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"
I've discussed this already. Darren later followed up with him and he said that they did not begin the practice of recording the serial numbers until the 1990s. My source says otherwise.
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"
The question is not if he could have spent the money. Of course he could have SPENT the money. The question is "Would some of those notes have been identified in circulation over the last 50 years." Friedberg repeatedly says no which you conveniently leave out of your excerpts.
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"
So? How can anyone know the answer to this question? Do you know if Cooper spent his money in the United States?
The guest can't explain how the bills would have been found in circulation.
Actually, he offers a few explanations of which I have already stated and you have ignored.
He believes he died.
No, he merely thinks that the rest of the money ended up with the same fate as the Tena Bar money. He states that he has no opinion on the case.
Cooper would have been an idiot to go somewhere and spend a huge stack of $20's.
What makes you qualified to discuss Cooper's IQ? What Cooper would do with the money after the hijacking is pure speculation.
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.
You are assuming that the FBI and collectors were the only people who would be looking for Cooper bills?
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?
Why? The central question is "If DBC spent the money, would we have identified some of it in circulation over the last 50 years. How would the money find be relevant to that question?
You obviously have not read my posts though.
I read everyone's posts.
Total $20s in circulation for 1963A were 821 million notes, and for 1969 it was 607 million.
Why include notes that weren't involved in the Cooper loot? The majority of the Cooper money was for the San Francisco District which is a far smaller amount than the billion overall. Do you use the word "billion" because it makes the task of locating the Cooper money appear even more difficult - even if that number is inaccurate?
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.
Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I disagree.
Your argument is flawed.
What argument are you referring to?
You try to discredit me by saying I don't listen to experts,
I'm not trying to "discredit" anyone. I'm merely pointing out that an expert said "ABC", and you are saying "No, XYZ".
and you say because an expert said "this happened" then it must be true.
No, I'm saying that I personally give more gravity to an expert opinion than a layman's opinion. I don't see that as a controversial take.
He's an expert on money, but can't confirm if the serial numbers were recorded.
You are intent on using his lack of knowledge of this minute detail to dismiss all of his expertise. Weird.
So his opinion is not inconvenient for my theory, and I don't need to change my theory.
Well, you clearly disagree with his conclusions, and my opinions on the matter seem to be triggering to you. One would assume that they are impediments to your theory. Otherwise, why would you be so defensive?
He's simply not able to convince us that the money was not spent.
Who is "us"?
He convinces you apparently.
He does.
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.
I would actually encourage people to listen to it in its entirety.
So now you are 50/50 that Cooper lived or died right? That's what you're saying?
He either died in the jump or he didn't. I'm not aware of any other options, are you?
I started thinking Cooper could not have spent the money, then over time I changed my mind. Should I change it back now?
If you are presented with evidence that compels you to change your mind, sure. You are entitled to change your mind about things as often as you like.
That's what a good investigator does?
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
-- Paul Samuelson
I'm not going to pile on you anymore than people already have.
There's no "piling on". We have a difference of opinion about the DB Cooper case, that's all. We aren't in the Situation Room.
No need for the "cheers", we aren't drinking buddies.
Indeed, and thank God for that. My drinking buddies are a lot more fun than you seem to be.
