FLYJACK

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.

First, you need to do your own homework on buoyancy... you are clearly confused if you think an average rock has more buoyancy than "paper" money. That is not even debatable. Further, I posted several discernible TBAR frags and they are internal, not the outside of the bills. So, you got that wrong as well as not paying attention. Both TK and Palmer suggested the money came from the River, it is the best theory by a long shot and you so called "seasoned" Cooper researchers are flailing around trying to reject it.. I am not really interested in these silly arguments.

I really don't understand the stubborn resistance to the theory that the money came from the River.. It was found at the high water line of a half mile wide River.. that makes it the most likely source right off the bat. Then, the evidence does not refute it in any way. But, people are intent in inventing elaborate and unfounded theories to explain what is explained by the best theory by far.. IMO, the only difficult thing to figure out is how it got into the River.

https://citizensleuths.com/moneyanalysis.html

You remember part of it... The bills fanned out when a single packet was placed in water but at that time Tom used one rubber band in the middle.. Now, Tom has shown 2 rubber bands were used and packets were banded together. So, Tom's analysis at the time was based on a single packet with one rubber band in the middle. That has been updated. TK "It is theorized that fanned out bundles should become mis-aligned while tumbling along the river bottom over time." Tom's test bill buried for 33 months had almost no deterioration. I have explained it many times.. the money does not have to come back up to the surface. If the River level is above the money spot it effectively becomes the bottom and the money rolls along the bottom to that spot. The money spot was frequently underwater. In June of 1972, for example, the money spot was about 5 feet underwater. Money still has buoyancy in water.. it is not like a rock and embeds in the bottom.

You throw things in that have no relevance.. What is relevant,, Both Palmer and TK suggested it.. claiming it was unfortunately started by some agents is your attempt to deflect. Both Palmer and TK suggested it but only when I bring it up do people go sideways. Also, I don't think a water soaked bundle rolling along the bottom is all that violent.. it has buoyancy, the current was 2-3 MPH sometimes higher.. Bottom impacts over miles of end over end tumbling are enough to wear away the money but have no impact on rubber bands. As I pointed out TK suggested based on the erosion pattern that the fanning of bills occurred while moving along the bottom and not in situ. There are no discernible frags from the outside edges. It is the best TBAR theory.. bar none. No counter-factual has been presented, just assumptions, opinions and red herrings. However, this is only half the answer,, how did it get into the River?

You don't know what would happen to the rubber bands rolling in a slow moving River. Both Palmer and Tom Kaye suggested rolling in the Columbia.. Tom indicated the shifting was caused by the rolling but 20 miles was too far... So, your claims are wrong. Strawmanning some phantom agents and using assumptions doesn't cut it.

Both Tom Kaye and Palmer suggested rolling in the Columbia River. Palmer indicated the erosion was from rolling.. Tom suggested the shifting was incurred during rolling but felt that 20 miles was too far.. I agree.. Maybe 2-6 miles. We don't know the forces involved.. the current averaged 2-3 mph back then, slightly less now. A tumbling or rolling impact would be a combination of impact and abrasion. Impacts would not affect the rubber bands. Remember the bundle had buoyancy in the water, not like tossing it on the ground. The bill shown looks like it has degraded well beyond the condition of the find, probably from the separation process.. it also has what looks like testing stains.. that bill is not a good representation for erosion. That bill and many others have post find degradation or handling damage when separated. You need at look at the 12 piles of 3 packets. The problem with on situ erosion is the pattern, it doesn't work.. Facing the bill the left and right sides are eroded symmetrically and more than the top and bottom. The outer edges are eroded not through the stack. If it was eroded in situ you expect the erosion to be from all axis, it isn't. Look at the ends, the erosion is not on the z axis.. it is only on the x and y axis and symmetrical.. that is from rolling end over end. Erosion in situ is not as symmetric, it is more random and from all axis.. I measured the erosion on the sides vs the top/bottom and it isn't close, not percentage or volume. You'd expect equal volume for abrasion and equal percentage for wet/dry cycles. These bills do not match in situ erosion.. clearly there would be some.. as Palmer indicated it matches a rolling/tumbling.. even TK mentioned it. and from the 10000 ft level, the money was found at the high water mark of a River, the most likely source is the River.. TK.. because the money sinks Tom didn't explore the money arriving while the River level was above the money spot. "The float test demonstrated that a bundle of bills will only float for a matter of minutes before submerging if there is any agitation in the water. Before sinking, the bills fan out as in Figure 4. Placing this in context with various theories, a rocky bottom stream like the Washougal River would provide continuous obstacles to bundles moving down stream along the bottom. The Columbia River has a sandy bottom which may allow movement of bundles when the flow rate is high enough. Bundles of money 'floating' on to a beach like Tena Bar has a low probability and would require strong enough water flow to push the bundles on to the beach." TK The fanning may be from tumbling but 20 miles is too far... I agree, maybe 2-6 miles. "As demonstrated in testing, the bundles of money fan out individually when under water, while a wet bundle out of the water tends to stick together like a brick. It is theorized that fanned out bundles should become mis-aligned while tumbling along the river bottom over time. While it is impossible to know at this time exactly how the bills were oriented, a clue comes from close examination of one particular Cooper bill... At least three of the bills on top were displaced as shown, but the underlying stack was in relatively close alignment. While it could be argued that the top bills are displaced, the neat alignment of the lower stack would not be a likely result after 20 plus miles of river tumbling." TK

Rubber bands aren't compromised the same as water saturated money is... these are completely different substances. The paper bands would have been torn off. I have been trying to find how abrasive the sand is there.. River sand is generally not the most abrasive sand.. but can range. Abrasive or sharp sand comes from a quarry. No, clearly the bands were not replaced. They were not found "intact"... The rounding is probably both tumbling impact and abrasion. Impact would not affect the rubber bands.

I thought you were done discussing anything with me..

Great,, you haven't added anything in a decade anyway... you twist, lie and use ridicule as an argument. You claimed it was refuted by TK,, it wasn't, he even suggested it. You claimed it was nonsense and laughable... without any analysis. Why, you have a personal bias and agenda.

Some of it was twisted. The twisting appears to be post erosion,, The abrasive erosion is around the edge, not down through. If the vast majority of the erosion was from rolling that indicates the money arrived closer to the find rather than the hijacking.

Funny, it is called the Palmer Report because it is his report of his findings,, It is his 302. The "rolling" came from Palmer not an agent. You falsely claimed it unfortunately came from an agent.. It is difficult to figure things out when you don't have the facts right.