General Category > DB Cooper
Tena Bar Money Find
EU:
Speaking of diatoms, I spoke with Tom yesterday and will be obtaining samples of sand from the money find spot at various depths. Also, I'll be obtaining a sample from the clay layer.
Tom has insisted that diatoms--at least the A. Formosa--cannot migrate down through sand even while underwater. Therefore, if Tom is correct, the money could have only acquired the diatoms via direct expose to the Columbia. I hope he his right because this places significant barriers on the story of how the money arrived and how it departed and readily brings the truth into focus.
Those three packets got separated from the other 97 packets somehow. Moreover, the other 97 are gone...not just down the beach 50 feet. This is all very important because any theory has to reasonably explain how and why the 3 packets responded differently to their environment than the other 97 packets.
The money was not hermetically sealed. It was bound in a canvas bank bag. There have been a lot of theories here about bags of money and packets of money floated down the river via the surface, via the bottom, or some combination of both. To me this strikes me as fantasy. Again, I welcome anyone to chuck a 20 lb bag of cash into the Columbia miles upstream and see what happens. Good luck seeing some tortured series of fantastical events delivering three packets alone to Tena Bar.
I'll be there soon. If someone wants to send me some packets of cash I'm certainly willing to throw them into the Columbia to see what happens. That said, be prepared to never see any of your cash again. In fact, I'll hazard that I could try the same experiment over and over my entire lifetime and never once see the money do anything other than sink, disappear from sight and eventually rot at the bottom of the river--whether it be in a canvas bank bag or three individual packets bound by rubberbands.
I simply do not understand why it is so difficult for people to accept that the money was buried by DB Cooper. It's by far the most plausible theory. It is the easiest theory to envision as well. Frankly it's the only thing that makes sense.
EU:
Continuing from my previous post...
I find that often in cases like this we're burdened by what we think we know. We're burdened by our preconceived notions. This can be problematic.
For example:
Normally, if we were picnicking on Tena Bar and found three old rotted packets of twenties buried in the sand some 50 feet from the water's edge, we'd naturally think that the money had been buried long ago by someone. However, given that we think that DB Cooper jumped near Ariel, we stray from that simple explanation to a more tortured explanation of how the money found its way buried on Tena Bar.
Another example:
The money is discovered and clearly rotted and decaying, therefore, it is natural to think that the money has been buried on the beach since the skyjacking eight years earlier. But then we get Palmer stating that the money arrived after the 1974 dredge.
So now we think we know that the money resided somewhere other than Tena Bar for at least three years after the skyjacking. This leads to the Washougal Washdown Theory and the like which obviously creates many more problems.
Then years later we determine that, in fact, Palmer was wrong and the money was not found buried in a layer of sand above the 1974 dredge layer but in a layer of sand above the 1970 dredge layer.
All of the sudden things come into focus and we realize that the reason there were so many problems created by the Washougal Washdown Theory was because what we thought was true was actually not true.
With all of this in mind, why is it that Cooper could not have buried the money at Tena Bar himself? Why are tortured theories of money flowing down the river months after the skyjacking and self-burying entertained at all? What preconceived notions do people have about DBC to lead to such theories?
Perhaps what you think you know, is wrong.
Chaucer:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginSpeaking of diatoms, I spoke with Tom yesterday and will be obtaining samples of sand from the money find spot at various depths. Also, I'll be obtaining a sample from the clay layer.
Tom has insisted that diatoms--at least the A. Formosa--cannot migrate down through sand even while underwater. Therefore, if Tom is correct, the money could have only acquired the diatoms via direct expose to the Columbia. I hope he his right because this places significant barriers on the story of how the money arrived and how it departed and readily brings the truth into focus.
Those three packets got separated from the other 97 packets somehow. Moreover, the other 97 are gone...not just down the beach 50 feet. This is all very important because any theory has to reasonably explain how and why the 3 packets responded differently to their environment than the other 97 packets.
The money was not hermetically sealed. It was bound in a canvas bank bag. There have been a lot of theories here about bags of money and packets of money floated down the river via the surface, via the bottom, or some combination of both. To me this strikes me as fantasy. Again, I welcome anyone to chuck a 20 lb bag of cash into the Columbia miles upstream and see what happens. Good luck seeing some tortured series of fantastical events delivering three packets alone to Tena Bar.
I'll be there soon. If someone wants to send me some packets of cash I'm certainly willing to throw them into the Columbia to see what happens. That said, be prepared to never see any of your cash again. In fact, I'll hazard that I could try the same experiment over and over my entire lifetime and never once see the money do anything other than sink, disappear from sight and eventually rot at the bottom of the river--whether it be in a canvas bank bag or three individual packets bound by rubberbands.
I simply do not understand why it is so difficult for people to accept that the money was buried by DB Cooper. It's by far the most plausible theory. It is the easiest theory to envision as well. Frankly it's the only thing that makes sense.
--- End quote ---
I don’t see how suggesting the money was transported by the Columbia River via other debris is anymore “fantastical”, “tortured”, or “implausible” than believing the FBI, NWO, and the USAF totally got the flight path wrong, that Cooper landed in the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, hiked out in the middle of the night with a 20lbs bag of money despite being middle aged, and then decided to bury that money on the edge of a major river prone to flooding, and then didn’t come back to retrieve it until several months or several years later.
I’ll say it one more time:
I don’t think the money floated on its own independently. The money would sink.
I don’t think the money rolled along the bottom. I think that would make it difficult for it to appear on shore.
I do think the money could have attached itself to river debris such as a log or large branch or even Cooper’s corpse and was washed downstream in the flood water.
Regarding your statement about how the three packets got separated from the rest: who knows? Nature is chaotic, unpredictable, and entropic. If you put loose change in your pocket and jump on a trampoline, some change will fall out and some won’t. Can you explain why?
EU:
The one very big thing you're overlooking is that the flight path simply requires human error.
On the other hand, the scenario you're advocating requires physics that I consider impossible...plus human error.
EU:
Start with the absolute ironclad basics:
1) The jet departed Seattle.
2) Cooper jumped.
3) The money was found on Tena Bar.
4) The jet landed in Reno.
Start your investigation knowing only that and start working outward.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version