DB Cooper

[georger 267]

...

Edited June 27 by georger

[FLYJACK 769]

9 hours ago, Robert99 said:

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?

The entire 250k bank ransom stash was recorded on micro when it was created well before NORJAK.. It had 230k in $20's, 20k in 10's and the bills were recorded in physical order. So, the FBI would know if a packet was missing in between the 3 TBAR packets.

The bundles were in bundles of 5 packets x100 bills,, no need to use a machine to count and no counting machine was used. They grabbed 20 bundles and left 5 but all were on the micro so the FBI had to remove 1500 bills from the list. Initially, the FBI was given 15 pairs of start stop numbers and told to eliminate those and bills in between. Those 3 bundles of 15 packets on the FBI micro list was immediately put into a new bank ransom stash.

The curated FBI ransom bill list was 9998 bills, 2 short. The FBI was given the entire micro and told to eliminate 1500 20's that were not given to Cooper. They had difficulty doing this so the missing 2 bills is most likely from an FBI error creating the ransom bill list. Cooper likely got 10,000 bills.

It is possible the FBI messed up the list and eliminated the wrong bills between the two start stop numbers.. The process to create FBI ransom bill list is not as reliable as people think.

If they did randomize the 20 bundles of 5 packets it would take no time at all.. less than 5 minutes.

Edited June 27 by FLYJACK

[Kamkisky 11]

Rubber bands put over a bundle of three or five packets would adjust to the size of the packet. Now we have a timing matter…if the bands are around the bundle for a number of years, and then submerged in water and then subject to the grinding and rolling forces of river water and a sandy bottom…how again are those bands going to remain intact while majority of the size of the bundle is ground off? It just makes no sense. However….if you change the time line by putting the money in the river very early on OR by suggesting the rubber bands on the bundle where newer and more recently put on. 
 

For my money Tom is right. The rot is in situ. That’s why the remains of the rubber bands were there but instantly crumbled.  

[FLYJACK 769]

39 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

Rubber bands put over a bundle of three or five packets would adjust to the size of the packet. Now we have a timing matter…if the bands are around the bundle for a number of years, and then submerged in water and then subject to the grinding and rolling forces of river water and a sandy bottom…how again are those bands going to remain intact while majority of the size of the bundle is ground off? It just makes no sense. However….if you change the time line by putting the money in the river very early on OR by suggesting the rubber bands on the bundle where newer and more recently put on. 
 

For my money Tom is right. The rot is in situ. That’s why the remains of the rubber bands were there but instantly crumbled.  

Wait to see if Tom updates his opinion... things have changed..

Tom did suggest as a theory that the money rolled along the bottom of the River.

Palmer believed the outer erosion was from the rolling.. he also believed the money arrived closer to the find..

But there are two points here that keep getting conflated..

Did the money come from the river.. that is the best theory and not rejected by anybody.

Was the outer erosion caused by the rolling along the bottom.. if so that would indicate the money went into the River and arrived closer to the find. This is a big deal if we can sort it out.

 

[Kamkisky 11]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Wait to see if Tom updates his opinion... things have changed..

Tom did suggest as a theory that the money rolled along the bottom of the River.

Palmer believed the outer erosion was from the rolling.. he also believed the money arrived closer to the find..

But there are two points here that keep getting conflated..

Did the money come from the river.. that is the best theory and not rejected by anybody.

Was the outer erosion caused by the rolling along the bottom.. if so that would indicate the money went into the River and arrived closer to the find. This is a big deal if we can sort it out.

 

The Ingrams washing the money is a major factor here. 

Looking at the bills on the table photo, how could any grownup think maybe if we wash it it’d be useable? It’s obviously not useable. Where does this lead us…

- Conspiracy land where the Ingrams are somehow in on it or are being used by others 

- The Ingrams are idiots who thought the money (as seen on the table) was possibly spendable

- Or the most likely option IMO, the money had more volume with rotten edges and the Ingrams washed it to see if it was salvageable and took a lot of the rot off during this process. 
 

The fact that they lightly bleached it to adjust for the dirt/mold colors tells me they were trying to see if they could make it useable. This lead me to believe the money as we see it on the table is the remnants of the money they found. The Ingrams shrunk the bills by removing rot. If that’s true, the money rotted in situ.   

Edited June 28 by Kamkisky

[georger 267]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Wait to see if Tom updates his opinion... things have changed..

Tom did suggest as a theory that the money rolled along the bottom of the River.

Palmer believed the outer erosion was from the rolling.. he also believed the money arrived closer to the find..

But there are two points here that keep getting conflated..

Did the money come from the river.. that is the best theory and not rejected by anybody.

Was the outer erosion caused by the rolling along the bottom.. if so that would indicate the money went into the River and arrived closer to the find. This is a big deal if we can sort it out.

 

Interesting. I talked to Tom this afternoon. So far as I know, Tom has not changed his opinion. Tom does NOT believe  'the money rolled along the bottom of the River.'

Tom has your email and may reply to you, but Tom is very busy preparing for a trip etc.

Tom stressed today that the bills were not constrained or compressed in the middle - diatoms were able to enter the middle of the bundles -  bundles were compressed near the ends probably due to rubber bands at those locations which constrained diatom entry.

Has anyone done any tests with bank straps? Tom hasn't. Tom did not do any strap tests because at the time straps were not part of the money packaging scenario. I know one person who has started doing tests with tests in pond water but this is brand new. The straps have not dissolved and after a week dont appear to be dissolving.They have swelled very slightly. They have become opaque. I mentioned this to Tom today. I suggested to Tom today that if straps were part of the packaging perhaps by the time the Ingram encountered the money 'the straps or strap remains' might not have even been visible or identifiable! Tom laughed and remarked: 'that might be a distinct possibility'. Tom remarked that the Ingrams engaged in a serious cleaning effort and any remains of straps might have been washed away.

I would invite anyone who wants to do some strap tests, since straps are now a part of the Cooper discussion.

On a personal note I applaud Tom for making an effort to stay current and respond to people. Tom makes announcements and is staying current.

Edited June 29 by georger

[georger 267]

49 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

The Ingrams washing the money is a major factor here. 

Looking at the bills on the table photo, how could any grownup think maybe if we wash it it’d be useable? It’s obviously not useable. Where does this lead us…

- Conspiracy land where the Ingrams are somehow in on it or are being used by others 

- The Ingrams are idiots who thought the money (as seen on the table) was possibly spendable

- Or the most likely option IMO, the money had more volume with rotten edges and the Ingrams washed it to see if it was salvageable and took a lot of the rot off during this process. 
 

The fact that they lightly bleached it to adjust for the dirt/mold colors tells me they were trying to see if they could make it useable. This lead me to believe the money as we see it on the table is the remnants of the money they found. The Ingrams shrunk the bills by removing rot. If that’s true, the money rotted in situ.   

Precisely what the Ingrams did ie washing and cleaning the money, is almost entirely 'rumor' and 'anecdotal' and only subject to speculation in the public domain! Only a few people talked to Pat or Harold Ingram about this.

The official photo of 12 groups turned in by the Ingrams pretty much tells the story... what Im saying is: any criticism of the Ingrams is highly premature and probably pointless or untrue!  Preservation and restoration was uppermost in their minds at the time. The Ingrams recovered wet mush and  preserved it for posterity!

Edited June 29 by georger

[Kamkisky 11]

30 minutes ago, georger said:

Precisely what the Ingrams did ie washing and cleaning the money, is almost entirely 'rumor' and 'anecdotal' and only subject to speculation in the public domain! Only a few people talked to Pat or Harold Ingram about this.

The official photo of 12 groups turned in by the Ingrams pretty much tells the story... what Im saying is: any criticism of the Ingrams is highly premature and probably pointless or untrue!  Preservation and restoration was uppermost in their minds at the time. The Ingrams recovered wet mush and  preserved it for posterity!

Can’t agree with this one. If their goal is to preserve evidence you leave it there and call the cops. They took it home. It turns up slightly bleached and with all the rotten edges gone. They didn’t even turn it in until someone told them it could be Cooper’s money, right? That’s reward hunting. 

Edited June 29 by Kamkisky

[georger 267]

26 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

Can’t agree with this one. If their goal is to preserve evidence you leave it there and call the cops. They took it home. It turns up slightly bleached and with all the rotten edges gone. They didn’t even turn it in until someone told them it could be Cooper’s money, right? That’s reward hunting. 

Ask Brian about the actual chain of events. Brian has been forthcoming and participated in CC24 .... and I think he and Ryan have worked closely together. Ryan may know more about the actual chain of events etc. 

Edited June 29 by georger

[Kamkisky 11]

48 minutes ago, georger said:

Ask Brian about the actual chain of events. Brian has been forthcoming and participated in CC24 .... and I think he and Ryan have worked closely together. Ryan may know more about the actual chain of events etc. 

I’d love to know Brian’s version. And I’m not casting stones either, I firmly believe way north of 50% of people would try to see if the money was useable. 

[olemisscub 545]

1 hour ago, Kamkisky said:

Can’t agree with this one. If their goal is to preserve evidence you leave it there and call the cops. They took it home. It turns up slightly bleached and with all the rotten edges gone. They didn’t even turn it in until someone told them it could be Cooper’s money, right? That’s reward hunting. 

This is what I've got in my book after working pretty extensively with Brian on the writing of my Tena Bar chapter. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 29 by olemisscub

[olemisscub 545]

1 hour ago, georger said:

 

I would invite anyone who wants to do some strap tests, since straps are now a part of the Cooper discussion.

 

When Cunningham put his bundle in the tub to see if it would float or sink and how fast, the paper straps were already disintegrating within a few hours after removing the bundle from the tub. 

[georger 267]

48 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

When Cunningham put his bundle in the tub to see if it would float or sink and how fast, the paper straps were already disintegrating within a few hours after removing the bundle from the tub. 

The bands Chauc used may be too large. I think the bank bands were smaller-thinner. Good post.  Jeez that a large 'bundle'-stack  of bills. I have no problem believing that paper straps would break! Straps are flimsy at best and have no flexibility whatever!

Edited June 29 by georger

[georger 267]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

This is what I've got in my book after working pretty extensively with Brian on the writing of my Tena Bar chapter. 

 

 

 

 

works for me... congrats Ryan! I assume it meets Brian's test ....

Edited June 29 by georger

[Kamkisky 11]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

This is what I've got in my book after working pretty extensively with Brian on the writing of my Tena Bar chapter. 

 

 

 

 

This aligns with my take. They were checking to see if the money could be useable. The bills as they appear on the FBI table are clearly not useable. No one would think you could walk in a store and spend those bills. This leads me to think there was more to the bills and the rot got scrubbed off revealing what we see. 

Slim calling a bank -after scrubbing the bills- to see about exchanging the bills only confirms my theory. He knew after the bills came out of the sink he could not go to the store with them. The story sounds to me like after checking other options and considering potential consequences Slim decided a potential reward was the best route. He made the right choice. 

Edited June 29 by Kamkisky

[FLYJACK 769]

10 hours ago, georger said:

The bands Chauc used may be too large. I think the bank bands were smaller-thinner. Good post.  Jeez that a large 'bundle'-stack  of bills. I have no problem believing that paper straps would break! Straps are flimsy at best and have no flexibility whatever!

I have only been saying that for at least 6 years,,, it is self evident.

Paper straps would disintegrate ASAP.

You constantly argued no paper straps were found so they didn't exist..

[FLYJACK 769]

13 hours ago, georger said:

Interesting. I talked to Tom this afternoon. So far as I know, Tom has not changed his opinion. Tom does NOT believe  'the money rolled along the bottom of the River.'

That is not accurate.. Tom does not reject the rolling along the River theory, he previously suggested it caused the fanning of the bills. He also believes the money could not have travelled far like 20 miles. I agree maybe 2-6 miles.

Tom's position was that he intuitively believes the outer erosion was in situ..

Our discussion is ongoing.

Edited June 29 by FLYJACK

[georger 267]

27 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I have only been saying that for at least 6 years,,, it is self evident.

Paper straps would disintegrate ASAP.

You constantly argued no paper straps were found so they didn't exist..

No. Provide one person who was actually involved in the packaging of the money who says paper straps were used. 

 

Edited June 29 by georger

[georger 267]

MaYBE 3.9 miles!

Edited June 29 by georger

[FLYJACK 769]

19 minutes ago, georger said:

No. Provide one person who was actually involved in the packaging of the money who says paper straps were used. 

 

That is a different argument,, there is evidence of paper bands/straps.

You argued no paper bands were found so they never existed. 

Obviously they would have disintegrated.

[olemisscub 545]

40 minutes ago, georger said:

No. Provide one person who was actually involved in the packaging of the money who says paper straps were used. 

 

 

Bill Grinnell:

 

 

Edited June 29 by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 769]

32 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

 

Bill Grinnell:

 

 

I have told him that many times,, 

Georger will just move the goal post and claim he didn't actually pack the money..

Then there is Tina's comment.. "bank-type bands".. Georger claimed that Tina actually meant rubber bands and was contacted about it.. a lie.

Then there is Himmelsbach's comment in the video... 

Georger's denial goes back many years.. best to just ignore him.

 

[FLYJACK 769]

Tom's buried money test after 33 month's..

No outer erosion, nothing like TBAR.

 

If the erosion was in situ then money was there closer to the hijacking,, but if the erosion was from tumbling the money arrived closer to the find as Palmer concluded.

[Kamkisky 11]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Tom's buried money test after 33 month's..

No outer erosion, nothing like TBAR.

 

If the erosion was in situ then money was there closer to the hijacking,, but if the erosion was from tumbling the money arrived closer to the find as Palmer concluded.

I’d like to see more photos and know how closely it replicated the conditions of Tina Barr but I see outer erosion on all but the top. I’m not sure this is helping your point.  

[FLYJACK 769]

55 minutes ago, Kamkisky said:

I’d like to see more photos and know how closely it replicated the conditions of Tina Barr but I see outer erosion on all but the top. I’m not sure this is helping your point.  

Are you serious.. I gotta stop posting here this is getting ridiculous. 

Not helping your point.. 

There is no erosion to the outer edge like TBAR aka rounded off.

The argument is that the TBAR pattern is erosion in from the edges in situ.

It looks nothing like TBAR...  after 33 months.

It suggests that the TBAR erosion was from tumbling and that the money was deposited closer to the money find,, aka much less than 33 months..

 

TBAR erosion pattern..

Edited June 29 by FLYJACK