because in 1980 there was a need to explain rubber bands because of what the Ingrams said.

the attempt was made, but the execution was poor and not aligned with existing fbi memos.

There was no need to have a rubber band story before 1980.

No need for a hijacking in 1971? many claim there was a reason for it...a Government reason...I didn't get that memo either?

I'm not sure about anything...what I don't like is someone trying to imply differently...

so Himmelsbach is saying the straps disappeared, yet rubber bands surrounding strapped bundles, stayed in some form?

Is the implication that the 3 bundles were encircled by rubber bands holding together, yet crumbling?

If so, why did Ingrams say 3 bundles?

no bundle was that different from 100 bills...So what exactly did the rubber bands encircle?

It is simple... if you realize the difference between bundles and packets.

The 3 "packets" would have been individually strapped in 100 bills, then "bundled" together using rubber bands.

The paper bands would deteriorate rapidly and as the rubber bands deteriorated the 3 "packets" separated slightly. "Random sized" bundles = random number of packets (x 100 bills) per bundle - to make look hastily prepared.

something like this..

So the theory is that rubber bands don't decompose as fast as currency straps?
That rubber bands would stay around, but currency straps wouldn't?

I thought the thinking was that rubber bands last a year or two?

Currency straps disappear from a rubber banded bundle in less than that time?

That theory about disappearing currency straps in a rubber banded bundle should have been what Kaye tested when he put rubber bands under sand/water for a year.

It's an interesting question: can you lose all trace of currency straps, but retain rubber band debris in a bundle of strapped bills..

don't know.

That theory about disappearing currency straps in a rubber banded bundle should have been what Kaye tested when he put rubber bands under sand/water for a year.

It's an interesting question: can you lose all trace of currency straps, but retain rubber band debris in a bundle of strapped bills..

don't know.

No - absolutely not! Some trace of paper bands would exist. For one thing paper bands take up far more area than a rubber band. The paper straps add their own chemical signature ... to the surface of a bill. A shadow of a strap might have turned up when they did the silver nitrate testing of some of the bills. A shadow of a strap would turn up under any number of types of testing. FLYJACK knows that - he's just adjusting reality for his own convenience.  Recall for a second that Flyjack is also a self confessed particle physics expert who has commented at length about Tom's particle list etiology! It's all so very convenient. 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That theory about disappearing currency straps in a rubber banded bundle should have been what Kaye tested when he put rubber bands under sand/water for a year.

It's an interesting question: can you lose all trace of currency straps, but retain rubber band debris in a bundle of strapped bills..

don't know.

No - absolutely not! Some trace of paper bands would exist. For one thing paper bands take up far more area than a rubber band. The paper straps add their own chemical signature ... to the surface of a bill. A shadow of a strap might have turned up when they did the silver nitrate testing of some of the bills. A shadow of a strap would turn up under any number of types of testing. FLYJACK knows that - he's just adjusting reality for his own convenience.  Recall for a second that Flyjack is also a self confessed particle physics expert who has commented at length about Tom's particle list etiology! It's all so very convenient. 

BS.. paper straps would be long gone...  the edges of the bills were completely missing, the outside bills more degraded that leaves only the in between.. perhaps Bruce can see the in between. That is only 4 bills that MIGHT have a trace..