Kamkisky

Is Heady PTSD? I’m talking about a sane professional criminal who doesn’t want to get caught. Those types plan the bank robbery in detail.

Mac is very relevant. He is an inside look into how the criminal mind would approach the same crime. If you want to go full out after hearing Cini why would it even take 11 days? Go to the nearest hardware store and get some dynamite and battery and wires. Head to a thrift store for the suit and tie and briefcase. Wake up the next morning and fly to Portland. 48 hours and Braden boards a flight to parajack. It’s if you want to not get caught that takes time.

I gave a real life example. You have given an opinion on something you’ve never done. For the record, I don’t rule out Cini as the starting point but there are issues and counter examples. I don’t just ignore those.

There is no evidence it could be put together in 11 days. That’s the post hoc rationale you mentioned. It’s just assuming Cini is the root cause and working in reverse. It’s 11 days because from that perspective it has to be. The criminal copycats show it takes longer, with a better example (Cooper) as a starting point. I’ve been reading up on bank robberies…it takes time to be successful. You have to scout and plan and prepare and generally you aren’t robbing in your neighborhood so there’s distance and transportation, blah blah. These guys also have to live during this phase and deal with all the normal life stuff on top. Anyone that has done project management for a living knows everything takes longer than wanted/anticipated. Think about it like this, would you rush a crime that could put you in a cage for life? Of course not. You’d plan it out till you were confident. That’s what successful bank robbers tend to do. It’s the PTSD guys who fly off the handle and rush it.

Mac had military experience too. Mac is the best example we have of how a criminal mind would approach a parajacking. If you want to get away it takes time to prepare. It’s easy from a distance say it could be pulled off in 11 days. If you were looking at spending decades in a cage if you get it wrong…yeah…not the same.

Highjacking a plane for money can be thought about as an extension of train robbing from the century before. Once on the train and it’s moving there’s only two options…stop the train or jump from a moving train. Well…you can’t stop a jet in mid flight. What’s left? The more I get into this case the more amazed I am it took that long for someone to do this.

I posted on this topic at Reddit recently (Whose Idea…). There’s evidence to the contrary of your view that nothing here requires more than 11 days. The Cooper copycats come mainly in the criminal and active PTSD varieties. Other skyjackers were largely ideological (Cuba). Mac is a great criminal example. Mac wasn’t a startup criminal, he had experience. While he wasn’t an FBI top ten type he was a legit criminal. Look at how long it took him to put together his parajacking…and that’s with Cooper as a model. The idea Cooper could put it all together in 11 days start to finish is not supported by this example. And Cooper doesn’t seem to fit with the PTSD group. As for two people coming up with the idea simultaneously…there’s evidence we have that several people were bumping up against this idea before and right around Cini. As soon as the thought turns from ideology to money an escape plan is required and a parachute is obvious. I’d bet there were probably thousands and thousands of people who read a paper and had a thought like this. It’s not solving some hundred year old math problem professors have gone to the grave having never figured out. It’s fairly obvious. Hell, once you view it as a robbery it’s really the only answer.

Yup, 5,000 hours totaling 15k…comes to the modern equivalent of about $20 per hour to run a submarine company. Math don’t work. He’s full of it.

I’d like to see more photos and know how closely it replicated the conditions of Tina Barr but I see outer erosion on all but the top. I’m not sure this is helping your point.

This aligns with my take. They were checking to see if the money could be useable. The bills as they appear on the FBI table are clearly not useable. No one would think you could walk in a store and spend those bills. This leads me to think there was more to the bills and the rot got scrubbed off revealing what we see. Slim calling a bank -after scrubbing the bills- to see about exchanging the bills only confirms my theory. He knew after the bills came out of the sink he could not go to the store with them. The story sounds to me like after checking other options and considering potential consequences Slim decided a potential reward was the best route. He made the right choice.

I’d love to know Brian’s version. And I’m not casting stones either, I firmly believe way north of 50% of people would try to see if the money was useable.

Can’t agree with this one. If their goal is to preserve evidence you leave it there and call the cops. They took it home. It turns up slightly bleached and with all the rotten edges gone. They didn’t even turn it in until someone told them it could be Cooper’s money, right? That’s reward hunting.

The Ingrams washing the money is a major factor here. Looking at the bills on the table photo, how could any grownup think maybe if we wash it it’d be useable? It’s obviously not useable. Where does this lead us… - Conspiracy land where the Ingrams are somehow in on it or are being used by others - The Ingrams are idiots who thought the money (as seen on the table) was possibly spendable - Or the most likely option IMO, the money had more volume with rotten edges and the Ingrams washed it to see if it was salvageable and took a lot of the rot off during this process. The fact that they lightly bleached it to adjust for the dirt/mold colors tells me they were trying to see if they could make it useable. This lead me to believe the money as we see it on the table is the remnants of the money they found. The Ingrams shrunk the bills by removing rot. If that’s true, the money rotted in situ.

Rubber bands put over a bundle of three or five packets would adjust to the size of the packet. Now we have a timing matter…if the bands are around the bundle for a number of years, and then submerged in water and then subject to the grinding and rolling forces of river water and a sandy bottom…how again are those bands going to remain intact while majority of the size of the bundle is ground off? It just makes no sense. However….if you change the time line by putting the money in the river very early on OR by suggesting the rubber bands on the bundle where newer and more recently put on. For my money Tom is right. The rot is in situ. That’s why the remains of the rubber bands were there but instantly crumbled.

Yesterday I made a connection I don’t think has ever been made. Cooper’ing is fun. DMs. Shards are the rotten edges, what else could they be.

Ryan - check your DMs.

By end over end I’m assuming Fly means the long ways of the bills (the width). If he is taking about the short ways (top to bottom of the bills face as one would read it) that’s a different thing. The bills on the FBI table have missing volume from *all four sides.* The short way (top to bottom) is missing material just like the long ways (left to right). This seems consistent with a river bed tumble. But… How again can rubber bands that have adapted to the size (top to bottom) survive a river ride and sandy river bottom going end over end (width/long ways) tumble for miles that causes all four sides to erode? The direction the rubber bands were placed has eroded too. Why wouldn’t the bundle break up? Are these special rubber bands that after aging, and being tossed in a river and scraped along the sandy bottom have sufficient clapping force to accommodate lost bill material? It’s just a tough sell. It doesn’t make logical sense. I suppose there’s an argument that the bands were new and thus still had the right pressure/clapping force to accommodate the missing top/bottom bill material. It’s a question of residual elasticity. But now we are talking about freshly rubber banded bills…and a ton more assumptions are needed.

Even if I could get to your theory (full disclosure - I can’t), the fact the Ingrams move the money from it’s location, handled it, transported it, washed it (an aggressive action) and let it soak in a bleach bath before rinsing it hurts the cause. The version of the money we see on the FBI table has been through several other processes than money that just rolled along the sandy bottom. Taking a photo of Cooper’s money on the table and comparing to money from a different set of processes is apples to oranges.

I have never seen river rocks that had stripes where they weren’t worn. I suppose there is an argument the river sand is rounded and not as abrasive, but if it was abrasive enough to remove material from all sides of the money…tough sell.

So there is enough friction grinding along the sand (like sandpaper) to remove material from the money, but not the rubber bands? It just doesn’t compute. It makes no sense. Take sandpaper to rubber bands…see what happens. Especially taut rubber bands.

Yeah, simple physics suggests any abrasive force from rubbing along sand would take out the rubber bands along with the rotten edges of the bills. I don’t see how that could even be argued. It’s obvious. Any theory that states the bills rotted elsewhere, then floated downstream has to explain the shards. The rotted edges of the bills would be lost in any river float/sandy bottom theory. Unless the claim is some minor rotting occurred first, then the river ride, then more rotting in place at Tena Bar. That takes out a lot of other theories though and leaves you with the money being somewhere just upstream rotting until it moves to Tena Bar to rot some more…but…how do the rubber bands stay on? Again, it makes no sense. The rubber bands in good condition adjust to the size of the package and when the package volume is reduce the effectiveness of the bands is reduced. How would they survive a river ride after some rotting? The bands would not is the answer. The simplest explanation is someone buried it at Tena Bar. All it requires is a reason, there are no other obstacles. The other transport methods have so many contingencies, it strains the imagination.

“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.” How does the edges of the money get removed by tumbling end over end on the sandy river bottom but the rubber bands survive? That makes zero sense. Your position is the money did not rot in place?

It was commonly used enough for this new transplant family to be BBQing there. There’s literally someone there when the FBI are searching. The beach is accessible by water, everyone talks about the road for some reason. Anyone with the right sized boat can get there without going past a Fazio. I’m not saying it’s for sure he wanted it found. Under the ceremonial theory he might have buried it without the intent it be found. Civilizations across time and the global have ceremonies that from a resource allocation perspective are insane. Burying 6k out of 200k is not outlandish by these standards. Under the FU to the feds theory he’d want it to be found, same for the communication to Tina concept. And no matter where he put it people could say there were a million better spots. I do know this, if I want it to be found on that specific beach but need to be discrete about how I’m doing it, I want it buried just below the surface of the sand too. I’d just setup some gear and slyly get a little hole dug, drop it in, spread some sand and gather my gear and leave over the course of an hour or two. Just a guy out fishing. You could be 30 feet from me and not notice. And what would I expect to happen? I’d expect someone to eventually find it (while I’m long gone), which is exactly what happened. Buried things on beaches get found, happens all the time…it’s the nature of sand. If it was buried in a backyard or field or woods it’d be different. As for the tumbled edges, aren’t those the shards? The money rotted in place, if it rotted somewhere else to the point edges fall off in water there wouldn’t have been shards of all sizes. The tumbling would have washed all that away and you have what the photos show after the Ingrams washed it. The evidence suggests none of the other theories. We have to make those up. We need to invent other people, miracle dredges that are gentle enough for bundles of cash to stay together, money falling from Coopers pocket, paper bags, etc. It’s all made up. We know Cooper had the money. We know the six grand shows up at Tena Bar. We know he was polite to Tina and offered her money. We know the bar is reachable by water and the beach is used for recreation. I see a pattern forming here that requires no inventing things to discern.

Also, money bundles sink. The bottom of the river is littered with debris and trash. It’s not getting far before finding its snag and resting place at the bottom. The money just wouldn’t travel far or last long in the river. It’d of had to of come from just up stream and it would have needed to not be in the water until it floats down. And you need a high enough flood stage (debated) and it’d have to get buried in sand (is that even possible?). That bank money bag isn’t lasting years in the PNW either so it’d have to have been stored in a different bag/container. There's just so many obstacles to the floated down river theory. It’s not overcome-able. Meanwhile, the somebody put it there theory only requires a reason why…the rest of it works just fine. Way less obstacles.

Tena Bar was a well known fishing spot and recreation area. There was a grey bearded dude there fishing when the FBI showed up. It’s anything but one in a million. You put something on a used beach and someone will eventually find it, which is exactly what happened. Also, it wasn’t out at the waters edge, it wasn’t intended to float away. My two cents, it likely took longer to find than Cooper wanted…maybe he didn’t account for the cows and it got stomped down lower than he left it, so it took longer to surface. As for T4T, hell of a coincidence. Then it’s the same amount Tosaw says was offered. Second hell of a coincidence. How many coincidences are we going to over look before we accept the evidence?