FLYJACK

There is no evidence whatsoever.. Cini's hijacking was a disaster.. The idea of a "ransom" parachute escape existed well before Cini. FACT. classic... POST HOC ERGO PROMPTER HOC

The 8:11 time has been overwhelmed by people moving the jump zone further south... Cooper jumped about 8:11. You gave it your best shot but the Western Flight path has not panned out, it is based on your own assumptions. The evidence supports the "FBI" accepted path.

Cooper was not a Cini copycat. Cooper did not land in the Columbia, he jumped about 8:11 within the half mile error along the so called "FBI" accepted flight path.

I heard about this Merwin salvage operation years ago,, they probably negotiated a reward if anything found vs being hired "per se"...

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..

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 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.

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.

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.

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..

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 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.

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

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..

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.

Did not happen.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

Give it up the dredge theory, it is dead.. that is your agenda.. and why you try everything to dismiss the "from the River theory".. intellectual fraud. Agent's speculated earlier in the day... buried in may have been dredge material. But they discounted that theory...

Palmer was asked about shards at depth and dismissed it as caused by excavating... and yes the dredge theory is fairy dust... Nice try tho.. still flogging the dredge theory.. it isn't 2010

Both Tom K and Palmer indicated TBAR money rolling along the bottom of the River causing erosion.. You clowns attack me personally for suggesting the same thing.. You guys are an impediment to the advancement if this case.