DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 769]

8 hours ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

Tom K “indicated” no such thing! He only cited the rolling on the river bottom theory as a possible explanation for the misalignment of the bundles. Here is what he has to say in regards to degradation (not erosion) of the bills. 

Sure, he indicated the rolling along the sandy bottom... 

THAT IS THE POINT. 

These guys are mocking the idea that the money rolled along the bottom to get on TBAR only when I suggest it. 

Georger is still in 2010 flogging the dredge theory also dismissed by Tom K and Palmer.

The debate is about how the money got to TBAR.

Both Tom K and Palmer indicated the money rolled along the bottom.

The holes in situ from bacteria are random, the outer erosion is NOT. This has nothing to do with the holes.

[FLYJACK 769]

9 hours ago, georger said:

Now that wasnt difficult after all !!!!! So its some reporters version vs Palmer;s own words. Things never turn out to be quite what you claim ?  .............. its DB Cooper!  

Sure he must have made it all up and Palmer also said the money came from the top layer not the dredge layer,, he must have made that up as well.. 

and both Tom K and Palmer must have lied when they dismissed the dredge theory.

It is clear you are still stuck on the dredge theory, that is why you irrationally attack anything that threateners that delusion.. this explains your inability to understand the difference between a packet and a bundle... 

 

You can have the dredge theory.. it is all yours. Congratulations.

 

 

Edited June 26 by FLYJACK

[FunnyStuff 8]

 

[georger 267]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Sure he must have made it all up and Palmer also said the money came from the top layer not the dredge layer,, he must have made that up as well.. 

and both Tom K and Palmer must have lied when they dismissed the dredge theory.

It is clear you are still stuck on the dredge theory, that is why you irrationally attack anything that threateners that delusion.. this explains your inability to understand the difference between a packet and a bundle... 

 

You can have the dredge theory.. it is all yours. Congratulations.

 

 

Thanks but I am not, never have been, wedded to ANY theory.

 

Edited June 26 by georger

[FLYJACK 769]

54 minutes ago, georger said:

Thanks but I am not, never have been, wedded to ANY theory. You keep putting words in people's mouths and thoughts in people's heads. My mission is to identify something specific in the money that identifies or narrows the options in the money story. I would have preferred a full lab analysis of all of the money but that never happened and then became impossible. Today we are stuck with secondary inference.

I questioned an Agent yesterday about the FBIs Lab procedures, back in the day of the Cooper case. What kind of notes and data was made and kept. Were notes kept by the people who separated the Ingram bills? Only Lab people have ever seen those notes - unless something stood out and was communicated to case agents ? It would be interesting to see those notes today, if there are any. Especially anything related to bands and band samples if any were found and kept. Since everything makes and leaves clues of its life, the Cooper money is no exception. I am wedded to that principle.

At some level there is something in the money today that still links the money to the Ingram's kitchen! Existence has memory. The dredging is a just one option of many.  It is dismissed by just about everyone today. So why are you so hung up about it?

because you attacked me when I suggested the money rolled along the bottom.. you always resort to ridicule because you don't actually have any counter-argument.

I pointed out that both Tom and Palmer also suggested it.. you didn't mock them at least not lately.

The money arriving by the River is the best TBAR theory by far.. why does everyone fight it so hard and use mental gymnastics to create improbable theories..

You did it only because I mentioned it. 

and Tom's "suggestions" are contradictory,, the money can't both roll into a ball on the bottom and land "intact" askew.. his earlier views were based on one rubber band around one packet,, not two around "3" packets..

The thinking on this needs to be updated.

and I agree with Palmer the erosion around the outside edges is consistent with rolling along the bottom end over end, not in situ.. I thought that before the Palmer "report" was released..  the images of buried money I have found have much more random damage patterns, not uniform at all, nothing like TBAR.. even Tom's 33 month buried bill test didn't erode like TBAR, the edges were intact.

I have emailed Tom...

 

typical buried money..

 

 

Edited June 26 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 59]

1 hour ago, georger said:

Thanks but I am not, never have been, wedded to ANY theory.

 

At this point in time, NO ONE knows exactly how the money got to Tena Bar.  And we will probably never know.

But if the dredge theory is correct, and I don't know one way or the other, then the money came from the shipping channel which is adjacent to the Oregon side of the river.  And if the money was ever in the shipping channel, no natural process would get it.

[FLYJACK 769]

30 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

At this point in time, NO ONE knows exactly how the money got to Tena Bar.  And we will probably never know.

But if the dredge theory is correct, and I don't know one way or the other, then the money came from the shipping channel which is adjacent to the Oregon side of the river.  And if the money was ever in the shipping channel, no natural process would get it.

This is the problem..

You trashed me for suggesting the money rolled along the bottom, same thing Palmer believed, instead of evaluating it.

If that damage was from rolling/tumbling then we do know how it got there. WE would solve part of TBAR..

When you and Georger trash me for a very legit theory, you are undermining the advancement of the case.

 

[olemisscub 545]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

You trashed me for suggesting the money rolled along the bottom, same thing Palmer believed, instead of evaluating it.

 

fwiw, I'd not trash you for your suggestion, for it's a reasonable theory. I just have trouble conceiving that so much damage could take place to the bills within the bundle and yet have the bundle washup with the three packets still (roughly) together. In my limited experience tossing money bundles around, and having to fool with creating 20 bundles for my money bag, packets can pretty easily shift around inside the bundle. As I said, rubber bands aren't exactly vice grips. You might suggest that being water logged would keep them all together...but yet Brian clearly found three separate packets.

In other words, being waterlogged long enough for so much deterioration to occur doesn't seem to support them still being found in separate packets. Being waterlogged for any length of time should have just made all the packets smoosh together into a single brick. That leads me to think that they got water logged while already at rest and while they were already loosely separated from the bundle. 

[FunnyStuff 8]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

.. his earlier views were based on one rubber band around one packet,, not two around "3" packets..

 

It seems that everyone states with near certainty that the bundles were 3 $2,000 packets rubberbanded together but as far as I know no document tells us that's a certainty.

It doesn't make sense to me that the bank would group $200,000(or $250,000) for that matter in increments of $6,000.  Seems more probable to be either 4 or 5 $2,000 packets per rubberbanded grouping.

[olemisscub 545]

24 minutes ago, FunnyStuff said:

It seems that everyone states with near certainty that the bundles were 3 $2,000 packets rubberbanded together but as far as I know no document tells us that's a certainty.

It doesn't make sense to me that the bank would group $200,000(or $250,000) for that matter in increments of $6,000.  Seems more probable to be either 4 or 5 $2,000 packets per rubberbanded grouping.

The man who oversaw the money being packed and who carried it in his lap to the airport says that the bank always bundled in packets of 5. A decade later an FBI agent claimed that the money was bundled in such a way that it was hastily gathered. Yet that is nowhere in any of the FBI Files from 1971 and this statement didn't come from an actual Cooper case agent. The FBI nor law enforcement had anything to do with the money except for an undercover cop actually driving the bank people to the airport. Had their been some order given to "mix up" the money bundles, I imagine that the man who oversaw the money being put in the bag would have remembered that. Yet he has never mentioned it. Also, as I said, such an order or directive would have likely only come from law enforcement and we have a pretty good understanding that law enforcement was really hands off when it came to the money. 

In fact, the only evidence whatsoever that the money MIGHT have been bundled in packets of three is this one agent's comment in 1980. One might think that the TB money itself is evidence that it was bundled in packets of three, but given that we don't know the chain of custody between Nov 24, 71 and when the money was found, it doesn't stand alone as evidence. 

It's a real shame they didn't photograph the money beforehand. 

[georger 267]

23 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

The man who oversaw the money being packed and who carried it in his lap to the airport says that the bank always bundled in packets of 5. A decade later an FBI agent claimed that the money was bundled in such a way that it was hastily gathered. Yet that is nowhere in any of the FBI Files from 1971 and this statement didn't come from an actual Cooper case agent. The FBI nor law enforcement had anything to do with the money except for an undercover cop actually driving the bank people to the airport. Had their been some order given to "mix up" the money bundles, I imagine that the man who oversaw the money being put in the bag would have remembered that. Yet he has never mentioned it. Also, as I said, such an order or directive would have likely only come from law enforcement and we have a pretty good understanding that law enforcement was really hands off when it came to the money. 

In fact, the only evidence whatsoever that the money MIGHT have been bundled in packets of three is this one agent's comment in 1980. One might think that the TB money itself is evidence that it was bundled in packets of three, but given that we don't know the chain of custody between Nov 24, 71 and when the money was found, it doesn't stand alone as evidence. 

It's a real shame they didn't photograph the money beforehand. 

Have you talked top Carr about this? Didnt he interview a bank employee (or two)? Carr's issue at the time was paper straps vs bands. Carr called Brian and Pat about this but I thought he found a bank employee (security guard? who was there during the packaging) and was told 'bands only'. Does Carr have information you arent aware of?  Talk to him - see what he says.

Something is missing from this debate. Why is Larry not a part of this debate?

Edited June 26 by georger

[georger 267]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

This is the problem..

You trashed me for suggesting the money rolled along the bottom, same thing Palmer believed, instead of evaluating it.

 

 

Nobody is trying to do anything to you! Never have been. Why all the paranoia ?

[Robert99 59]

8 minutes ago, georger said:

Have you talked top Carr about this? Didnt he interview a bank employee (or two)? Carr's issue at the time was paper straps vs bands. Carr called Brian and Pat about this but I thought he found a bank employee (security guard? who was there during the packaging) and was told 'bands only'. Does Carr have information you arent aware of?  Talk to him - see what he says.

Also ask Carr if the money was microfilmed during the set-up of the "ransom money fund".  The $200,000 for the airliner was apparently counted by some machine immediately before going to the airliner.

[FunnyStuff 8]

36 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

The man who oversaw the money being packed and who carried it in his lap to the airport says that the bank always bundled in packets of 5. A decade later an FBI agent claimed that the money was bundled in such a way that it was hastily gathered. Yet that is nowhere in any of the FBI Files from 1971 and this statement didn't come from an actual Cooper case agent. The FBI nor law enforcement had anything to do with the money except for an undercover cop actually driving the bank people to the airport. Had their been some order given to "mix up" the money bundles, I imagine that the man who oversaw the money being put in the bag would have remembered that. Yet he has never mentioned it. Also, as I said, such an order or directive would have likely only come from law enforcement and we have a pretty good understanding that law enforcement was really hands off when it came to the money. 

In fact, the only evidence whatsoever that the money MIGHT have been bundled in packets of three is this one agent's comment in 1980. One might think that the TB money itself is evidence that it was bundled in packets of three, but given that we don't know the chain of custody between Nov 24, 71 and when the money was found, it doesn't stand alone as evidence. 

It's a real shame they didn't photograph the money beforehand. 

You're most likely correct that the existence of near $6,000 at TB is the only reason we even ever started to believe that they were bundled in $6,000 increments.

If they were actually bundled in $10,000 increments, I suppose it gives way to a higher probability that either: #1 was there longer than we originally thought and had to degrade more or #2 it had been altered before it got there.

 

[FLYJACK 769]

2 hours ago, FunnyStuff said:

It seems that everyone states with near certainty that the bundles were 3 $2,000 packets rubberbanded together but as far as I know no document tells us that's a certainty.

It doesn't make sense to me that the bank would group $200,000(or $250,000) for that matter in increments of $6,000.  Seems more probable to be either 4 or 5 $2,000 packets per rubberbanded grouping.

That is why I put "3" in quotes,,, it is not certain.

but on balance I lean towards 3, the bundles were in 5's originally, an agent said in a news interview the bundles were made random sized.. perhaps Cooper removed two on the plane for the stews..  nobody knows for sure.

but if there were rubber bands around 5 bundles how do you keep the rubber bands attached to two and end up with 3.. it doesn't make sense because two packets inside had to fall out.

 

[FLYJACK 769]

1 hour ago, georger said:

Nobody is trying to do anything to you! Never have been. Why all the paranoia ?

You have spent a decade publicly trashing me.. you two tried to have me banned from Shutters when I was 100% correct on the money.. you guys just didn't get it and didn't want to hear another view.

It never changed my views on the case as I have been right... I just think you guys undermine the advancement of the case.. anything new is immediately trashed and ridiculed.. like clockwork. 

My suggestion was the same as Palmer, you trashed it because I brought it up.

[FLYJACK 769]

1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

Also ask Carr if the money was microfilmed during the set-up of the "ransom money fund".  The $200,000 for the airliner was apparently counted by some machine immediately before going to the airliner.

Did not happen.

[FLYJACK 769]

1 hour ago, FunnyStuff said:

You're most likely correct that the existence of near $6,000 at TB is the only reason we even ever started to believe that they were bundled in $6,000 increments.

If they were actually bundled in $10,000 increments, I suppose it gives way to a higher probability that either: #1 was there longer than we originally thought and had to degrade more or #2 it had been altered before it got there.

 

They were in bundles of 5 x 100 bills stored at the bank.

Larry Carr posted here long ago the money was made random to not look uniform,, this was before we got the FBI files..  so were did he get that? It is in the files in a news article citing an FBI agent. 

Larry Carr, CKRET

But, Larry conflated bundles and packets,, he falsely assumed the packets were resized instead of the bundles of packets.. very easy and quick to resize bundles.

It is more likely that there was only 3 packets arriving on TBAR than the other two go missing on TBAR.. there is no evidence of more than 3 packets,, and how do you get rubber bands attached to two packets and lose two in the middle of the stack.

Perhaps they were randomized or Cooper removed two packets from a bundle for the stews.

 

Edited June 26 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 769]

Not really sure why Ryan dismissed Agent Baker so easily.. he was the assistant special agent in charge Portland FBI. Hard to believe he would make it up.

 

Money was sent to lab for prints..

 

Edited June 26 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 545]

59 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Not really sure why Ryan dismissed Agent Baker so easily.. he was the assistant special agent in charge Portland FBI. Hard to believe he would make it up.

 

 

Remember though, there is a difference in making something up and stating something that is erroneous that YOU believe to be true. I've no doubt he believed that to be true, but why? My reasons for dismissing him. 

1) He's an ASAC. They are administrators. They are not investigators. They only know what the SA's under them tell them about a particular case. 

2) Why would an ASAC in Portland be privy to unique information about what a bank in Seattle did yet isn't written in any FBI file?

3) The SA who handled Cooper in Portland was Himmy. This is likely where Baker got all of his Cooper info from unless he glanced through whatever files Portland had on Cooper at the time. We know this isn't in the files, so his info likely came from Himmy.

4) Himmy is often wrong. In his own book he repeats the bogus belief that the money came from multiple banks i.e. Himmy can't be trusted about the banks. So whatever he told Baker is suspect. 

5) Agents aren't infallible when speaking to the media. There are many things that agents, even NORJAK agents themselves, have said to the media that are demonstrably false and contradict the actual evidence and the files. 

It's a balancing act when determining how much weight to put toward something. ONE statement from a single FBI agent in 1980 doesn't outweigh the testimony and memory of the actual bank employee who oversaw the packing of the bag. His single statement also doesn't outweigh the fact that what he's claiming is found nowhere else anywhere. 

I feel like he got this bogus information from Himmelsbach. He wasn't making anything up. He just got faulty information. That's all. 

[olemisscub 545]

2 hours ago, Robert99 said:

The $200,000 for the airliner was apparently counted by some machine immediately before going to the airliner.

This is completely incorrect. We know with 100% certainty that the numbers were pre-recorded by the bank. They had $250,000 in a "ransom pack" that were all pre-recorded in the event of a bank robbery. All of those bills were pre-recorded on microfilm. The bank handed this microfilm over to the FBI on Nov 25th. 

[FLYJACK 769]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

Remember though, there is a difference in making something up and stating something that is erroneous that YOU believe to be true. I've no doubt he believed that to be true, but why? My reasons for dismissing him. 

1) He's an ASAC. They are administrators. They are not investigators. They only know what the SA's under them tell them about a particular case. 

2) Why would an ASAC in Portland be privy to unique information about what a bank in Seattle did yet isn't written in any FBI file?

3) The SA who handled Cooper in Portland was Himmy. This is likely where Baker got all of his Cooper info from unless he glanced through whatever files Portland had on Cooper at the time. We know this isn't in the files, so his info likely came from Himmy.

4) Himmy is often wrong. In his own book he repeats the bogus belief that the money came from multiple banks i.e. Himmy can't be trusted about the banks. So whatever he told Baker is suspect. 

5) Agents aren't infallible when speaking to the media. There are many things that agents, even NORJAK agents themselves, have said to the media that are demonstrably false and contradict the actual evidence and the files. 

It's a balancing act when determining how much weight to put toward something. ONE statement from a single FBI agent in 1980 doesn't outweigh the testimony and memory of the actual bank employee who oversaw the packing of the bag. His single statement also doesn't outweigh the fact that what he's claiming is found nowhere else anywhere. 

I feel like he got this bogus information from Himmelsbach. He wasn't making anything up. He just got faulty information. That's all. 

Sure, but it isn't something anyone would make up or get wrong, it isn't your typical error.. to make that error it would have to be completely made up by somebody.

I can see Himm's exaggerating in a book or interview but to the assistant agent in charge.. unlikely and we don't know if came from Himm.

The bank guy isn't dispositive... but agree the issue isn't certain.. like many things in this case.

I just don't think there is enough to just to dismiss it as easily as you have..

Where did Carr get it the info?

To add, if you had a rubber banded bundle of 5 packets how do you lose two packets and keep the rubber bands on two of them,, it would have to be two of the three internal packets falling out.. that sounds improbable.

Agent Pringle also said the money was from one bundle and many said it was in the same order and packaging as given to Cooper. 

The bill Micro Recordak was in order so the FBI would know if an internal packet of a bundle of 5 was missing. So, if it was a bundle of 5 then the two missing packets had to be from the top or bottom. Then how did they retain the rubber bands. 

Baker gave a new conference in Portland... 13th

Edited June 27 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 59]

3 hours ago, olemisscub said:

This is completely incorrect. We know with 100% certainty that the numbers were pre-recorded by the bank. They had $250,000 in a "ransom pack" that were all pre-recorded in the event of a bank robbery. All of those bills were pre-recorded on microfilm. The bank handed this microfilm over to the FBI on Nov 25th. 

So the story about the "ransom pack" of bills having been microfilmed is correct?

But I strongly suspect that a machine device of some sort was used to count the 10,000 bills for the NWA ransom.  Also, I read somewhere that Cooper was only given 9,998 bills.  So the ransom was $40 short.

Further, just because something has not been publicly released by the FBI doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.  How many thousand more FBI files are there to be released under the Mark Zaid legal matter?

[monk71 3]

Do we know what standard size bands were either used by the bank, or found at TBar? Do they match; are there multiple sizes; were the same size(s) used in tests by Tom K?

[georger 267]

4 hours ago, monk71 said:

Do we know what standard size bands were either used by the bank, or found at TBar? Do they match; are there multiple sizes; were the same size(s) used in tests by Tom K?

Good question. Tom knows _ see his website.

 

Edited June 27 by georger