Author Topic: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation  (Read 32330 times)

FLYJACK

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #360 on: August 13, 2018, 06:14:45 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
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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 06:18:24 PM by FLYJACK »
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #361 on: August 13, 2018, 11:34:54 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
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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Where's your evidence?

What "paper bands" did Seafirst use? Who manufactured them? What was their composition? Show us one. Where's your evidence?

How did the paper bands lock on a group of bills? Sticky glue" Water tape type lick-em glue?

In fact, did Tina how a background working in banks? How would Tina be aware of official banking terms such that she is now suddenly using an official banking term ... for the first time in her life! ??  Was she coached by .... somebody ahead of time? Wow! This opens a whole new can-o-worm ... Tina's vita! Did Tina own stock in the Seafirst Bank ?

Show us any evidence Seafirst assembled the money delivered to Cooper in the manner you claim?

How did Tom Kaye and Ckret miss something as important as this? Where is your evidence - show it!

Show us any evidence that Tina was using an official bank term "packages" which you claim is an official bank term in banking?

Show us that "packages" was an official bank term used at Seafirst? 

... and the list goes on . . . 
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 11:54:12 PM by georger »
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #362 on: August 14, 2018, 12:53:34 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
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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Is the photo below anything close to how you are claiming the money was packed and delivered to Cooper on the plane?  (by Seafirst Bank)

Bankers I know call them "straps", not bands. Why didn't Tina say "I see straps and rubber bands too. Hey DB they really secured the money for you, sweetheart!"?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 01:50:15 AM by georger »
 

FLYJACK

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #363 on: August 14, 2018, 12:05:52 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
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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Where's your evidence?

What "paper bands" did Seafirst use? Who manufactured them? What was their composition? Show us one. Where's your evidence?

How did the paper bands lock on a group of bills? Sticky glue" Water tape type lick-em glue?

In fact, did Tina how a background working in banks? How would Tina be aware of official banking terms such that she is now suddenly using an official banking term ... for the first time in her life! ??  Was she coached by .... somebody ahead of time? Wow! This opens a whole new can-o-worm ... Tina's vita! Did Tina own stock in the Seafirst Bank ?

Show us any evidence Seafirst assembled the money delivered to Cooper in the manner you claim?

How did Tom Kaye and Ckret miss something as important as this? Where is your evidence - show it!

Show us any evidence that Tina was using an official bank term "packages" which you claim is an official bank term in banking?

Show us that "packages" was an official bank term used at Seafirst? 

... and the list goes on . . .

Goerger, firstly, I really appreciate your challenging questions without the personal stuff.

currency strap evidence from bank attached...

Tina's use of the term "packages" is not required to support this theory. She is not knowingly using banking terminology. Logically, Tina either meant "packages" or "bundles". The error for non bank people is to call packages > bundles. Not to call bundles > packages. She most likely meant packages. The key is "bank-type bands", that is not rubber bands.


Generally, in logic it not required to prove somebody else's opinion or interpretation of evidence is wrong.

Tom Kaye started from the evidence that there were rubber band fragments found on the money, that was it. We don't know where they were.. the money edges were eroded away so they could only have been on the tops or bottoms of the packages, attached to the top or bottom bills. An 8 year old boy could identify rubber bands (disintegrated when touched) but not whether they were from the bundle or individual package.

Ckret was told by the Bank that they re(rubber) banded the bundles and randomized them. His posts are clear that he was referring to the packages as bundles and even claimed they were not in 100's but randomized. It is crystal clear that Ckret conflated the terms and got it wrong. This is no surprise, many non bank people and sources mixed up the terms.

Banks use the terms packets/packages for bills strapped in 100's. They use bundles to refer to groups of packets/packages.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 12:57:09 PM by FLYJACK »
 
The following users thanked this post: sry828

FLYJACK

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #364 on: August 14, 2018, 12:20:00 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
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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Is the photo below anything close to how you are claiming the money was packed and delivered to Cooper on the plane?  (by Seafirst Bank)

Bankers I know call them "straps", not bands. Why didn't Tina say "I see straps and rubber bands too. Hey DB they really secured the money for you, sweetheart!"?

yes, close

The bundles would have been in groups of 5 packets/packages before the bank randomized them. I assume they randomized into groups of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ? (possibly)

I did find a top bill that has a mark that may be from a rubber band about one third from one end.

But, even if you reject the paper currency straps (I don't) and believe the packets/packages were rubber banded, it is still likely that the packets/packages were in bundles based on the randomization. A single bundle of three packets/packages would be only 1.5" thick..

As the rubber bands deteriorated and broke, the packets/packages became askew. Rubber band frags attached to top and bottom. Since the edges were gone it would not be clear if the rubber bands were around each packet/package or all three as a bundle. You would have to show that the rubber bands were attached in between the packages/packages and there is no evidence for that.

and if the packets/packages landed on TBAR as one bundle that opens up the means by which they could have arrived.

A single bundle could have fallen from the sky onto TBAR, into the Columbia, into the Willamette etc etc...

If the three packets/packages were independent you need a personal placement or bag/container to have them be found together.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 12:52:16 PM by FLYJACK »
 

Robert99

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #365 on: August 14, 2018, 01:06:01 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, 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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Is the photo below anything close to how you are claiming the money was packed and delivered to Cooper on the plane?  (by Seafirst Bank)

Bankers I know call them "straps", not bands. Why didn't Tina say "I see straps and rubber bands too. Hey DB they really secured the money for you, sweetheart!"?

yes, close

The bundles would have been in groups of 5 packets/packages before the bank randomized them. I assume they randomized into groups of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ? (possibly)

I did find a top bill that has a mark that may be from a rubber band about one third from one end.

But, even if you reject the paper currency straps (I don't) and believe the packets/packages were rubber banded, it is still likely that the packets/packages were in bundles based on the randomization. A single bundle of three packets/packages would be only 1.5" thick..

As the rubber bands deteriorated and broke, the packets/packages became askew. Rubber band frags attached to top and bottom. Since the edges were gone it would not be clear if the rubber bands were around each packet/package or all three as a bundle. You would have to show that the rubber bands were attached in between the packages/packages and there is no evidence for that.

and if the packets/packages landed on TBAR as one bundle that opens up the means by which they could have arrived.

A single bundle could have fallen from the sky onto TBAR, into the Columbia, into the Willamette etc etc...

If the three packets/packages were independent you need a personal placement or bag/container to have them be found together.

It is highly unlikely that "a single bundle could have fallen from the sky onto TBAR".  Cooper cut off almost 100 feet of shroud lines (according to TK) from the extra reserve chute and that was plenty to securely tie the money into the bag and secure the bag to his waist (as Tina saw him doing) or the parachute harness.  Cooper had a pocket knife (there was nothing else on that aircraft that could be used to cut those shroud lines in a timely manner) and could have punched holes in the top of the bag to assist in securing the money inside the bag.
 

FLYJACK

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #366 on: August 14, 2018, 01:18:56 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
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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Is the photo below anything close to how you are claiming the money was packed and delivered to Cooper on the plane?  (by Seafirst Bank)

Bankers I know call them "straps", not bands. Why didn't Tina say "I see straps and rubber bands too. Hey DB they really secured the money for you, sweetheart!"?

yes, close

The bundles would have been in groups of 5 packets/packages before the bank randomized them. I assume they randomized into groups of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ? (possibly)

I did find a top bill that has a mark that may be from a rubber band about one third from one end.

But, even if you reject the paper currency straps (I don't) and believe the packets/packages were rubber banded, it is still likely that the packets/packages were in bundles based on the randomization. A single bundle of three packets/packages would be only 1.5" thick..

As the rubber bands deteriorated and broke, the packets/packages became askew. Rubber band frags attached to top and bottom. Since the edges were gone it would not be clear if the rubber bands were around each packet/package or all three as a bundle. You would have to show that the rubber bands were attached in between the packages/packages and there is no evidence for that.

and if the packets/packages landed on TBAR as one bundle that opens up the means by which they could have arrived.

A single bundle could have fallen from the sky onto TBAR, into the Columbia, into the Willamette etc etc...

If the three packets/packages were independent you need a personal placement or bag/container to have them be found together.

It is highly unlikely that "a single bundle could have fallen from the sky onto TBAR".  Cooper cut off almost 100 feet of shroud lines (according to TK) from the extra reserve chute and that was plenty to securely tie the money into the bag and secure the bag to his waist (as Tina saw him doing) or the parachute harness.  Cooper had a pocket knife (there was nothing else on that aircraft that could be used to cut those shroud lines in a timely manner) and could have punched holes in the top of the bag to assist in securing the money inside the bag.

Meant not "a single bundle only" but "as a single bundle"..

It is entirely possible.. those were just examples.. there are many scenarios which "three packets/packages as a single rubber banded bundle" can end up on TBAR, that is an entirely different discussion.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 01:49:07 PM by FLYJACK »
 

Offline sry828

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #367 on: August 14, 2018, 02:41:37 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
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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Is the photo below anything close to how you are claiming the money was packed and delivered to Cooper on the plane?  (by Seafirst Bank)

Bankers I know call them "straps", not bands. Why didn't Tina say "I see straps and rubber bands too. Hey DB they really secured the money for you, sweetheart!"?

yes, close

The bundles would have been in groups of 5 packets/packages before the bank randomized them. I assume they randomized into groups of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ? (possibly)

I did find a top bill that has a mark that may be from a rubber band about one third from one end.

But, even if you reject the paper currency straps (I don't) and believe the packets/packages were rubber banded, it is still likely that the packets/packages were in bundles based on the randomization. A single bundle of three packets/packages would be only 1.5" thick..

As the rubber bands deteriorated and broke, the packets/packages became askew. Rubber band frags attached to top and bottom. Since the edges were gone it would not be clear if the rubber bands were around each packet/package or all three as a bundle. You would have to show that the rubber bands were attached in between the packages/packages and there is no evidence for that.

and if the packets/packages landed on TBAR as one bundle that opens up the means by which they could have arrived.

A single bundle could have fallen from the sky onto TBAR, into the Columbia, into the Willamette etc etc...

If the three packets/packages were independent you need a personal placement or bag/container to have them be found together.

It is highly unlikely that "a single bundle could have fallen from the sky onto TBAR".  Cooper cut off almost 100 feet of shroud lines (according to TK) from the extra reserve chute and that was plenty to securely tie the money into the bag and secure the bag to his waist (as Tina saw him doing) or the parachute harness.  Cooper had a pocket knife (there was nothing else on that aircraft that could be used to cut those shroud lines in a timely manner) and could have punched holes in the top of the bag to assist in securing the money inside the bag.

Do you know whether that would have been likely to work?  I have no idea what bank bags would have been made out of in 1971.  So, I'm wondering if they were made out of something that would be likely to rip once holes were punched into them, or if it's likely that the holes wouldn't open up any further, even with the force that might be exerted during the jump.
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #368 on: August 14, 2018, 02:47:11 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, 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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Where's your evidence?

What "paper bands" did Seafirst use? Who manufactured them? What was their composition? Show us one. Where's your evidence?

How did the paper bands lock on a group of bills? Sticky glue" Water tape type lick-em glue?

In fact, did Tina how a background working in banks? How would Tina be aware of official banking terms such that she is now suddenly using an official banking term ... for the first time in her life! ??  Was she coached by .... somebody ahead of time? Wow! This opens a whole new can-o-worm ... Tina's vita! Did Tina own stock in the Seafirst Bank ?

Show us any evidence Seafirst assembled the money delivered to Cooper in the manner you claim?

How did Tom Kaye and Ckret miss something as important as this? Where is your evidence - show it!

Show us any evidence that Tina was using an official bank term "packages" which you claim is an official bank term in banking?

Show us that "packages" was an official bank term used at Seafirst? 

... and the list goes on . . .

Goerger, firstly, I really appreciate your challenging questions without the personal stuff.

currency strap evidence from bank attached...

Tina's use of the term "packages" is not required to support this theory. She is not knowingly using banking terminology. Logically, Tina either meant "packages" or "bundles". The error for non bank people is to call packages > bundles. Not to call bundles > packages. She most likely meant packages. The key is "bank-type bands", that is not rubber bands.


Generally, in logic it not required to prove somebody else's opinion or interpretation of evidence is wrong.

Tom Kaye started from the evidence that there were rubber band fragments found on the money, that was it. We don't know where they were.. the money edges were eroded away so they could only have been on the tops or bottoms of the packages, attached to the top or bottom bills. An 8 year old boy could identify rubber bands (disintegrated when touched) but not whether they were from the bundle or individual package.

Ckret was told by the Bank that they re(rubber) banded the bundles and randomized them. His posts are clear that he was referring to the packages as bundles and even claimed they were not in 100's but randomized. It is crystal clear that Ckret conflated the terms and got it wrong. This is no surprise, many non bank people and sources mixed up the terms.

Banks use the terms packets/packages for bills strapped in 100's. They use bundles to refer to groups of packets/packages.

This document is a 'general information' document/memo referring to the monies at the bank that were used to assemble  'bundles' from, for delivery to the plane. The document is not referring to bundles themselves that were given to Cooper! The person who gave that statement was contacted and he didn't have the faintest idea how the final assembling of bills was done or it's final outcome! That is why the person who actually did the assembling was identified, found, and contacted - several times! 

This document is one of the reasons Ckret pursued this further. The person issuing this statement "is not" the person who actually assembled and 'banded' the money! So we found that individual who had actually assembled the bundles given to Cooper and we talked to him, several times, in order to clear up all ambiguity. He said he assembled each 'bundle' or 'packet' from a randomised line of cash that had been filmed in order to have their serial numbers recorded and bundles consisting of approx $2000 each (some over, some under) were hastily assembled and ONE OR MORE RUBBER BANDS PLACED AROUND EACH BUNDLE. The total aggregate was put in a bag and delivered to the plane by FBI agents.

It's obvious you are not going to accept any of this. So, write up your alternate history of the DB Cooper case and submit it - to the cloud - where it will probably sit for eternity!

 :)
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 02:56:26 PM by georger »
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #369 on: August 14, 2018, 02:49:36 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
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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Is the photo below anything close to how you are claiming the money was packed and delivered to Cooper on the plane?  (by Seafirst Bank)

Bankers I know call them "straps", not bands. Why didn't Tina say "I see straps and rubber bands too. Hey DB they really secured the money for you, sweetheart!"?

yes, close

The bundles would have been in groups of 5 packets/packages before the bank randomized them. I assume they randomized into groups of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ? (possibly)

I did find a top bill that has a mark that may be from a rubber band about one third from one end.

But, even if you reject the paper currency straps (I don't) and believe the packets/packages were rubber banded, it is still likely that the packets/packages were in bundles based on the randomization. A single bundle of three packets/packages would be only 1.5" thick..

As the rubber bands deteriorated and broke, the packets/packages became askew. Rubber band frags attached to top and bottom. Since the edges were gone it would not be clear if the rubber bands were around each packet/package or all three as a bundle. You would have to show that the rubber bands were attached in between the packages/packages and there is no evidence for that.

and if the packets/packages landed on TBAR as one bundle that opens up the means by which they could have arrived.

A single bundle could have fallen from the sky onto TBAR, into the Columbia, into the Willamette etc etc...

If the three packets/packages were independent you need a personal placement or bag/container to have them be found together.

It is highly unlikely that "a single bundle could have fallen from the sky onto TBAR".  Cooper cut off almost 100 feet of shroud lines (according to TK) from the extra reserve chute and that was plenty to securely tie the money into the bag and secure the bag to his waist (as Tina saw him doing) or the parachute harness.  Cooper had a pocket knife (there was nothing else on that aircraft that could be used to cut those shroud lines in a timely manner) and could have punched holes in the top of the bag to assist in securing the money inside the bag.

Do you know whether that would have been likely to work?  I have no idea what bank bags would have been made out of in 1971.  So, I'm wondering if they were made out of something that would be likely to rip once holes were punched into them, or if it's likely that the holes wouldn't open up any further, even with the force that might be exerted during the jump.

Read the thread - do a search - - - it is impossible to repeat everything that has come before.  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
 

FLYJACK

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #370 on: August 14, 2018, 02:54:58 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
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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Where's your evidence?

What "paper bands" did Seafirst use? Who manufactured them? What was their composition? Show us one. Where's your evidence?

How did the paper bands lock on a group of bills? Sticky glue" Water tape type lick-em glue?

In fact, did Tina how a background working in banks? How would Tina be aware of official banking terms such that she is now suddenly using an official banking term ... for the first time in her life! ??  Was she coached by .... somebody ahead of time? Wow! This opens a whole new can-o-worm ... Tina's vita! Did Tina own stock in the Seafirst Bank ?

Show us any evidence Seafirst assembled the money delivered to Cooper in the manner you claim?

How did Tom Kaye and Ckret miss something as important as this? Where is your evidence - show it!

Show us any evidence that Tina was using an official bank term "packages" which you claim is an official bank term in banking?

Show us that "packages" was an official bank term used at Seafirst? 

... and the list goes on . . .

Goerger, firstly, I really appreciate your challenging questions without the personal stuff.

currency strap evidence from bank attached...

Tina's use of the term "packages" is not required to support this theory. She is not knowingly using banking terminology. Logically, Tina either meant "packages" or "bundles". The error for non bank people is to call packages > bundles. Not to call bundles > packages. She most likely meant packages. The key is "bank-type bands", that is not rubber bands.


Generally, in logic it not required to prove somebody else's opinion or interpretation of evidence is wrong.

Tom Kaye started from the evidence that there were rubber band fragments found on the money, that was it. We don't know where they were.. the money edges were eroded away so they could only have been on the tops or bottoms of the packages, attached to the top or bottom bills. An 8 year old boy could identify rubber bands (disintegrated when touched) but not whether they were from the bundle or individual package.

Ckret was told by the Bank that they re(rubber) banded the bundles and randomized them. His posts are clear that he was referring to the packages as bundles and even claimed they were not in 100's but randomized. It is crystal clear that Ckret conflated the terms and got it wrong. This is no surprise, many non bank people and sources mixed up the terms.

Banks use the terms packets/packages for bills strapped in 100's. They use bundles to refer to groups of packets/packages.

This document is referring to the monies at the bank that were used to assemble  'bundles' for delivery to the plane. The document is not referring to bundles themselves that were given to Cooper! The person who gave that statement was contacted and he didn't have the faintest idea how the final assembling of bills was done! That is why the person who actually did the assembling was identified, found, and contacted - several times! 

This document is one of the reasons Ckret pursued this further. The person issuing this statement "is not" the person who actually assembled and 'banded' the money! So we found that individual who had actually assembled the bundles given to Cooper and we talked to him, several times, in order to clear up all ambiguity. He said he assembled each 'bundle' or 'packet' from a randomised line of cash that had been filmed in order to have their serial numbers recorded and bundles consisting of approx $2000 each (some over, some under) were hastily assembled and ONE OR MORE RUBBER BANDS PLACED AROUND EACH BUNDLE. The total aggregate was put in a bag and delivered to the plane by FBI agents.

It's obvious you are not going to accept any of this. So, write up your alternate history of the DB Cooper case and submit it - to the cloud - where it will probably sit for eternity!

 :)



I am well aware of that document and that the "BUNDLES" were further randomized before given to COOPER. That doc is actually not inconsistent with randomized bundles.

What evidence do you have that the packets/packages were randomized and not the BUNDLES as the Bank claimed?

Your claim makes no sense and is not supported by evidence. Nowhere is there evidence that the Bank randomized the packets/packages.

.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 03:06:39 PM by FLYJACK »
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #371 on: August 14, 2018, 03:09:09 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
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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Where's your evidence?

What "paper bands" did Seafirst use? Who manufactured them? What was their composition? Show us one. Where's your evidence?

How did the paper bands lock on a group of bills? Sticky glue" Water tape type lick-em glue?

In fact, did Tina how a background working in banks? How would Tina be aware of official banking terms such that she is now suddenly using an official banking term ... for the first time in her life! ??  Was she coached by .... somebody ahead of time? Wow! This opens a whole new can-o-worm ... Tina's vita! Did Tina own stock in the Seafirst Bank ?

Show us any evidence Seafirst assembled the money delivered to Cooper in the manner you claim?

How did Tom Kaye and Ckret miss something as important as this? Where is your evidence - show it!

Show us any evidence that Tina was using an official bank term "packages" which you claim is an official bank term in banking?

Show us that "packages" was an official bank term used at Seafirst? 

... and the list goes on . . .

Goerger, firstly, I really appreciate your challenging questions without the personal stuff.

currency strap evidence from bank attached...

Tina's use of the term "packages" is not required to support this theory. She is not knowingly using banking terminology. Logically, Tina either meant "packages" or "bundles". The error for non bank people is to call packages > bundles. Not to call bundles > packages. She most likely meant packages. The key is "bank-type bands", that is not rubber bands.


Generally, in logic it not required to prove somebody else's opinion or interpretation of evidence is wrong.

Tom Kaye started from the evidence that there were rubber band fragments found on the money, that was it. We don't know where they were.. the money edges were eroded away so they could only have been on the tops or bottoms of the packages, attached to the top or bottom bills. An 8 year old boy could identify rubber bands (disintegrated when touched) but not whether they were from the bundle or individual package.

Ckret was told by the Bank that they re(rubber) banded the bundles and randomized them. His posts are clear that he was referring to the packages as bundles and even claimed they were not in 100's but randomized. It is crystal clear that Ckret conflated the terms and got it wrong. This is no surprise, many non bank people and sources mixed up the terms.

Banks use the terms packets/packages for bills strapped in 100's. They use bundles to refer to groups of packets/packages.

This document is referring to the monies at the bank that were used to assemble  'bundles' for delivery to the plane. The document is not referring to bundles themselves that were given to Cooper! The person who gave that statement was contacted and he didn't have the faintest idea how the final assembling of bills was done! That is why the person who actually did the assembling was identified, found, and contacted - several times! 

This document is one of the reasons Ckret pursued this further. The person issuing this statement "is not" the person who actually assembled and 'banded' the money! So we found that individual who had actually assembled the bundles given to Cooper and we talked to him, several times, in order to clear up all ambiguity. He said he assembled each 'bundle' or 'packet' from a randomised line of cash that had been filmed in order to have their serial numbers recorded and bundles consisting of approx $2000 each (some over, some under) were hastily assembled and ONE OR MORE RUBBER BANDS PLACED AROUND EACH BUNDLE. The total aggregate was put in a bag and delivered to the plane by FBI agents.

It's obvious you are not going to accept any of this. So, write up your alternate history of the DB Cooper case and submit it - to the cloud - where it will probably sit for eternity!

 :)



I am well aware of that document and that the "BUNDLES" were further randomized before given to COOPER.

What evidence do you have that the packets/packages were randomized and not the BUNDLES as the Bank claimed?

Your claim makes no sense and is not supported by evidence.

.

I dont have the faintest idea what you are talking about when you keep referring to  packets/packages. That is not terminology ever used in this matter by anyone, so far as I know, who worked the problem. The bank employee we talked to who actually assembled the "bundles" put in a bag for Cooper never used these terms  packets/packages   that you are using.

You claim Tina is using special banking terminology!

I dont even recall that these terms were used at Dropzone or that they presented some special problem - especially a problem concerning the bundles actually assembled and given to Cooper. I even went back to DZ and searched. You are the only person to ever raise an issue about this so far as I know.

The whole Cooper money conversation to date has centered around the term BUNDLES .... not  packets/packages so far as I know.

Can you find us any statement Cooper made where he referred to " packets/packages " ?

Why dont you contact Ckret and debate this with him? 
 

FLYJACK

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #372 on: August 14, 2018, 03:09:55 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
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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Is the photo below anything close to how you are claiming the money was packed and delivered to Cooper on the plane?  (by Seafirst Bank)

Bankers I know call them "straps", not bands. Why didn't Tina say "I see straps and rubber bands too. Hey DB they really secured the money for you, sweetheart!"?

yes, close

The bundles would have been in groups of 5 packets/packages before the bank randomized them. I assume they randomized into groups of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ? (possibly)

I did find a top bill that has a mark that may be from a rubber band about one third from one end.

But, even if you reject the paper currency straps (I don't) and believe the packets/packages were rubber banded, it is still likely that the packets/packages were in bundles based on the randomization. A single bundle of three packets/packages would be only 1.5" thick..

As the rubber bands deteriorated and broke, the packets/packages became askew. Rubber band frags attached to top and bottom. Since the edges were gone it would not be clear if the rubber bands were around each packet/package or all three as a bundle. You would have to show that the rubber bands were attached in between the packages/packages and there is no evidence for that.

and if the packets/packages landed on TBAR as one bundle that opens up the means by which they could have arrived.

A single bundle could have fallen from the sky onto TBAR, into the Columbia, into the Willamette etc etc...

If the three packets/packages were independent you need a personal placement or bag/container to have them be found together.

It is highly unlikely that "a single bundle could have fallen from the sky onto TBAR".  Cooper cut off almost 100 feet of shroud lines (according to TK) from the extra reserve chute and that was plenty to securely tie the money into the bag and secure the bag to his waist (as Tina saw him doing) or the parachute harness.  Cooper had a pocket knife (there was nothing else on that aircraft that could be used to cut those shroud lines in a timely manner) and could have punched holes in the top of the bag to assist in securing the money inside the bag.

Do you know whether that would have been likely to work?  I have no idea what bank bags would have been made out of in 1971.  So, I'm wondering if they were made out of something that would be likely to rip once holes were punched into them, or if it's likely that the holes wouldn't open up any further, even with the force that might be exerted during the jump.

No way to really know, the entire bag could have been ripped away from Cooper.. it could have just opened.. he could have had cash stuffed in his pockets..
 

FLYJACK

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #373 on: August 14, 2018, 03:20:39 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, 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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Where's your evidence?

What "paper bands" did Seafirst use? Who manufactured them? What was their composition? Show us one. Where's your evidence?

How did the paper bands lock on a group of bills? Sticky glue" Water tape type lick-em glue?

In fact, did Tina how a background working in banks? How would Tina be aware of official banking terms such that she is now suddenly using an official banking term ... for the first time in her life! ??  Was she coached by .... somebody ahead of time? Wow! This opens a whole new can-o-worm ... Tina's vita! Did Tina own stock in the Seafirst Bank ?

Show us any evidence Seafirst assembled the money delivered to Cooper in the manner you claim?

How did Tom Kaye and Ckret miss something as important as this? Where is your evidence - show it!

Show us any evidence that Tina was using an official bank term "packages" which you claim is an official bank term in banking?

Show us that "packages" was an official bank term used at Seafirst? 

... and the list goes on . . .

Goerger, firstly, I really appreciate your challenging questions without the personal stuff.

currency strap evidence from bank attached...

Tina's use of the term "packages" is not required to support this theory. She is not knowingly using banking terminology. Logically, Tina either meant "packages" or "bundles". The error for non bank people is to call packages > bundles. Not to call bundles > packages. She most likely meant packages. The key is "bank-type bands", that is not rubber bands.


Generally, in logic it not required to prove somebody else's opinion or interpretation of evidence is wrong.

Tom Kaye started from the evidence that there were rubber band fragments found on the money, that was it. We don't know where they were.. the money edges were eroded away so they could only have been on the tops or bottoms of the packages, attached to the top or bottom bills. An 8 year old boy could identify rubber bands (disintegrated when touched) but not whether they were from the bundle or individual package.

Ckret was told by the Bank that they re(rubber) banded the bundles and randomized them. His posts are clear that he was referring to the packages as bundles and even claimed they were not in 100's but randomized. It is crystal clear that Ckret conflated the terms and got it wrong. This is no surprise, many non bank people and sources mixed up the terms.

Banks use the terms packets/packages for bills strapped in 100's. They use bundles to refer to groups of packets/packages.

This document is referring to the monies at the bank that were used to assemble  'bundles' for delivery to the plane. The document is not referring to bundles themselves that were given to Cooper! The person who gave that statement was contacted and he didn't have the faintest idea how the final assembling of bills was done! That is why the person who actually did the assembling was identified, found, and contacted - several times! 

This document is one of the reasons Ckret pursued this further. The person issuing this statement "is not" the person who actually assembled and 'banded' the money! So we found that individual who had actually assembled the bundles given to Cooper and we talked to him, several times, in order to clear up all ambiguity. He said he assembled each 'bundle' or 'packet' from a randomised line of cash that had been filmed in order to have their serial numbers recorded and bundles consisting of approx $2000 each (some over, some under) were hastily assembled and ONE OR MORE RUBBER BANDS PLACED AROUND EACH BUNDLE. The total aggregate was put in a bag and delivered to the plane by FBI agents.

It's obvious you are not going to accept any of this. So, write up your alternate history of the DB Cooper case and submit it - to the cloud - where it will probably sit for eternity!

 :)



I am well aware of that document and that the "BUNDLES" were further randomized before given to COOPER.

What evidence do you have that the packets/packages were randomized and not the BUNDLES as the Bank claimed?

Your claim makes no sense and is not supported by evidence.

.

I dont have the faintest idea what you are talking about when you keep referring to  packets/packages. That is not terminology ever used in this matter by anyone, so far as I know, who worked the problem. The bank employee we talked to who actually assembled the "bundles" put in a bag for Cooper never used these terms  packets/packages   that you are using.

You claim Tina is using special banking terminology!

I dont even recall that these terms were used at Dropzone or that they presented some special problem - especially a problem concerning the bundles actually assembled and given to Cooper. I even went back to DZ and searched. You are the only person to ever raise an issue about this so far as I know.

The whole Cooper money conversation to date has centered around the term BUNDLES .... not  packets/packages so far as I know.

Can you find us any statement Cooper made where he referred to " packets/packages " ?

Why dont you contact Ckret and debate this with him?

Careful Georger you are playing a dangerous game by reconstructing what I have claimed.. then attacking it. I never claimed Tina was using special banking terminology.. or Cooper. Only the Bank did.

I have explained this to you many times and it is clear you just haven't grasped it..

The Bank claimed they randomized the "Bundles".. that is their terminology for "group of packets/packages". That is the baseline for the debate. Ckret thought each of the three packets/packages were called bundles and thought they were randomized.

The investigators conflated the terminology.. incorrectly assuming the Bank randomized the packets/packages.

If you don't get this then you don't understand the argument.

It only matters what the Bank claimed = bundles, not what terms others use. The real problem is those that worked the issue failed to use consistent terminology.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 03:26:50 PM by FLYJACK »
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #374 on: August 14, 2018, 03:33:28 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, 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?

1) It wasn't three independent bundles, it was three packets/packages found.

2) 100% Paper bands would deteriorate quickly in that environment. I looked it up. 2-4 months, IMO, no way any trace after a year... the three packets/packages were slightly separated when found.

3) There were rubber band frags stuck to the money but we don't know where physically on the money, those frags may have been from the bundle (around all three) not each packet, they weren't completely dissolved.

Where's your evidence?

What "paper bands" did Seafirst use? Who manufactured them? What was their composition? Show us one. Where's your evidence?

How did the paper bands lock on a group of bills? Sticky glue" Water tape type lick-em glue?

In fact, did Tina how a background working in banks? How would Tina be aware of official banking terms such that she is now suddenly using an official banking term ... for the first time in her life! ??  Was she coached by .... somebody ahead of time? Wow! This opens a whole new can-o-worm ... Tina's vita! Did Tina own stock in the Seafirst Bank ?

Show us any evidence Seafirst assembled the money delivered to Cooper in the manner you claim?

How did Tom Kaye and Ckret miss something as important as this? Where is your evidence - show it!

Show us any evidence that Tina was using an official bank term "packages" which you claim is an official bank term in banking?

Show us that "packages" was an official bank term used at Seafirst? 

... and the list goes on . . .

Goerger, firstly, I really appreciate your challenging questions without the personal stuff.

currency strap evidence from bank attached...

Tina's use of the term "packages" is not required to support this theory. She is not knowingly using banking terminology. Logically, Tina either meant "packages" or "bundles". The error for non bank people is to call packages > bundles. Not to call bundles > packages. She most likely meant packages. The key is "bank-type bands", that is not rubber bands.


Generally, in logic it not required to prove somebody else's opinion or interpretation of evidence is wrong.

Tom Kaye started from the evidence that there were rubber band fragments found on the money, that was it. We don't know where they were.. the money edges were eroded away so they could only have been on the tops or bottoms of the packages, attached to the top or bottom bills. An 8 year old boy could identify rubber bands (disintegrated when touched) but not whether they were from the bundle or individual package.

Ckret was told by the Bank that they re(rubber) banded the bundles and randomized them. His posts are clear that he was referring to the packages as bundles and even claimed they were not in 100's but randomized. It is crystal clear that Ckret conflated the terms and got it wrong. This is no surprise, many non bank people and sources mixed up the terms.

Banks use the terms packets/packages for bills strapped in 100's. They use bundles to refer to groups of packets/packages.

This document is referring to the monies at the bank that were used to assemble  'bundles' for delivery to the plane. The document is not referring to bundles themselves that were given to Cooper! The person who gave that statement was contacted and he didn't have the faintest idea how the final assembling of bills was done! That is why the person who actually did the assembling was identified, found, and contacted - several times! 

This document is one of the reasons Ckret pursued this further. The person issuing this statement "is not" the person who actually assembled and 'banded' the money! So we found that individual who had actually assembled the bundles given to Cooper and we talked to him, several times, in order to clear up all ambiguity. He said he assembled each 'bundle' or 'packet' from a randomised line of cash that had been filmed in order to have their serial numbers recorded and bundles consisting of approx $2000 each (some over, some under) were hastily assembled and ONE OR MORE RUBBER BANDS PLACED AROUND EACH BUNDLE. The total aggregate was put in a bag and delivered to the plane by FBI agents.

It's obvious you are not going to accept any of this. So, write up your alternate history of the DB Cooper case and submit it - to the cloud - where it will probably sit for eternity!

 :)



I am well aware of that document and that the "BUNDLES" were further randomized before given to COOPER.

What evidence do you have that the packets/packages were randomized and not the BUNDLES as the Bank claimed?

Your claim makes no sense and is not supported by evidence.

.

I dont have the faintest idea what you are talking about when you keep referring to  packets/packages. That is not terminology ever used in this matter by anyone, so far as I know, who worked the problem. The bank employee we talked to who actually assembled the "bundles" put in a bag for Cooper never used these terms  packets/packages   that you are using.

You claim Tina is using special banking terminology!

I dont even recall that these terms were used at Dropzone or that they presented some special problem - especially a problem concerning the bundles actually assembled and given to Cooper. I even went back to DZ and searched. You are the only person to ever raise an issue about this so far as I know.

The whole Cooper money conversation to date has centered around the term BUNDLES .... not  packets/packages so far as I know.

Can you find us any statement Cooper made where he referred to " packets/packages " ?

Why dont you contact Ckret and debate this with him?

Careful Georger you are playing a dangerous game by reconstructing what I have claimed.. then attacking it. I never claimed Tina was using special banking terminology.. or Cooper. Only the Bank did.

I have explained this to you many times and it is clear you just haven't grasped it..

The Bank claimed they randomized the "Bundles".. that is their terminology for "group of packets/packages". That is the baseline for the debate. Ckret thought the three packets/packages were called bundles and thought they were randomized.

The investigators conflated the terminology.. incorrectly assuming the Bank randomized the packets/packages.

If you don't get this then you don't understand the argument.

It only matters what the Bank claimed = bundles, not what terms others use. The real problem is those that worked the issue failed to use consistent terminology.

Whatever!

"The real problem is those that worked the issue failed to use consistent terminology." I assume you mean Ckret, Kaye, me, and everyone at Dropzone.  C:-)

The document is contradictory. "... bills were made up in packets of ... that were banded with SeaFirst, Federal Reserve, or quite possibly bands from other banks" ............. But, "No identifying marks were placed on these bands". What!? The bands didnt have SeaFirst, Federal Reserve, or other bank labels? These are all unlabeled bands from three to ten banks? This is an example of what I mean by ambiguity and why Larry pursued this matter - what is the guy saying!?

It turned out the guy didnt know anything about how the final BUNDLES were assembled. But the guy that did the assembling did.

But you surface to claim to know more about this than everyone else -= its a miracle!  8)   

 vote the smileycode and safe
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 03:37:56 PM by georger »