Georger:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is but one of a few efforts on the Columbia to track debris flow. One would quickly conclude that debris from east of the I-5 bridge could quite easily end up on Tena Bar.

Quote

Chaucer apparently believes that Tosaw thought Cooper landed in the Columbia River near the I-5 bridge (which I don't believe existed in 1971).

Tosaw’s book, page 108:

“It was then I began to accept the idea of Cooper’s Columbia landing... An FAA aeronautical chart disclosed that Victor 23 crossed the Columbia about two miles upriver from the I-5 bridge that connects Vancouver and Portland. Now I knew not only how the money got into the Columbia but also where in the river it hit. “

Quote

The airliner was flying almost straight south (about 178 degrees true to be exact) on the WFP when it overflew Tena Bar.

No, it wasn’t because there is no such thing as a Western Flight Path except in your imagination.

Quote

If Cooper landed in the water near the I-5 bridge as a no-pull, then the airliner would have been almost directly overhead of that bridge when he jumped.  If Cooper landed in the water near the I-5 bridge under canopy, then the airliner could have been as much as 8 miles or so southwest of that bridge when he jumped if he opened immediately.  If he delayed opening, then the airliner could have been somewhere between 8 miles southwest of the bridge.

The plane approached the I-5 bridge from the northeast.

Quote

Since the WFP passes only about three miles west of the I-5 bridge, the WFP stays in the mix.

No, it doesn’t because the WFP is a myth.

Quote

Anyone with even a basic understanding of fluid dynamics, the general energy equation, or even high school level physics, knows that if Cooper landed in the water near the I-5 bridge and drowned, then his body and equipment would have been on the Oregon side of the Columbia after the river turns north.

Or you can actually talk to the people who track river debris at this part of the river and review their data. If you did, you’d know that what you wrote is inaccurate. Also, you are completely disregarding other variables such as ship wakes, weather, and flooding.

Quote

This means that when Cooper passed Tena Bar, his body and equipment would probably have been on the bottom of the shipping channel and very near the Oregon edge of the river.

False. Please speak with the kind folks at the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership. They track and map debris accumulations for this part of the river. Debris from beyond the I-5 bridge does accumulate on the Tena Bar side of the Columbia.

Quote

Basically, the above means that there is no way on God's Green Earth that the money found at Tena Bar got there from normal river flow

Wrong. See above.

Quote

Cooper did not land in the Columbia River, drown, and then drift downstream.

You’re probably right, but not for the reasons you listed.

Quote

I'm sure we will have to go over this again in another month or so.

Only if you continue to insist that you are right in the face of facts.

Chaucer, just more of your nonsense.  The following has been explained any number of times before, but here we go again! 

Just because V-23 crosses the Columbia at a certain point doesn't mean that the airliner was even on V-23.  In the 1971 time frame, V-23 was 10 statute miles wide (5 statute miles on each side of the V-23 centerline).  And if you will take a look at the so-called FBI flight path, and make some effort to understand what you are looking at, you will conclude that the airliner was definitely not on the centerline of V-23 in the vicinity of Portland International Airport.

On the matter of debris washing up at Tena Bar, this has been discussed at length here for the last 11 years that I am aware of.  And if you would pay a visit to Tena Bar, you might be surprised at how little debris is there and what is there (beer cans and such) probably came from the fishermen who visit Tena Bar.  Also, some debris may come from the Marina that is in the channel between Caterpillar Island and the east shore of the Columbia River.

Also, as I have repeatedly posted over the years, the money was probably deposited at Tena Bar during a flood event that moved it from a ground location that is higher than the location where it was found.

Responding to such trivial claims is a complete waste of time since they will be repeated again in the near future.  Chaucer, do you know what the general energy equation represents? 

Bob,

Your wrong about everything.

First, the LCEP folks HAVE done surveys of the Oregon side, they also have projects on the Washington side. They even have a map detailing debris finds which indicate debris on both sides of the river. Obviously, the areas that they have conducted surveys have more debris. The other areas are populated by finds from citizens who report it to them. Perhaps, you should read the whole website. Better yet, call them, talk to them about their research, and find out what I have. Doubt you will though, because doing so would completely ruin your narrative.

Second, just because you continually post something for 11 years doesn’t make it correct. I could post that Santa Claus is a real guy for the next 11 years,  and it would still be wrong.

Third, we have know way of knowing how the money arrived on Tena Bar, but you’re right about one thing: water DOES flow downhill. And Tena Bar is downhill from the I-5 bridge area. Perhaps the money bag snagged on a log and the log ended up on the beach when the flood waters receded? Who knows?

Also, you can take Bernoulli and shove him right up your ass. I don’t give a shit. You try to come off as a pseudo-intellectual know-it-all when the truth is you are literally wrong about everything regarding this case. You talk about fluid dynamics when in reality your entire narrative depends upon your personal opinion about what the pilots would do and your belief that the FBI was “covering something up”. Let us know what that was when you find out, will you? Meanwhile, your hypotheses completely fall apart when faced with the facts of the case.

Have a great day.

Bob,

Your wrong about everything.

First, the LCEP folks HAVE done surveys of the Oregon side, they also have projects on the Washington side. They even have a map detailing debris finds which indicate debris on both sides of the river. Obviously, the areas that they have conducted surveys have more debris. The other areas are populated by finds from citizens who report it to them. Perhaps, you should read the whole website. Better yet, call them, talk to them about their research, and find out what I have. Doubt you will though, because doing so would completely ruin your narrative.

Second, just because you continually post something for 11 years doesn’t make it correct. I could post that Santa Claus is a real guy for the next 11 years,  and it would still be wrong.

Third, we have know way of knowing how the money arrived on Tena Bar, but you’re right about one thing: water DOES flow downhill. And Tena Bar is downhill from the I-5 bridge area. Perhaps the money bag snagged on a log and the log ended up on the beach when the flood waters receded? Who knows?

Also, you can take Bernoulli and shove him right up your ass. I don’t give a shit. You try to come off as a pseudo-intellectual know-it-all when the truth is you are literally wrong about everything regarding this case. You talk about fluid dynamics when in reality your entire narrative depends upon your personal opinion about what the pilots would do and your belief that the FBI was “covering something up”. Let us know what that was when you find out, will you? Meanwhile, your hypotheses completely fall apart when faced with the facts of the case.

Have a great day.

Chaucer, I have a serious question.  I presume that you are referring to Bernoulli's Equation, with which I am quite familiar.  So seriously, how can I shove an equation up my posterior?  Have you discovered a new scientific principle?

So I am "wrong about everything"?  My original assumption that you might at least have some knowledge of what you are talking about was obviously wrong.