I'm with you 99.999% of the way. When no remains or money are found, that's the logical conclusion. It's a parlor game at best to conjure up some scenario where

I'm with you 99.999% of the way. When no remains or money are found, that's the logical conclusion. It's a parlor game at best to conjure up some scenario where he gets out, minus the money -- and stays incognito ever after. There are loose parallels to the fates of the three guys who escaped from Alcatraz in 1962, and whose bodies were never found. http://www.npr.org/2012/06/12/154766199/50-years-later-mystery-of-alcatraz-escape-endures http://www.npr.org/2012/06/12/154766199/50-years-later-myste... and also: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30349106 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30349106 Survival theories end up getting very contrived in both cases. The rational side of me votes "Dead," but I can still be lured into reading an occasional speculative piece that tries to go somewhere with the last sliver of doubt. In Cooper's case, the potential landing area was so vast & rugged that I'm guessing even the stubborn souls at the FBI couldn't pull off anything resembling an effective, quadrant-by-quadrant search for remains. Would bones left out in the open still be identifiable? Or are they most likely dust by now?