FLYJACK

Nope, the bundles were wet and rolling along the sandy bottom would round them off without affecting the rubber bands. Rubber bands stay on because they are elastic and stretched, the bills were wet,, so they didn't need much impact to round them off. It makes perfect sense. It made sense to the Palmer team and it makes sense to me. The Palmer report identified the rounded off edges as indicating a rolling motion in the River. Simple physics. The bills did not rot elsewhere. they were rounded off tumbling along the bottom, the shards came off of the remaining stack. The shards were not from the outer edges they were from the top/bottom bills interior. Your shards argument is invalid. I have seen many images of buried money and none looked as uniform as the TBAR money. I am 99% convinced the money rolled along the bottom for some length, at least a few miles. Human burial makes no sense.. to claim it only needs a reason is a huge problem. There is zero evidence and contradictory evidence. both of you guys are using your own assumptions, not the evidence. both you guys claim that river tumbling makes no sense or is laughable when the it is in THE PALMER REPORT. AND the Palmer team including the hydrologist NEVER even mentioned human burial as a possibility.

Georger, The only thing laughable is your lack of case knowledge after almost 15 years on this case.. The Palmer report identified the rounded money as indicating a rolling motion in the River.

I don't think TBAR will ever be solved,, just some theories ranging from nonsense to possible.

Human burial makes no sense. It is in the worst spot and what for? You are still making up a theories.. TBAR was accessible but not a common place with easy access, some locals and fisherman. Look at a map of Frenchman's Bar.. a road in and parking. The money was rounded off about 50% around the outside of the packets. I have seen buried money images and it doesn't look as uniformly eroded as TBAR money. The shards don't account for the outer erosion. Palmer suggested tumbling, we don't know for sure but it is consistent with tumbling end over end. The money looks like a wet bundle rolled end over end along a sandy river bottom. The absolute simplest theory is that it went into the river and was pushed onto TBAR. The closest public access beach upstream is Frenchman's Bar about 2 miles away. There is nothing to indicate it was human buried for any reason. and we aren't 100% certain the money was ever given to Cooper,, maybe 98%...

Yes, money bundles sink, but they still have buoyancy even on the bottom. That area of the river is sandy with almost no snags (I posted a video of the river bottom off TBAR) and a bundle can be pushed along the bottom by current. So, I like Frenchman's Bar as an entry point,, 2 miles upstream, same side of river, easy access with a parking lot.. Probably tossed into the river inside a paper bag or container.. which could float for some time. Maybe sinks,, money gets rolled onto its spot when the water is above the spot (usually Spring time). and no the money spot was well below flood stage. If I recall the flood stage starts at 11 feet, the money spot is about 6 feet. You don't need a flood, just high water above the money spot. The burial/plant thing doesn't make any sense, it is the worst spot to bury money. If you wanted to bury money there are a million better spots close by. Also, the bills were rounded off edgewise which suggests tumbling like along a sandy river bottom. End over end. What I really wish we knew,, did the money arrive closer to the hijacking or closer to the find?? that would help immensely.

TBAR was used by some locals.. not a common "public" place.. Frenchman's Bar 2 miles upstream was a popular public beach area with parking. The money spot was at the high water line often underwater, Fazio's said in 1980 that it was recently underwater. The money was found feet from the bordering property.. It is not a place to plant money intended to be found. But, the stew money is one of my top three TBAR theories... I just don't see anyway it was planted to be found or TBAR had any "Tina" meaning.. in my stew theory it was just discarded upstream to get rid of it.. probably tossed at Frenchman's Bar in a brown paper bag. Landing on TBAR was just a coincidence.

Fact is.. you don't know what he said or what he meant, you are assuming.. I pointed out earlier that he might have been referring to Minnesota "Nice" describing the people which was a subtle form of racism pre-Norjak.. If he was that might tell us something about Cooper. But you choose to ridicule something that you don't even understand. You do this to remain relevant.. Nobody knows what he meant, except Cooper.

The money offered to the stews ending up at TBAR is a valid theory but it is not reasonable that "Tena" Bar was related to "Tina".. There would not be any expectation of that money to be found, it was a one in a million random event that Brian found it. If somebody wanted to send a message they would have hung it from the Tena Bar sign or put it in some place so obvious it would be found. TBAR money was not meant to be found. Ryan's restaurant analogy is off.. the money would not have been left inside on the table, it would have been tossed in the garbage out back, not meant to be found. The highest probability is that the money came from the river, either discarded and tossed in upstream or unintentionally introduced into the river.. Extremely low probability, it never went to Cooper and the FBI ransom list is wrong.

Georger often plays fast and loose with the facts... and makes assumptions. Tina's 302 does not say that Cooper said "Minnesota is "very" nice country" It reports that.. after she said she was living in Minneapolis.. He INDICATED that MINNEAPOLIS Minn, was very nice country. So, neither Georger or Ryan actually knows his words or what he meant. Nobody does. He was actually responding and referring to Minneapolis.. which is a city. This is Tina's interpretation,, Cooper could have meant many things.

He was given 200k... The bank ransom stash was actually 250k but 20k was in $10's.. So, the micro list created by the bank and given to the FBI had ALL $250k on it. The FBI could ignore the $10's but had to eliminate 1500 $20's on the list that didn't go to Cooper. The FBI most likely eliminated the correct 1500 bills but we can't double check their process. So, there is still a very small possibility they messed up the elimination of those 1500 bills not used for Cooper and went back into a second bank ransom stash. They even admitted they were having difficulty. It is interesting but can't be resolved without the full original micro from the bank.

Extremely unlikely but possible based on the process the FBI had to use to create the ransom list.. Most people assume the bank just gave a perfect ransom bill list to the FBI, they didn't.. They gave the FBI a micro image list that included 1500 $20 bills that Cooper did not receive. and only 15 sets of start/stop numbers to deduct those 1500 bills. the FBI admitted they were having trouble deducting the bills. There is room for error. Small but there. The 1500 bills on the micro list given to the FBI was immediately put back into a new 2nd bank emergency money stash.

"TBAR money may be from another crime" That was my investigation many years ago... it is complex It is theoretically possible that the TBAR money never went to Cooper... extremely unlikely but possible based on the way the ransom list was curated by the FBI. The bank had previously recorded $230,000 in $20's in 100's and in physical order of bills. Not numeric order. $200,000 was grabbed for Cooper, leaving $30,000. The recorded microfilm had all $230,000 bills on it. The bank sent the entire list to the FBI with 15 packets start/stop numbers for the money NOT GIVEN TO COOPER.. those 1500 bills were to be removed from the FBI list. So, the FBI had to deduct 1500 bills based on the 15 start/stop sets of numbers.. Meanwhile the bank immediately put the 15 packets into a new bank ransom stash and recorded all the bill numbers. The FBI was having trouble deducting the 1500 bills from the initial list and asked for a list of the 1500 bills not taken for Cooper. The entire NEW micro list was sent to the FBI with start/stop bill numbers.. there was an error in those numbers. Somehow the FBI eventually came up with the list. So, the process to create the ransom list was convoluted and by elimination. If the FBI or the bank made an error using those 15 sets of start/stop bill numbers then money not given to Cooper and to the new bank stash could have theoretically made it on the FBI list.. If that money was later used for a ransom it could have gone to TBAR.. So, it is theoretically possible that the FBI list was flawed die to its curation and bills not given to Cooper were on the list. Those bills were part of a new bank ransom stash. This is extremely unlikely but theoretically possible. When people claim it is a 100% fact that the TBAR money was Cooper ransom money, it isn't. It depends how accurate the FBI was in removing the 1500 bills (15 packets) from the micro list and they admitted they were having trouble figuring it out. We don't have the original micro of the bills in order to double check what the FBI did to establish the final ransom list.. did they remove the correct 1500 bills.. the final list we see has been re-ordered alpha numerically.

If you believe Cooper was 6 ft tall that is fine... you run with that. He might be, but he might be 5-9 as well. Fact is, the FBI and the evidence does not support your opinion that he can't be under 5-10. Is a suspect with a reported height of 5-9 and 5-10 in shoes also eliminated in your opinion..

Really, you keep claiming I have "confirmation bias" to discredit me. Disagreeing with you and agreeing with the FBI and the evidence is confirmation bias, something you just make up because I don't accept your opinion. Funny, you are trying to discredit me in a unhinged screed claiming that you don't... You need a break...

TBH, I don't care what your opinions are,, what makes me respond is when you lie and try to discredit me.. you try to discredit me claiming I have a confirmation bias when I am just in agreement with the FBI.. that is insane. You do it because you have no facts to back up your opinion. Fact is, it is irrational based on the evidence to claim Cooper can't be under 5-10.. then use that fallacy to ridicule suspects. Even a suspect reported at 5-9 is probably 5-10 in shoes.. If you believe he was 6 feet (reported 5-11 without shoes), that is different and I could care less..

Stop digging.

You are being diplomatic,, I have tried that and it doesn't work with Ryan he is very stubborn.. Having an opinion on height is fine but virtually useless for vetting suspects within the FBI's range. The FBI even looked at compelling suspects under 5-8... Ryan's view that Cooper can't be under 5-10 undermines the case and as a Cooper influencer misleads people. Further, he uses that opinion to discredit and ridicule others. He actually weaponizes ignorance.. a low level tactic that works for low level thinkers. The twisted irony is Hahneman has many reported docs with a 5-9 height,, he might even be 5-10 in shoes and Ryan still ridiculous him and eliminates him based solely on height.. because he trying to discredit me using Hahneman as a proxy,, I really don't care what he thinks, he has many things wrong based on false assumptions,,, IMO, Cooper could be 5-8 or 6 feet in shoes.... the odds are greatest at about 5-10. Extremely low under 5-8 or above 6 feet.. Braden is not a good suspect because he has grey eyes, dimples, a crooked mouth and thinner hair.. He is also a legit skilled badass and no connection to the case, Cooper was not a badass and less skilled. Not 100% sure how tall Braden was in shoes... if 5-8 that is really borderline but not the sole reason to eliminate. Carr has explained it,, elimination is subjective based on a combination of factors, there was a suspect eliminated who was re-examined.. Unless they are wildly off in description or have an alibi most of these people aren't really technically "eliminated". I have found that many people express opinions in this case with a level of certainty that isn't warranted or supported by evidence. It makes for great arguments but doesn't advance the case. I would really like to advance the case based on the evidence rather than dispute opinions.

Two guys had him at 5-9, another at 5-10.. opinions for Cooper's height are worthless, they have no meaning. That 2 inch error does not apply to Cooper witnesses, the variables are not the same. Some saw him briefly standing, some seated, some before he was known as the hijacker, some after. Plus, it is a very small sample size.. The FBI used 5-9 initially in the description but updated it to 5-10 to reflect Tina's estimate.. one person.. that was not what the FBI used to vet suspects, they used 5-8 as the lower bound. Ryan's opinion is that any suspect under 5-10 is eliminated solely based on height, that is an irrational position.. contradicted by logic and the evidence. I am not claiming Cooper must be under 5-10.. rather that he could be. That is the difference. I accept the range the FBI used whereas Ryan rejects the FBI range. Ryan can't or won't explain why.. and accuses me of confirmation bias for agreeing with the FBI. The FBI can make errors but you need something substantial to show their mistake.. Ryan has nothing. So, I am not claiming Cooper is below 5-10, I am only acknowledging the evidence that he could be.

Seek help.. that is an embarrassing screed.. Cooper could be 5-9 or he could be 5-11.. from day one I thought he was about 5-10... I agree with the FBI and the evidence, if you want to call that confirmation bias it only demonstrates your own desperation to defend your baseless opinion. Ryan, seriously keep your opinion I don't want you to change it.. I asked for your argument behind it to be polite, maybe there is something I don't know.. Turns out as I suspected you have no evidence or argument.. What I really despise is when you use ridicule and false claims of confirmation bias to discredit others who don't share your opinion.. it is intellectually dishonest.

He wasn't 5-8" standing in a plane in shoes. You try to make him shorter and Cooper taller,, it is as if your brain is stuck. At least you stopped saying he was 5-7.. that was funny. You made Hahneman 2 inches shorter and Cooper 2 inches taller. Hahneman also has a card that says 5-9" as well as other confirming documents. Witnesses had him up to 6 feet.. He was between 5-8 and 5-9 without shoes.. He was between 5-9 and 5-10 in shoes.. I have explained this to you but it just doesn't penetrate your ego. But keep distorting the facts to fit your opinion. It is your pattern. There is no evidence or argument to automatically eliminate a suspect between 5-9 to 5-10" based solely on height.. Your opinion is just irrational... it is not supported by facts and is contradicted by the FBI. Keep your goofy opinion but don't use it to try discredit others.

Yes, it is your opinion... you can keep it. But you constantly dismiss and mock with your arrogant prose that Hahneman and others for being slightly under 5-10... based on your opinion, not evidence. You even accuse me of confirmation bias for agreeing with the FBI. You even mock Hahneman to discredit me,,, the irony is you are using an assumption not facts. That assumption is bogus. The FBI used 5-8" as the lower bound for suspects.. Your opinion is WRONG. Nobody knows exactly how tall Cooper was.. not you, not me, not the FBI..

If Ryan's opinion was only that Cooper was 6 feet that isn't a problem.. but he is claiming all suspects under 5-10 are eliminated based solely on height. This is irrational, it isn't supported by evidence and is actually contradicted by the FBI... This is what Ryan does, he takes a hard position which is just an opinion claims it as fact then tries to justify it twisting the evidence,, it is an inversion of logic and reason. But what is really dishonest is when he uses a strawman to discredit the same positions that are supported by the FBI. He always goes there, not just with me. Ryan's wants to win an argument more than advancing the case. Cooper was most likely taller than Tina.. So, how tall was Tina.. She is 5-8" in her passport and Al Lee said she was 5-6".. That is one of the reasons the FBI used 5-8" as the lower bound.. there is a variability in reported heights. This isn't even debatable. From day one I thought Cooper was around 5-10"..

Nich.. you are the King of confirmation bias.. you are the last person to accuse others of confirmation bias. As for drugs.... well... So, how is taking the position of the FBI confirmation bias?? and if you or Ryan thinks the FBI eliminated those two Boeing guys solely for being 5-10" you need to leave the Vortex and find another hobby.. No, accusing me of confirmation bias is a strawman fallacy designed to discredit because you have no argument.. just an opinion. To claim as Ryan has that any suspect under 5-10" is automatically eliminated based on height is not supported by any evidence and contradicted by the FBI file.. It is a baseless opinion that neither of you guys can back up with evidence or even a rational argument. There are examples of interesting suspects in the FBI files under 5-10 that were investigated after the FBI knew their height,, like Melvin Cooper, 5-8 to 5-9.. still investigated. The Elsinore suspects,, 5-8 lower bound. Height is one variable, it is not the SOLE reason to eliminate to 5-8 as the FBI memo makes clear. If the FBI found Braden interesting even at 5-8 in shoes he would not have been eliminated based solely on height.. You guys are just wrong... there is a reason you keep finding terrible suspects. Ryan overestimated Darren's height..

No you didn't.. you have shown incidents that include other things.. agent elimination was subjective and included everything. The FBI memo effectively said do not eliminate SOLELY on height to 5-8".. they also used that standard for Elsinore. There were interesting suspects investigated who were known the be shorter than your bogus 5-10 line.. So, height under 5-10 ONLY was NOT an automatic elimination. Elimination was based on a comprehensive evaluation by agents,, Carr said it was subjective.. You didn't make any argument,, you posted information irrelevant to the point. Looks like a fake it til you make it thing.. might fool some people. That Boeing post is nonsense.. they didn't eliminate based on those heights.. you edited the full file where most employees had more information.. Do you think they eliminated two people SOLELY because they were 5-10.. that is nuts and misrepresentation. That is NOT what that means. I point out where you are wrong based on evidence.. claiming I have a confirmation bias is a strawman, your go to when you have no argument. I am agreeing with the FBI in both those cases yet you claim I am biased.. while you won't or can't explain their error. Cunningham did the same thing, he went crazy when I agreed with the FBI/Soderlind jump zone and rejected his River landing.. For both sketch A and height minimum the FBI disagrees with you. In both cases, you can't explain why. 50 plus years later you claim to have figured out what the FBI got wrong,, they do get things wrong but you either can't reveal it by choice or just can't do it.. I don't think you can because it is just your opinion. I know this case very well and you just don't have anything to back up your opinion here. You have overestimated the reliability of the witnesses in this case.. very small sample size and reliability of some. You can't accept or challenge the memo to NOT eliminate to 5-8. Some suspects under 5-10 were investigated. You have made up a false argument that Cooper wasn't overestimated by some witnesses. Finally, this case is unique in that it wasn't solved,, there is a good possibility that something unique happened in this case to hinder solving it.. So, it is especially important in this case to NOT reject based on assumptions. Your bias should be toward being open, not closed. Claiming all under 5-10" are eliminated SOLELY on height is absurd. It was not the position of the FBI and it is not reflected in the evidence. It exists only in your imagination.

This is not appeal to authority fallacy.. this is the second time you have misused that. Appeal to authority fallacy is when the authority makes a claim outside their expertise. Using this fallacy accusation in such a fraudulent way demonstrates a lack of logic. The FBI stated NOT to eliminate based on the MERE FACT a suspect is 5-8,, that means based solely,, Suspects were eliminated for lots of reasons or combinations of things. If agents did not apply the memo after released they just didn't see or follow the memo. The FBI also investigated interesting suspects they knew were under 5-8"... Those you listed clearly have other reasons included.. not relevant. You have three false assumptions.. The FBI statement to agents for 5-8" was also used for vetting Elsinore suspects. Whatever any individual agent believed or missed was irrelevant. You need to rationalize this. You clearly can't. You overestimate the confidence level for height estimates of witnesses in NORJAK.. the sample size is too small and the reliability for some is questionable. And you are 100% wrong claiming witnesses wouldn't overestimate, many witnesses had Hahneman at 6 feet... argument busted. Sure, you can have any opinion you want,, even wrong ones. In this case, you don't even have an argument for your opinion. It is pure speculation. Explaining why the FBI was wrong would help... You want everyone to explain things but suddenly, you are exempt, you know why, because you can't answer it. You don't have an argument for your speculation. None. It is a guess, you don't know how tall Cooper was. You have a propensity to take hard irrational positions,, like Cooper can't be under 5-10".. I get the position some have that Cooper was probably between 5-10 to 6 feet.. but to eliminate suspects under 5-10 presenting no rational argument and contradicted by the FBI is nutty.