FLYJACK

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.

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.