olemisscub

When Cunningham put his bundle in the tub to see if it would float or sink and how fast, the paper straps were already disintegrating within a few hours after removing the bundle from the tub.

This is what I've got in my book after working pretty extensively with Brian on the writing of my Tena Bar chapter.

This is completely incorrect. We know with 100% certainty that the numbers were pre-recorded by the bank. They had $250,000 in a "ransom pack" that were all pre-recorded in the event of a bank robbery. All of those bills were pre-recorded on microfilm. The bank handed this microfilm over to the FBI on Nov 25th.

Remember though, there is a difference in making something up and stating something that is erroneous that YOU believe to be true. I've no doubt he believed that to be true, but why? My reasons for dismissing him. 1) He's an ASAC. They are administrators. They are not investigators. They only know what the SA's under them tell them about a particular case. 2) Why would an ASAC in Portland be privy to unique information about what a bank in Seattle did yet isn't written in any FBI file? 3) The SA who handled Cooper in Portland was Himmy. This is likely where Baker got all of his Cooper info from unless he glanced through whatever files Portland had on Cooper at the time. We know this isn't in the files, so his info likely came from Himmy. 4) Himmy is often wrong. In his own book he repeats the bogus belief that the money came from multiple banks i.e. Himmy can't be trusted about the banks. So whatever he told Baker is suspect. 5) Agents aren't infallible when speaking to the media. There are many things that agents, even NORJAK agents themselves, have said to the media that are demonstrably false and contradict the actual evidence and the files. It's a balancing act when determining how much weight to put toward something. ONE statement from a single FBI agent in 1980 doesn't outweigh the testimony and memory of the actual bank employee who oversaw the packing of the bag. His single statement also doesn't outweigh the fact that what he's claiming is found nowhere else anywhere. I feel like he got this bogus information from Himmelsbach. He wasn't making anything up. He just got faulty information. That's all.

The man who oversaw the money being packed and who carried it in his lap to the airport says that the bank always bundled in packets of 5. A decade later an FBI agent claimed that the money was bundled in such a way that it was hastily gathered. Yet that is nowhere in any of the FBI Files from 1971 and this statement didn't come from an actual Cooper case agent. The FBI nor law enforcement had anything to do with the money except for an undercover cop actually driving the bank people to the airport. Had their been some order given to "mix up" the money bundles, I imagine that the man who oversaw the money being put in the bag would have remembered that. Yet he has never mentioned it. Also, as I said, such an order or directive would have likely only come from law enforcement and we have a pretty good understanding that law enforcement was really hands off when it came to the money. In fact, the only evidence whatsoever that the money MIGHT have been bundled in packets of three is this one agent's comment in 1980. One might think that the TB money itself is evidence that it was bundled in packets of three, but given that we don't know the chain of custody between Nov 24, 71 and when the money was found, it doesn't stand alone as evidence. It's a real shame they didn't photograph the money beforehand.

fwiw, I'd not trash you for your suggestion, for it's a reasonable theory. I just have trouble conceiving that so much damage could take place to the bills within the bundle and yet have the bundle washup with the three packets still (roughly) together. In my limited experience tossing money bundles around, and having to fool with creating 20 bundles for my money bag, packets can pretty easily shift around inside the bundle. As I said, rubber bands aren't exactly vice grips. You might suggest that being water logged would keep them all together...but yet Brian clearly found three separate packets. In other words, being waterlogged long enough for so much deterioration to occur doesn't seem to support them still being found in separate packets. Being waterlogged for any length of time should have just made all the packets smoosh together into a single brick. That leads me to think that they got water logged while already at rest and while they were already loosely separated from the bundle.

The FBI's interviews with the Corps of Engineers indicated that the dredge theory was impossible due to the condition of the money.

This is a thought I just had. Brian found 3 individual packets presumably from a single bundle. So this rolling along the bottom action is violent enough to sheer 75% or more of the money away yet not violent enough to separate the packets from the bundle. Rubber bands aren’t vice grips. Packets can shift easily within a bundle, especially when probably 75% or more of the bill has been removed. I’m still of the opinion that it got there by natural means, but I just can’t buy into the fact that this money disintegrated to this extent yet remained together BEFORE coming to rest. It makes so much more sense that they were already at rest when the disintegration began to occur. Any sort of violent action undertaken against a bundle can easily cause the packets to shift. If tumbling is violent enough to sheer off the edges to this extent then it would probably be violent enough to separate the packets from the bundle. I had totally forgotten that I did this several years ago already. I took a bundle of three packets, double rubber banded on each side, as their standard practice was, then I rolled it into a wall. The packets were shifting pretty easily. Seriously, look how much of the bill is left. Rubber bands aren’t gonna hold packets together when 1) violence is the cause of the disintegration, and 2) that’s all that is left of the bills BEFORE it comes to rest. I believe the bills were already at rest when whatever process caused them to disintegrate occurred, otherwise I just can't see the packets staying so close together throughout all of this supposed rolling violence. Video.mov

When it comes to Tena Bar, I'm usually Mr. "No Hablo Ingles", but I occasionally can get interested. Do you have any examples of tumbling in water having such an effect? Would like to see that. Also, I'd always assumed that the shards were the remnants of whatever flaked off the bills that hadn't disintegrated yet. If tumbling caused the removal of the edges, then shouldn't those edges be on the river bottom? That's my only concern with your theory. Explain the shards and provide an example of what tumbling on a river bottom does.

What has led you to this belief about it being consistent? Have you found other examples?

The question is how does it get from the bottom of the river to where it ended up

The FBI files indicate, from discussion with the Corps of Engineers, that the dredges used on the Columbia were all pipe dredges that would have ripped the bills into oblivion. Only a clamshell dredge would work for your scenario, and those weren't used.

He’s talking about digging a firepit. Slim had his arms full of wood for the fire. Brian didn’t so much dig into the sand but rather smoothed it out with his hand. Cattle had escaped and ran through the beach a few days earlier. The sand on the bar was pockmarked and uneven from the hooves of the cows. The Ingrams don’t have anything to do with the money other than finding it. This is just scurrilous bullshit from the Rackstraw grift.

You know something I've literally never said to you? "You're trying to discredit me!!!" That's what wimps say when people criticize their opinions or thoughts. You act like the biggest bully in the Vortex but in reality you're just a weakling who can't take any criticism. Anytime someone disagrees with you they are trying to "discredit" you. EVERYTHING is not a personal attack on you, Flyjack. Why would I even need to "discredit" you? As if you're a threat to me or something?

Ah yes, yet again, the only FBI documents that exist are the ones that YOU agree with. I literally showed you documentation where CASE AGENTS were writing that they put 5'10 as the baseline. That's cool that you've got a document saying 5'8 was the baseline. Ok. That doesn't negate other documents from case agents claiming that they eliminate suspects under 5'10.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You are the LEAST diplomatic person in the history of the Vortex. Are you kidding me? You are one of the biggest villains in the Vortex because of what a colossal asshole you are to EVERYONE who disagrees with you. You HAVE to be right about everything. You cannot ever concede a point to anyone. This is how you respond to "diplomacy".

You clearly care a GREAT deal otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time watching my videos hoping to find something to critique.

Hilarious that you claim my opinion that Cooper was around 6 feet tall isn't supported by the evidence when 3 of our 4 witnesses to him standing put him as tall as 6 feet. THAT IS THE EVIDENCE. What other evidence is there to base his height on other than people who saw him standing up??? But let's ignore them and claim that they weren't great witnesses to his height despite seeing him standing and instead rely on Robert Gregory and Bill Mitchell, two men who never saw him standing. Makes perfect sense....but only if you're trying to turn this person into Cooper.

But you DO know how tall Cooper was, right?

Hear ye, hear ye! By order of His Most Esteemed and Infallible Majesty, Lord High Arbiter of Internet Truths, Sir Keyboardius Maximus, it is henceforth decreed that all thoughts, musings, hypotheses, and inconvenient counterpoints not originating from His Supreme Forumness Flyjack shall be stricken from the realm. All Cooperites shall now adopt his opinion as sacred gospel, no matter how much his opinions and cherry picked sources are informed by his suspect confirmation bias. May his posts forever remain uncontested under pain of receiving a 1,000 word rebuttal wherein he states what an idiot you are for forming opinions contrary to his. Long may he reign.

I sometimes wonder if you even know what an opinion is. You personally think Skip Hall should be eliminated because he had forehead wrinkles. I think that's idiotic. But that's your prerogative to form that opinion based on your extensive research on this case. I have the prerogative based on my research to personally eliminate people for any reason. Cooper being under 5'10 is an OPINION of mine. I'm not law enforcement. I'm not actually eliminating anyone. I'm expressing an opinion of mine as to what I'm looking for in my ideal suspect.

Don't have an argument for my opinion? I literally just showed you MULTIPLE INSTANCES where ACTUAL case agents stated that their lower limit for entertaining Cooper suspects was 5'10 or 6'. I provided the receipts to back up my opinion. I don't have to speculate that they eliminated potential suspects for being 5'8 or 5'9 or even 5'10 and for no other reason. I literally just showed you. Again, let's look at the Boeing File Review: Your brain is so steeped in your own Hahneman confirmation bias that literally every single belief you have in this case is tainted by it. Everyone sees it. It is no coincidence that the things you most vociferously take issue with me on are my opinion about Cooper's nose, his height, and which sketch is more likely to be an accurate representation of Cooper. If Hahneman had a small nose, could pass for Comp A, and was 6 feet tall, you would have NO issue with my opinions on those matters. NONE.

And I will continue to refuse to believe this until you prove it. I'm guessing you need to hoard evidence that MANY passengers thought Hahneman was 6 feet for your "documentary" because that's totally something that is pertinent and worthy of keeping under your hat... I'll concede the point if you provide the receipts, but this just sounds like BS to me until proven otherwise.

Number one, I don't have to explain anything. I'm not the FBI. I'm not bound by their metrics or beliefs or intuitions or opinions. I can PERSONALLY eliminate a suspect based on whatever I want, the same as you do. Number two, this memo you always reference where it says there is a lower bound of 5'8 clearly wasn't something they applied because several agents eliminated suspects for being that short. So appealing to authority on this issue doesn't work. I personally think Cooper was about six feet tall based on witness statements and lo and behold, so did case agents like Ron Nichols. Go look at the Boeing File Review eliminations. They eliminated multiple individuals literally for no other reason than them being 5'8 to 5'10. Then we've got multiple occasions in the files such as these instances, including one document where they say the lower limit is 5'10.