FLYJACK

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.

Looks like we are making progress.. in a few years you'll be fully onboard. What agent? It is in the Palmer report,, FWW, I came up with it before the Palmer report was released. I posted it way back on Shutter's site. It is just obvious, the money was found at the high water line of a wide River, most likely it came from the River.. if it came from the River it likely rolled along the bottom.. even TK suggested it. Not hard. I have tried to figure out an experiment but can't see it being doable.. it is too difficult to replicate and recover the money. One thing to try is place a bundle with two bands in water and when it sinks test how much current is needed to move it. The money on TBAR would be subject to the conditions in situ,, they just don't explain the unique erosion pattern. The ends would be tapered like a football... the frags are not from the outer area. There is no better theory... Money sinks... but still has buoyancy.. Only one bill and no current.

Georger is using AI... a joke in itself. The only counter argument to the rolling theory is the wet dry cycle sand abrasion.. Problem is it fails. The TBAR money was rounded off at both ends in a uniform symmetrical shape. The abrasion was only around the outside of bills, not through the top/bottom.. You'd expect the erosion to be uniform from all sides (x, y, z axis) it wasn't. The shape is inconsistent with in situ erosion and is consistent with tumbling.. the the conclusion of the Palmer report.. No identifiable shards were from the outside of the bills,, the eroded area.

Good god,, what a load of garbage... You are now using AI to think for you.. the interactive equivalent of wikipedia. What a joke.

The top and bottom bills were breaking up,, some were missing. That is clear in images.

First, the shards I have found that are large enough to discern are from the middle of the bills.. not the outer edges. I have not found any examples of tumbling money.. I tried to come with a test but I just can't see how it can be done properly to replicate the conditions and recover the money. The money sinks but it still has buoyancy like many things other than heavy items like rocks.. I have found images of bills suspended just above the bottom of water. It is reasonable to conclude that the current can roll the money along the bottom. The TBAR section of the Columbia is very flat and sandy with almost no snags. and all the images of buried money I have found do not have symmetrical damage like TBAR. The damage is very random... nothing like TBAR's uniform erosion. Also, circulated currency is riddled with bacteria.. even if sand is sterile, the money already had bacteria on it. It is absurd that the uniformly rounded edges are from bacteria.. There was some bacteria damage on the bills but it is random. Further, why did the bills get rounded only around the outside and NOT through the middle of the stack,,, answer, the erosion was not in situ. Internal fragments... these are different pieces

So, you have some things wrong, one thing right. TK used one rubber band in the middle for his test.. he has since confirmed the money had two rubber bands. The money sank when tested but it wasn't in the Columbia River with a sandy bottom.. it was in a tank.. Tom theorized that the money could move in the Columbia. "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." You can't state the money DID NOT come from the River.. this is your own bias not supported by any evidence. You have always claimed the money would have been on the other side or in the channel, this is pure speculation.. you do not know what that money did or would do. If it went in at Frenchman's Bar it would end up on the TBAR side.. (debris ends up on the same side as it went in) You are correct the elevation of the money spot was about 6 feet, the high water mark, the typical River level was about 2 feet with a tidal of less than 2 feet.. So, for the money to get to high water mark the River level had to be above it while the money rolled along the bottom to that spot. That 6 ft level is well below the flood stage and is often breached. The Fazio's claimed the water was above the money spot recent to the money find. Finally, this is the conclusion in the Palmer report but you guys choose to attack the messenger because you don't have any valid arguments whatsoever.. it is clear you both have agendas.. The money was found at the high water line of a mile wide River,,, the most likely source is the River,, the evidence supports it, the Palmer report supports it and it is the best theory by far.. You guys have no legit theories at all... You both use Tom's research on the money to attack this but it actually doesn't contradict it in any way.. Tom even suggested the money could be moved on the sandy bottom of the Columbia.

Wrong, The bacteria did not create the uniform rounding of the edges. Bacteria is more random. and the rounding is only on the around the outer edges not through the middle of the stack from the top or bottom of the bill middle. If it was bacteria it would be random and from all sides. No images of buried money looks like TBAR money.. TBAR erosion is too uniform. The more you guys fight this with bad arguments the more better it becomes.

This is nonsense..and an abuse of reality. What am I claiming credit for? I was the one who told Tom about the diatom seasonality and gave him the research. I was the first one to identify Cooper's parachute card. I was the one who figured out the conventional thinking on the money bundles/packets was wrong, you guys tried to get me banned for it.. I was the one who figured out that Cooper initially asked for airstairs down on takeoff, everybody assumed he only asked for airstairs down on takeoff. and more... You guys have always fought every advancement in this case that didn't fit your established narratives. This isn't 2010 anymore. People have lied and use lies because they can't articulate a valid argument.

Nothing Tom did contradicts the tumbling theory, nothing.

You can believe anything you want to.. Objectively, the TBAR money coming from the River is the best one by a long shot.. Your arguments are either nonsense, ridicule (fallacy) or irrelevant (straw-man). You can't even articulate a better theory. You have nothing.

You have nothing.. nothing whatsoever. Stick to your dredge theory... Everybody now understands the difference between a packet and a bundle except you.

Complete nonsense.. it took you about 6 years to figure out the difference between a packet and a bundle.. You ridiculed the idea because you thought it was only my idea, It was the same conclusion in the Palmer report, released after I first mentioned it on Shutters site.. This is the best TBAR theory by a long shot,, nothing else is even close.

Bacteria is random, the TBAR outer wear is uniform. If the outer wear was in situ you'd expect the same ingress all around, it isn't.. The height ingress is about half the erosion for the length. Some have previously claimed wet dry cycles,, then you'd expect the same percentage all around, it isn't even close. Images of buried and damaged money are just NOT uniform like this. This pattern is consistent with rolling/tumbling along the River bottom and for some distance. It is the best explanation for TBAR money,, by a long shot. Unfortunately, it is only half the answer.. How did it get into the River?

No idea what you are on about.. you sound confused.

Years ago I noticed that U-CART where Dwayne worked was virtually under the flight path.. the rear parking area bordered a wooded area with a pond.. Perhaps Dwayne found some money there and staged the find with Brian.. Ultimately I rejected it. The condition of the money does not fit a plant. Rubber bands crumbled when picked up. Money was wet and deteriorated. Money was tested and had river sand. Dwayne said he told Brian where to clear a spot. If he was staging it he probably wouldn't admit that. Cooper jumped at 8:11. I did a new analysis and it also confirmed 8:11. U-Cart would be 5-6 minutes later. You'd expect eventually somebody in Dwayne's family to talk. The erosion on the money looked to me like it had rolled along the bottom, no other buried money images look like that, when the Palmer report got released they also reached that same conclusion. I am 95% that money rolled along the bottom of the River for some distance to TBAR when the water level was above the money spot which is well below flood stage. How it got in the River... that is a real tough one. U-CART..

There is nothing suspicious about directing your young son to a spot to clear for a fire. The condition of the money and the rubber bands crumbling contradicts a plant theory.. There is nothing to support a plant. I looked into this a long time ago when I discovered that Dwayne Ingram's work place was under the flight path.. ultimately nope. the condition of the money contradicts a plant.

Go and find images of buried money... nothing looks like this. The uniform erosion of TBAR is definitely from tumbling/rolling. The tumbling/rolling along the bottom is the best theory by a long shot.. nothing else is even close.. this is the easy part. You need to accept it, resistance is futile.. I lean towards it being only three packets vs five in a single bundle.. no more money was found and it is hard to imagine another bundle or two coming out from inside a rubber banded bundle to disappear somewhere. We can also assume the rubber bands still had their elasticity when it went into the River. As for how it got into the River, that is tougher one to noodle. It travelled some distance along the bottom so TBAR itself is out of the picture. Did it fall from the plane over the Columbia, perhaps in the overcoat left on the stairs.. Diatoms? Did somebody toss it in the River to dispose of it? Is it money Cooper gave to the stews or for a ride,, Did somebody find it get scared and toss it? Did it get mistakenly tossed into the dump next to the Columbia River at the confluence of the Willamette? Was it hidden in something? Did it get moved into the River by natural means? Was it moved from downstream via clamshell dredge/barge then dumped into the River? They did this.. Does this indicate Cooper survived,, not really,, Does this indicate he lost the money in the jump, not necessarily,,

I have put the piles back into the packets...

You never are.. the Palmer team was there and they believed the money came from the River and the wear indicated a rolling.. I agree, I have never found any images of buried money that looks anything like the TBAR wear. They had a hydrologist who never even mentioned the possibility of human burial. The TBAR money wear indicates a rolling along the bottom. There is no evidence for a plant and it makes no sense. It is not a reasonable theory. If you guys want to remain in denial be my guest.. The hard part is figuring out how it got into the River..

Sure, finding Cooper doesn't depend on a bunch of things.

No, the rubber bands were not compromised, the money was, it was wet. And the rounded wear was on the ends of the packets.. indicating a tumbling end over end,, the rubber bands around the middle would not have the same impact. Haven't you been paying attention.. This is simple stuff..

um, it is in the Palmer report, have you read it. Tell me what you know that they didn't.

River rocks are round for a reason.. abrasion I am sure if the money kept rolling for long enough the rubber bands would eventually break. River rocks don't roll on sandy bottoms like money would... they hit each other. The money sinks due to density but if the density is barely more than the water it will sink but still have a buoyancy and be moved easily in the water. A rock is more dense and needs far more current to move it. Buoyancy is key factor for movement in a river.. Comparing rocks to linen/cotton is silly. and for the money, the ends were missing/rounded the most, not the top and bottom or through the center of the stack.. the erosion matches tumbling or rolling exactly as the Palmer report states. If the bills eroded in situ the erosion pattern would be different. If you want to keep deny it, go ahead. I am not interested, there is no debate here..

It gets pushed along the bottom by the current,, it would have some buoyancy and not take much to move it.. rolls to its position when the water level is above that spot effectively making it the bottom. That spot is well below flood stage and often covered by water.