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.



.

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

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.



.

Well, oh condescending one, I actually talked to someone who manages a bank, so I'll take his word over your fire-hose bloviating any day.  As Georger pointed out, I seriously doubt if you've even darkened a door to a bank to actually find out anything.

Maybe the packets stayed intact because they were secure in the money bag when the dredger caught the bag and threw most it up onto Tina Bar as shards ... those 3 packets managed to stay together because of how secure they were in the bag, originally, not because of some happy horseshit about bands, packets, or bundles that you've repeated a million times over and over again....just like RMB used to do.

FLAp is RMB reincarnated.

Meyer

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Meyer, one can agree on several of these issue's. nothing can be a fact until all 4 corners are checked..

can anyone other than Flyjack respond to the document posted originally by Fly but is in this post..can this document be easily explained? it appears to be a valid point of discussion...

It strikes me that the person from SeaFirst is stating that the money was banded with non-identifying generic bands. Furthermore, that the banding with generic bands could have been done at SeaFirst, the Fed, or another bank utilizing bands from those institutions, albeit generic.

Nonetheless, who knows who this person is? Who knows if they actually saw the money? Who knows if the bands he's referring to are paper or rubber?

Too many questions left unanswered to be of much value.

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

Meyer, one can agree on several of these issue's. nothing can be a fact until all 4 corners are checked..

can anyone other than Flyjack respond to the document posted originally by Fly but is in this post..can this document be easily explained? it appears to be a valid point of discussion...

It strikes me that the person from SeaFirst is stating that the money was banded with non-identifying generic bands. Furthermore, that the banding with generic bands could have been done at SeaFirst, the Fed, or another bank utilizing bands from those institutions, albeit generic.

Nonetheless, who knows who this person is? Who knows if they actually saw the money? Who knows if the bands he's referring to are paper or rubber?

Too many questions left unanswered to be of much value.

The takeaway from that FBI doc is the term "packets in $2000" from SeaFirst Bank and the Bank banding terminology consistent with Tina's claim.. "Miss MUCKLOW said she observed was money packed in small packages with bank-type bands around each package"

Ckret believed that those bank banded packets which he thought were called bundles were later randomized and rebanded.

This is impossible if the 3 packets on TBAR were not randomized, they were not. Ckret was wrong, the bundles were randomized and rebanded not the individual packets. It is all that simple.

.

To me it means very little.

Who says the packets were randomized? How do we know this is accurate? The rationale given was to make it appear hastily assembled...Well, I must say, that's about the stupidest thing I've ever read. I mean, let's play this out...let's see, Cooper gets the money and it looks "too" organized so he what? He rejects it. Thinks there is a set up at play. Thinks the money is fake. Thinks Nostradamus notified them via a quatrain years ago so they were expecting this and are totally prepared. What exactly does randomizing the ransom accomplish?

My point is, I know enough about this case to question everything. In other words, I'm not convinced anything was randomized.

Alas, it matters little. Whether it's one packet, or three packets--which is apparently how the money was actually found--the money was buried in the sand. I have stated I think it was an accident upon Cooper reclaiming the buried ransom bag. Others state it was the result of being washed up on the beach and getting naturally buried for a period whether it one day or eight years. Yet others state dredging played a part.

All seem improbable and require a leap of logic, but something does explain it. And to quote, once again, Arthur Conan Doyle, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."