Author Topic: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation  (Read 10787 times)

georger

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #345 on: August 10, 2018, 11:51:55 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack says in the money thread... !!!!!!


Offline FLYJACK

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 976
    Thanked: 61 times
        View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Tina Bar Money Find
Reply #3836 on: Today at 03:39:14 PM

    Say Thanks
    Quote

TBAR..

My lead theory which is consistent with the known evidence..

The money landed on TBAR between 1974 and 1978.
It was in 3 packages/packets of 100 bills each.
Initially there were paper bank bands on each package/packet.
The 3 packages/packets formed a single (randomized by Bank) bundle with rubber bands at two locations around all.
It would have been about 1.5" inches thick.

The 100% paper bands completely deteriorated and the rubber bands broke apart leaving 3 packets/packages askew with remnants of rubber bands attached to the money.

Ckret got it wrong conflating bundles and packages/packets and threw everyone off.
There was no bag.

How they got there is for another day.

so, the money packets or bundles or packages or parcels or whatever ... was never in a bank bag as per Ckret and every testimony known in this case? Or do I not understand your French semantics sentence structure today, again?

Tina never brought in a bank bag on the plane from Al Lee?  What did she bring in? A suitcase? A suitcase wrapped in paper bank bands?

Just trying to understand again whatever it is you are trying to say.

God this is exhausting!  :rofl:
 

ok,, clarification

They are separate.. 

Ckret got the bundles and packages/packets conflated.. bundles were randomized and re-banded by bank. Not the packets of 100.

AND

There was no bag/container needed, most believe/theorize that a money bag had to have held the three packages together to be found that close. If the 3 packages/packets were a single banded bundle rather than individual then no bag needed.

But there was a bag involved.  Tina carried it aboard the aircraft, Cooper took some money out of it to examine the bills, and the last time she saw Cooper (as she was headed for the cockpit) he was tieing the bag around his waist.  The people who found the money always refer to rubber bands and not paper bands.

I know, I meant no bag needed at TBAR to keep the 3 packets together if they were one rubber banded bundle.

The 100% paper bands would not last, you would never expect to find any, the rubber band fragments found attached to the money may have come from the rubber bands around all 3 packages/packets not individual packets.

There was no reason to reband the packets of 100, it was the bundles (per Bank) of packets that was randomized and re-banded by the bank.

So, IMO, a single bundle rubber banded in two places of 3 packets of 100 bills landed on TBAR, I believe between 1974-78 but that bleeds into another theory.

Take out the timeframe and this theory fits almost all scenarios. A money bag is not needed to keep the packets together on TBAR.

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.  I just don't see how that links anything to Hahneman.  Also, if Hahneman was DB, and had to make the jump near TBar when he had planned to make the jump in Mexico, what did he do when he landed?

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.

I dont know why it would make sense! There is no evidence for it. The poster might as well claim the money was packed in silk hose! His argument based on fictitious evidence is nonsense. His premise that money survived, and bands survived, but paper straps somehow vanished (rotted) away, is preposterous made up nonsense.

The man is cherry picking and misinterpreting words others supposedly spoke. 

Another example is his rejecting of Tina;s height description .... because she had no shoes on!? Because at one time Rataczak ordered/suggested stews take thei5r shoes off as a standard escape protocol. We dont know if anyone followed that suggestion or not. Fkyjack however assumes it happened! He then twists that into an argument for rejecting all of the stew's estimate of Cooper'd height.

Using the same logic I am going to say: "The hyjack never happened! No plane was ever involved! Because Cooper said: "lets get the show on the road". Obviously they were all in cars, maybe a van or a bus, but no 727 was involved! Cooper said " lets the show ON THE ROAD".

Case closed. Flyjack case solved 8/10/2018. 
 

Offline FLYJACK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Thanked: 75 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #346 on: August 11, 2018, 10:38:17 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack says in the money thread... !!!!!!


Offline FLYJACK

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 976
    Thanked: 61 times
        View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Tina Bar Money Find
Reply #3836 on: Today at 03:39:14 PM

    Say Thanks
    Quote

TBAR..

My lead theory which is consistent with the known evidence..

The money landed on TBAR between 1974 and 1978.
It was in 3 packages/packets of 100 bills each.
Initially there were paper bank bands on each package/packet.
The 3 packages/packets formed a single (randomized by Bank) bundle with rubber bands at two locations around all.
It would have been about 1.5" inches thick.

The 100% paper bands completely deteriorated and the rubber bands broke apart leaving 3 packets/packages askew with remnants of rubber bands attached to the money.

Ckret got it wrong conflating bundles and packages/packets and threw everyone off.
There was no bag.

How they got there is for another day.

so, the money packets or bundles or packages or parcels or whatever ... was never in a bank bag as per Ckret and every testimony known in this case? Or do I not understand your French semantics sentence structure today, again?

Tina never brought in a bank bag on the plane from Al Lee?  What did she bring in? A suitcase? A suitcase wrapped in paper bank bands?

Just trying to understand again whatever it is you are trying to say.

God this is exhausting!  :rofl:
 

ok,, clarification

They are separate.. 

Ckret got the bundles and packages/packets conflated.. bundles were randomized and re-banded by bank. Not the packets of 100.

AND

There was no bag/container needed, most believe/theorize that a money bag had to have held the three packages together to be found that close. If the 3 packages/packets were a single banded bundle rather than individual then no bag needed.

But there was a bag involved.  Tina carried it aboard the aircraft, Cooper took some money out of it to examine the bills, and the last time she saw Cooper (as she was headed for the cockpit) he was tieing the bag around his waist.  The people who found the money always refer to rubber bands and not paper bands.

I know, I meant no bag needed at TBAR to keep the 3 packets together if they were one rubber banded bundle.

The 100% paper bands would not last, you would never expect to find any, the rubber band fragments found attached to the money may have come from the rubber bands around all 3 packages/packets not individual packets.

There was no reason to reband the packets of 100, it was the bundles (per Bank) of packets that was randomized and re-banded by the bank.

So, IMO, a single bundle rubber banded in two places of 3 packets of 100 bills landed on TBAR, I believe between 1974-78 but that bleeds into another theory.

Take out the timeframe and this theory fits almost all scenarios. A money bag is not needed to keep the packets together on TBAR.

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.  I just don't see how that links anything to Hahneman.  Also, if Hahneman was DB, and had to make the jump near TBar when he had planned to make the jump in Mexico, what did he do when he landed?

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.

 

The man is cherry picking and misinterpreting words others supposedly spoke. 

Another example is his rejecting of Tina;s height description .... because she had no shoes on!? Because at one time Rataczak ordered/suggested stews take thei5r shoes off as a standard escape protocol. We dont know if anyone followed that suggestion or not. Fkyjack however assumes it happened! He then twists that into an argument for rejecting all of the stew's estimate of Cooper'd height.


Case closed. Flyjack case solved 8/10/2018.

It matches the evidence perfectly.. and does not support any specific suspect.

Unlike cotton/linen currency, 100% Paper bank straps would deteriorate quickly, you'd never expect to find any remnants. You know that, basic stuff.

CONTEXT..

Tina's "small packages with bank-type bands" is not an estimate. It is specific.

Tina's height description is an estimate that she believes, about 5' 10" is consistent with witness descriptions of Hahneman. No conflict there. Witness height estimates are very poor.. Al Lee thought Tina was 5' 6"..??? Poor estimate or did Tina remove shoes? I don't know.

and the case is not closed..
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #347 on: August 11, 2018, 11:15:01 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack says in the money thread... !!!!!!


Offline FLYJACK

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 976
    Thanked: 61 times
        View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Tina Bar Money Find
Reply #3836 on: Today at 03:39:14 PM

    Say Thanks
    Quote

TBAR..

My lead theory which is consistent with the known evidence..

The money landed on TBAR between 1974 and 1978.
It was in 3 packages/packets of 100 bills each.
Initially there were paper bank bands on each package/packet.
The 3 packages/packets formed a single (randomized by Bank) bundle with rubber bands at two locations around all.
It would have been about 1.5" inches thick.

The 100% paper bands completely deteriorated and the rubber bands broke apart leaving 3 packets/packages askew with remnants of rubber bands attached to the money.

Ckret got it wrong conflating bundles and packages/packets and threw everyone off.
There was no bag.

How they got there is for another day.

so, the money packets or bundles or packages or parcels or whatever ... was never in a bank bag as per Ckret and every testimony known in this case? Or do I not understand your French semantics sentence structure today, again?

Tina never brought in a bank bag on the plane from Al Lee?  What did she bring in? A suitcase? A suitcase wrapped in paper bank bands?

Just trying to understand again whatever it is you are trying to say.

God this is exhausting!  :rofl:
 

ok,, clarification

They are separate.. 

Ckret got the bundles and packages/packets conflated.. bundles were randomized and re-banded by bank. Not the packets of 100.

AND

There was no bag/container needed, most believe/theorize that a money bag had to have held the three packages together to be found that close. If the 3 packages/packets were a single banded bundle rather than individual then no bag needed.

But there was a bag involved.  Tina carried it aboard the aircraft, Cooper took some money out of it to examine the bills, and the last time she saw Cooper (as she was headed for the cockpit) he was tieing the bag around his waist.  The people who found the money always refer to rubber bands and not paper bands.

I know, I meant no bag needed at TBAR to keep the 3 packets together if they were one rubber banded bundle.

The 100% paper bands would not last, you would never expect to find any, the rubber band fragments found attached to the money may have come from the rubber bands around all 3 packages/packets not individual packets.

There was no reason to reband the packets of 100, it was the bundles (per Bank) of packets that was randomized and re-banded by the bank.

So, IMO, a single bundle rubber banded in two places of 3 packets of 100 bills landed on TBAR, I believe between 1974-78 but that bleeds into another theory.

Take out the timeframe and this theory fits almost all scenarios. A money bag is not needed to keep the packets together on TBAR.

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.  I just don't see how that links anything to Hahneman.  Also, if Hahneman was DB, and had to make the jump near TBar when he had planned to make the jump in Mexico, what did he do when he landed?

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.

 

The man is cherry picking and misinterpreting words others supposedly spoke. 

Another example is his rejecting of Tina;s height description .... because she had no shoes on!? Because at one time Rataczak ordered/suggested stews take thei5r shoes off as a standard escape protocol. We dont know if anyone followed that suggestion or not. Fkyjack however assumes it happened! He then twists that into an argument for rejecting all of the stew's estimate of Cooper'd height.


Case closed. Flyjack case solved 8/10/2018.

It matches the evidence perfectly.. and does not support any specific suspect.

Unlike cotton/linen currency, 100% Paper bank straps would deteriorate quickly, you'd never expect to find any remnants. You know that, basic stuff.

CONTEXT..

Tina's "small packages with bank-type bands" is not an estimate. It is specific.

Tina's height description is an estimate that she believes, about 5' 10" is consistent with witness descriptions of Hahneman. No conflict there. Witness height estimates are very poor.. Al Lee thought Tina was 5' 6"..??? Poor estimate or did Tina remove shoes? I don't know.

and the case is not closed..

In the first place it isn't even Tina's words or a quote from Tina Mucklow - it's the agent's attribution of words to Tina transcribed! The passage reads: " He opened the bag and inspected the contents which Mucklow said she observed was money packed in small packages with bank-type bands around each package."

Yours is an amateur error easily made by vested sleuthers high on energy drinks. If you knew anything about language, psychology, or logic you would know that - easily.
 
"Small packages" could mean anything, except that the word "small" generally agrees with Ckret's and the bank employee's description.
 
"bank-type bands around each package" is generic. It's doesn't say paper! You are the person saying "paper"! "Packages" refers to the "small packages" already stated - it's being said generically, by a non-bank person or employee.

You are cherry picking to suit yourself.


     
« Last Edit: August 11, 2018, 11:45:18 AM by georger »
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #348 on: August 11, 2018, 11:25:56 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack says in the money thread... !!!!!!


Offline FLYJACK

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 976
    Thanked: 61 times
        View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Tina Bar Money Find
Reply #3836 on: Today at 03:39:14 PM

    Say Thanks
    Quote

TBAR..

My lead theory which is consistent with the known evidence..

The money landed on TBAR between 1974 and 1978.
It was in 3 packages/packets of 100 bills each.
Initially there were paper bank bands on each package/packet.
The 3 packages/packets formed a single (randomized by Bank) bundle with rubber bands at two locations around all.
It would have been about 1.5" inches thick.

The 100% paper bands completely deteriorated and the rubber bands broke apart leaving 3 packets/packages askew with remnants of rubber bands attached to the money.

Ckret got it wrong conflating bundles and packages/packets and threw everyone off.
There was no bag.

How they got there is for another day.

so, the money packets or bundles or packages or parcels or whatever ... was never in a bank bag as per Ckret and every testimony known in this case? Or do I not understand your French semantics sentence structure today, again?

Tina never brought in a bank bag on the plane from Al Lee?  What did she bring in? A suitcase? A suitcase wrapped in paper bank bands?

Just trying to understand again whatever it is you are trying to say.

God this is exhausting!  :rofl:
 

ok,, clarification

They are separate.. 

Ckret got the bundles and packages/packets conflated.. bundles were randomized and re-banded by bank. Not the packets of 100.

AND

There was no bag/container needed, most believe/theorize that a money bag had to have held the three packages together to be found that close. If the 3 packages/packets were a single banded bundle rather than individual then no bag needed.

But there was a bag involved.  Tina carried it aboard the aircraft, Cooper took some money out of it to examine the bills, and the last time she saw Cooper (as she was headed for the cockpit) he was tieing the bag around his waist.  The people who found the money always refer to rubber bands and not paper bands.

I know, I meant no bag needed at TBAR to keep the 3 packets together if they were one rubber banded bundle.

The 100% paper bands would not last, you would never expect to find any, the rubber band fragments found attached to the money may have come from the rubber bands around all 3 packages/packets not individual packets.

There was no reason to reband the packets of 100, it was the bundles (per Bank) of packets that was randomized and re-banded by the bank.

So, IMO, a single bundle rubber banded in two places of 3 packets of 100 bills landed on TBAR, I believe between 1974-78 but that bleeds into another theory.

Take out the timeframe and this theory fits almost all scenarios. A money bag is not needed to keep the packets together on TBAR.

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.  I just don't see how that links anything to Hahneman.  Also, if Hahneman was DB, and had to make the jump near TBar when he had planned to make the jump in Mexico, what did he do when he landed?

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.

 

The man is cherry picking and misinterpreting words others supposedly spoke. 

Another example is his rejecting of Tina;s height description .... because she had no shoes on!? Because at one time Rataczak ordered/suggested stews take thei5r shoes off as a standard escape protocol. We dont know if anyone followed that suggestion or not. Fkyjack however assumes it happened! He then twists that into an argument for rejecting all of the stew's estimate of Cooper'd height.


Case closed. Flyjack case solved 8/10/2018.

It matches the evidence perfectly.. and does not support any specific suspect.

Unlike cotton/linen currency, 100% Paper bank straps would deteriorate quickly, you'd never expect to find any remnants. You know that, basic stuff.

CONTEXT..

Tina's "small packages with bank-type bands" is not an estimate. It is specific.

Tina's height description is an estimate that she believes, about 5' 10" is consistent with witness descriptions of Hahneman. No conflict there. Witness height estimates are very poor.. Al Lee thought Tina was 5' 6"..??? Poor estimate or did Tina remove shoes? I don't know.

and the case is not closed..

There you go again, Hero Member, obscuring-distorting-omitting the facts again. Tina's actual description in two interviews was:

Race: white, Sex, Male, Age Mid 40s, Height: 510 to 6, Weight: 180-190 lbs., Build: medium well built, Hair: dark brown had sideburns partially past his ears, hair parted and combed back, Complexion: Medium, smooth, Characteristics: Wore dark rimmed wrap-around glasses with black frames, concealed eyes entire time, had no accent possibly from West or Midwest, had a low voice; Clothing: dark top coat, brown suit, brown shoes, black tie with tie tack found on plane was possibly his. Interview 11-30 Mucklow:

Sex, male. Race, white. Age 44-46. Height 6. Weight 180-190 lbs. Complexion Medium to dark. Build medium. Hair Dark, flat, straight, sideburns narrow, mid ear. Eyes not observed. Characteristics: Wore sunglasses, dark plastic wrap around frames. The man impressed her as being an executive type by his dress, special mannerisms, and consideration that he exhibited for her while he was on the aircraft. Interview of Mucklow 12/1-2 at her home in PA:

Again these are the agent's words/notes transcribed; not Tina's actual words. Anyone with a highschool education knows that!


 
« Last Edit: August 11, 2018, 11:27:23 AM by georger »
 

Offline FLYJACK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Thanked: 75 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #349 on: August 11, 2018, 01:25:33 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack says in the money thread... !!!!!!


Offline FLYJACK

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 976
    Thanked: 61 times
        View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Tina Bar Money Find
Reply #3836 on: Today at 03:39:14 PM

    Say Thanks
    Quote

TBAR..

My lead theory which is consistent with the known evidence..

The money landed on TBAR between 1974 and 1978.
It was in 3 packages/packets of 100 bills each.
Initially there were paper bank bands on each package/packet.
The 3 packages/packets formed a single (randomized by Bank) bundle with rubber bands at two locations around all.
It would have been about 1.5" inches thick.

The 100% paper bands completely deteriorated and the rubber bands broke apart leaving 3 packets/packages askew with remnants of rubber bands attached to the money.

Ckret got it wrong conflating bundles and packages/packets and threw everyone off.
There was no bag.

How they got there is for another day.

so, the money packets or bundles or packages or parcels or whatever ... was never in a bank bag as per Ckret and every testimony known in this case? Or do I not understand your French semantics sentence structure today, again?

Tina never brought in a bank bag on the plane from Al Lee?  What did she bring in? A suitcase? A suitcase wrapped in paper bank bands?

Just trying to understand again whatever it is you are trying to say.

God this is exhausting!  :rofl:
 

ok,, clarification

They are separate.. 

Ckret got the bundles and packages/packets conflated.. bundles were randomized and re-banded by bank. Not the packets of 100.

AND

There was no bag/container needed, most believe/theorize that a money bag had to have held the three packages together to be found that close. If the 3 packages/packets were a single banded bundle rather than individual then no bag needed.

But there was a bag involved.  Tina carried it aboard the aircraft, Cooper took some money out of it to examine the bills, and the last time she saw Cooper (as she was headed for the cockpit) he was tieing the bag around his waist.  The people who found the money always refer to rubber bands and not paper bands.

I know, I meant no bag needed at TBAR to keep the 3 packets together if they were one rubber banded bundle.

The 100% paper bands would not last, you would never expect to find any, the rubber band fragments found attached to the money may have come from the rubber bands around all 3 packages/packets not individual packets.

There was no reason to reband the packets of 100, it was the bundles (per Bank) of packets that was randomized and re-banded by the bank.

So, IMO, a single bundle rubber banded in two places of 3 packets of 100 bills landed on TBAR, I believe between 1974-78 but that bleeds into another theory.

Take out the timeframe and this theory fits almost all scenarios. A money bag is not needed to keep the packets together on TBAR.

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.  I just don't see how that links anything to Hahneman.  Also, if Hahneman was DB, and had to make the jump near TBar when he had planned to make the jump in Mexico, what did he do when he landed?

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.

 

The man is cherry picking and misinterpreting words others supposedly spoke. 

Another example is his rejecting of Tina;s height description .... because she had no shoes on!? Because at one time Rataczak ordered/suggested stews take thei5r shoes off as a standard escape protocol. We dont know if anyone followed that suggestion or not. Fkyjack however assumes it happened! He then twists that into an argument for rejecting all of the stew's estimate of Cooper'd height.


Case closed. Flyjack case solved 8/10/2018.

It matches the evidence perfectly.. and does not support any specific suspect.

Unlike cotton/linen currency, 100% Paper bank straps would deteriorate quickly, you'd never expect to find any remnants. You know that, basic stuff.

CONTEXT..

Tina's "small packages with bank-type bands" is not an estimate. It is specific.

Tina's height description is an estimate that she believes, about 5' 10" is consistent with witness descriptions of Hahneman. No conflict there. Witness height estimates are very poor.. Al Lee thought Tina was 5' 6"..??? Poor estimate or did Tina remove shoes? I don't know.

and the case is not closed..

There you go again, Hero Member, obscuring-distorting-omitting the facts again. Tina's actual description in two interviews was:

Race: white, Sex, Male, Age Mid 40s, Height: 510 to 6, Weight: 180-190 lbs., Build: medium well built, Hair: dark brown had sideburns partially past his ears, hair parted and combed back, Complexion: Medium, smooth, Characteristics: Wore dark rimmed wrap-around glasses with black frames, concealed eyes entire time, had no accent possibly from West or Midwest, had a low voice; Clothing: dark top coat, brown suit, brown shoes, black tie with tie tack found on plane was possibly his. Interview 11-30 Mucklow:

Sex, male. Race, white. Age 44-46. Height 6. Weight 180-190 lbs. Complexion Medium to dark. Build medium. Hair Dark, flat, straight, sideburns narrow, mid ear. Eyes not observed. Characteristics: Wore sunglasses, dark plastic wrap around frames. The man impressed her as being an executive type by his dress, special mannerisms, and consideration that he exhibited for her while he was on the aircraft. Interview of Mucklow 12/1-2 at her home in PA:

Again these are the agent's words/notes transcribed; not Tina's actual words. Anyone with a highschool education knows that!

What is your point? do you have an actual argument or conclusion?

Mine is simple and 100% valid, based on the FACT that witness heights are estimates, Hahneman is within the Cooper spec.. (about 5' 10") that doesn't mean they were the same height or the same person, just that he can't be eliminated. No more, no less.

If you think the information we have 100% eliminates Hahneman then you are using a weak assumption and just wrong.. that is ok. You are entitled to be wrong and ignore all the other evidence that supports Hahneman as a suspect. I don't care.

I just believe it is huge mistake... all the other evidence I have, (not all of it posted) is overwhelming, not proof of course.
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #350 on: August 11, 2018, 07:21:46 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack says in the money thread... !!!!!!


Offline FLYJACK

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 976
    Thanked: 61 times
        View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Tina Bar Money Find
Reply #3836 on: Today at 03:39:14 PM

    Say Thanks
    Quote

TBAR..

My lead theory which is consistent with the known evidence..

The money landed on TBAR between 1974 and 1978.
It was in 3 packages/packets of 100 bills each.
Initially there were paper bank bands on each package/packet.
The 3 packages/packets formed a single (randomized by Bank) bundle with rubber bands at two locations around all.
It would have been about 1.5" inches thick.

The 100% paper bands completely deteriorated and the rubber bands broke apart leaving 3 packets/packages askew with remnants of rubber bands attached to the money.

Ckret got it wrong conflating bundles and packages/packets and threw everyone off.
There was no bag.

How they got there is for another day.

so, the money packets or bundles or packages or parcels or whatever ... was never in a bank bag as per Ckret and every testimony known in this case? Or do I not understand your French semantics sentence structure today, again?

Tina never brought in a bank bag on the plane from Al Lee?  What did she bring in? A suitcase? A suitcase wrapped in paper bank bands?

Just trying to understand again whatever it is you are trying to say.

God this is exhausting!  :rofl:
 

ok,, clarification

They are separate.. 

Ckret got the bundles and packages/packets conflated.. bundles were randomized and re-banded by bank. Not the packets of 100.

AND

There was no bag/container needed, most believe/theorize that a money bag had to have held the three packages together to be found that close. If the 3 packages/packets were a single banded bundle rather than individual then no bag needed.

But there was a bag involved.  Tina carried it aboard the aircraft, Cooper took some money out of it to examine the bills, and the last time she saw Cooper (as she was headed for the cockpit) he was tieing the bag around his waist.  The people who found the money always refer to rubber bands and not paper bands.

I know, I meant no bag needed at TBAR to keep the 3 packets together if they were one rubber banded bundle.

The 100% paper bands would not last, you would never expect to find any, the rubber band fragments found attached to the money may have come from the rubber bands around all 3 packages/packets not individual packets.

There was no reason to reband the packets of 100, it was the bundles (per Bank) of packets that was randomized and re-banded by the bank.

So, IMO, a single bundle rubber banded in two places of 3 packets of 100 bills landed on TBAR, I believe between 1974-78 but that bleeds into another theory.

Take out the timeframe and this theory fits almost all scenarios. A money bag is not needed to keep the packets together on TBAR.

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.  I just don't see how that links anything to Hahneman.  Also, if Hahneman was DB, and had to make the jump near TBar when he had planned to make the jump in Mexico, what did he do when he landed?

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.

 

The man is cherry picking and misinterpreting words others supposedly spoke. 

Another example is his rejecting of Tina;s height description .... because she had no shoes on!? Because at one time Rataczak ordered/suggested stews take thei5r shoes off as a standard escape protocol. We dont know if anyone followed that suggestion or not. Fkyjack however assumes it happened! He then twists that into an argument for rejecting all of the stew's estimate of Cooper'd height.


Case closed. Flyjack case solved 8/10/2018.

It matches the evidence perfectly.. and does not support any specific suspect.

Unlike cotton/linen currency, 100% Paper bank straps would deteriorate quickly, you'd never expect to find any remnants. You know that, basic stuff.

CONTEXT..

Tina's "small packages with bank-type bands" is not an estimate. It is specific.

Tina's height description is an estimate that she believes, about 5' 10" is consistent with witness descriptions of Hahneman. No conflict there. Witness height estimates are very poor.. Al Lee thought Tina was 5' 6"..??? Poor estimate or did Tina remove shoes? I don't know.

and the case is not closed..

There you go again, Hero Member, obscuring-distorting-omitting the facts again. Tina's actual description in two interviews was:

Race: white, Sex, Male, Age Mid 40s, Height: 510 to 6, Weight: 180-190 lbs., Build: medium well built, Hair: dark brown had sideburns partially past his ears, hair parted and combed back, Complexion: Medium, smooth, Characteristics: Wore dark rimmed wrap-around glasses with black frames, concealed eyes entire time, had no accent possibly from West or Midwest, had a low voice; Clothing: dark top coat, brown suit, brown shoes, black tie with tie tack found on plane was possibly his. Interview 11-30 Mucklow:

Sex, male. Race, white. Age 44-46. Height 6. Weight 180-190 lbs. Complexion Medium to dark. Build medium. Hair Dark, flat, straight, sideburns narrow, mid ear. Eyes not observed. Characteristics: Wore sunglasses, dark plastic wrap around frames. The man impressed her as being an executive type by his dress, special mannerisms, and consideration that he exhibited for her while he was on the aircraft. Interview of Mucklow 12/1-2 at her home in PA:

Again these are the agent's words/notes transcribed; not Tina's actual words. Anyone with a highschool education knows that!

What is your point? do you have an actual argument or conclusion?

Mine is simple and 100% valid, based on the FACT that witness heights are estimates, Hahneman is within the Cooper spec.. (about 5' 10") that doesn't mean they were the same height or the same person, just that he can't be eliminated. No more, no less.

If you think the information we have 100% eliminates Hahneman then you are using a weak assumption and just wrong.. that is ok. You are entitled to be wrong and ignore all the other evidence that supports Hahneman as a suspect. I don't care.

I just believe it is huge mistake... all the other evidence I have, (not all of it posted) is overwhelming, not proof of course.

Funny how this FLY BIG MOUTH JACK distorts the facts to suit his argument.  Georger made no mention of Hahneman in his assessment of FLY's made up, flawed logic.  George produced the actual data, the actual transcript, and somehow FLY twists it around to make his ridiculous argument for Hahneman.
 There's another guy who used to do that here all the time.  I'm having an RMB deja vue now.  FLY BIG MOUTH is an RMB reincarnation.  People like FLY come and go here -- they argue their pet theories, their pet suspect, despite evidence that rules out their pet suspect.  Folks like Jo, RMB, EU, FLY -- and there'll be more -- seemingly intelligent people who ignore the evidence and facts above all else just so they can fight for their pet theory or suspect. 

Maybe you've noticed, Georger doesn't evangelize a pet suspect or theory -- his arguments are always based on the data, on the evidence, on the actual transcripts, on the research he's actually done himself.  He's a real scientist, FLYJACK, he doesn't play one on TV.  Listen and learn for a change.

Meyer

Its isn't as though I haven't flirted with a few suspects myself but I keep it far in the background. But, my flirtations have been connected to actual facts in the DBC case. Cooper's announcement of a grudge, for one, the fact the hijacking happened during a pivotal highly charged political year, and the fact the plane landed in Montana before flying on to Portland (in the same year one known extremist moved to Montana to begin his career in crime, and one of this extremists passions was causing damage to airlines and airline executives and railroads, the Unabomber ). Some of the people personally involved in the Unabomber case actually wondered if 'Ted' had been 'DB Cooper'. I happen to be a former classmate of one of those people who was asking, who eventually wrote a book about the Unabomber case. So I called my old friend and this lead to a number of serious conversations. Ted was eliminated for a number of factual reasons, but I asked if Ted had had any associates who shared his views, who might have boarded during the stopover in Montana, bound for Portland? That option had already been explored at great length.

No connection between DBC and Ted Kaczynski or any of his known associates could be established. But, I dabbled with the idea for a few months ... until it closed itself down through natural selection.  :) 

My experience is, that DB Cooper forums are a generally unproductive device for dealing with the DB Cooper case. Just as watching tv pharmaceutical ads, is no substitute for having a doctor and going to a doctor's office! 

<ps>  DBC doesn't strike me as having been a public extremist, but more of a private individual with a specific plan to extort money in a one-time transaction. He published no manifesto. His socalled letters are unauthenticated. He said it was 'the right plane in the right place at the right time, not connected to your airlines'. He used the word 'airlines' plural, which I have always thought interesting and maybe humorous. What did Cooper know that we don't know? "Airlines"? He seemed to have "airlines" plural on his mind for some reason. His demeanor with the stews was very personal - not a Ted Kaczynsk type. Not an executor of some cause. But a personal actor. A personal actor with some technical experience, most likely. If we can believe this: in a conversation between Tina Mucklow and Jo Weber, Weber reports Tina saying Cooper came across as "sad". So someone with a personal history who was lacking positive outcomes in his life to that point?

Where are the cigarette butts, and finger prints, and dna! And uncontaminated bills that could still be tested in 2018!? That is as much a mystery as DB Cooper himself.   
   
« Last Edit: August 11, 2018, 07:55:08 PM by georger »
 
The following users thanked this post: andrade1812

MeyerLouie

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #351 on: August 13, 2018, 02:52:37 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack says in the money thread... !!!!!!


Offline FLYJACK

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 976
    Thanked: 61 times
        View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Tina Bar Money Find
Reply #3836 on: Today at 03:39:14 PM

    Say Thanks
    Quote

TBAR..

My lead theory which is consistent with the known evidence..

The money landed on TBAR between 1974 and 1978.
It was in 3 packages/packets of 100 bills each.
Initially there were paper bank bands on each package/packet.
The 3 packages/packets formed a single (randomized by Bank) bundle with rubber bands at two locations around all.
It would have been about 1.5" inches thick.

The 100% paper bands completely deteriorated and the rubber bands broke apart leaving 3 packets/packages askew with remnants of rubber bands attached to the money.

Ckret got it wrong conflating bundles and packages/packets and threw everyone off.
There was no bag.

How they got there is for another day.

so, the money packets or bundles or packages or parcels or whatever ... was never in a bank bag as per Ckret and every testimony known in this case? Or do I not understand your French semantics sentence structure today, again?

Tina never brought in a bank bag on the plane from Al Lee?  What did she bring in? A suitcase? A suitcase wrapped in paper bank bands?

Just trying to understand again whatever it is you are trying to say.

God this is exhausting!  :rofl:
 

ok,, clarification

They are separate.. 

Ckret got the bundles and packages/packets conflated.. bundles were randomized and re-banded by bank. Not the packets of 100.

AND

There was no bag/container needed, most believe/theorize that a money bag had to have held the three packages together to be found that close. If the 3 packages/packets were a single banded bundle rather than individual then no bag needed.

But there was a bag involved.  Tina carried it aboard the aircraft, Cooper took some money out of it to examine the bills, and the last time she saw Cooper (as she was headed for the cockpit) he was tieing the bag around his waist.  The people who found the money always refer to rubber bands and not paper bands.

I know, I meant no bag needed at TBAR to keep the 3 packets together if they were one rubber banded bundle.

The 100% paper bands would not last, you would never expect to find any, the rubber band fragments found attached to the money may have come from the rubber bands around all 3 packages/packets not individual packets.

There was no reason to reband the packets of 100, it was the bundles (per Bank) of packets that was randomized and re-banded by the bank.

So, IMO, a single bundle rubber banded in two places of 3 packets of 100 bills landed on TBAR, I believe between 1974-78 but that bleeds into another theory.

Take out the timeframe and this theory fits almost all scenarios. A money bag is not needed to keep the packets together on TBAR.

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.  I just don't see how that links anything to Hahneman.  Also, if Hahneman was DB, and had to make the jump near TBar when he had planned to make the jump in Mexico, what did he do when he landed?

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.

 

The man is cherry picking and misinterpreting words others supposedly spoke. 

Another example is his rejecting of Tina;s height description .... because she had no shoes on!? Because at one time Rataczak ordered/suggested stews take thei5r shoes off as a standard escape protocol. We dont know if anyone followed that suggestion or not. Fkyjack however assumes it happened! He then twists that into an argument for rejecting all of the stew's estimate of Cooper'd height.


Case closed. Flyjack case solved 8/10/2018.

It matches the evidence perfectly.. and does not support any specific suspect.

Unlike cotton/linen currency, 100% Paper bank straps would deteriorate quickly, you'd never expect to find any remnants. You know that, basic stuff.

CONTEXT..

Tina's "small packages with bank-type bands" is not an estimate. It is specific.

Tina's height description is an estimate that she believes, about 5' 10" is consistent with witness descriptions of Hahneman. No conflict there. Witness height estimates are very poor.. Al Lee thought Tina was 5' 6"..??? Poor estimate or did Tina remove shoes? I don't know.

and the case is not closed..

There you go again, Hero Member, obscuring-distorting-omitting the facts again. Tina's actual description in two interviews was:

Race: white, Sex, Male, Age Mid 40s, Height: 510 to 6, Weight: 180-190 lbs., Build: medium well built, Hair: dark brown had sideburns partially past his ears, hair parted and combed back, Complexion: Medium, smooth, Characteristics: Wore dark rimmed wrap-around glasses with black frames, concealed eyes entire time, had no accent possibly from West or Midwest, had a low voice; Clothing: dark top coat, brown suit, brown shoes, black tie with tie tack found on plane was possibly his. Interview 11-30 Mucklow:

Sex, male. Race, white. Age 44-46. Height 6. Weight 180-190 lbs. Complexion Medium to dark. Build medium. Hair Dark, flat, straight, sideburns narrow, mid ear. Eyes not observed. Characteristics: Wore sunglasses, dark plastic wrap around frames. The man impressed her as being an executive type by his dress, special mannerisms, and consideration that he exhibited for her while he was on the aircraft. Interview of Mucklow 12/1-2 at her home in PA:

Again these are the agent's words/notes transcribed; not Tina's actual words. Anyone with a highschool education knows that!

What is your point? do you have an actual argument or conclusion?

Mine is simple and 100% valid, based on the FACT that witness heights are estimates, Hahneman is within the Cooper spec.. (about 5' 10") that doesn't mean they were the same height or the same person, just that he can't be eliminated. No more, no less.

If you think the information we have 100% eliminates Hahneman then you are using a weak assumption and just wrong.. that is ok. You are entitled to be wrong and ignore all the other evidence that supports Hahneman as a suspect. I don't care.

I just believe it is huge mistake... all the other evidence I have, (not all of it posted) is overwhelming, not proof of course.

Funny how this FLY BIG MOUTH JACK distorts the facts to suit his argument.  Georger made no mention of Hahneman in his assessment of FLY's made up, flawed logic.  George produced the actual data, the actual transcript, and somehow FLY twists it around to make his ridiculous argument for Hahneman.
 There's another guy who used to do that here all the time.  I'm having an RMB deja vue now.  FLY BIG MOUTH is an RMB reincarnation.  People like FLY come and go here -- they argue their pet theories, their pet suspect, despite evidence that rules out their pet suspect.  Folks like Jo, RMB, EU, FLY -- and there'll be more -- seemingly intelligent people who ignore the evidence and facts above all else just so they can fight for their pet theory or suspect. 

Maybe you've noticed, Georger doesn't evangelize a pet suspect or theory -- his arguments are always based on the data, on the evidence, on the actual transcripts, on the research he's actually done himself.  He's a real scientist, FLYJACK, he doesn't play one on TV.  Listen and learn for a change.

Meyer

Its isn't as though I haven't flirted with a few suspects myself but I keep it far in the background. But, my flirtations have been connected to actual facts in the DBC case. Cooper's announcement of a grudge, for one, the fact the hijacking happened during a pivotal highly charged political year, and the fact the plane landed in Montana before flying on to Portland (in the same year one known extremist moved to Montana to begin his career in crime, and one of this extremists passions was causing damage to airlines and airline executives and railroads, the Unabomber ). Some of the people personally involved in the Unabomber case actually wondered if 'Ted' had been 'DB Cooper'. I happen to be a former classmate of one of those people who was asking, who eventually wrote a book about the Unabomber case. So I called my old friend and this lead to a number of serious conversations. Ted was eliminated for a number of factual reasons, but I asked if Ted had had any associates who shared his views, who might have boarded during the stopover in Montana, bound for Portland? That option had already been explored at great length.

No connection between DBC and Ted Kaczynski or any of his known associates could be established. But, I dabbled with the idea for a few months ... until it closed itself down through natural selection.  :) 

My experience is, that DB Cooper forums are a generally unproductive device for dealing with the DB Cooper case. Just as watching tv pharmaceutical ads, is no substitute for having a doctor and going to a doctor's office! 

<ps>  DBC doesn't strike me as having been a public extremist, but more of a private individual with a specific plan to extort money in a one-time transaction. He published no manifesto. His socalled letters are unauthenticated. He said it was 'the right plane in the right place at the right time, not connected to your airlines'. He used the word 'airlines' plural, which I have always thought interesting and maybe humorous. What did Cooper know that we don't know? "Airlines"? He seemed to have "airlines" plural on his mind for some reason. His demeanor with the stews was very personal - not a Ted Kaczynsk type. Not an executor of some cause. But a personal actor. A personal actor with some technical experience, most likely. If we can believe this: in a conversation between Tina Mucklow and Jo Weber, Weber reports Tina saying Cooper came across as "sad". So someone with a personal history who was lacking positive outcomes in his life to that point?

Where are the cigarette butts, and finger prints, and dna! And uncontaminated bills that could still be tested in 2018!? That is as much a mystery as DB Cooper himself.   
 

Georger, your discussion about Ted Kaczynski got me to thinking about something.  Ted K. was pretty much unrecognizable after he got a shave and haircut.  I wouldn't have recognized the guy. 

Also, I know a preacher who thought he'd teach his congregation about caring and kindness. Before the service, he had dressed up like a hippie -- long hair, long beard, glasses, unkept, unclean clothing, walking around barefoot.  A few minutes before the service he entered the narthex, dressed as the hippie.  No one recognized him, no one greeted him, no one went out of their way to welcome him.  He entered the sanctuary and sat way in the back.  As it was time to start the service, he quietly walked to the front of the congregation.  The congregation gasped, and they had still not recognized him.  He opened his mouth to speak, and the congregation knew immediately who it was.  He told them not one person greeted him or welcomed him -- so he preached his sermon right there, -- on caring and kindness, dressed up like a hippie.  This is a true story, I knew the preacher. 

So, why did no one recognize Cooper?  Surely, he must have had a life, he must have paid bills and bought groceries, he must have had a life somewhere, but not one person stepped up to say, definitively, they recognized him from their job or military service or skydiving team or school or wherever.    I'm struck by the fact he did little to cover his face or hide his appearance, with the exception of the sunglasses.  Moreover, any makeup job to cover his appearance most likely would have been noticed by Tina, she said nothing about that. 

So, how did Cooper pull this off?  Maybe the same way the Unabomber and the hippie preacher did.  The reason no one recognized him is because he never had that appearance before.  Like the Unabomber, he shaved his long hair and scraggly beard -- thus changing his entire appearance.  He would be unrecognizable after that -- a new man no one would know.

Your discussion of Ted K, Georger, got me thinking about that.....

Meyer



 

Offline FLYJACK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Thanked: 75 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #352 on: August 13, 2018, 02:38:18 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack says in the money thread... !!!!!!


Offline FLYJACK

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 976
    Thanked: 61 times
        View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Tina Bar Money Find
Reply #3836 on: Today at 03:39:14 PM

    Say Thanks
    Quote

TBAR..

My lead theory which is consistent with the known evidence..

The money landed on TBAR between 1974 and 1978.
It was in 3 packages/packets of 100 bills each.
Initially there were paper bank bands on each package/packet.
The 3 packages/packets formed a single (randomized by Bank) bundle with rubber bands at two locations around all.
It would have been about 1.5" inches thick.

The 100% paper bands completely deteriorated and the rubber bands broke apart leaving 3 packets/packages askew with remnants of rubber bands attached to the money.

Ckret got it wrong conflating bundles and packages/packets and threw everyone off.
There was no bag.

How they got there is for another day.

so, the money packets or bundles or packages or parcels or whatever ... was never in a bank bag as per Ckret and every testimony known in this case? Or do I not understand your French semantics sentence structure today, again?

Tina never brought in a bank bag on the plane from Al Lee?  What did she bring in? A suitcase? A suitcase wrapped in paper bank bands?

Just trying to understand again whatever it is you are trying to say.

God this is exhausting!  :rofl:
 

ok,, clarification

They are separate.. 

Ckret got the bundles and packages/packets conflated.. bundles were randomized and re-banded by bank. Not the packets of 100.

AND

There was no bag/container needed, most believe/theorize that a money bag had to have held the three packages together to be found that close. If the 3 packages/packets were a single banded bundle rather than individual then no bag needed.

But there was a bag involved.  Tina carried it aboard the aircraft, Cooper took some money out of it to examine the bills, and the last time she saw Cooper (as she was headed for the cockpit) he was tieing the bag around his waist.  The people who found the money always refer to rubber bands and not paper bands.

I know, I meant no bag needed at TBAR to keep the 3 packets together if they were one rubber banded bundle.

The 100% paper bands would not last, you would never expect to find any, the rubber band fragments found attached to the money may have come from the rubber bands around all 3 packages/packets not individual packets.

There was no reason to reband the packets of 100, it was the bundles (per Bank) of packets that was randomized and re-banded by the bank.

So, IMO, a single bundle rubber banded in two places of 3 packets of 100 bills landed on TBAR, I believe between 1974-78 but that bleeds into another theory.

Take out the timeframe and this theory fits almost all scenarios. A money bag is not needed to keep the packets together on TBAR.

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.  I just don't see how that links anything to Hahneman.  Also, if Hahneman was DB, and had to make the jump near TBar when he had planned to make the jump in Mexico, what did he do when he landed?

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.

 

The man is cherry picking and misinterpreting words others supposedly spoke. 

Another example is his rejecting of Tina;s height description .... because she had no shoes on!? Because at one time Rataczak ordered/suggested stews take thei5r shoes off as a standard escape protocol. We dont know if anyone followed that suggestion or not. Fkyjack however assumes it happened! He then twists that into an argument for rejecting all of the stew's estimate of Cooper'd height.


Case closed. Flyjack case solved 8/10/2018.

It matches the evidence perfectly.. and does not support any specific suspect.

Unlike cotton/linen currency, 100% Paper bank straps would deteriorate quickly, you'd never expect to find any remnants. You know that, basic stuff.

CONTEXT..

Tina's "small packages with bank-type bands" is not an estimate. It is specific.

Tina's height description is an estimate that she believes, about 5' 10" is consistent with witness descriptions of Hahneman. No conflict there. Witness height estimates are very poor.. Al Lee thought Tina was 5' 6"..??? Poor estimate or did Tina remove shoes? I don't know.

and the case is not closed..

In the first place it isn't even Tina's words or a quote from Tina Mucklow - it's the agent's attribution of words to Tina transcribed! The passage reads: " He opened the bag and inspected the contents which Mucklow said she observed was money packed in small packages with bank-type bands around each package."

Yours is an amateur error easily made by vested sleuthers high on energy drinks. If you knew anything about language, psychology, or logic you would know that - easily.
 
"Small packages" could mean anything, except that the word "small" generally agrees with Ckret's and the bank employee's description.
 
"bank-type bands around each package" is generic. It's doesn't say paper! You are the person saying "paper"! "Packages" refers to the "small packages" already stated - it's being said generically, by a non-bank person or employee.

You are cherry picking to suit yourself.



No cherry picking from me...

"bank bands" are paper currency bands NOT rubber bands...  in any language.

Is it possible they transcribed Tina's interview incorrectly, possible but extremely unlikely.

The real stretch is twisting Tina's interview statement to mean "rubber bands".
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #353 on: August 13, 2018, 03:03:09 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack says in the money thread... !!!!!!


Offline FLYJACK

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 976
    Thanked: 61 times
        View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Tina Bar Money Find
Reply #3836 on: Today at 03:39:14 PM

    Say Thanks
    Quote

TBAR..

My lead theory which is consistent with the known evidence..

The money landed on TBAR between 1974 and 1978.
It was in 3 packages/packets of 100 bills each.
Initially there were paper bank bands on each package/packet.
The 3 packages/packets formed a single (randomized by Bank) bundle with rubber bands at two locations around all.
It would have been about 1.5" inches thick.

The 100% paper bands completely deteriorated and the rubber bands broke apart leaving 3 packets/packages askew with remnants of rubber bands attached to the money.

Ckret got it wrong conflating bundles and packages/packets and threw everyone off.
There was no bag.

How they got there is for another day.

so, the money packets or bundles or packages or parcels or whatever ... was never in a bank bag as per Ckret and every testimony known in this case? Or do I not understand your French semantics sentence structure today, again?

Tina never brought in a bank bag on the plane from Al Lee?  What did she bring in? A suitcase? A suitcase wrapped in paper bank bands?

Just trying to understand again whatever it is you are trying to say.

God this is exhausting!  :rofl:
 

ok,, clarification

They are separate.. 

Ckret got the bundles and packages/packets conflated.. bundles were randomized and re-banded by bank. Not the packets of 100.

AND

There was no bag/container needed, most believe/theorize that a money bag had to have held the three packages together to be found that close. If the 3 packages/packets were a single banded bundle rather than individual then no bag needed.

But there was a bag involved.  Tina carried it aboard the aircraft, Cooper took some money out of it to examine the bills, and the last time she saw Cooper (as she was headed for the cockpit) he was tieing the bag around his waist.  The people who found the money always refer to rubber bands and not paper bands.

I know, I meant no bag needed at TBAR to keep the 3 packets together if they were one rubber banded bundle.

The 100% paper bands would not last, you would never expect to find any, the rubber band fragments found attached to the money may have come from the rubber bands around all 3 packages/packets not individual packets.

There was no reason to reband the packets of 100, it was the bundles (per Bank) of packets that was randomized and re-banded by the bank.

So, IMO, a single bundle rubber banded in two places of 3 packets of 100 bills landed on TBAR, I believe between 1974-78 but that bleeds into another theory.

Take out the timeframe and this theory fits almost all scenarios. A money bag is not needed to keep the packets together on TBAR.

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.  I just don't see how that links anything to Hahneman.  Also, if Hahneman was DB, and had to make the jump near TBar when he had planned to make the jump in Mexico, what did he do when he landed?

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.

 

The man is cherry picking and misinterpreting words others supposedly spoke. 

Another example is his rejecting of Tina;s height description .... because she had no shoes on!? Because at one time Rataczak ordered/suggested stews take thei5r shoes off as a standard escape protocol. We dont know if anyone followed that suggestion or not. Fkyjack however assumes it happened! He then twists that into an argument for rejecting all of the stew's estimate of Cooper'd height.


Case closed. Flyjack case solved 8/10/2018.

It matches the evidence perfectly.. and does not support any specific suspect.

Unlike cotton/linen currency, 100% Paper bank straps would deteriorate quickly, you'd never expect to find any remnants. You know that, basic stuff.

CONTEXT..

Tina's "small packages with bank-type bands" is not an estimate. It is specific.

Tina's height description is an estimate that she believes, about 5' 10" is consistent with witness descriptions of Hahneman. No conflict there. Witness height estimates are very poor.. Al Lee thought Tina was 5' 6"..??? Poor estimate or did Tina remove shoes? I don't know.

and the case is not closed..

In the first place it isn't even Tina's words or a quote from Tina Mucklow - it's the agent's attribution of words to Tina transcribed! The passage reads: " He opened the bag and inspected the contents which Mucklow said she observed was money packed in small packages with bank-type bands around each package."

Yours is an amateur error easily made by vested sleuthers high on energy drinks. If you knew anything about language, psychology, or logic you would know that - easily.
 
"Small packages" could mean anything, except that the word "small" generally agrees with Ckret's and the bank employee's description.
 
"bank-type bands around each package" is generic. It's doesn't say paper! You are the person saying "paper"! "Packages" refers to the "small packages" already stated - it's being said generically, by a non-bank person or employee.

You are cherry picking to suit yourself.



No cherry picking from me...

"bank bands" are paper currency bands NOT rubber bands...  in any language.

Is it possible they transcribed Tina's interview incorrectly, possible but extremely unlikely.

The real stretch is twisting Tina's interview statement to mean "rubber bands".

You are the first person in the entire history of this case to come up with the interpretation you claim. You are pulling words out of context. Putting words and meanings in Tina's mouth without even talking to Tina (or anyone else!). You even attack my psychology to try and get your way!

Your methods are flawed, to say the least. But, your methods are familiar as a typical conspiracy methodology.

Fortunately, few even understand you! Fewer still will follow your agenda ... because your claims don't even qualify as bonafide opinion.  You might as well be saying that Tina said "DB Cooper had four legs"!

Your methods are unorthodox and silly. 
 
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 03:11:46 PM by georger »
 

Offline FLYJACK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Thanked: 75 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #354 on: August 13, 2018, 03:12:27 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack says in the money thread... !!!!!!


Offline FLYJACK

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 976
    Thanked: 61 times
        View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Tina Bar Money Find
Reply #3836 on: Today at 03:39:14 PM

    Say Thanks
    Quote

TBAR..

My lead theory which is consistent with the known evidence..

The money landed on TBAR between 1974 and 1978.
It was in 3 packages/packets of 100 bills each.
Initially there were paper bank bands on each package/packet.
The 3 packages/packets formed a single (randomized by Bank) bundle with rubber bands at two locations around all.
It would have been about 1.5" inches thick.

The 100% paper bands completely deteriorated and the rubber bands broke apart leaving 3 packets/packages askew with remnants of rubber bands attached to the money.

Ckret got it wrong conflating bundles and packages/packets and threw everyone off.
There was no bag.

How they got there is for another day.

so, the money packets or bundles or packages or parcels or whatever ... was never in a bank bag as per Ckret and every testimony known in this case? Or do I not understand your French semantics sentence structure today, again?

Tina never brought in a bank bag on the plane from Al Lee?  What did she bring in? A suitcase? A suitcase wrapped in paper bank bands?

Just trying to understand again whatever it is you are trying to say.

God this is exhausting!  :rofl:
 

ok,, clarification

They are separate.. 

Ckret got the bundles and packages/packets conflated.. bundles were randomized and re-banded by bank. Not the packets of 100.

AND

There was no bag/container needed, most believe/theorize that a money bag had to have held the three packages together to be found that close. If the 3 packages/packets were a single banded bundle rather than individual then no bag needed.

But there was a bag involved.  Tina carried it aboard the aircraft, Cooper took some money out of it to examine the bills, and the last time she saw Cooper (as she was headed for the cockpit) he was tieing the bag around his waist.  The people who found the money always refer to rubber bands and not paper bands.

I know, I meant no bag needed at TBAR to keep the 3 packets together if they were one rubber banded bundle.

The 100% paper bands would not last, you would never expect to find any, the rubber band fragments found attached to the money may have come from the rubber bands around all 3 packages/packets not individual packets.

There was no reason to reband the packets of 100, it was the bundles (per Bank) of packets that was randomized and re-banded by the bank.

So, IMO, a single bundle rubber banded in two places of 3 packets of 100 bills landed on TBAR, I believe between 1974-78 but that bleeds into another theory.

Take out the timeframe and this theory fits almost all scenarios. A money bag is not needed to keep the packets together on TBAR.

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.  I just don't see how that links anything to Hahneman.  Also, if Hahneman was DB, and had to make the jump near TBar when he had planned to make the jump in Mexico, what did he do when he landed?

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.

 

The man is cherry picking and misinterpreting words others supposedly spoke. 

Another example is his rejecting of Tina;s height description .... because she had no shoes on!? Because at one time Rataczak ordered/suggested stews take thei5r shoes off as a standard escape protocol. We dont know if anyone followed that suggestion or not. Fkyjack however assumes it happened! He then twists that into an argument for rejecting all of the stew's estimate of Cooper'd height.


Case closed. Flyjack case solved 8/10/2018.

It matches the evidence perfectly.. and does not support any specific suspect.

Unlike cotton/linen currency, 100% Paper bank straps would deteriorate quickly, you'd never expect to find any remnants. You know that, basic stuff.

CONTEXT..

Tina's "small packages with bank-type bands" is not an estimate. It is specific.

Tina's height description is an estimate that she believes, about 5' 10" is consistent with witness descriptions of Hahneman. No conflict there. Witness height estimates are very poor.. Al Lee thought Tina was 5' 6"..??? Poor estimate or did Tina remove shoes? I don't know.

and the case is not closed..

In the first place it isn't even Tina's words or a quote from Tina Mucklow - it's the agent's attribution of words to Tina transcribed! The passage reads: " He opened the bag and inspected the contents which Mucklow said she observed was money packed in small packages with bank-type bands around each package."

Yours is an amateur error easily made by vested sleuthers high on energy drinks. If you knew anything about language, psychology, or logic you would know that - easily.
 
"Small packages" could mean anything, except that the word "small" generally agrees with Ckret's and the bank employee's description.
 
"bank-type bands around each package" is generic. It's doesn't say paper! You are the person saying "paper"! "Packages" refers to the "small packages" already stated - it's being said generically, by a non-bank person or employee.

You are cherry picking to suit yourself.



No cherry picking from me...

"bank bands" are paper currency bands NOT rubber bands...  in any language.

Is it possible they transcribed Tina's interview incorrectly, possible but extremely unlikely.

The real stretch is twisting Tina's interview statement to mean "rubber bands".

You are the first person in the entire history of this case to come up with the interpretation you claim. You are pulling words out of context. Putting words and meanings in Tina's mouth without even talking to Tina (or anyone else!). You even attack my psychology to try and get your way!

Your methods are flawed, to say the least. But, your methods are familiar as a typical conspiracy methodology.

Fortunately, few even understand you! Fewer still will follow your agenda ... because your claims don't even qualify as bonafide opinion.  You might as well be saying that Tina said "DB Cooper had four legs"!

All you have is a personal attack to discredit, you present NO FACTS to support your opinion that bank bands are really rubber bands.. but you are absolutely entitled to it.

Nowhere are bank bands = rubber bands.. That isn't hard to grasp.

.
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #355 on: August 13, 2018, 03:23:35 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack says in the money thread... !!!!!!


Offline FLYJACK

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 976
    Thanked: 61 times
        View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Tina Bar Money Find
Reply #3836 on: Today at 03:39:14 PM

    Say Thanks
    Quote

TBAR..

My lead theory which is consistent with the known evidence..

The money landed on TBAR between 1974 and 1978.
It was in 3 packages/packets of 100 bills each.
Initially there were paper bank bands on each package/packet.
The 3 packages/packets formed a single (randomized by Bank) bundle with rubber bands at two locations around all.
It would have been about 1.5" inches thick.

The 100% paper bands completely deteriorated and the rubber bands broke apart leaving 3 packets/packages askew with remnants of rubber bands attached to the money.

Ckret got it wrong conflating bundles and packages/packets and threw everyone off.
There was no bag.

How they got there is for another day.

so, the money packets or bundles or packages or parcels or whatever ... was never in a bank bag as per Ckret and every testimony known in this case? Or do I not understand your French semantics sentence structure today, again?

Tina never brought in a bank bag on the plane from Al Lee?  What did she bring in? A suitcase? A suitcase wrapped in paper bank bands?

Just trying to understand again whatever it is you are trying to say.

God this is exhausting!  :rofl:
 

ok,, clarification

They are separate.. 

Ckret got the bundles and packages/packets conflated.. bundles were randomized and re-banded by bank. Not the packets of 100.

AND

There was no bag/container needed, most believe/theorize that a money bag had to have held the three packages together to be found that close. If the 3 packages/packets were a single banded bundle rather than individual then no bag needed.

But there was a bag involved.  Tina carried it aboard the aircraft, Cooper took some money out of it to examine the bills, and the last time she saw Cooper (as she was headed for the cockpit) he was tieing the bag around his waist.  The people who found the money always refer to rubber bands and not paper bands.

I know, I meant no bag needed at TBAR to keep the 3 packets together if they were one rubber banded bundle.

The 100% paper bands would not last, you would never expect to find any, the rubber band fragments found attached to the money may have come from the rubber bands around all 3 packages/packets not individual packets.

There was no reason to reband the packets of 100, it was the bundles (per Bank) of packets that was randomized and re-banded by the bank.

So, IMO, a single bundle rubber banded in two places of 3 packets of 100 bills landed on TBAR, I believe between 1974-78 but that bleeds into another theory.

Take out the timeframe and this theory fits almost all scenarios. A money bag is not needed to keep the packets together on TBAR.

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.  I just don't see how that links anything to Hahneman.  Also, if Hahneman was DB, and had to make the jump near TBar when he had planned to make the jump in Mexico, what did he do when he landed?

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.

 

The man is cherry picking and misinterpreting words others supposedly spoke. 

Another example is his rejecting of Tina;s height description .... because she had no shoes on!? Because at one time Rataczak ordered/suggested stews take thei5r shoes off as a standard escape protocol. We dont know if anyone followed that suggestion or not. Fkyjack however assumes it happened! He then twists that into an argument for rejecting all of the stew's estimate of Cooper'd height.


Case closed. Flyjack case solved 8/10/2018.

It matches the evidence perfectly.. and does not support any specific suspect.

Unlike cotton/linen currency, 100% Paper bank straps would deteriorate quickly, you'd never expect to find any remnants. You know that, basic stuff.

CONTEXT..

Tina's "small packages with bank-type bands" is not an estimate. It is specific.

Tina's height description is an estimate that she believes, about 5' 10" is consistent with witness descriptions of Hahneman. No conflict there. Witness height estimates are very poor.. Al Lee thought Tina was 5' 6"..??? Poor estimate or did Tina remove shoes? I don't know.

and the case is not closed..

In the first place it isn't even Tina's words or a quote from Tina Mucklow - it's the agent's attribution of words to Tina transcribed! The passage reads: " He opened the bag and inspected the contents which Mucklow said she observed was money packed in small packages with bank-type bands around each package."

Yours is an amateur error easily made by vested sleuthers high on energy drinks. If you knew anything about language, psychology, or logic you would know that - easily.
 
"Small packages" could mean anything, except that the word "small" generally agrees with Ckret's and the bank employee's description.
 
"bank-type bands around each package" is generic. It's doesn't say paper! You are the person saying "paper"! "Packages" refers to the "small packages" already stated - it's being said generically, by a non-bank person or employee.

You are cherry picking to suit yourself.



No cherry picking from me...

"bank bands" are paper currency bands NOT rubber bands...  in any language.

Is it possible they transcribed Tina's interview incorrectly, possible but extremely unlikely.

The real stretch is twisting Tina's interview statement to mean "rubber bands".

You are the first person in the entire history of this case to come up with the interpretation you claim. You are pulling words out of context. Putting words and meanings in Tina's mouth without even talking to Tina (or anyone else!). You even attack my psychology to try and get your way!

Your methods are flawed, to say the least. But, your methods are familiar as a typical conspiracy methodology.

Fortunately, few even understand you! Fewer still will follow your agenda ... because your claims don't even qualify as bonafide opinion.  You might as well be saying that Tina said "DB Cooper had four legs"!

All you have is a personal attack to discredit, you present NO FACTS to support your opinion that bank bands are really rubber bands.. but you are absolutely entitled to it.

Nowhere are bank bands = rubber bands.. That isn't hard to grasp.

.

I didnt make a personal attack. I'm just stating the truth. We have already gone over "the evidence".

Yes. This isnt hard to grasp!

Why dont you submit your views to the FBI, or go public with a press report, hold a press conference, ....

Attacking me further here isnt going to accomplish a God damned thing.

Good luck Bulljax.   
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 03:26:47 PM by georger »
 

Offline FLYJACK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Thanked: 75 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #356 on: August 13, 2018, 03:32:18 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack says in the money thread... !!!!!!


Offline FLYJACK

    Hero Member
    *****
    Posts: 976
    Thanked: 61 times
        View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Tina Bar Money Find
Reply #3836 on: Today at 03:39:14 PM

    Say Thanks
    Quote

TBAR..

My lead theory which is consistent with the known evidence..

The money landed on TBAR between 1974 and 1978.
It was in 3 packages/packets of 100 bills each.
Initially there were paper bank bands on each package/packet.
The 3 packages/packets formed a single (randomized by Bank) bundle with rubber bands at two locations around all.
It would have been about 1.5" inches thick.

The 100% paper bands completely deteriorated and the rubber bands broke apart leaving 3 packets/packages askew with remnants of rubber bands attached to the money.

Ckret got it wrong conflating bundles and packages/packets and threw everyone off.
There was no bag.

How they got there is for another day.

so, the money packets or bundles or packages or parcels or whatever ... was never in a bank bag as per Ckret and every testimony known in this case? Or do I not understand your French semantics sentence structure today, again?

Tina never brought in a bank bag on the plane from Al Lee?  What did she bring in? A suitcase? A suitcase wrapped in paper bank bands?

Just trying to understand again whatever it is you are trying to say.

God this is exhausting!  :rofl:
 

ok,, clarification

They are separate.. 

Ckret got the bundles and packages/packets conflated.. bundles were randomized and re-banded by bank. Not the packets of 100.

AND

There was no bag/container needed, most believe/theorize that a money bag had to have held the three packages together to be found that close. If the 3 packages/packets were a single banded bundle rather than individual then no bag needed.

But there was a bag involved.  Tina carried it aboard the aircraft, Cooper took some money out of it to examine the bills, and the last time she saw Cooper (as she was headed for the cockpit) he was tieing the bag around his waist.  The people who found the money always refer to rubber bands and not paper bands.

I know, I meant no bag needed at TBAR to keep the 3 packets together if they were one rubber banded bundle.

The 100% paper bands would not last, you would never expect to find any, the rubber band fragments found attached to the money may have come from the rubber bands around all 3 packages/packets not individual packets.

There was no reason to reband the packets of 100, it was the bundles (per Bank) of packets that was randomized and re-banded by the bank.

So, IMO, a single bundle rubber banded in two places of 3 packets of 100 bills landed on TBAR, I believe between 1974-78 but that bleeds into another theory.

Take out the timeframe and this theory fits almost all scenarios. A money bag is not needed to keep the packets together on TBAR.

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.  I just don't see how that links anything to Hahneman.  Also, if Hahneman was DB, and had to make the jump near TBar when he had planned to make the jump in Mexico, what did he do when he landed?

Your theory about the three packets of 100 bills individually banded in paper, and then collectively banded in rubber bands, makes perfect sense to me.

 

The man is cherry picking and misinterpreting words others supposedly spoke. 

Another example is his rejecting of Tina;s height description .... because she had no shoes on!? Because at one time Rataczak ordered/suggested stews take thei5r shoes off as a standard escape protocol. We dont know if anyone followed that suggestion or not. Fkyjack however assumes it happened! He then twists that into an argument for rejecting all of the stew's estimate of Cooper'd height.


Case closed. Flyjack case solved 8/10/2018.

It matches the evidence perfectly.. and does not support any specific suspect.

Unlike cotton/linen currency, 100% Paper bank straps would deteriorate quickly, you'd never expect to find any remnants. You know that, basic stuff.

CONTEXT..

Tina's "small packages with bank-type bands" is not an estimate. It is specific.

Tina's height description is an estimate that she believes, about 5' 10" is consistent with witness descriptions of Hahneman. No conflict there. Witness height estimates are very poor.. Al Lee thought Tina was 5' 6"..??? Poor estimate or did Tina remove shoes? I don't know.

and the case is not closed..

In the first place it isn't even Tina's words or a quote from Tina Mucklow - it's the agent's attribution of words to Tina transcribed! The passage reads: " He opened the bag and inspected the contents which Mucklow said she observed was money packed in small packages with bank-type bands around each package."

Yours is an amateur error easily made by vested sleuthers high on energy drinks. If you knew anything about language, psychology, or logic you would know that - easily.
 
"Small packages" could mean anything, except that the word "small" generally agrees with Ckret's and the bank employee's description.
 
"bank-type bands around each package" is generic. It's doesn't say paper! You are the person saying "paper"! "Packages" refers to the "small packages" already stated - it's being said generically, by a non-bank person or employee.

You are cherry picking to suit yourself.



No cherry picking from me...

"bank bands" are paper currency bands NOT rubber bands...  in any language.

Is it possible they transcribed Tina's interview incorrectly, possible but extremely unlikely.

The real stretch is twisting Tina's interview statement to mean "rubber bands".

You are the first person in the entire history of this case to come up with the interpretation you claim. You are pulling words out of context. Putting words and meanings in Tina's mouth without even talking to Tina (or anyone else!). You even attack my psychology to try and get your way!

Your methods are flawed, to say the least. But, your methods are familiar as a typical conspiracy methodology.

Fortunately, few even understand you! Fewer still will follow your agenda ... because your claims don't even qualify as bonafide opinion.  You might as well be saying that Tina said "DB Cooper had four legs"!

All you have is a personal attack to discredit, you present NO FACTS to support your opinion that bank bands are really rubber bands.. but you are absolutely entitled to it.

Nowhere are bank bands = rubber bands.. That isn't hard to grasp.

.

I didnt make a personal attack. We have already gone over "the evidence".

Yes. This isnt hard to grasp!

Why dont you submit your views to the FBI, or go public with a press report, hold a press conference, ....

Attacking me further here isnt going to accomplish a God damned thing.

Good luck Bulljax.

Not attacking you, just pointing out that you can't back up your opinion and if others differ you resort to personal attacks to discredit and end any debate.

Just accept it. Others have different opinions. You can keep yours all you want. Nobody cares.

.
 

Offline EU

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #357 on: August 13, 2018, 03:40:35 PM »
Flyjack, my understanding has always been that the money was delivered to Cooper bound only by rubber bands. Furthermore, that three separate bundles ended up together on the beach. The implication here is that it is highly unlikely three separate bundles would have stayed together if floated down the river or even dredged then spread.

Nonetheless, even if everyone else is wrong and your assertions are correct--specifically, that there was one large bundle of three individual packs--I'm not certain that really changes much because the bundle would have a relatively large profile and more susceptible to be broken apart.

Furthermore, I am not at all convinced that the three individual paper bands that you're proposing--which would also be sandwiched between bills and largely protected in two spots--would completely dissolve. I'm certain there would be pieces of these bands left over as evidence.

Cheers!
 

Offline FLYJACK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Thanked: 75 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #358 on: August 13, 2018, 03:59:20 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack, my understanding has always been that the money was delivered to Cooper bound only by rubber bands. Furthermore, that three separate bundles ended up together on the beach. The implication here is that it is highly unlikely three separate bundles would have stayed together if floated down the river or even dredged then spread.

Nonetheless, even if everyone else is wrong and your assertions are correct--specifically, that there was one large bundle of three individual packs--I'm not certain that really changes much because the bundle would have a relatively large profile and more susceptible to be broken apart.

Furthermore, I am not at all convinced that the three individual paper bands that you're proposing--which would also be sandwiched between bills and largely protected in two spots--would completely dissolve. I'm certain there would be pieces of these bands left over as evidence.

Cheers!

You are right, it doesn't change much and is not suspect specific. (doesn't poke holes in your theory, haha)

but they aren't actually 3 separate bundles, they are, in bank terminology packets/packages.

The idea that only each of the 3 packets/packages had rubber bands was an error by Ckret (FBI) back on DZ. The bank stated that they randomized and rebanded the "bundles". In bank terms "bundles" are not packets/packages (100 bills). Ckret thought the 3 packets/packages were called "bundles", conflating the terms. The Bank randomized the bundles (groups of packages) not the packets/packages of 100 bills. Brian found rubber band fragments attached to the money, but nobody knows where it was attached..

Paper bank bands would completely disintegrate in 2-4 months in that environment..

Everyone is trying to figure out how 3 individual packets/packages can end up together on TBAR. If they were in a single randomized rubber banded bundle of 3 packets/packages that would open the possibilities for the means of arrival. It means the money did not have to be personally dropped there or fall out of a bag/container to be so close together.. it arrived as one rubber banded bundle of 3 packets/packages of 100 x $20 bills each, rubber banded in 2 locations.

Tina's bank band "statement" plus it makes no sense that the bank would randomize all the packets/packages, these were only 0.5" thick. they randomized and rebanded the "bundles", groups of packets/packages. They were originally in packs of 5 ($10000), so they randomized the sizes..
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 04:25:24 PM by FLYJACK »
 

Offline EU

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #359 on: August 13, 2018, 05:22:22 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Flyjack, my understanding has always been that the money was delivered to Cooper bound only by rubber bands. Furthermore, that three separate bundles ended up together on the beach. The implication here is that it is highly unlikely three separate bundles would have stayed together if floated down the river or even dredged then spread.

Nonetheless, even if everyone else is wrong and your assertions are correct--specifically, that there was one large bundle of three individual packs--I'm not certain that really changes much because the bundle would have a relatively large profile and more susceptible to be broken apart.

Furthermore, I am not at all convinced that the three individual paper bands that you're proposing--which would also be sandwiched between bills and largely protected in two spots--would completely dissolve. I'm certain there would be pieces of these bands left over as evidence.

Cheers!

You are right, it doesn't change much and is not suspect specific. (doesn't poke holes in your theory, haha)

but they aren't actually 3 separate bundles, they are, in bank terminology packets/packages.

The idea that only each of the 3 packets/packages had rubber bands was an error by Ckret (FBI) back on DZ. The bank stated that they randomized and rebanded the "bundles". In bank terms "bundles" are not packets/packages (100 bills). Ckret thought the 3 packets/packages were called "bundles", conflating the terms. The Bank randomized the bundles (groups of packages) not the packets/packages of 100 bills. Brian found rubber band fragments attached to the money, but nobody knows where it was attached..

Paper bank bands would completely disintegrate in 2-4 months in that environment..

Everyone is trying to figure out how 3 individual packets/packages can end up together on TBAR. If they were in a single randomized rubber banded bundle of 3 packets/packages that would open the possibilities for the means of arrival. It means the money did not have to be personally dropped there or fall out of a bag/container to be so close together.. it arrived as one rubber banded bundle of 3 packets/packages of 100 x $20 bills each, rubber banded in 2 locations.

Tina's bank band "statement" plus it makes no sense that the bank would randomize all the packets/packages, these were only 0.5" thick. they randomized and rebanded the "bundles", groups of packets/packages. They were originally in packs of 5 ($10000), so they randomized the sizes..

In poker terminology we would call these "bricks."

Yes, you may be right. Plus it makes more sense when considering the randomized size comments. Additionally, it makes my "accidentally fell out of the bag while the bag was being extracted" theory a little more plausible.

That said, I tend to side with the traditional understanding because of the following:

1) Three separate bundles independent of each other has been implied all along.

2) I do not agree that paper bands would completely dissolve in that environment in a matter of months or even years. Remember, there would have been three separate paper bands and in two spots these bands would have been sandwiched in between bills and largely protected especially considering the packets "fused" together as multiple clumps.

3) Presumably there would be evidence of two larger rubber bands used to bind the "brick." Where did these rubber bands go? Why would they have completely dissolved but not the other rubber bands around each 2K packet?