Chaucer: I remember that podcast. The guest was not familiar with the case,
IMO, this is irrelevant. The Cooper money wasn't magical or special. The guy is an expert on US currency, and he stated that if the Cooper money had entered circulation, it would have popped up somewhere along the line in the last 50 years.
and as I remember, did not know if the US government had even checked bills marked for destruction.
Friedberg later clarified that the serial number recording began in the 1990s. My source says it was the early/70s. Pick your poison, I suppose.
What part of the podcast explains how the money would have been found?
First, you should listen to the podcast again. Second, any cash transactions over $10,000 would have been flagged. Any repeated transactions of $5000 or more would have been flagged. Friedberg also said that bank tellers are a lot savvier than they are given credit for, and are able to look at identifying information without needing to cross-reference a long list of non-sequential numbers. Also, the life span of a $20 bill was less than 8 years. Friedberg is THE expert on currency. If he says that at least one or two bills would have popped up, I believe him. I know that might be inconvenient for some people's theories, but...
We know from FBI comments that most people were not looking for those bills after about six months.
The FBI might have stopped looking, but please see above.
There were over a billion notes from 1969 and 1963A printed, that's a lot to check.
Here is the expert's exact quote:
"The 63As...they printed, just for the San Francisco District, 169,120,000. For the 69, also only San Francisco, they made 103,840,000."
So, your statement that there were over a billion notes of the 1969 and 1963As printed is inaccurate. The total number was 272,960,000. Remember, the bills that Cooper received were almost exclusively for the SF District.
The guest may be an expert on money, but he was completely unconvincing on how someone would have found the money.
He is the preeminent expert on US currency. If he repeatedly and emphatically states that at least some of the Cooper bills would have been located by now, then I believe him. If you choose to ignore expert opinions in favor of your own, feel free.
You've been saying that Cooper died, which I'm guessing means you are at least 51 to 49 on him dying.
I'm actually 50/50 on him dying. He either did or he didn't. Basic statistics.
Yet many of Darren's guests have stated that they think Cooper lived.
And I have heard those opinions and have softened my own as a result. That is what a good investigator does: accept new information and change one's mind if necessary.
One guest with limited knowledge of the case says that Cooper could not have spent the money, and you use this as gospel, but don't acknowledge the statements of the guests that say Cooper lived?
Again, his knowledge of the case is irrelevant. Cooper's money is just money. He doesn't have to know the flight path to know what happens to the money if it is laundered overseas. Also, yes, I will accept the opinion of the guy who literally wrote the book on US currency over the opinions of some Cooper researchers who believe Cooper maybe survived. For example, Martin Andrade has a wonderful book with a very good research paper pertaining to the survivability of the Cooper jump. It moved the needle on my opinion of his survivability. That said, I think even Martin would admit that Friedberg's expertise on money far exceeds his knowledge of parachute survivability.
Also, you're using the logical fallacy of "Tu quoque".
As I said before, if an expert's opinion is inconvenient for your theory, you have a choice. You can dismiss the expert and claim you know more than he or she does. Or you can change your theory.
Do what you want.
Cheers!
Chaucer: I did listen to the podcast again, and have heard it a number of times. It's only 32 minutes long. The meat of what he says is around 8 minutes to 10 minutes in. Here are some excerpts:
About 8 minutes in, Darren says something like "When the Treasury destroys bills, do they keep track of the serial numbers?" The guest says this exactly "To be honest I don't know. I would assume they do." He doesn't know?? He assumes??
Darren says "You can't be sure they recorded every number?" The guest says it would be counterproductive and a waste of taxpayer money. He also says that before scanning "I can't see them doing every one"
At 10:30 Darren asks "Could he have spent the money?" The guest responds with "He probably could have" then at 11:11 he says "yes he certainly could have spent them"
At 13:13 Darren asks "Do you think his money was spent in the United States?" The guest responds with "I have no opinion on that at all, I just don't know"
The guest can't explain how the bills would have been found in circulation. He believes he died. He thinks if the bills went into circulation that they would have been found due to their deteriorated condition like the Ingram bills, or found if they were spent in huge amounts. Cooper would have been an idiot to go somewhere and spend a huge stack of $20's.
He said there was no buzz in the collector's world about the money until the Ingram find. So collectors probably were not looking for these bills in 1971-72.
At 28 minutes in Darren talks to him about the money find and the guest is not too sure about that part of the case. Wouldn't that be important?
I've researched the money, quite a bit actually. I spent hours going through the list in Tosaw's book. I assume you have that book and have done the same. You obviously have not read my posts though. Total $20s in circulation for 1963A were 821 million notes, and for 1969 it was 607 million. San Francisco had about 7500 of the notes, leaving 2500 spread across 11 other Reserve Banks. Nowhere in the files does it say the FBI said to focus just on the notes from San Francisco. I've stated before that they should have just focused on this Reserve Bank.
I don't ignore expert opinion in favor of my own. I listen to opinions, facts, etc. This guest is an expert in money, but he was unconvincing in explaining how Cooper's money would have been found. Your argument is flawed. You try to discredit me by saying I don't listen to experts, and you say because an expert said "this happened" then it must be true.
You state: "As I said before, if an expert's opinion is inconvenient for your theory, you have a choice. You can dismiss the expert and claim you know more than he or she does. Or you can change your theory."
He's an expert on money, but can't confirm if the serial numbers were recorded. So his opinion is not inconvenient for my theory, and I don't need to change my theory. He's simply not able to convince us that the money was not spent. He convinces you apparently.
There are 32 minutes in the podcast, here is the link -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yaKjWFq0ss- I recommend people listen to it. If you are short on time, just listen from 8 minutes to 10 minutes in.
So now you are 50/50 that Cooper lived or died right? That's what you're saying?
I started thinking Cooper could not have spent the money, then over time I changed my mind. Should I change it back now? That's what a good investigator does?
I'm not going to pile on you anymore than people already have. No need for the "cheers", we aren't drinking buddies.