MY REPLY STARTS HERE IN THIS SCREWED UP WRONG FORMATS REPLY TO A PREVIOUS POST ...


Having talked to the Ingrams I am confortable with their description that the bundles, socalled, "came out in pieces", quoting the Ingrams. Not one big lump all stuck together. But bills in those pieces were pretty much stuck together by sediments. It became a large process of separating the pieces into individual bills. The Ingrams tried that and failed. Keep in mind the Ingram's original intent was to turn this money into a bank for a refund! They needed to separate it into as many individual bills as possible, to present to a bank. (THAT DOESNT SOUND LIKE ANY PLANT I EVER HEARD OF!) What they found was not a neatly presented stack of cash as in a recent plant, but an aged deteriorated archaeological artifact that had been sitting in Nature for some time!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If this has been covered before; I apologize but does any one have any theories or ideas about why he asked for 200k? If you think about it; it's kind of a odd amount. Why not ask for a quarter million or a half million? 200k just sounds so "precise" and almost pretentious to me.

Shutter; I'm not sure if this should go in this section directly so if you feel it should be moved to another; please do.

This may indicate he was asking for a 'meaningful TOKEN amount' vs McCoy's 'get as much as I can'. It may indicate the difference between a crime that is politically motivated in part vs a purely selfish personal crime where someone needs and wants cash. McCoy needed the cash! Cooper did not and had other motives in his "I have a grudge"?

Georger has got it right again in my humble opinion.  When Cooper got the cash, he became almost child-like according to the stews.  And he tried to give them some of the money.

This suggests to me that Cooper's motive was mainly to prove to "someone" that he could do the deed, which presumably was to prove that he was a "big man" and not a "failure" in some aspect of his life.

And my guess is that the "grudge", or motive for the hijacking, had come to a head within the previous week and Cooper acted on it impulsively.  This would also explain the extremely poor to non-existent planning that he put into the hijacking.  The planning shown by his actions could have been done in two or three hours, including going down to Auto Shack and getting some road flares plus a visit to Radio Shack, or equivalent, to get the battery and some wires.

The parachute jump itself was totally impulsive.  A "maybe I'll make it, and maybe I won't, and to hell with everything if I don't" situation. 

"Fragments at three feet" dispels any notion that the Cooper money was a recent arrival on Tina Bar. Or Cooper money had been washing in on Tina Bar - all in the same small area! - from some location nearby for a series of years. That's no small feat when erosion on the sandbar keeps removing things almost as fast as they wash in at Tina Bar ... logs, debris, etc.   

This central factoid is at the heart of understanding the Ingram Cooper money find at Tina Bar.  This central issue was raised with Palmer by agents in attendance in 1980 and Palmer's reply was: 'go fuck yourselves. Ive been a beach geologist since the Moon was formed - who knows more about this than me? You?' And Palmer refused to speak to the matter further. That,. is what actually happened. Its in an FBI summary report. What Palmer said was thoroughly "unprofessional" and displays his frustration and uncertainty at the time.
 

One T Bar aspect that I am pleased has been sidelined is the alleged cattle mutilation. I was always amazed that people turned decomposition and  scavenger damage into alien surgery.

Once I saw the TV news show with the shards I (reluctantly) kissed the T bar money plant theory goodbye.

Brian's dad just seemed sooooo shifty and untruthful when he was describing the money find on the Case Closed interview. But maybe he is that way about everything. 

377

Ahem, 377, the cattle mutilation stuff may be sidelined, but it sure ain't forgotten....

Yes, the KATU video sure does send the plant theory Bye-bye.

Yup, I suspect that Dwayne/Harold is "shifty" most days, most times, on most things. He can't even stay with one name.

All this discussion may seem like "old hat" to some, but I enjoy it. It reminds me of some of my earlier perspectives. I sure was into the MKULTRA angle, big time. I still consider it, but it doesn't keep me up at night...

G wrote: "...not a neatly presented stack of cash as in a recent plant, but an aged deteriorated archaeological artifact!"

Deteriorated archaeological artifact indeed!

My Cooper twenty looks like a weathered piece of trash, not money.

I look at it a lot. I haven't been able to "channel" anything.

377

May I suggest you listen to a little Yanni when you look at the twenty. Skip the candles, though. I find they make a room stuffy, unless you burn a little sage grass first - smudging stuff I find can set the correct mood.

Speaking of candles, how is the smoke in the Bay Area this week? Still got a whiff?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

even the best of the best can be wrong..do you know if they took samples from the river? that's where I found an issue. the sample taken in front of T bar is very similar to layer B of Palmers conclusion. and the clay type soil can be found upstream around Hayden Island..Tom Kaye believes he found the a layer that runs the length of the beach vs a dredge layer..

Once they finished spreading the sand I'm guessing the erosion process already started. it constantly washes the beach away. I found it odd that such a thick layer was present so many years later?

The sand at Tina Bar was probably replenished seasonally both by humans and by the Spring runoff.  The 1974 dredged material was just a special event that added to the overall layers there.  Incidentally, do you know what type of material was mainly dredged in 1974?  Was it mainly sand or clay?  The 1980 dredged material was probably mostly ash from the Mt. St. Helens explosion and I have no idea where it was deposited, but it did not have anything to do with Cooper.


sorry, I posted on your post....

Palmer states "clay lump Dredge layer 2-4 feet thick....that's not consistent with the sample taken from the river bottom..the Fazio's strive for course sand which appears to be why they dredge around home base...

even the best of the best can be wrong..do you know if they took samples from the river? that's where I found an issue. the sample taken in front of T bar is very similar to layer B of Palmers conclusion. and the clay type soil can be found upstream around Hayden Island..Tom Kaye believes he found a layer that runs the length of the beach vs a dredge layer..

Once they finished spreading the sand I'm guessing the erosion process already started. it constantly washes the beach away. I found it odd that such a thick layer was present so many years later?

Not all layers erode equally. I would think compacted consolidated clay bearing layers would erode less quickly. Uncompacted sand would erode quickly. Uncompacted dredging material would be move easily. It's not a linear removal, layer to layer.

One key is Palmer pointing out "crossbedding" in layer B?  Cross bedding represents multiple alluvial events over time.

Palmer identified his layers by "content". Lose sands, coarse sands, extraneous materials (nails cans etc) showing signs of deterioration = time, clay vs no clay, lumpy clay, consolidated clay, etc.

But nowhere does he even mention erosion or attach dates to each layer except indirectly. My point is: you can't understand or explain a sand bar without discussing (a) erosion, and (b) time! Sandbars including Tina Bar is an active place. Erosion and time dating is fundamental to any explanation. It would be like trying to explain the contents of an old unlabeled can without dating the can! The date and state of the contents of the can match the date of the can! 

Tom and I both talked to a lot of people about Palmer's professional work his areas of expertise, professional papers, etc. In every case (in my research) people said Palmer was a leading expert on beach EROSION! He was asked to go to St Helens by the Govt as a "sediment erosion expert". Nowhere in the socalled Palmer report is the word "erosion" even mentioned. That sends up a red flag, imho. Erosion is probably central to the Ingram money story. 

And when you consider fragments at three feet and bundles near the surface in a sub-surface cross-bedded layer, now you are forced to look at the "forces operative on that sand bar over time" - its inescapable! Palmer told us that Tina Bar was a "static scene". Well no, not in 4.5 billion years has it been static there!

JLa wrote: "200k just sounds so "precise" and almost pretentious to me."

I have no good ideas on why that amount was requested by Cooper.

Precise yes, but why is that precise request seen as pretentious?

McCoy showed that DBC left a lot of money on the table asking for only $200K.
McCoy demanded $500K, got it, successfully landed it and got it home.

377

Georger summed up what I mean with "pretentious." It wasn't like "give me all the money you got!" Or a go for broke demand. It just seems too too precise. Maybe its just my OCD.