So now the science matters?  I think I might have to trade my barn boots for hip waders.

I challenge you to name a single time when I have disregarded the science. Your comment is just plain stupid.

Lets see.... Science says a certain diatom isn't found living beneath the sand. Yet since this finding doesn't fit into your narrative it's necessary to have Tom Kaye test your own "samples" of sand, disregarding what science says. Loads of research has been done on diatoms, yet when Tom Kaye relays the "science" to us (concerning diatoms) you mock him by saying you think he was guessing. Explanation enough?

Really? Let me set the record straight and we'll see if you're man enough to own up to your error or not.

First of all, my narrative is based upon the diatoms NOT being able to live beneath the sand. Read my theory before you critique it.

Second, Tom asked me to grab the specific samples while on Tena Bar later this month. I did not say, "I'm grabbing these samples, let's challenge your knowledge."

Third, perhaps you should ask Tom if he thinks I've ever mocked him. In fact, I speak with him regularly--including about three hours ago (he's in Vegas right now), and I have visited him at his home multiple times, and will again when I get back from Tena Bar to deliver the requested samples.

Finally, there is not a soul out there who doesn't know I've long suspected Sheridan Peterson as DBC and said as much. Yet--if you watched my show--you will see me announce to the world, literally, that Sheridan cannot be DBC because we thought the DNA didn't match. I said this because I defer to science and am not a homer.

My reputation and intellectual integrity speaks for itself and is documented numerous places, including the History Channel which aired internationally.

Who the hell are you to question my investigative integrity?

You are now free to man the F up and apologize.

Hope your not holding your breath waiting for an apology. Investigative integrity? Surely you jest. Such as "your" tie findings that first came from Flyjack? Or your placard findings that have come up empty?

Exactly the response I would expect from a person who got utterly crushed by my argument which merely stated the facts.

No one will ever catch me not manning the F up. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it even if I dislike the person. I see you are incapable of such reflection.

Cheers!

All of a sudden your concerned about “science” and “data” and “evidence” but you disregard the reams of evidence of a central flight path. Interesting.

Very compelling argument...Your Honor, He Rests His Case.

What exactly is the purpose of your post? Is there a point you're making?

CAUTION: Don't bite. It's a trap.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

All of a sudden your concerned about “science” and “data” and “evidence” but you disregard the reams of evidence of a central flight path. Interesting.

Very compelling argument...Your Honor, He Rests His Case.

What exactly is the purpose of your post? Is there a point you're making?

CAUTION: Don't bite. It's a trap.

My point is that you base your theory on assumptions while ignoring vast amounts of evidence - including a central flight path among other things.

You assume the flight path is incorrect.

You assume Cooper lived.

You assume he buried the money.

You assume he came back and retrieved the money just in the nick of time.

You assume he knew exactly where he buried the money and was able to reach down and yank it out of the sand.

You assume some money “got left behind”.

You have no evidence to back up these assumptions, but you seem to think that if you say it loud enough and long enough that people will accept it as fact. You’re wrong about that. I have fully admitted that my “boat-corpse theory” (who’s taking shots?) lacks the evidence to prove it, but it fits into the known facts. You’ve moved the flight path miles and miles, then used Tom’s diatom evidence to create some elaborate Hollywood-esque narrative around it. Now, because other facts threaten your theory, you have begun discrediting them by suggesting Cooper was lying about knowing the area and whether he was wearing a disguise on the plane.

The way I approach this case is look at the preponderance of evidence and proven facts, and make hypotheses. You make assumptions and cherrypick evidence to fit your narrative. You’re free to do that, but don’t call others out for not “following the science”. Nothing I have put forth contradicts the known facts of the case. Your’s does repetitively.

This isn’t a competition, and no one is “taking shots” besides you. You push a fringe theory with little to no evidence to support it. Expect pushback. Don’t be so defensive about it.

Question for Tom and the group -

Do bills 'fan out' if already wet?  Is it only dry bills that fan out in Tom's water experiment?

We already know that the Ingram bills were "congealed" (Tom's word). Congealed bundles of bills are not going to fan out. So, if bills were going to fan out (to get exposed to diatoms) it isn't going to happen after the bundles of bills are already congealed. We already know that diatoms are not going to penetrate a solid congealed mass ...

Can a wet bundle of bills 'fan out' - do they? 

Great question, georger. I think we should also differentiate between “congealed” and “wet”. Clearly, a packet of bills that is congealed won’t fan, but can bills get wet, then fan out. Interesting.

For example, could they get wet while inside the bag, then come out of the bag and fan out? Love for Tom to weigh in.

Good questions. Congealed means ' closed to intrusion' as I understand Tom.  Flyjack even approves!

"Well Georger is finally getting it.. The diatoms enter when the bills fan out after entering the water,,, when they clump together the diatoms can't get inside. That indicates the money first entered the water in Spring,,,"

Hmmm. Can bills only fan out only in the Spring?         This may open up Coopercon21 to astrology ?

Tom says: ". Figure 2C indicates conclusively that the examined bill is from the middle of the stack by finding an intact Fragilaria sandwiched between two bills.  It is planktonic30 and therefore has no ability to move through sand. Its size and location interior to the stack (Fig. 1) and notably with no smaller diatoms surrounding it, suggests that it came to rest there while the bill was completely exposed to river water. "

Mechanics/opportunity seems to have played a role in diatom placement.

Tom: " EDS spectra overlay showing the sodium line. Red lines are spectra from the Cooper bill diatoms showing elevated sodium levels, green lines are from November samples. Blue line is the single Asterionella spectra from the November sand sample showing no enrichment in either sodium or calcium. (B) Calcium line showing elevated presence of calcium for November diatoms while Cooper samples show lower levels. Each group of diatoms showed opposite enrichment of sodium and calcium. Data is relative and qualitative. "

Tom's samples seem to indicate an earlier bloom, perhaps June vs November. Conclusion: diatoms on the bill were mature and date from mid Summer, possibly June.

Was there an high water event at TBar in June of some year. Yes there was. June of 1974 just months earlier than when dredging work was done at Tina Bar! Thats a coincidence.... interesting.

Tom's sodium/calcium findings may be crucial! Lets think about that...

water data attached.