FLYJACK

Carr was wrong, he thought the packets were randomized,, and Pat Ingram has nothing to do with this... You still don't understand the issue and never will..

Georger's ego will never allow him to understand, I have explained this to him dozens of times over the years.. Like Ulis he insists Tina's "bank type bands" means rubber bands..

Larry thought the packets of 100's were randomized. He mixed up the term bundle..

Obviously we want solid evidence that rubber bands were on the money when it was given to Cooper. There is a ton of stuff we could use... that rubber band issue has been going for over 10 years.. But you know this is the nature of Cooper case, you don't get it easy.. we even have 302 errors.. As a listener, both you guys were dismissing the information we DO have.. that is what I disagree with. The info we have is very strong. Himmelsbach. Tosaw. Agent statements during TBAR find. Money was from one bundle,, money was randomized,, money was in the same condition as given to Cooper. Larry Carr. Bundles were randomized. The fact that the money was found with rubber band frags. I always thought it was a huge deal... it changes means by which the money could arrive on TBAR.

Right, I saw Arkansas at the top of the 302 and assumed Flo..

I went through this for years... The evidence clearly indicates paper bank bands for the packets... so we agree on that.. You guys were dissing the idea that the packets were rubber banded into random sized bundles.. using unfounded arguments. Why would they do that, there is no good reason? the FBI had nothing to do with the money? Himmelsbach was influenced by the money find... etc.. We don't have a 302 stating rubber bands were used for the money.. so we can only use what we have and in total it indicates that the packets were rubber banded into random sized bundles at the bank, not by the FBI. These agents aren't going to make it up...

This is what Flo actually said... ..lower lip gave a "pouty" appearance,, Sketch B has too much flesh toward the corners of the mouth. She advised that the middle of the lower lip appears larger due to the slimness of the corners of the lower lip.. In other words the middle of the lip appeared pouty due to the corners being slim... Cooper's had a slightly protruding lower lip with slim corners..

NickyB and Ryan,, The rubber band thing is NOT new, we have gone over this for years.. the controversy goes way back to CKRET on DZ... I have always argued that the evidence supports paper bank bands on the packets. Now, you guys sloppily created a red herring.. the FBI did NOT ever say they randomized the bundles.. the FBI has stated they didn't have anything to do with the money.. The bank did it. So, if the bank randomized the bundles they had to use rubber bands. The money was pre-recorded and kept in order to match the film. It was not paper banded right before the hijacking. The typical size for a bundle would be 5 packets, that is 20 bundles. It would take very little time to randomize 20 bundles with rubber bands. Ultimately, the argument comes down to whether the bundles were randomized or not.. if they were they had rubber bands. The evidence indicates they were,, Larry Carr... Baker does not say the FBI did it.. The packaging and sequence indicate... the same as given to Cooper.. Money was the same as given to Cooper. Pringle said many times the money was from one bundle. Himmelsbach described it.. he said bank bands on the packets and rubber bands held the individual packets together (bundle). He was not influenced by the money find. It didn't match the money find, it was more detailed and precise.

Ryan, you keep spreading false information.. Hahneman's draft cards were 5' 8" and 5' 9".. witnesses had him from 5' 8" to 6' but the average was 5' 10".. Hahneman was about 5' 10" in shoes.. He did put on sunglasses early on.. A news report said 40, but the FBI had his age as 45-49 from witnesses.. I think the newspaper should have written 40's... not 40.

It isn't guessing, it is deductive reasoning.. that is the best you have without physical evidence. Tom said he looked for rubber band evidence and found nothing. I have always said TBAR won't be solved beyond theories, but you don't need TBAR to solve the case.

Huh,, no.. First, I just posted the area in the River that the money had to have landed to arrive on TBAR without sinking. That is the upstream lower left quadrant of that circle. Tom suggested the money was not exposed for months/seasons.. money landing in Columbia could have travelled along the bottom to TBAR within days or weeks. Not very long. Money has some buoyancy on the bottom of the river, it isn't as heavy as a rock so it has some suspension on the bottom. Current passing over it can lift it like a wing.. The current pushes it along the bottom and if the water level is above the money spot then that spot is essentially the bottom of the River. There was debris in the same layer as the money.. Rivers deposit debris all the time.. I read a paper that showed how the current accelerates up near the shore and pushed debris.. but the TBAR slope into the River is very gradual.. no problem. For your scenario the money had to be on land directly above TBAR where there is no real runoff.. the only way it could move down is during a receding high water event.. but you have to explain how the money got on the land above TBAR.. The most likely scenario is that the money went into the River, sank and within days or weeks was pushed along the bottom to its spot when the water level was above it.

No, I am not.. For this diagram.. I am assuming the money went into the River when the water level was at the money spot and floated on the surface to the money spot. Somebody could have tossed it in the River in Spring... or whatever.. IMO, It is far more likely the money went into the River further away and sank to the bottom.. but for the money not to sink it had to go into the River within that lower left quadrant. I am not suggesting this happened, it is a what if analysis.. beyond that circle the money would have sunk..

Just to check.. If the money floats for 7 minutes then it would travel 1/3 mile on the surface of the River before it sinks.. Using the TBAR money spot as the centre, this show a 1/3 mile circle.. for the money to arrive on TBAR before it sinks then it had to enter the River within the lower left quadrant of this circle.

Most lighter debris will be suspended on the bottom.. unlike rocks, the money would be easily moved. Here is a video starting at mile 98 moving downstream right past TBAR located at about mile 97.. The bottom is relatively smooth and sandy... suspended debris on the bottom could be easily moved along by current.. BTW.. at mile 97.3, for that entire 1 mile section on the map 200,000 cu yards of fill was dumped in 1976/77.. it is across and upstream of TBAR. The debris was clamshell dredged and barged from other areas of the Columbia River. That is a potential method to move the money upstream from the mouth of the Lewis River.. video..

If the water was well above the money find spot at the time, then the money can be pushed along the bottom to that spot.. when the money arrives the money spot is effectively the bottom of the river.

Himmelsbach was personally upset that Cooper was being viewed as some sort of hero so he pushed back with false character claims to discredit Cooper in the minds of the public.. He had no reason to present inaccurate info about the money.. but it only confirms the evidence we have..

Suction dredge was used to put material on TBAR... I don't see a suction dredge as a possibility,, a bundle of rubber banded money is too fragile.. However, there was clamshell dredging up and down the River and material was dumped upstream of TBAR,, that is a possibility for moving the money upstream from the Lewis R, but not my favourite theory. I don't like the Washougal theory either because you would need to move the flightpath/LZ East and South to reach the closest water for that basin,, but even then the route to the Columbia is a really tough one.. down a stream, across a lake, through a gate and down another stream,,, not feasible.

I know, but until recently I was the only one. I fought this for years.. Everybody believed that the rubber bands were on each packet and they arrived as three separate packets.. That is Ulis's premise for the narrative to claim the money had to be buried... and others claim it had to arrive in the money bag.. Once you realize that the money arrived as one bundle then the means by which it could have arrived opens up. I believe the money came from the River as one bundle of packets during a Spring when the water level was well above the money find spot.. the money sinks so it tumbled along the bottom to the spot.. The mystery is how, why and when did the money go into the River. I have a few theories for that but they are speculative and we will never have proof.

Larry was the one who screwed this up by conflating bundles and packets... I don't think Tom even knows about this.. actually I think I sent him info on it a while ago but he may not remember. The dominant long held belief was that the money arrived as three separate packets because it was found that way.. and that restricted how the money could have arrived.. For example,, how could three individual packets land in the river 5 miles upstream and end up together.. or go through a dredge.. But three separate packets doesn't fit the evidence... I caught this years ago and was rejected and even told to shut up about it.. Logically, it never made sense. If the money was randomized and the packets of 100 were not then they must have been in bundles. It is almost a certainty that the money arrived as one single rubber banded bundle of several packets but few people have come around to this. Not sure why, Himmelsbach confirmed it went to Cooper like that. People will still fight this... their loss.

The idea was that randomized bundles would look hastily prepared vs uniform bundles,,, I don't know the variation,, 3 packets to 6 packets per bundle? A hijacker would be given a degree of false confidence that the money wasn't marked/recorded and try to pass the money.. That was the thinking behind it..

When the money was found, the FBI stated that the money was found in the same condition and order as given to Cooper and they said that only the hijacker would know what that is... So, the packaging was hold back information. As for the 302's, remember we only have a small fraction of the documents.

See, you don't know everything.. There were reports that the Cooper ransom money was randomized to make it look hastily prepared and Carr talked to a guy at the bank who said he rebanded the bundles.. Carr screwed that up and thought he meant the packets of 100.. << that is a source of the confusion. So, the evidence is that the Cooper money was randomized, we know that the packets were not. Therefore, the randomization could only be the number of packets in a bundle and those are only held together with rubber bands. Simple, and it is confirmed by Himmelsbach's statement. We don't know what Cooper did with the money on the plane, he could have pulled packets from a bundle to stuff in his pockets or hand to stews..

I said we don't have explicit evidence probably because the FBI was holding that back.. This is simple logic,, if they randomized the bundles and the individual packets were not randomized then they were rubber banded into bundles. Why is this so hard..

I posted that before I saw your post but use of the term bundles has been conflated by most people in the Cooper case including Larry Carr,, people have confused a packet of 100 bills with a group of packets, a bundle.. That conflation is the source of most of the problems.. Carr screwed everything up when he claimed the bundles were randomized and he thought it was the individual packets.. IMO, that image is how the money went to Cooper and landed on TBAR.. The evidence is by inference, the "bundles" were made random,, we know that wasn't the packets of 100. So, it could only have been the group of packets which could only be secured by rubber bands.

We have gone over this ad nauseam.. The evidence does not explicitly describe the packaging of the money but using basic logic we can figure it out. The 302 evidence shows bank bands for the packets of 100. There were rubber band frags found on the money. (If it didn't go to Cooper like that somebody would have to have added them, not likely) The FBI stated that money was found in the same order and packaging as it was given to Cooper. The FBI stated the money was from one bundle. The FBI stated that the money was made into random sized bundles, the packets of 100's were not random sized (it makes no sense that each packet would be randomized by count) so the bundles made random had to be the groups of packets, those are only contained by rubber bands. There is no other possibility. This is confirmed by Himmelsbach statement in that video. Packet's were strapped with bank bands and those packets were rubber banded into random sized bundles. That is how the money went to Cooper. So, if the money arrived on TBAR as one rubber banded bundle of several packets that opens up the means of arrival.. The notion that the three packets arrived separately and be together means they were human buried is based on a false premise.