| ossiblue |
07-11-2016 07:51 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwd72s
(Post 9193850)
I'm in the "died jumping" camp. No body found on land...money found in Columbia river sand. I'm guessing he became fish food...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDrive
(Post 9193878)
The fact that not one of the bills given to him was ever recovered from the monetary system is a pretty good indication that the never lived to spend the $.
|
From last night's episode, my mind has changed about this^^. The money was found on the banks of the Columbia River, over 20 miles away from the estimated "drop zone." The key to this find is that the money was found upstream from the area where he was suspected of landing. In other words, there was no way the money could have washed down to the location in which it was found. Now, a comment was made during the episode that almost passed by unnoticed because it was almost an aside. The Columbia had been dredged during the time from the heist to the discovery, and some of the sand may have been deposited on the beach where the bundles were found. It was never made clear from where the dredged material came, and if it had come from downstream of the beach--from a location that is also downstream of the drop zone--that could account for the odd location.
Additionally, the bundles were found with rubber bands still around them. Forensics show that any brand of rubber band disintegrates within six months of exposure to the elements. This points to the bundles being protected/buried for all those years.
In my mind, finding the remnants of the money only confirms that it was possibly lost, not that he died in the jump. If it was lost, it would never show up in the "money stream" because he didn't have it to spend. He used a C9 parachute. The canopy, lines and harness would be exposed had he died in the jump. If he was a military parachutist, as suspected, he would have buried all his rigging once on the ground, and it would unlikely have been found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legion
(Post 9194422)
I found the "evidence" underwhelming and circumstantial. Their best pieces were a void in insulation and a rumor that someone once found a bag of money on the "suspect's" property. They ignored things like Cooper's attire was common in 1971 and none of the cash he used was ever identified as having come from the heist.
|
I don't remember hearing any of that in the first episode^^, though I missed the first few minutes of the airing. Who was it that they were talking about regarding this evidence? Just curious.
|
