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

Just listened to the Tosaw radio interview..

noticed, he said the hijacker gave the name "Daniel Cooper"

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

He also stated that the 3 "packets" yes, he used the correct term, were in $2000's.

That is consistent and supports my argument. The packets/packages themselves were not randomized, if they were then they would have to be rebanded with rubber bands. If not, they weren't rebanded.

If the packets/packages weren't randomized, then the Bank MUST HAVE randomized (and rubber banded) the bundles (aka groups of packages), as they claimed.

Ckret, thinking the packages were called "bundles" incorrectly assumed the packages were randomized and re-banded.


So, what the heck does this mean...

If the three packages were held together as ONE SINGLE BUNDLE (randomized) with rubber bands that changes how the money could have arrived at TBAR.

The SINGLE BUNDLE would not have to have arrived in a container or be personally placed to have the three packages end up so close together.

A SINGLE BUNDLE of three packages of 100 bills each ($2000) landed on TBAR, as the rubber bands deteriorated the three packages separated slightly.

(It doesn't support any specific suspect, it just expands the potential means by which the money could have arrived at TBAR)

.

Well you are wrongo-dongo. We talked to SeaFirst (and other banks). They dont use the terms packages vs packets vs bundles you claim banker's do! These are not clinical banking terms as you claim - and never have been! One officer at SeaFirst said the only "banking" term he knew of for groups of money was "band of money" - he said that term would be understood among banks ... but also in the currency transfer, security transfer, and amored truck business. He said the words packages vs packets vs bundles were generic terms people would use in a bank but would be context dependent.

Maybe these terms are used at your bank, the Yo-Mo Bank of Mongolia, but no other bank in the USA recognises the terms you claim the banking industry uses!

In other words Bulljax, your claim is "bulljax".

You are still wrong,

The bank randomized/rebanded the bundles, there is ZERO evidence that they randomized/rebanded the packets.

The terms were mixed up by Ckret, not the Bank..

All bank use those terms specifically, you are lying in attempt to back up your baseless opinion.

I talked to the officers of five banks Nimrod! You are the liar.  Stop calling me a liar, LIAR! 

One thing is 100% clear, Nimrod. You keep calling people liars whoa re not liars. You cant even get that straight. 

I think you are suffering from energy drink psychosis.

You  cant even communicate in English? Parly Vous? You need a translator ....

You have a history of making up shit to back up your opinion.. and already damaged your own credibility..

There is no value to any discussion with a proven liar..

..

Blevins would say that too! I am willing to bet you have never even called a bank to check your theory about banking terms out. Have you?

Another complain filed against FLYJACK/BLEVINS!

Leave me alone you asshole.

Well, I see the RMB sound-alike is at it again.  I did talk to an assistant bank manager last week, he happens to be a former calculus student of mine from several years ago.  Didn't take notes during our talk, but I will next time.  All this talk about bands, bundles, packets, or what have you, sounds like someone pole-vaulting mouse tirds -- a creator of confusion for no good apparent reason. 

Anyway, my friend says it is common for packets to be wrapped in the middle with a paper band and then two rubber bands on the outside edges of the packet.  Packets of $10,000 are called bricks, I believe that's what he said....and bricks are made up of packets, and the brick gets two big rubber bands around the 5 packets (5 in all, since there are 100 20's in each packet, and 5 packets = $10,000 -- which equals one brick).  So, the packets get bundled together -- rubber banded together -- into a brick.

See FLYJACK, see how simple that was to just slow down and explain things at a comfortable pace, using understandable terminology.  Actually, Bruce Smith is quite good at explaining things in understandable terms and at a comfortable pace.  Try his approach for a change. Use a little more sugar and a little less vinegar.  Getting a post from you is like trying to take a drink of water out of a fire hose.  Slow down, take it easy, cowboy.

MeyerLouie

wrong, both condescending and incorrect.

for any denomination

100 bills is a strap or pack (package or packet) paper strapped in the middle with denomination.. sometimes additional bands but rare
5 packs is a standard bundle - rubber banded two places one third form each end, CIRCULATED CURRENCY
10 packs is also a bundle - shrink wrapped but usually UNCIRCULATED CURRENCY
40 packs or 4000 bills is a brick NEW UNCIRCULATED CURRENCY shrink wrapped


This is so simple.. why is this so hard for you guys.

The bank said they randomized and rebanded the bundles. (initial bundle = group of 5 packs)
It makes no sense for the Bank to randomize each pack. (of 100 bills)
Ckret assumed they meant the packs, they didn't. He actually stated that he thought each of the three bundles found on TBAR was a random count thinking they were "bundles".
The bank noted that the ransom was initially in packs of 100 bills = $2000 each pack.
There is no evidence that the TBAR money was randomized. 3 packs of 100 bills x $20 = $2000 x 3 = $6000
If the TBAR money "packs" were not randomized then there was no reason to reband them.

If the packs weren't randomized then (per the bank) the bundles were randomized.
and rubber band fragments were found stuck to the money (location unknown)
and the bundles must have been rubber banded.
and the 3 packs on TBAR were part of a SINGLE rubber banded bundle.
and since the packs were found close together.

then the TBAR money arrived as a single rubber banded bundle of 3 packs.


THAT MEANS THE TBAR MONEY DID NOT HAVE TO ARRIVE IN A CONTAINER OR BE PERSONALLY PLACED OR DROPPED. A GAME CHANGER.


This got screwed up 10 years ago and everybody has it stuck in their head..

If everybody wants to hold on to an old assumption based on a misunderstanding and not supported by logic or evidence, be my guest. You are only boxing yourselves into a false paradigm.



.

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

Just listened to the Tosaw radio interview..

noticed, he said the hijacker gave the name "Daniel Cooper"

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

He also stated that the 3 "packets" yes, he used the correct term, were in $2000's.

That is consistent and supports my argument. The packets/packages themselves were not randomized, if they were then they would have to be rebanded with rubber bands. If not, they weren't rebanded.

If the packets/packages weren't randomized, then the Bank MUST HAVE randomized (and rubber banded) the bundles (aka groups of packages), as they claimed.

Ckret, thinking the packages were called "bundles" incorrectly assumed the packages were randomized and re-banded.


So, what the heck does this mean...

If the three packages were held together as ONE SINGLE BUNDLE (randomized) with rubber bands that changes how the money could have arrived at TBAR.

The SINGLE BUNDLE would not have to have arrived in a container or be personally placed to have the three packages end up so close together.

A SINGLE BUNDLE of three packages of 100 bills each ($2000) landed on TBAR, as the rubber bands deteriorated the three packages separated slightly.

(It doesn't support any specific suspect, it just expands the potential means by which the money could have arrived at TBAR)

.

Well you are wrongo-dongo. We talked to SeaFirst (and other banks). They dont use the terms packages vs packets vs bundles you claim banker's do! These are not clinical banking terms as you claim - and never have been! One officer at SeaFirst said the only "banking" term he knew of for groups of money was "band of money" - he said that term would be understood among banks ... but also in the currency transfer, security transfer, and amored truck business. He said the words packages vs packets vs bundles were generic terms people would use in a bank but would be context dependent.

Maybe these terms are used at your bank, the Yo-Mo Bank of Mongolia, but no other bank in the USA recognises the terms you claim the banking industry uses!

In other words Bulljax, your claim is "bulljax".

You are still wrong,

The bank randomized/rebanded the bundles, there is ZERO evidence that they randomized/rebanded the packets.

The terms were mixed up by Ckret, not the Bank..

All bank use those terms specifically, you are lying in attempt to back up your baseless opinion.

I talked to the officers of five banks Nimrod! You are the liar.  Stop calling me a liar, LIAR! 

One thing is 100% clear, Nimrod. You keep calling people liars whoa re not liars. You cant even get that straight. 

I think you are suffering from energy drink psychosis.

You  cant even communicate in English? Parly Vous? You need a translator ....

You have a history of making up shit to back up your opinion.. and already damaged your own credibility..

There is no value to any discussion with a proven liar..

..

Blevins would say that too! I am willing to bet you have never even called a bank to check your theory about banking terms out. Have you?

Another complain filed against FLYJACK/BLEVINS!

Leave me alone you asshole.

Well, I see the RMB sound-alike is at it again.  I did talk to an assistant bank manager last week, he happens to be a former calculus student of mine from several years ago.  Didn't take notes during our talk, but I will next time.  All this talk about bands, bundles, packets, or what have you, sounds like someone pole-vaulting mouse tirds -- a creator of confusion for no good apparent reason. 

Anyway, my friend says it is common for packets to be wrapped in the middle with a paper band and then two rubber bands on the outside edges of the packet.  Packets of $10,000 are called bricks, I believe that's what he said....and bricks are made up of packets, and the brick gets two big rubber bands around the 5 packets (5 in all, since there are 100 20's in each packet, and 5 packets = $10,000 -- which equals one brick).  So, the packets get bundled together -- rubber banded together -- into a brick.

See FLYJACK, see how simple that was to just slow down and explain things at a comfortable pace, using understandable terminology.  Actually, Bruce Smith is quite good at explaining things in understandable terms and at a comfortable pace.  Try his approach for a change. Use a little more sugar and a little less vinegar.  Getting a post from you is like trying to take a drink of water out of a fire hose.  Slow down, take it easy, cowboy.

MeyerLouie

wrong, both condescending and incorrect.

for any denomination

100 bills is a strap or pack (package or packet) paper strapped in the middle with denomination.. sometimes additional bands but rare
5 packs is a standard bundle - rubber banded two places one third form each end, CIRCULATED CURRENCY
10 packs is also a bundle - shrink wrapped but usually UNCIRCULATED CURRENCY
40 packs or 4000 bills is a brick NEW UNCIRCULATED CURRENCY shrink wrapped


This is so simple.. why is this so hard for you guys.

The bank said they randomized and rebanded the bundles. (initial bundle = group of 5 packs)
It makes no sense for the Bank to randomize each pack. (of 100 bills)
Ckret assumed they meant the packs, they didn't. He actually stated that he thought each of the three bundles found on TBAR was a random count thinking they were "bundles".
The bank noted that the ransom was initially in packs of 100 bills = $2000 each pack.
There is no evidence that the TBAR money was randomized. 3 packs of 100 bills x $20 = $2000 x 3 = $6000
If the TBAR money "packs" were not randomized then there was no reason to reband them.

If the packs weren't randomized then (per the bank) the bundles were randomized.
and rubber band fragments were found stuck to the money (location unknown)
and the bundles must have been rubber banded.
and the 3 packs on TBAR were part of a SINGLE rubber banded bundle.
and since the packs were found close together.

then the TBAR money arrived as a single rubber banded bundle of 3 packs.


THAT MEANS THE TBAR MONEY DID NOT HAVE TO ARRIVE IN A CONTAINER OR BE PERSONALLY PLACED OR DROPPED. A GAME CHANGER.


This got screwed up 10 years ago and everybody has it stuck in their head..

If everybody wants to hold on to an old assumption based on a misunderstanding and not supported by logic or evidence, be my guest. You are only boxing yourselves into a false paradigm.



.

Have you ever talked to a banker about this to verify your claims  - yes or no?

What entitles you to be telling us what SeaFirst banking terminology was, or is today? You dont even live in America!

And, since you are not the person who assembled the "bundles" placed in a bag for Cooper, what entitles you to tell anyone how those "bundles" were assembled ?

Are you prepared to tell Tina Mucklow how the bills were banded in the bag she saw?
 

 

QUOTE:

The hijacker agreed with her suggestion and reached in and took out one package of the money, denominations not recalled by Mucklow, and he handed the (single) bundle of money to her. Mucklow states that she laughed and gave the money back to the hijacker stating ‘she was not permitted to accept gratuities’, or words to that effect.  Interview 11-30 Mucklow:

In the above quote the words bundle and package are used for the same thing! Why? It is ordinary language vrs technical language being used. Do you know the difference between technical vs ordinary language? 

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

Just listened to the Tosaw radio interview..

noticed, he said the hijacker gave the name "Daniel Cooper"

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

He also stated that the 3 "packets" yes, he used the correct term, were in $2000's.

That is consistent and supports my argument. The packets/packages themselves were not randomized, if they were then they would have to be rebanded with rubber bands. If not, they weren't rebanded.

If the packets/packages weren't randomized, then the Bank MUST HAVE randomized (and rubber banded) the bundles (aka groups of packages), as they claimed.

Ckret, thinking the packages were called "bundles" incorrectly assumed the packages were randomized and re-banded.


So, what the heck does this mean...

If the three packages were held together as ONE SINGLE BUNDLE (randomized) with rubber bands that changes how the money could have arrived at TBAR.

The SINGLE BUNDLE would not have to have arrived in a container or be personally placed to have the three packages end up so close together.

A SINGLE BUNDLE of three packages of 100 bills each ($2000) landed on TBAR, as the rubber bands deteriorated the three packages separated slightly.

(It doesn't support any specific suspect, it just expands the potential means by which the money could have arrived at TBAR)

.

Well you are wrongo-dongo. We talked to SeaFirst (and other banks). They dont use the terms packages vs packets vs bundles you claim banker's do! These are not clinical banking terms as you claim - and never have been! One officer at SeaFirst said the only "banking" term he knew of for groups of money was "band of money" - he said that term would be understood among banks ... but also in the currency transfer, security transfer, and amored truck business. He said the words packages vs packets vs bundles were generic terms people would use in a bank but would be context dependent.

Maybe these terms are used at your bank, the Yo-Mo Bank of Mongolia, but no other bank in the USA recognises the terms you claim the banking industry uses!

In other words Bulljax, your claim is "bulljax".

You are still wrong,

The bank randomized/rebanded the bundles, there is ZERO evidence that they randomized/rebanded the packets.

The terms were mixed up by Ckret, not the Bank..

All bank use those terms specifically, you are lying in attempt to back up your baseless opinion.

I talked to the officers of five banks Nimrod! You are the liar.  Stop calling me a liar, LIAR! 

One thing is 100% clear, Nimrod. You keep calling people liars whoa re not liars. You cant even get that straight. 

I think you are suffering from energy drink psychosis.

You  cant even communicate in English? Parly Vous? You need a translator ....

You have a history of making up shit to back up your opinion.. and already damaged your own credibility..

There is no value to any discussion with a proven liar..

..

Blevins would say that too! I am willing to bet you have never even called a bank to check your theory about banking terms out. Have you?

Another complain filed against FLYJACK/BLEVINS!

Leave me alone you asshole.

Well, I see the RMB sound-alike is at it again.  I did talk to an assistant bank manager last week, he happens to be a former calculus student of mine from several years ago.  Didn't take notes during our talk, but I will next time.  All this talk about bands, bundles, packets, or what have you, sounds like someone pole-vaulting mouse tirds -- a creator of confusion for no good apparent reason. 

Anyway, my friend says it is common for packets to be wrapped in the middle with a paper band and then two rubber bands on the outside edges of the packet.  Packets of $10,000 are called bricks, I believe that's what he said....and bricks are made up of packets, and the brick gets two big rubber bands around the 5 packets (5 in all, since there are 100 20's in each packet, and 5 packets = $10,000 -- which equals one brick).  So, the packets get bundled together -- rubber banded together -- into a brick.

See FLYJACK, see how simple that was to just slow down and explain things at a comfortable pace, using understandable terminology.  Actually, Bruce Smith is quite good at explaining things in understandable terms and at a comfortable pace.  Try his approach for a change. Use a little more sugar and a little less vinegar.  Getting a post from you is like trying to take a drink of water out of a fire hose.  Slow down, take it easy, cowboy.

MeyerLouie

Likewise the bankers I spoke with at five banks said different banks/different people at banks, would use different terms. The bankers said 'it's pretty much bank specific' except for a few terms like: brick, band of money, block of money, etc and each bank officer I talked to said the people with actual terms referring to 'how money is packaged' would be those involved in the physical transfer of money, like armored car people. I asked "does the use of rubber bands vs paper straps around a group of bills warrant use of special terms for how the bills are secured"? Answer: No.

Something about Flyjack has me suspicious he ever checked his theory out by talking to bankers, or the SeaFirst Bank in particular. The only response Flyjack has produced is: "You are a liar!". Which doesn't answer the question.

But what I really object to is Fklyjack's assertion that different people in the Cooper case, crew included, were all bank-educated and were using official bank terminology when they said 'bundle' vs 'package', vs 'packet', or whatever. It's what we in Linguistics and Philosophy used to call the difference between "ordinary language" vs. 'technical language'. Flyjack is claiming the terms Tina used are 'technical language' related to banking practices! I simply do not agree with Fly's argument in that regard. Why my mere disagreement would warrant him calling me a liar who makes things up ... is not even germane to the issues at hand.   

I simply disagree with his analysis and his claims in this matter and I could not find any evidence for his claims after talking to officers at five different banks including SeaFirst at Seattle where we do business daily.

Nuff said.   

I started to correct your repeated gross errors but fuck it,,

I don't give a shit what you think.. carry on.. you just aren't worth wasting any more time on this.

Nuff said.

.

I will take that to mean you have not talked to any bank or banker about your claims since you refuse to answer one simple question.

You have made the correct decision. If you wanted to avoid further humiliation and exposure as a fraud. 

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

Just listened to the Tosaw radio interview..

noticed, he said the hijacker gave the name "Daniel Cooper"

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

He also stated that the 3 "packets" yes, he used the correct term, were in $2000's.

That is consistent and supports my argument. The packets/packages themselves were not randomized, if they were then they would have to be rebanded with rubber bands. If not, they weren't rebanded.

If the packets/packages weren't randomized, then the Bank MUST HAVE randomized (and rubber banded) the bundles (aka groups of packages), as they claimed.

Ckret, thinking the packages were called "bundles" incorrectly assumed the packages were randomized and re-banded.


So, what the heck does this mean...

If the three packages were held together as ONE SINGLE BUNDLE (randomized) with rubber bands that changes how the money could have arrived at TBAR.

The SINGLE BUNDLE would not have to have arrived in a container or be personally placed to have the three packages end up so close together.

A SINGLE BUNDLE of three packages of 100 bills each ($2000) landed on TBAR, as the rubber bands deteriorated the three packages separated slightly.

(It doesn't support any specific suspect, it just expands the potential means by which the money could have arrived at TBAR)

.

Well you are wrongo-dongo. We talked to SeaFirst (and other banks). They dont use the terms packages vs packets vs bundles you claim banker's do! These are not clinical banking terms as you claim - and never have been! One officer at SeaFirst said the only "banking" term he knew of for groups of money was "band of money" - he said that term would be understood among banks ... but also in the currency transfer, security transfer, and amored truck business. He said the words packages vs packets vs bundles were generic terms people would use in a bank but would be context dependent.

Maybe these terms are used at your bank, the Yo-Mo Bank of Mongolia, but no other bank in the USA recognises the terms you claim the banking industry uses!

In other words Bulljax, your claim is "bulljax".

You are still wrong,

The bank randomized/rebanded the bundles, there is ZERO evidence that they randomized/rebanded the packets.

The terms were mixed up by Ckret, not the Bank..

All bank use those terms specifically, you are lying in attempt to back up your baseless opinion.

I talked to the officers of five banks Nimrod! You are the liar.  Stop calling me a liar, LIAR! 

One thing is 100% clear, Nimrod. You keep calling people liars whoa re not liars. You cant even get that straight. 

I think you are suffering from energy drink psychosis.

You  cant even communicate in English? Parly Vous? You need a translator ....

You have a history of making up shit to back up your opinion.. and already damaged your own credibility..

There is no value to any discussion with a proven liar..

..

Blevins would say that too! I am willing to bet you have never even called a bank to check your theory about banking terms out. Have you?

Another complain filed against FLYJACK/BLEVINS!

Leave me alone you asshole.

Well, I see the RMB sound-alike is at it again.  I did talk to an assistant bank manager last week, he happens to be a former calculus student of mine from several years ago.  Didn't take notes during our talk, but I will next time.  All this talk about bands, bundles, packets, or what have you, sounds like someone pole-vaulting mouse tirds -- a creator of confusion for no good apparent reason. 

Anyway, my friend says it is common for packets to be wrapped in the middle with a paper band and then two rubber bands on the outside edges of the packet.  Packets of $10,000 are called bricks, I believe that's what he said....and bricks are made up of packets, and the brick gets two big rubber bands around the 5 packets (5 in all, since there are 100 20's in each packet, and 5 packets = $10,000 -- which equals one brick).  So, the packets get bundled together -- rubber banded together -- into a brick.

See FLYJACK, see how simple that was to just slow down and explain things at a comfortable pace, using understandable terminology.  Actually, Bruce Smith is quite good at explaining things in understandable terms and at a comfortable pace.  Try his approach for a change. Use a little more sugar and a little less vinegar.  Getting a post from you is like trying to take a drink of water out of a fire hose.  Slow down, take it easy, cowboy.

MeyerLouie

Likewise the bankers I spoke with at five banks said different banks/different people at banks, would use different terms. The bankers said 'it's pretty much bank specific' except for a few terms like: brick, band of money, block of money, etc and each bank officer I talked to said the people with actual terms referring to 'how money is packaged' would be those involved in the physical transfer of money, like armored car people. I asked "does the use of rubber bands vs paper straps around a group of bills warrant use of special terms for how the bills are secured"? Answer: No.

Something about Flyjack has me suspicious he ever checked his theory out by talking to bankers, or the SeaFirst Bank in particular. The only response Flyjack has produced is: "You are a liar!". Which doesn't answer the question.

But what I really object to is Fklyjack's assertion that different people in the Cooper case, crew included, were all bank-educated and were using official bank terminology when they said 'bundle' vs 'package', vs 'packet', or whatever. It's what we in Linguistics and Philosophy used to call the difference between "ordinary language" vs. 'technical language'. Flyjack is claiming the terms Tina used are 'technical language' related to banking practices! I simply do not agree with Fly's argument in that regard. Why my mere disagreement would warrant him calling me a liar who makes things up ... is not even germane to the issues at hand.   

I simply disagree with his analysis and his claims in this matter and I could not find any evidence for his claims after talking to officers at five different banks including SeaFirst at Seattle where we do business daily.

Nuff said.   

I started to correct your repeated gross errors but fuck it,,

I don't give a shit what you think.. carry on.. you just aren't worth wasting any more time on this.

Nuff said.

.

I will take that to mean you have not talked to any bank or banker about your claims since you refuse to answer one simple question.

You have made the correct decision. If you wanted to avoid further humiliation and exposure as a fraud.

You don't even understand the issue, you don't even want to understand it, you just want to be right.

Your comment is a basket case of irrelevant nonsense.. I won't be chasing down and correcting all your BS statements..  if playing stupid is how you win. Have at it, but your still wrong.

Shutter, I fully understand that this website is yours and that you are the sole authority on decisions here.

But I would like to make a humble suggestion.  KICK FLYJACK'S ASS COMPLETELY OFF THIS SITE.

Even a lifetime ban would be too lenient in my opinion.

Flyjack has contributed nothing.  His only reason for being here is apparently to disrupt.  He is not part of the solution, he is part of the problem.  And based on posts he has made he seems interested only in adding misinformation and dis-information to this website.

Robert99
[Robert Nicholson]

Quote

The hijacker agreed with her suggestion and reached in and took out one package of the money, denominations not recalled by Mucklow, and he handed the (single) bundle of money to her. Mucklow states that she laughed and gave the money back to the hijacker stating ‘she was not permitted to accept gratuities’, or words to that effect.  Interview 11-30 Mucklow:

That's a good question...if the "packets" were bundled together how did Cooper get one packet out of the bag while holding the bag with the other hand. he would have to put the bag down reach in and grab a "bundle" and remove one of the rubber bands to get the single packet out?

That statement is self-conflicting if you were a banker.. using package then bundle is normal for everyone else.. do you think he was holding a 20 lb bag in the air with one hand,, unlikely


But the issue started a while back when I found a glitch in the Cooper matrix.


Basically, how could the Bank randomize and reband the money but the TBAR money was NOT Randomized.. 3 x $2000.. A conflict.

I asked if anybody had an explanation, I was ridiculed, smeared and belittled by the usual suspects here. Some people actually agreed with the conflict but thought it wasn't important. Well, it is. IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

As I was tossing this around trying to figure out this inconsistency,, Shutter told me to stop posting because others were complaining.. So I did, but I knew there had to be an explanation.

Reading the FBI docs, the letter from Seafirst Bank uses the term "packets of $2000 each" whereas Ckret kept using the term "bundles". So, I looked up the terminology and found a distinction between the terms packets and bundles. The Bank told Ckret they randomized and rebanded the bundles (per Ckret) and so he thought they meant packets. That only explains Ckret's misunderstanding.

There, I had the answer, the Bank did NOT randomize and reband the "packets", they randomized and rebanded the "bundles". The conflict is sorted and that means those 3 packs of money were part of a single banded bundle.

This argument is easy to disprove, all you have to do is explain why the TBAR "packs" were not randomized..

or.. explain how the Bank could have randomized the money but TBAR was not.

Nobody has figured the inconsistency out, until I did.


There is really no debate here. I have logic and evidence on my side. the other side has second hand opinion.


Clearly, you guys who try to shut me up, have me removed, use ridicule or personal attacks and irrational counter-args - have NO ARGUMENT, NO EXPLANATION, NO LOGIC, NO EVIDENCE, just an opinion based on here-say through Ckret, that is it.


I just pointed out that Tosaw's comments in his interview backed what I have been saying.

TBAR - "3 packets of $2000 each"

So, how does that happen if they were randomized and rebanded?? Simple, they weren't, the bundles (groups of packs) were per the BANK.


The behaviour of some you when your long held opinion is challenged is really astounding..  a new low for this forum.. sad.

I guess there is no real case discussion here... just a bunch egos trying bully others and prove their baseless opinion is right at all cost. It is counter-productive.

.

The statement was given by the witness, not a banker. it conflicts with your theory...

I'm not a banker so I will write this the way I see it...I have wondered about Tina's statement surrounding "bank bands" and I have wondered how 3 bundles were found in the same place a decade later..it doesn't say anywhere in the files or articles that "straps" were used along with rubber bands...how do we know if the straps were taken off when they mixed the bundles up..some had different amounts according to Carr..$6,000 wasn't found? Carr read this somewhere so once again we don't have the full story..why they didn't take a picture of the money and chute's is beyond me...I could project my thoughts and say it's the way law enforcement does things so they HAVE to have pictures and turn it into a fact.

we simple don't have the full story...that's the sad part of all of this case.

dozens of theories start once something becomes out of the norm..Farflung reminded us years ago how far we can be off on things...an old man went missing and the stories began. turns out he was right under there noses..he had a heart attack and went off the road into some bushes and was found by city workers. murder, kidnapping etc. was quickly born when a simple answer was the turnout..

It doesn't conflict, and even it it did is entirely irrelevant..

Carr thought the TBAR money was "bundles" so when the Bank claimed to have randomized and rebanded "bundles" he wrongly assumed the packets were randomized. His misunderstanding caused him to believe that TBAR was randomized.

Explain the conflict, how the TBAR money was not randomized if the Bank had randomized the "packets"?


and it really makes no sense to randomize a half inch thick pack of bills...


The logic and evidence is on my side here if others disagree I have no problem with that, what is really disturbing is the personal attacks that are designed to discredit me and end any debate and undermine intellectual inquiry. It subverts the very purpose of this forum.


This is the Bank description to the FBI of the money"packets of $2000 each"... " and were banded  with Seattle First National or Federal Reserve Bank Bands" or quite possibly banded with bands from other banks.

That is consistent with Tina's "bank-type bands" statement..

Now, 40 years later Ckret claimed this was an error based on his belief that the "packets" were randomized and banded, but Ckret was wrong about that. It was the bundles. Everything makes sense and the evidence supports it.

.

The document is interesting but was this before they mixed the bundles...we haven't seen the document Carr read from? he had to of read this somewhere?