is yours! But at least you have finally given us a clear cut statement of your 'theory', after weeks of angst and drama on your part.

I will send your post to several FBI agents who were there and see what they say, if anything. Who knows; maybe Tom Kaye will even condescend to comment? Maybe Smith will say something? Who knows.

In the meantime here is a better version of the photo you say Richard Fazio sent you. It looks like a newspaper clipping Richard saved? There is also a rich commentary about what the Fazio's said (or did not say) at Dropzone. Anyone is free to do a search there.

I believe what you propose is 'the classical statement' about the Ingram money find and the excavation, we had for years prior to the KATU video. There were rumors of fragments but people called Schreuder a liar and such ... I am simply a researcher trying to get to the bottom of this. I was not there. My personal stance in this whole 'fiasco' is that it is totally fucked up, due in no small part to the "condescension" of a lot of people! What I do think I know and understand is the theoretical options available in all the different versions of the Ingram find story we have heard to date. Moreover, it is a FACT that Crystal Ingram said Harold and Pat were lying about "where" and "how" the money was found and if she is correct that changes the whole set of options available for trying to understand the Ingram find.

As part of your "condescension" you claim the money was buried as a plant in some conspiracy theory! And so far there is nothing concrete to keep you from peddling your conspiracy theory.

But, for my part, I just don't know. Maybe the Ingram find is an invading species of fish of some kind that only looks like money, and the FBI and Tom Kaye and everyone else are just morons who dont know the difference between fish and American currency!

ps: Keep in mind, it is public record the Fazio's also told people they thought the money had come up with the last tide, and they pointed to the 'tide line'. Palmer said that was impossible. If Crystal Ingram is right the Fazio theory is totally impossible. It's all at Dropzone for anyone who cares to read it -

EU · « **Reply #316 on:** August 08, 2018, 03:45:26 PM »

Georger, I'm not certain why you call my theory regarding the money find a "conspiracy theory." Conspiracy implies malice.

Obviously the money arrived somehow and there is an explanation. An explanation in and of itself only possesses malice if people are "conspiring" to deceive. For example, the FBI planted the money, or the Ingrams lied about finding the money on Tena Bar, or the money found on Tena Bar was fake, something of that nature.

I am merely providing an explanation for the money find, no malice involved. Specifically, I suggest:

1) Cooper originally intended to jump near Seattle, however, ultimately ended up landing on or near Tena Bar (Robert99 has done outstanding research on the flight path).

2) Cooper buried the money and other items to give himself time to figure a way to safely get out of the area.

3) Cooper returned to retrieve the money and other items.

4) During the retrieval process three of the bundles were accidentally left behind (remember the bag was an open-top bank bag).

5) Years later these three bundles were uncovered via beach erosion.

Of note, my perspective is one that has Sheridan Peterson as DB Cooper, ultimately returning to Nepal by way of Singapore where he opened a confidential numbered bank account in 1971. That said, while I can prove the numbered bank account, I cannot prove my Tena Bar money find theory. Sheridan has never discussed Tena Bar with me. Interestingly,in his book on page 238, Sheridan discusses an eerily similar "wearing loafers at the Columbia River in winter" story that may serve as a metaphor.

Cheers!

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #317 on:** August 08, 2018, 07:50:26 PM »

A tidbit from Al Fazio regarding the money find at Tina Bar:

When I was at T-Bar, Al told me that he thought the shards were remnants from the main bundles that had broken loose and had washed up on the tide line, where they were found.

In essence, he supports McPheters statements that shards were found on the tide line, indicating a second location to the money find.

However, McPheter says the shards were only recovered by digging at the tide line, and thus were not on the surface, which would support what Brian Ingram told me - that his whole family spent the rest of the day looking for more money and didn't find any, anywhere.

As much as I like Al and Richard Fazio, their claims on who found what and where don't really add up. Plus, Al was late to the party, as he was at a cattle auction and only arrived at the beach after the FBI had begun digging.

So, really what Al and Richard can best contribute is what they say after they mounted their backhoes and started the trenching. Yet, even then Al's statements to me don't jive. He told me that the feds didn't find anything when they started digging, yet the KATU video clearly shows they did, and that supports the claims by Dorwin Schreuder.

Shutter · « **Reply #318 on:** August 08, 2018, 08:37:11 PM »

here is a post from Bruce about the Fazio's..this was on the DZ..

BruceSmith
Dec 1, 2011, 12:15 AM
Post #29071 of 58140 (58732 views)

Al Fazio adamantly told me numerous times that the FBI never found a single shard buried in the sand at any depth, anywhere on the beach. Further, Al is convinced the three bundles washed-up via natural means, and that the shards found on the tide line came from the three bundles and were roughed-up in wave action as they got buried/uncovered in the sand.

However, Al was late to the party, and his time-line or recall - or my understanding of what he said - is mixed up and certainly needs clarifying. Nevertheless, Al told me that he had no knowledge of the Ingram money find when it happened, and he went off to a cattle auction. By the time he came back the feds had already ringed his property with yellow tape, and agents blocked his pick-up truck and cattle trailer from entering. It took a little doing to get clearence for Al to drive onto his property, and after he did he went to the beach, was asked to procure back-hoes and such, and did so. Soon after he started digging.

That said, I distinctly recall Al telling me that the cattle auction was on a Sunday, which was the day that Brian found the money. I'm not sure exactly what day the feds showed up on the beach and roped off the area - Monday or Tues - but certainly they were digging by Wednesday. So, there are some gaps here, and any clarification anyone can provide is appreciated.

EU · « **Reply #319 on:** August 08, 2018, 09:02:19 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

A tidbit from Al Fazio regarding the money find at Tina Bar:

When I was at T-Bar, Al told me that he thought the shards were remnants from the main bundles that had broken loose and had washed up on the tide line, where they were found.

In essence, he supports McPheters statements that shards were found on the tide line, indicating a second location to the money find.

However, McPheter says the shards were only recovered by digging at the tide line, and thus were not on the surface, which would support what Brian Ingram told me - that his whole family spent the rest of the day looking for more money and didn't find any, anywhere.

As much as I like Al and Richard Fazio, their claims on who found what and where don't really add up. Plus, Al was late to the party, as he was at a cattle auction and only arrived at the beach after the FBI had begun digging.

So, really what Al and Richard can best contribute is what they say after they mounted their backhoes and started the trenching. Yet, even then Al's statements to me don't jive. He told me that the feds didn't find anything when they started digging, yet the KATU video clearly shows they did, and that supports the claims by Dorwin Schreuder.

This is what I do know. Richard and Al were approached by the FBI before the digging started. This is mentioned in a 2011 article in The Telegraph (London) at the following link:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I believe Richard was there the entire time from the beginning. Al may have departed, then showed up after the digging had started by hand (Day 1). Nonetheless, Richard told me that shards were found on Day 1 at the original money find spot--this is what is depicted on the KATU news footage.

I believe the Fazios and their backhoes got involved on Day 2. Essentially nothing was found on Day 2 according to Richard and the news footage that I've seen.

Finding shards on the tide line under the surface makes sense and is to be expected. For those of us who have lived in the Northwest and have seen kelp covered beaches, you can always dig down a few inches and find buried kelp too. The shards shouldn't act any different if they were stripped away by wave action from the money find spot.

I would be surprised if shards were found two or three feet below the surface 50 feet or so from the original money find spot--assuming they're not found along the tide line. Indeed, I have seen nothing that supports this type of claim.

In closing, I'll say that I have found Richard to be completely credible. Perhaps the confusion has arisen given the individual activity and the actual sequence of events and role that each person played.

georger · « **Reply #320 on:** August 09, 2018, 12:31:30 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A tidbit from Al Fazio regarding the money find at Tina Bar:

When I was at T-Bar, Al told me that he thought the shards were remnants from the main bundles that had broken loose and had washed up on the tide line, where they were found.

In essence, he supports McPheters statements that shards were found on the tide line, indicating a second location to the money find.

However, McPheter says the shards were only recovered by digging at the tide line, and thus were not on the surface, which would support what Brian Ingram told me - that his whole family spent the rest of the day looking for more money and didn't find any, anywhere.

As much as I like Al and Richard Fazio, their claims on who found what and where don't really add up. Plus, Al was late to the party, as he was at a cattle auction and only arrived at the beach after the FBI had begun digging.

So, really what Al and Richard can best contribute is what they say after they mounted their backhoes and started the trenching. Yet, even then Al's statements to me don't jive. He told me that the feds didn't find anything when they started digging, yet the KATU video clearly shows they did, and that supports the claims by Dorwin Schreuder.

This is what I do know. Richard and Al were approached by the FBI before the digging started. This is mentioned in a 2011 article in The Telegraph (London) at the following link:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I believe Richard was there the entire time from the beginning. Al may have departed, then showed up after the digging had started by hand (Day 1). Nonetheless, Richard told me that shards were found on Day 1 at the original money find spot--this is what is depicted on the KATU news footage.

I believe the Fazios and their backhoes got involved on Day 2. Essentially nothing was found on Day 2 according to Richard and the news footage that I've seen.

Finding shards on the tide line under the surface makes sense and is to be expected. For those of us who have lived in the Northwest and have seen kelp covered beaches, you can always dig down a few inches and find buried kelp too. The shards shouldn't act any different if they were stripped away by wave action from the money find spot.

I would be surprised if shards were found two or three feet below the surface 50 feet or so from the original money find spot--assuming they're not found along the tide line. Indeed, I have seen nothing that supports this type of claim.

In closing, I'll say that I have found Richard to be completely credible. Perhaps the confusion has arisen given the individual activity and the actual sequence of events and role that each person played.

Very good post - thanks! Everything you say is true so far as I know it except for the story agents tell. The Faxio were informed and involved and there almost from the first hour. You have stated this very well, almost verbatum. This is what I term the "classical version" of the Ingram find excavation story.

So is it the whole story, the true story? Let's hold that in abeyance if we can ... pending further discussion. But everything you say is absolutely the classical version of what happened.

Where do you think Himmelsbach got 'pieces at 3 feet deep', or whatever it was?

EU · « **Reply #321 on:** August 09, 2018, 06:09:55 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A tidbit from Al Fazio regarding the money find at Tina Bar:

When I was at T-Bar, Al told me that he thought the shards were remnants from the main bundles that had broken loose and had washed up on the tide line, where they were found.

In essence, he supports McPheters statements that shards were found on the tide line, indicating a second location to the money find.

However, McPheter says the shards were only recovered by digging at the tide line, and thus were not on the surface, which would support what Brian Ingram told me - that his whole family spent the rest of the day looking for more money and didn't find any, anywhere.

As much as I like Al and Richard Fazio, their claims on who found what and where don't really add up. Plus, Al was late to the party, as he was at a cattle auction and only arrived at the beach after the FBI had begun digging.

So, really what Al and Richard can best contribute is what they say after they mounted their backhoes and started the trenching. Yet, even then Al's statements to me don't jive. He told me that the feds didn't find anything when they started digging, yet the KATU video clearly shows they did, and that supports the claims by Dorwin Schreuder.

This is what I do know. Richard and Al were approached by the FBI before the digging started. This is mentioned in a 2011 article in The Telegraph (London) at the following link:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I believe Richard was there the entire time from the beginning. Al may have departed, then showed up after the digging had started by hand (Day 1). Nonetheless, Richard told me that shards were found on Day 1 at the original money find spot--this is what is depicted on the KATU news footage.

I believe the Fazios and their backhoes got involved on Day 2. Essentially nothing was found on Day 2 according to Richard and the news footage that I've seen.

Finding shards on the tide line under the surface makes sense and is to be expected. For those of us who have lived in the Northwest and have seen kelp covered beaches, you can always dig down a few inches and find buried kelp too. The shards shouldn't act any different if they were stripped away by wave action from the money find spot.

I would be surprised if shards were found two or three feet below the surface 50 feet or so from the original money find spot--assuming they're not found along the tide line. Indeed, I have seen nothing that supports this type of claim.

In closing, I'll say that I have found Richard to be completely credible. Perhaps the confusion has arisen given the individual activity and the actual sequence of events and role that each person played.

Very good post - thanks! Everything you say is true so far as I know it except for the story agents tell. The Faxio were informed and involved and there almost from the first hour. You have stated this very well, almost verbatum. This is what I term the "classical version" of the Ingram find excavation story.

So is it the whole story, the true story? Let's hold that in abeyance if we can ... pending further discussion. But everything you say is absolutely the classical version of what happened.

Where do you think Himmelsbach got 'pieces at 3 feet deep', or whatever it was?

I really don't know how much credibility to lend to the "3 feet deep" comment. It could be accurate. It could be that it was actually 2 feet deep not 3 feet. Not really sure.

I do know that the holes (excluding the Palmer trenches) on the television footage certainly weren't 3 feet deep. The hole the one agent found a shard was probably 12 - 18 inches. Nonetheless, I believe that the money was buried by human intervention and therefore a hole of some depth, whether it be 12", 24", 36", 42", whatever, was dug in the process.

georger · « **Reply #322 on:** August 09, 2018, 11:20:48 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A tidbit from Al Fazio regarding the money find at Tina Bar:

When I was at T-Bar, Al told me that he thought the shards were remnants from the main bundles that had broken loose and had washed up on the tide line, where they were found.

In essence, he supports McPheters statements that shards were found on the tide line, indicating a second location to the money find.

However, McPheter says the shards were only recovered by digging at the tide line, and thus were not on the surface, which would support what Brian Ingram told me - that his whole family spent the rest of the day looking for more money and didn't find any, anywhere.

As much as I like Al and Richard Fazio, their claims on who found what and where don't really add up. Plus, Al was late to the party, as he was at a cattle auction and only arrived at the beach after the FBI had begun digging.

So, really what Al and Richard can best contribute is what they say after they mounted their backhoes and started the trenching. Yet, even then Al's statements to me don't jive. He told me that the feds didn't find anything when they started digging, yet the KATU video clearly shows they did, and that supports the claims by Dorwin Schreuder.

This is what I do know. Richard and Al were approached by the FBI before the digging started. This is mentioned in a 2011 article in The Telegraph (London) at the following link:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I believe Richard was there the entire time from the beginning. Al may have departed, then showed up after the digging had started by hand (Day 1). Nonetheless, Richard told me that shards were found on Day 1 at the original money find spot--this is what is depicted on the KATU news footage.

I believe the Fazios and their backhoes got involved on Day 2. Essentially nothing was found on Day 2 according to Richard and the news footage that I've seen.

Finding shards on the tide line under the surface makes sense and is to be expected. For those of us who have lived in the Northwest and have seen kelp covered beaches, you can always dig down a few inches and find buried kelp too. The shards shouldn't act any different if they were stripped away by wave action from the money find spot.

I would be surprised if shards were found two or three feet below the surface 50 feet or so from the original money find spot--assuming they're not found along the tide line. Indeed, I have seen nothing that supports this type of claim.

In closing, I'll say that I have found Richard to be completely credible. Perhaps the confusion has arisen given the individual activity and the actual sequence of events and role that each person played.

Very good post - thanks! Everything you say is true so far as I know it except for the story agents tell. The Faxio were informed and involved and there almost from the first hour. You have stated this very well, almost verbatum. This is what I term the "classical version" of the Ingram find excavation story.

So is it the whole story, the true story? Let's hold that in abeyance if we can ... pending further discussion. But everything you say is absolutely the classical version of what happened.

Where do you think Himmelsbach got 'pieces at 3 feet deep', or whatever it was?

I really don't know how much credibility to lend to the "3 feet deep" comment. It could be accurate. It could be that it was actually 2 feet deep not 3 feet. Not really sure.

I do know that the holes (excluding the Palmer trenches) on the television footage certainly weren't 3 feet deep. The hole the one agent found a shard was probably 12 - 18 inches. Nonetheless, I believe that the money was buried by human intervention and therefore a hole of some depth, whether it be 12", 24", 36", 42", whatever, was dug in the process.

Any pieces (anywhere) below the upper active layer (surface), presents a problem. Tom disagrees about the nature of the layers Palmer found, but nobody disputes his description of those layers or his measurements. Here is Palmer's actual sketch. The report text that goes with it, elaborates it.

EU · « **Reply #323 on:** August 09, 2018, 11:52:45 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A tidbit from Al Fazio regarding the money find at Tina Bar:

When I was at T-Bar, Al told me that he thought the shards were remnants from the main bundles that had broken loose and had washed up on the tide line, where they were found.

In essence, he supports McPheters statements that shards were found on the tide line, indicating a second location to the money find.

However, McPheter says the shards were only recovered by digging at the tide line, and thus were not on the surface, which would support what Brian Ingram told me - that his whole family spent the rest of the day looking for more money and didn't find any, anywhere.

As much as I like Al and Richard Fazio, their claims on who found what and where don't really add up. Plus, Al was late to the party, as he was at a cattle auction and only arrived at the beach after the FBI had begun digging.

So, really what Al and Richard can best contribute is what they say after they mounted their backhoes and started the trenching. Yet, even then Al's statements to me don't jive. He told me that the feds didn't find anything when they started digging, yet the KATU video clearly shows they did, and that supports the claims by Dorwin Schreuder.

This is what I do know. Richard and Al were approached by the FBI before the digging started. This is mentioned in a 2011 article in The Telegraph (London) at the following link:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I believe Richard was there the entire time from the beginning. Al may have departed, then showed up after the digging had started by hand (Day 1). Nonetheless, Richard told me that shards were found on Day 1 at the original money find spot--this is what is depicted on the KATU news footage.

I believe the Fazios and their backhoes got involved on Day 2. Essentially nothing was found on Day 2 according to Richard and the news footage that I've seen.

Finding shards on the tide line under the surface makes sense and is to be expected. For those of us who have lived in the Northwest and have seen kelp covered beaches, you can always dig down a few inches and find buried kelp too. The shards shouldn't act any different if they were stripped away by wave action from the money find spot.

I would be surprised if shards were found two or three feet below the surface 50 feet or so from the original money find spot--assuming they're not found along the tide line. Indeed, I have seen nothing that supports this type of claim.

In closing, I'll say that I have found Richard to be completely credible. Perhaps the confusion has arisen given the individual activity and the actual sequence of events and role that each person played.

Very good post - thanks! Everything you say is true so far as I know it except for the story agents tell. The Faxio were informed and involved and there almost from the first hour. You have stated this very well, almost verbatum. This is what I term the "classical version" of the Ingram find excavation story.

So is it the whole story, the true story? Let's hold that in abeyance if we can ... pending further discussion. But everything you say is absolutely the classical version of what happened.

Where do you think Himmelsbach got 'pieces at 3 feet deep', or whatever it was?

I really don't know how much credibility to lend to the "3 feet deep" comment. It could be accurate. It could be that it was actually 2 feet deep not 3 feet. Not really sure.

I do know that the holes (excluding the Palmer trenches) on the television footage certainly weren't 3 feet deep. The hole the one agent found a shard was probably 12 - 18 inches. Nonetheless, I believe that the money was buried by human intervention and therefore a hole of some depth, whether it be 12", 24", 36", 42", whatever, was dug in the process.

Any pieces (anywhere) below the upper active layer (surface), presents a problem. Tom disagrees about the nature of the layers Palmer found, but nobody disputes his description of those layers or his measurements. Here is Palmer's actual sketch. The report text that goes with it, elaborates it.

Good stuff. Of course there is uncertainty with Palmer's findings per everything in this case. I tend to agree with TK, that said, I haven't actually studied--nor am I qualified to study--the actual beach and all that it entails.

I accept that the bundles were found together, bound in their original rubber bands, with no evidence of diatoms and in a rotting state. This appears to indicate that the money had been there awhile. To me it all adds up. That said, there will always be a measure of mystery.

Robert99 · « **Reply #324 on:** August 10, 2018, 12:20:26 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A tidbit from Al Fazio regarding the money find at Tina Bar:

When I was at T-Bar, Al told me that he thought the shards were remnants from the main bundles that had broken loose and had washed up on the tide line, where they were found.

In essence, he supports McPheters statements that shards were found on the tide line, indicating a second location to the money find.

However, McPheter says the shards were only recovered by digging at the tide line, and thus were not on the surface, which would support what Brian Ingram told me - that his whole family spent the rest of the day looking for more money and didn't find any, anywhere.

As much as I like Al and Richard Fazio, their claims on who found what and where don't really add up. Plus, Al was late to the party, as he was at a cattle auction and only arrived at the beach after the FBI had begun digging.

So, really what Al and Richard can best contribute is what they say after they mounted their backhoes and started the trenching. Yet, even then Al's statements to me don't jive. He told me that the feds didn't find anything when they started digging, yet the KATU video clearly shows they did, and that supports the claims by Dorwin Schreuder.

This is what I do know. Richard and Al were approached by the FBI before the digging started. This is mentioned in a 2011 article in The Telegraph (London) at the following link:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I believe Richard was there the entire time from the beginning. Al may have departed, then showed up after the digging had started by hand (Day 1). Nonetheless, Richard told me that shards were found on Day 1 at the original money find spot--this is what is depicted on the KATU news footage.

I believe the Fazios and their backhoes got involved on Day 2. Essentially nothing was found on Day 2 according to Richard and the news footage that I've seen.

Finding shards on the tide line under the surface makes sense and is to be expected. For those of us who have lived in the Northwest and have seen kelp covered beaches, you can always dig down a few inches and find buried kelp too. The shards shouldn't act any different if they were stripped away by wave action from the money find spot.

I would be surprised if shards were found two or three feet below the surface 50 feet or so from the original money find spot--assuming they're not found along the tide line. Indeed, I have seen nothing that supports this type of claim.

In closing, I'll say that I have found Richard to be completely credible. Perhaps the confusion has arisen given the individual activity and the actual sequence of events and role that each person played.

Very good post - thanks! Everything you say is true so far as I know it except for the story agents tell. The Faxio were informed and involved and there almost from the first hour. You have stated this very well, almost verbatum. This is what I term the "classical version" of the Ingram find excavation story.

So is it the whole story, the true story? Let's hold that in abeyance if we can ... pending further discussion. But everything you say is absolutely the classical version of what happened.

Where do you think Himmelsbach got 'pieces at 3 feet deep', or whatever it was?

I really don't know how much credibility to lend to the "3 feet deep" comment. It could be accurate. It could be that it was actually 2 feet deep not 3 feet. Not really sure.

I do know that the holes (excluding the Palmer trenches) on the television footage certainly weren't 3 feet deep. The hole the one agent found a shard was probably 12 - 18 inches. Nonetheless, I believe that the money was buried by human intervention and therefore a hole of some depth, whether it be 12", 24", 36", 42", whatever, was dug in the process.

Any pieces (anywhere) below the upper active layer (surface), presents a problem. Tom disagrees about the nature of the layers Palmer found, but nobody disputes his description of those layers or his measurements. Here is Palmer's actual sketch. The report text that goes with it, elaborates it.

Do you know where the clay that is in those layers comes from? It would almost have to be from someplace upstream during high water events.

georger · « **Reply #325 on:** August 10, 2018, 12:35:03 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A tidbit from Al Fazio regarding the money find at Tina Bar:

When I was at T-Bar, Al told me that he thought the shards were remnants from the main bundles that had broken loose and had washed up on the tide line, where they were found.

In essence, he supports McPheters statements that shards were found on the tide line, indicating a second location to the money find.

However, McPheter says the shards were only recovered by digging at the tide line, and thus were not on the surface, which would support what Brian Ingram told me - that his whole family spent the rest of the day looking for more money and didn't find any, anywhere.

As much as I like Al and Richard Fazio, their claims on who found what and where don't really add up. Plus, Al was late to the party, as he was at a cattle auction and only arrived at the beach after the FBI had begun digging.

So, really what Al and Richard can best contribute is what they say after they mounted their backhoes and started the trenching. Yet, even then Al's statements to me don't jive. He told me that the feds didn't find anything when they started digging, yet the KATU video clearly shows they did, and that supports the claims by Dorwin Schreuder.

This is what I do know. Richard and Al were approached by the FBI before the digging started. This is mentioned in a 2011 article in The Telegraph (London) at the following link:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I believe Richard was there the entire time from the beginning. Al may have departed, then showed up after the digging had started by hand (Day 1). Nonetheless, Richard told me that shards were found on Day 1 at the original money find spot--this is what is depicted on the KATU news footage.

I believe the Fazios and their backhoes got involved on Day 2. Essentially nothing was found on Day 2 according to Richard and the news footage that I've seen.

Finding shards on the tide line under the surface makes sense and is to be expected. For those of us who have lived in the Northwest and have seen kelp covered beaches, you can always dig down a few inches and find buried kelp too. The shards shouldn't act any different if they were stripped away by wave action from the money find spot.

I would be surprised if shards were found two or three feet below the surface 50 feet or so from the original money find spot--assuming they're not found along the tide line. Indeed, I have seen nothing that supports this type of claim.

In closing, I'll say that I have found Richard to be completely credible. Perhaps the confusion has arisen given the individual activity and the actual sequence of events and role that each person played.

Very good post - thanks! Everything you say is true so far as I know it except for the story agents tell. The Faxio were informed and involved and there almost from the first hour. You have stated this very well, almost verbatum. This is what I term the "classical version" of the Ingram find excavation story.

So is it the whole story, the true story? Let's hold that in abeyance if we can ... pending further discussion. But everything you say is absolutely the classical version of what happened.

Where do you think Himmelsbach got 'pieces at 3 feet deep', or whatever it was?

I really don't know how much credibility to lend to the "3 feet deep" comment. It could be accurate. It could be that it was actually 2 feet deep not 3 feet. Not really sure.

I do know that the holes (excluding the Palmer trenches) on the television footage certainly weren't 3 feet deep. The hole the one agent found a shard was probably 12 - 18 inches. Nonetheless, I believe that the money was buried by human intervention and therefore a hole of some depth, whether it be 12", 24", 36", 42", whatever, was dug in the process.

Any pieces (anywhere) below the upper active layer (surface), presents a problem. Tom disagrees about the nature of the layers Palmer found, but nobody disputes his description of those layers or his measurements. Here is Palmer's actual sketch. The report text that goes with it, elaborates it.

Do you know where the clay that is in those layers comes from? It would almost have to be from someplace upstream during high water events.

Assume you mean the clay-lump material? Evidently Palmer thought clay-lump was characteristic constituent of bottom sediment? I have wondered the same thing. Tom says its part of a deep layer that under-girds the whole river bottom including bottom sediment. A pre-Pleistocene layer? And has nothing to do with bottom sediment dredged in 74 - Tom may be correct! This is an extremely important issue that has floated since 2008!

I had a chance to ask a USGS chemist-geologist that very question: what is bottom sediment made of? And I botched the chance. So I called the guy back the next day and he had changed positions and was gone! Georger's luck! We could ask somebody who knows... I wish Tom had clarified some of these issues. Its a good question@! $:-\$

georger · « **Reply #326 on:** August 10, 2018, 12:37:39 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A tidbit from Al Fazio regarding the money find at Tina Bar:

When I was at T-Bar, Al told me that he thought the shards were remnants from the main bundles that had broken loose and had washed up on the tide line, where they were found.

In essence, he supports McPheters statements that shards were found on the tide line, indicating a second location to the money find.

However, McPheter says the shards were only recovered by digging at the tide line, and thus were not on the surface, which would support what Brian Ingram told me - that his whole family spent the rest of the day looking for more money and didn't find any, anywhere.

As much as I like Al and Richard Fazio, their claims on who found what and where don't really add up. Plus, Al was late to the party, as he was at a cattle auction and only arrived at the beach after the FBI had begun digging.

So, really what Al and Richard can best contribute is what they say after they mounted their backhoes and started the trenching. Yet, even then Al's statements to me don't jive. He told me that the feds didn't find anything when they started digging, yet the KATU video clearly shows they did, and that supports the claims by Dorwin Schreuder.

This is what I do know. Richard and Al were approached by the FBI before the digging started. This is mentioned in a 2011 article in The Telegraph (London) at the following link:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I believe Richard was there the entire time from the beginning. Al may have departed, then showed up after the digging had started by hand (Day 1). Nonetheless, Richard told me that shards were found on Day 1 at the original money find spot--this is what is depicted on the KATU news footage.

I believe the Fazios and their backhoes got involved on Day 2. Essentially nothing was found on Day 2 according to Richard and the news footage that I've seen.

Finding shards on the tide line under the surface makes sense and is to be expected. For those of us who have lived in the Northwest and have seen kelp covered beaches, you can always dig down a few inches and find buried kelp too. The shards shouldn't act any different if they were stripped away by wave action from the money find spot.

I would be surprised if shards were found two or three feet below the surface 50 feet or so from the original money find spot--assuming they're not found along the tide line. Indeed, I have seen nothing that supports this type of claim.

In closing, I'll say that I have found Richard to be completely credible. Perhaps the confusion has arisen given the individual activity and the actual sequence of events and role that each person played.

Very good post - thanks! Everything you say is true so far as I know it except for the story agents tell. The Faxio were informed and involved and there almost from the first hour. You have stated this very well, almost verbatum. This is what I term the "classical version" of the Ingram find excavation story.

So is it the whole story, the true story? Let's hold that in abeyance if we can ... pending further discussion. But everything you say is absolutely the classical version of what happened.

Where do you think Himmelsbach got 'pieces at 3 feet deep', or whatever it was?

I really don't know how much credibility to lend to the "3 feet deep" comment. It could be accurate. It could be that it was actually 2 feet deep not 3 feet. Not really sure.

I do know that the holes (excluding the Palmer trenches) on the television footage certainly weren't 3 feet deep. The hole the one agent found a shard was probably 12 - 18 inches. Nonetheless, I believe that the money was buried by human intervention and therefore a hole of some depth, whether it be 12", 24", 36", 42", whatever, was dug in the process.

Any pieces (anywhere) below the upper active layer (surface), presents a problem. Tom disagrees about the nature of the layers Palmer found, but nobody disputes his description of those layers or his measurements. Here is Palmer's actual sketch. The report text that goes with it, elaborates it.

Good stuff. Of course there is uncertainty with Palmer's findings per everything in this case. I tend to agree with TK, that said, I haven't actually studied--nor am I qualified to study--the actual beach and all that it entails.

I accept that the bundles were found together, bound in their original rubber bands, with no evidence of diatoms and in a rotting state. This appears to indicate that the money had been there awhile. To me it all adds up. That said, there will always be a measure of mystery.

Tom firmly believes the money arrived at T-Bar in 1971.

EU · « **Reply #327 on:** August 10, 2018, 12:44:43 AM »

The other thing that I'm having a difficult time grasping is how a dredge layer could be underneath the money. What I mean is this: The top layer itself would have to be the dredge layer if indeed the dredge spoils were distributed or migrated to where the money was found. After all, it there was a second layer on top of the dredge layer this would imply that new sand would have to have been deposited on top of the 1974 dredge layer. This makes no sense because the beach has been in a state of constant erosion. Simply put, it strikes me as illogical for the top layer to consist of anything other than dredge spoils--if the spoils had been distributed or migrated that far--or, original Tena Bar sand that had yet to erode.

Robert99 · « **Reply #328 on:** August 10, 2018, 12:45:28 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A tidbit from Al Fazio regarding the money find at Tina Bar:

When I was at T-Bar, Al told me that he thought the shards were remnants from the main bundles that had broken loose and had washed up on the tide line, where they were found.

In essence, he supports McPheters statements that shards were found on the tide line, indicating a second location to the money find.

However, McPheter says the shards were only recovered by digging at the tide line, and thus were not on the surface, which would support what Brian Ingram told me - that his whole family spent the rest of the day looking for more money and didn't find any, anywhere.

As much as I like Al and Richard Fazio, their claims on who found what and where don't really add up. Plus, Al was late to the party, as he was at a cattle auction and only arrived at the beach after the FBI had begun digging.

So, really what Al and Richard can best contribute is what they say after they mounted their backhoes and started the trenching. Yet, even then Al's statements to me don't jive. He told me that the feds didn't find anything when they started digging, yet the KATU video clearly shows they did, and that supports the claims by Dorwin Schreuder.

This is what I do know. Richard and Al were approached by the FBI before the digging started. This is mentioned in a 2011 article in The Telegraph (London) at the following link:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I believe Richard was there the entire time from the beginning. Al may have departed, then showed up after the digging had started by hand (Day 1). Nonetheless, Richard told me that shards were found on Day 1 at the original money find spot--this is what is depicted on the KATU news footage.

I believe the Fazios and their backhoes got involved on Day 2. Essentially nothing was found on Day 2 according to Richard and the news footage that I've seen.

Finding shards on the tide line under the surface makes sense and is to be expected. For those of us who have lived in the Northwest and have seen kelp covered beaches, you can always dig down a few inches and find buried kelp too. The shards shouldn't act any different if they were stripped away by wave action from the money find spot.

I would be surprised if shards were found two or three feet below the surface 50 feet or so from the original money find spot--assuming they're not found along the tide line. Indeed, I have seen nothing that supports this type of claim.

In closing, I'll say that I have found Richard to be completely credible. Perhaps the confusion has arisen given the individual activity and the actual sequence of events and role that each person played.

Very good post - thanks! Everything you say is true so far as I know it except for the story agents tell. The Faxio were informed and involved and there almost from the first hour. You have stated this very well, almost verbatum. This is what I term the "classical version" of the Ingram find excavation story.

So is it the whole story, the true story? Let's hold that in abeyance if we can ... pending further discussion. But everything you say is absolutely the classical version of what happened.

Where do you think Himmelsbach got 'pieces at 3 feet deep', or whatever it was?

I really don't know how much credibility to lend to the "3 feet deep" comment. It could be accurate. It could be that it was actually 2 feet deep not 3 feet. Not really sure.

I do know that the holes (excluding the Palmer trenches) on the television footage certainly weren't 3 feet deep. The hole the one agent found a shard was probably 12 - 18 inches. Nonetheless, I believe that the money was buried by human intervention and therefore a hole of some depth, whether it be 12", 24", 36", 42", whatever, was dug in the process.

Any pieces (anywhere) below the upper active layer (surface), presents a problem. Tom disagrees about the nature of the layers Palmer found, but nobody disputes his description of those layers or his measurements. Here is Palmer's actual sketch. The report text that goes with it, elaborates it.

Good stuff. Of course there is uncertainty with Palmer's findings per everything in this case. I tend to agree with TK, that said, I haven't actually studied--nor am I qualified to study--the actual beach and all that it entails.

I accept that the bundles were found together, bound in their original rubber bands, with no evidence of diatoms and in a rotting state. This appears to indicate that the money had been there awhile. To me it all adds up. That said, there will always be a measure of mystery.

Tom firmly believes the money arrived at T-Bar in 1971.

Is that correct that TK believes the money was there before the end of 1971, or within six weeks of the hijacking?

Robert99 · « **Reply #329 on:** August 10, 2018, 12:47:12 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The other thing that I'm having a difficult time grasping is how a dredge layer could be underneath the money. What I mean is this: The top layer itself would have to be the dredge layer if indeed the dredge spoils were distributed or migrated to where the money was found. After all, it there was a second layer on top of the dredge layer this would imply that new sand would have to have been deposited on top of the 1974 dredge layer. This makes no sense because the beach has been in a state of constant erosion. Simply put, it strikes me as illogical for the top layer to consist of anything other than dredge spoils--if the spoils had been distributed or migrated that far--or, original Tena Bar sand that had yet to erode.

An excellent observation.

Author Topic: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation (Read 40326 times)

georger

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

EU

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

Bruce A. Smith

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

Shutter

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

EU

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

georger

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

EU

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

georger

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

EU

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

Robert99

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

georger

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

georger

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

EU

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

Robert99

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation

Robert99

Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation