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

Took some screen grabs of a video I have,,


First pic of bundle is NOT termite damage but from water damage, it is hard like a brick and interesting to see the rubber bands.

The other two pics are termite damage only, dry environment.. (not water, not buried)

Looks similar to these..
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What about silverfish damage? I just searched "insects that eat ink" because the outside edges have more ink on them in the US $20 than the inside part. Or perhaps an insect similar to silverfish. I haven't found a photo yet that shows how they would affect money bundles (which are not exactly paper). This shows a book: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is a 1963 US twenty: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There are also other insects in the same family that have the same preferences. In homes they prefer cellars, basements, attics, tubs, sinks - dark, damp areas.

Just throwing it out there.

Quick question: were the rubber bands just plain rubber bands, or those Scrooge McDuck-looking wide things? I've been assuming the former as the money was to look hastily assembled. My computer died, so may not be on here much for a bit. Hope all are well.

Looking at many TBAR bills, silverfish (or firebrat) hole damage looks more consistent with the damage, though there is a small species of termite that is still in play. I thought perhaps the insect damage could have occurred during FBI storage, but looking close in hi res the hole edges aren't fresh enough.

If it is Silverfish damage (possibly termite) then the bills were likely stored in a human dwelling for a time before ending up on TBAR. The interior hole damage is consistent with insect damage, the exterior bill damage with insect and mostly sand erosion.

If there was Silverfish damage prior to the bundles landing on TBAR then the hole edges would begin to deteriorate..

There are many TBAR bills that show this type of interior damage.

Image: TBAR bill and paper with silverfish damage

Your last theory was 'termites'. You were sure it was termites.

You evidently reject Tom's bacteria thesis, on his website.

I read Tom's bacteria thesis and it is not inconsistent with old insect damage.

so old insect damage first then bacteria move in to eat areas where insects have worked?  ok.

If you don't understand Tom's thesis then why bring it up.

The edges were not sharp as would be from a (recent) insect.
Tom found bacteria around some of the holes on the bills he examined, that doesn't mean bacteria made all the holes on all the bills, but that is simple logic. Out of all of the bill holes Tom only looked at a fraction. Tom's thesis doesn't rule out previous insect damage whatsoever.

Whistle blown, Yellow flag fly's across the forum...



before this goes any further...I suggest both side cease commenting.....

Tena/Tina Bar, on whose name we cannot even agree -

I stepped away from T-Bar for a while and zeroed in on the DZ, which is a lost cause no matter how you slice it unless some redacted documents suddenly appear. Stepping away is both helpful for clarity and frustrating because the bottom line is, we still have no idea how or why the money got to T-Bar. Let me know what I'm missing, but here's what seems to be established:

- The money was inconsistent with having been in the water. There was no fanning and considerable compression.
- Shards of other money were found further down and along the beach. Conspiracy theories as to how much of the Cooper cash was demonstrably at some time on the beach abound, but the broadest estimates still indicate that the vast majority of the bills are and have always been missing.
- The condition of the money indicates it was not at T-Bar more than 1-2 years, leaving the money's location for 7 years unaccounted for. However, it had to be somewhere that prevented greater deterioration than is shown.
- We do not know the final configuration of the bills on DBC's person when he jumped. We do not know if any of the money was redistributed to his pockets, briefcase, or second sack (of which there is more than adequate testimony of existence). Losing the money or part of it during the jump would be no indication of whether DBC himself survived the jump. If the money was preventing steerability away from drowning, he could even have let it go (though that is definitely counter-intuitive and would only be done in complete desperation.)
- The Washougal washdown and dredge theories have both been scientifically disproven as explanations for the money's arrival on the beach. It did not arrive by water, and it did not arrive via the dredge.
- Most people on here would prefer to think DBC either lived or died and our own confirmation biases will always be a factor. But all the money find really proves is that, alive or dead, DBC did not retain all the money.

The money not having been in the water, though, is the largest factor in my (recent) leaning towards the theory of DBC's survival. Of course, the money could have plunged to land before DB himself plunged to water, but I'm pretty sure the odds are against luck quite that bad. He should have been able to steer landward if he was that close, or washed up if he was only off by feet or yards. Cratering without a crater, without any trace of any of those objects, either on the well-hiked land or in the well-monitored bear habitats, seems even less likely. Going "Ohmigod! They found some of his money! He's dead!" just doesn't work as investigation - and investigation does not support that conclusion yet.

Thanks Flyjack, for looking into the silverfish more. I do want to emphasize that ALL of us have been discussing bugs we know from our lives, which are largely indoors. Of course we think termites and silverfish first - but there could be sand/water bugs that behave very similarly and would produce similar patterns.

I don't know about "smart" bugs, but I saw this on imgur one day. This is obviously a species of forest bug, and it knows which part of the leaf it wants. Again, if we're looking for bugs, I think we're looking for ones that prefer the heavy ink on the outer US $20 of that day. I do notice in looking at some of the FBI bill photos that one of the top compressed bills is curled inwards on top of the others - but its "spotted" damage matches the rest (ie. two types of deterioration, not concurrent.) Only proving the money was not always where it was found. But we already knew that. Identifying the insect involved, if that is even possible at this stage, would only narrow down where it could have been.

 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Aside from T-Bar, some other considerations:

- Experts have cratered; novices have (as shutter has admirably shown) survived similar jumps. Proving the likelihood of either survival or death does not identify Cooper. Saying something that proves part of Himmelsbach's, Galen's, Blevins', Colberts', or even Jo's theories true does not prove their case for Cooper's death or identification with a particular suspect. Do not discount any of what little information we have or can find/logic out merely because it may lend minor credence to an aspect of a theory you otherwise despise. (Where's the baby/bathwater icon, shut?  )
- I get frequent messages from infrequent posters afraid to post for fear of ridicule. However incoherent or unlikely, even far-fetched I may find some theories, I also appreciate that this forum consists of:
* scientists, skydivers, researchers, journalists, those personally affected by the mystery, people with weird areas of expertise, people old enough to remember, people young enough to ferret out information and photos on this digital highway, people who just want to know, and those willing to dig up new suspects in their own dreams of being that glorious sleuth that gets our (wo)man. I think most posters contribute something, either through their ideas or their skepticism and expertise, to this investigation.

Fragments were found below the money, and not further down the beach..this suggest a plant would be out of the question..

IMO, i don't believe the money could come out of the river unless human interaction was involved..others claim the money was close by and moved with a flood, if not mistaken..

I believe a more plausible story without a lot of movement in order to give reason for delay...less complicated is the factor I'm seeking..I think a long string of events is less plausible..once again we are missing critical information in it's totality in order to come to any conclusions. it starts to take form like the description where everything is fair game..

Sorry, by "further down" I was referring to depth vis a vis the larger bills. Should have said "underneath" for clarity.

Yeah, rooting around here for the Occam's razor. Tina Bar, Tena Bar, ooh if we knew what the hell you are. (Sorry. Listening to my 1971 tunes collection. Do you know there were 3 different hits called "Superstar"? Also, people were overly fascinated with gypsies, tramps, and thieves. Not that we're ones to talk... )

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Tena/Tina Bar, on whose name we cannot even agree -

I stepped away from T-Bar for a while and zeroed in on the DZ, which is a lost cause no matter how you slice it unless some redacted documents suddenly appear. Stepping away is both helpful for clarity and frustrating because the bottom line is, we still have no idea how or why the money got to T-Bar. Let me know what I'm missing, but here's what seems to be established:

- The money was inconsistent with having been in the water. There was no fanning and considerable compression.
- Shards of other money were found further down and along the beach. Conspiracy theories as to how much of the Cooper cash was demonstrably at some time on the beach abound, but the broadest estimates still indicate that the vast majority of the bills are and have always been missing.
- The condition of the money indicates it was not at T-Bar more than 1-2 years, leaving the money's location for 7 years unaccounted for. However, it had to be somewhere that prevented greater deterioration than is shown.
- We do not know the final configuration of the bills on DBC's person when he jumped. We do not know if any of the money was redistributed to his pockets, briefcase, or second sack (of which there is more than adequate testimony of existence). Losing the money or part of it during the jump would be no indication of whether DBC himself survived the jump. If the money was preventing steerability away from drowning, he could even have let it go (though that is definitely counter-intuitive and would only be done in complete desperation.)
- The Washougal washdown and dredge theories have both been scientifically disproven as explanations for the money's arrival on the beach. It did not arrive by water, and it did not arrive via the dredge.
- Most people on here would prefer to think DBC either lived or died and our own confirmation biases will always be a factor. But all the money find really proves is that, alive or dead, DBC did not retain all the money.

The money not having been in the water, though, is the largest factor in my (recent) leaning towards the theory of DBC's survival. Of course, the money could have plunged to land before DB himself plunged to water, but I'm pretty sure the odds are against luck quite that bad. He should have been able to steer landward if he was that close, or washed up if he was only off by feet or yards. Cratering without a crater, without any trace of any of those objects, either on the well-hiked land or in the well-monitored bear habitats, seems even less likely. Going "Ohmigod! They found some of his money! He's dead!" just doesn't work as investigation - and investigation does not support that conclusion yet.

Thanks Flyjack, for looking into the silverfish more. I do want to emphasize that ALL of us have been discussing bugs we know from our lives, which are largely indoors. Of course we think termites and silverfish first - but there could be sand/water bugs that behave very similarly and would produce similar patterns.

I don't know about "smart" bugs, but I saw this on imgur one day. This is obviously a species of forest bug, and it knows which part of the leaf it wants. Again, if we're looking for bugs, I think we're looking for ones that prefer the heavy ink on the outer US $20 of that day. I do notice in looking at some of the FBI bill photos that one of the top compressed bills is curled inwards on top of the others - but its "spotted" damage matches the rest (ie. two types of deterioration, not concurrent.) Only proving the money was not always where it was found. But we already knew that. Identifying the insect involved, if that is even possible at this stage, would only narrow down where it could have been.

 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Aside from T-Bar, some other considerations:

- Experts have cratered; novices have (as shutter has admirably shown) survived similar jumps. Proving the likelihood of either survival or death does not identify Cooper. Saying something that proves part of Himmelsbach's, Galen's, Blevins', Colberts', or even Jo's theories true does not prove their case for Cooper's death or identification with a particular suspect. Do not discount any of what little information we have or can find/logic out merely because it may lend minor credence to an aspect of a theory you otherwise despise. (Where's the baby/bathwater icon, shut?  )
- I get frequent messages from infrequent posters afraid to post for fear of ridicule. However incoherent or unlikely, even far-fetched I may find some theories, I also appreciate that this forum consists of:
* scientists, skydivers, researchers, journalists, those personally affected by the mystery, people with weird areas of expertise, people old enough to remember, people young enough to ferret out information and photos on this digital highway, people who just want to know, and those willing to dig up new suspects in their own dreams of being that glorious sleuth that gets our (wo)man. I think most posters contribute something, either through their ideas or their skepticism and expertise, to this investigation.

Too much to reply to.

"The Washougal washdown and dredge theories have both been scientifically disproven"

Where did you get that? DZ? Pizza Hut?

When Shutter says "below" he means "deeper in depth" or "in a deeper strata" - deeper than the Ingram find which was near the surface ie "in the upper active layer" (Dr Palmer Report).

FLYJACK has proven nothing. Flyjack is here to promote a suspect. His suspect lived in a house. Flyjack's 'science' socalled is to put the Cooper money in his suspects house - that is where insects and termites and silverfish? and spiders is coming from. This has nothing to do with "science". Flyjack's 'science' is merely to try and connect his suspect to the Tina Bar money, somehow. If his suspect had bedbugs then Flyjack would be saying 'The Tina Bar money has bedbugs". That is the level of and purpose behind Flyjack's socalled science. In addition to all of that Flujack is a non-English speaker. He is very difficult (to impossible) to communicate with. He says he has read Tom's words but he doesn't seem to understand what Tom ha said - and he definitely does not agree with Tom's words! Flyjack is trying to mix his Fake science with real science done, all to promote his suspect. This is not the first time people have tried this approach in Cooper forums and it wont be the last time. One guy named RobertMBlevins has been doing this since Aug 10 of 2010 and he's still at it at his website!

This issue of the money has become so complicated, so purloined and miss-used by people, that it have arrived at the point where any meaningful discussion of this topic is impossible. Too many cooks. Too little science. Too much Fake Science.

The essential story and what we know and can prove is actually very simple. We had those basic facts in hand clear back about 2008 and it hasn't progressed much since then. Forums have done little to nothing to clarify matters and one reason for that is  'too many junk yard dogs promoting their suspects' in Cooper forums' with nothing to compete with that. I could name these people. Several are here in this forum!

When you say: "The Washougal washdown and dredge theories have both been scientifically disproven", that is incorrect. Some science Tom did could not find any evidence the money had ever been in the Washougal. Other science that has been done suggests the dredge theory is a viable theory. But there is disagreement.

Be very careful who you listen to in this matter. If I had to pick people here to listen to the first would be Shutter. Shutter has a good handle on all the basic facts and trends.

good luck...

Re the Washougal washdown and dredge theories, I was going by what I read on the Citizen Sleuths. I see no evidence whatsoever for the continued viability of either theory. Kaye may not state outright that neither is true, but I see no reason whatsoever to entertain the notion that they are unless someone comes up with something new, which they haven't.

At no time did I even mention Flyjack or espouse his or anyone else's theory. I did say that there are bugs that produce patterns consistent with that on the money, and that there may be sand and water bugs we are unaware of that produce similar patterns. There are also holes in the theory that Cooper died that no one has satisfactorily aligned with the existing evidence. Until they do, he's still Schrodinger's skyjacker.

I am increasingly weary of people freaking out every time it is even suggested that any part of the theory of anyone they despise may hold water. Throwing out babies with their bathwater is the act of bad caregivers, not good scientists.

At this moment in time, NONE of the theories of how that money got to Tina Bar in that condition are proven. And even if they were, none of them prove who DBC was or whether he lived or died.

I am interested in NONE OF YOUR INTERNAL FEUDS and frankly their frequent reappearance is tiresome.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Tena/Tina Bar, on whose name we cannot even agree -

I stepped away from T-Bar for a while and zeroed in on the DZ, which is a lost cause no matter how you slice it unless some redacted documents suddenly appear. Stepping away is both helpful for clarity and frustrating because the bottom line is, we still have no idea how or why the money got to T-Bar. Let me know what I'm missing, but here's what seems to be established:

- The money was inconsistent with having been in the water. There was no fanning and considerable compression.
- Shards of other money were found further down and along the beach. Conspiracy theories as to how much of the Cooper cash was demonstrably at some time on the beach abound, but the broadest estimates still indicate that the vast majority of the bills are and have always been missing.
- The condition of the money indicates it was not at T-Bar more than 1-2 years, leaving the money's location for 7 years unaccounted for. However, it had to be somewhere that prevented greater deterioration than is shown.
- We do not know the final configuration of the bills on DBC's person when he jumped. We do not know if any of the money was redistributed to his pockets, briefcase, or second sack (of which there is more than adequate testimony of existence). Losing the money or part of it during the jump would be no indication of whether DBC himself survived the jump. If the money was preventing steerability away from drowning, he could even have let it go (though that is definitely counter-intuitive and would only be done in complete desperation.)
- The Washougal washdown and dredge theories have both been scientifically disproven as explanations for the money's arrival on the beach. It did not arrive by water, and it did not arrive via the dredge.
- Most people on here would prefer to think DBC either lived or died and our own confirmation biases will always be a factor. But all the money find really proves is that, alive or dead, DBC did not retain all the money.

The money not having been in the water, though, is the largest factor in my (recent) leaning towards the theory of DBC's survival. Of course, the money could have plunged to land before DB himself plunged to water, but I'm pretty sure the odds are against luck quite that bad. He should have been able to steer landward if he was that close, or washed up if he was only off by feet or yards. Cratering without a crater, without any trace of any of those objects, either on the well-hiked land or in the well-monitored bear habitats, seems even less likely. Going "Ohmigod! They found some of his money! He's dead!" just doesn't work as investigation - and investigation does not support that conclusion yet.

Thanks Flyjack, for looking into the silverfish more. I do want to emphasize that ALL of us have been discussing bugs we know from our lives, which are largely indoors. Of course we think termites and silverfish first - but there could be sand/water bugs that behave very similarly and would produce similar patterns.

I don't know about "smart" bugs, but I saw this on imgur one day. This is obviously a species of forest bug, and it knows which part of the leaf it wants. Again, if we're looking for bugs, I think we're looking for ones that prefer the heavy ink on the outer US $20 of that day. I do notice in looking at some of the FBI bill photos that one of the top compressed bills is curled inwards on top of the others - but its "spotted" damage matches the rest (ie. two types of deterioration, not concurrent.) Only proving the money was not always where it was found. But we already knew that. Identifying the insect involved, if that is even possible at this stage, would only narrow down where it could have been.

 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Aside from T-Bar, some other considerations:

- Experts have cratered; novices have (as shutter has admirably shown) survived similar jumps. Proving the likelihood of either survival or death does not identify Cooper. Saying something that proves part of Himmelsbach's, Galen's, Blevins', Colberts', or even Jo's theories true does not prove their case for Cooper's death or identification with a particular suspect. Do not discount any of what little information we have or can find/logic out merely because it may lend minor credence to an aspect of a theory you otherwise despise. (Where's the baby/bathwater icon, shut?  )
- I get frequent messages from infrequent posters afraid to post for fear of ridicule. However incoherent or unlikely, even far-fetched I may find some theories, I also appreciate that this forum consists of:
* scientists, skydivers, researchers, journalists, those personally affected by the mystery, people with weird areas of expertise, people old enough to remember, people young enough to ferret out information and photos on this digital highway, people who just want to know, and those willing to dig up new suspects in their own dreams of being that glorious sleuth that gets our (wo)man. I think most posters contribute something, either through their ideas or their skepticism and expertise, to this investigation.

Too much to reply to.

"The Washougal washdown and dredge theories have both been scientifically disproven"

Where did you get that? DZ? Pizza Hut?

When Shutter says "below" he means "deeper in depth" or "in a deeper strata" - deeper than the Ingram find which was near the surface ie "in the upper active layer" (Dr Palmer Report).

FLYJACK has proven nothing. Flyjack is here to promote a suspect. His suspect lived in a house. Flyjack's 'science' socalled is to put the Cooper money in his suspects house - that is where insects and termites and silverfish? and spiders is coming from. This has nothing to do with "science". Flyjack's 'science' is merely to try and connect his suspect to the Tina Bar money, somehow. If his suspect had bedbugs then Flyjack would be saying 'The Tina Bar money has bedbugs". That is the level of and purpose behind Flyjack's socalled science. In addition to all of that Flujack is a non-English speaker. He is very difficult (to impossible) to communicate with. He says he has read Tom's words but he doesn't seem to understand what Tom ha said - and he definitely does not agree with Tom's words! Flyjack is trying to mix his Fake science with real science done, all to promote his suspect. This is not the first time people have tried this approach in Cooper forums and it wont be the last time. One guy named RobertMBlevins has been doing this since Aug 10 of 2010 and he's still at it at his website!

This issue of the money has become so complicated, so purloined and miss-used by people, that it have arrived at the point where any meaningful discussion of this topic is impossible. Too many cooks. Too little science. Too much Fake Science.

The essential story and what we know and can prove is actually very simple. We had those basic facts in hand clear back about 2008 and it hasn't progressed much since then. Forums have done little to nothing to clarify matters and one reason for that is  'too many junk yard dogs promoting their suspects' in Cooper forums' with nothing to compete with that. I could name these people. Several are here in this forum!

When you say: "The Washougal washdown and dredge theories have both been scientifically disproven", that is incorrect. Some science Tom did could not find any evidence the money had ever been in the Washougal. Other science that has been done suggests the dredge theory is a viable theory. But there is disagreement.

Be very careful who you listen to in this matter. If I had to pick people here to listen to the first would be Shutter. Shutter has a good handle on all the basic facts and trends.

good luck...

Re the Washougal washdown and dredge theories, I was going by what I read on the Citizen Sleuths. I see no evidence whatsoever for the continued viability of either theory. Kaye may not state outright that neither is true, but I see no reason whatsoever to entertain the notion that they are unless someone comes up with something new, which they haven't.

At no time did I even mention Flyjack or espouse his or anyone else's theory. I did say that there are bugs that produce patterns consistent with that on the money, and that there may be sand and water bugs we are unaware of that produce similar patterns. There are also holes in the theory that Cooper died that no one has satisfactorily aligned with the existing evidence. Until they do, he's still Schrodinger's skyjacker.

I am increasingly weary of people freaking out every time it is even suggested that any part of the theory of anyone they despise may hold water. Throwing out babies with their bathwater is the act of bad caregivers, not good scientists.

At this moment in time, NONE of the theories of how that money got to Tina Bar in that condition are proven. And even if they were, none of them prove who DBC was or whether he lived or died.

I am interested in NONE OF YOUR INTERNAL FEUDS and frankly their frequent reappearance is tiresome.

Then YOU need to keep track of who I am and what I am. I have no agenda except for trying to ascertain the facts through science and I have no "feuds" with anyone. I am not a feuding person.

Again, good luck. 

If anyone is tired of all the petty feuding, it would be me! 

   

My major problem again, is how did Cooper money come to this area of the Columbia to be dredged up, in the first place! Especially if Cooper bailed near Ariel?

seems to be the million dollar question....

It's the bail time that is troubling, as well as the path..as time has passed the jump time has moved closer to the Columbia..lets say the path is correct..I have trouble understanding the 8:16 -8:17 location. it's a heavy roll followed by another roll. could Cooper have been on the stairs, I haven't a clue. but this area is troubling..you have seen it on my simulator   it doesn't look the same on the map vs real flight...that's not my point though, it's why they did so many turns in that area?

it's possible they seen PDX and avoided it...