You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Anyone see a similarity between the objects in these two photos? Why is it when you look at photos of old decayed buried money on the internet (of which there are hundreds), you almost never see bills that have the shapes these bills do ?

BTW, the speed of Columbia water as it goes by Tina Bar is approx 2ft per second.*

*hydrologist, James Bradley USGS

Georger,

Thanks very much for taking the time to reply. Apologies for the long delay – been a long couple of weeks here.  Hospitals, funerals and such.

I understand your theory – that the money’s edges were rounded off by river action similar to pebbles in a stream.  I still remember Ms. Krugler teaching us about geology and the different types of rock, and what happens when they erode, especially in a riverbed.  That lesson is where I first learned that everything is temporary, even mountains.  Big lesson.  Similarly, I remember learning about the solar system, where a massive core was orbited by smaller satellites, so when I learned shortly after that electrons orbited more massive nuclei, I got super-excited thinking that there might be solar systems in every atom that made us up.  Whaddya want, I was in elementary school.

Your observation is a good one.  The cash is rounded, no doubt about it.  My question is whether it is rounded two-dimensionally or three-dimensionally.  Take a look at this set of images:




This comes from a scientific experiment to observe the rounding action of a river on rock.  They started out with a three-dimensional rectangle, similar in shape to a brick of cash.  Over time, the corners rounded down.  So the figure to the right does appear similar to the Ingram money in a strictly two-dimensional way.  When you look close, you can see that the original top surface is still there, closest to the viewer, albeit shrunken. 

Here’s another graphic from the same study:




From that top edge, the matter slopes downward toward the sides, truly rounding it.  If you could slice the rock into $20 bills, with Jackson’s face looking at us, you would find that the top bill would be the smallest and roundest in shape, while the bottom bill would be the largest and most rectangular.

Here’s a side view, using a different geometric shape:




Notice that the bottom edge has stayed flat.  This means that a bundle of bills that was rounded by river action and was missing all of its printed corners could not have been lying on any of the edges, otherwise we would have one side of the bills intact.  None are there.  For this theory to hold, the Ingram bills would have to have settled and rested on their “front” or “back” billfaces.  And if that was the case, we would see the top bills missing significantly more material than the bottom bills. The FBI would easily have been able to figure out, much like a Fisher Price ring-stacking toy, which bills went where in the stack when the Ingrams found it.  They did not.

Additional caveats to the river-rounding theory:
-   Tom Kaye’s observation about the cash fanning out in water
-   The stacking of the bills in the sand having been askew (contested by some)
-   The protective bag theory. For this rounding action to work, the money has to be exposed to a water flow. This means it’s not in a bag. If it’s in the bag, and the bag kept the cash together upon relocation by dredge, then the dredge did not relocate the shards all over the beach. It’s one or the other.
-   The rubber bands were not removed by this erosion, nor by a dredge that supposedly shredded much of the cash.

For these reasons, I believe that the cash arrived in its present condition by a process that selected the edges of the billfaces for removal, and the only method that has been able to satisfy me so far is human. A human would bury money/evidence, a human would stack the packets neatly, a human would have a reason to cut these bills two-dimensionally, a group of humans would trample shards all through the sand, a human would have the means to transport the money way out of the drop zone, a human would demand the ransom in the first place.

I hope that you don’t take any offense to my opposition to your thoughts on the money, and I welcome any and all counterpoints as part of seeking the truth.

Brian

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

At some point it comes down to considering what's involved with each scenario. I just do not believe a bundle of cash is, by some natural manner, going to end up washing ashore on Tena Bar, self burying, then get discovered nine years later. I think that the odds of such an occurrence are one-in-a-trillion at best all things considered.

Likewise, the dredge theory strikes me as equally implausible. It's just too fantastical in my mind.

That leaves only one scenario; the money was buried by human intervention. Of course, this assumes that the Ingram's were telling the truth.

Millions of pieces of debris which have made the trek to T_Bar could make the same claim. It's called Innumeracy. In the case of the Cooper money there may be some mitigating factors. We just don't know all of the hydrological options in spite of the fact millions of things are brought to Tina Bar hydrologically, annually!

Human intervention does not even register on the probability scale of options. Natural forces don't talk - people do! Human intervention has about the same probability as Tom Kaye's propeller theory!

That is why most people vote for the dredging. Its a known fact that could link the money to Tina Bar, in the form the money was found at Tina Bar. 

 

The flaw with this argument/analogy is that it ignores several remarkable facts including:

1) There were three independent packets of money found stacked upon each other.
2) There were rubber bands still intact which provide an excellent barometer for a number of parameters that the packets could not exceed.
3) The money find represents a small portion of the total package that we know existed (other money, bank bag, Cooper's body, parachutes, attache case, etc.)...not a single piece of any of these other items have been found.
4) Money is valuable, therefore, it is highly unlikely anyone saw the packets until they were discovered meaning that they were completely hidden from view for nine years.

The money find, all things considered, cannot be fairly compared to a random log or piece of debris that ends up on Tena Bar.

No.1: Three intact bundles together may indicate these three bundles were in the presence of other Cooper bundles when three bundles got separated from the rest? We know that the serial numbers in these bundles were in the same order as when given to Cooper. What we dont know is how and when three bundles got separated from the rest of the money, if it did, and how it could have been transported to Tina Bar except by the dredging. Three bundles intact making there way to Tina Bar by some hydrological process is virtually as impossible as your two shoes lost in Seattle made their way to Tina Bar as a pair also!       

No. 2 above is false, and meaningless.

No.3 is irrelevant.

No.4 seems true. Whatever process put three bundles on Tina Bar must also cover them up from view - that seems likely. There are only a few processes that could do that. Planting and burial is one of those options, but very unlikely for other very sound reasons in evidence.

I don't buy it.

The three packets being found together is significant. It is not reasonable to assume that three independent packets could arrive together via dredge or float-down method. By the way, I'm not buying the "one bundle" theory either...no proof.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

At this point and time some 40 plus years later we still have "no proof" how the money got on T-Bar, only assumptions...

Even if one the theories tossed around is correct, unlikely it leads to a specific suspect.

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

At some point it comes down to considering what's involved with each scenario. I just do not believe a bundle of cash is, by some natural manner, going to end up washing ashore on Tena Bar, self burying, then get discovered nine years later. I think that the odds of such an occurrence are one-in-a-trillion at best all things considered.

Likewise, the dredge theory strikes me as equally implausible. It's just too fantastical in my mind.

That leaves only one scenario; the money was buried by human intervention. Of course, this assumes that the Ingram's were telling the truth.

Millions of pieces of debris which have made the trek to T_Bar could make the same claim. It's called Innumeracy. In the case of the Cooper money there may be some mitigating factors. We just don't know all of the hydrological options in spite of the fact millions of things are brought to Tina Bar hydrologically, annually!

Human intervention does not even register on the probability scale of options. Natural forces don't talk - people do! Human intervention has about the same probability as Tom Kaye's propeller theory!

That is why most people vote for the dredging. Its a known fact that could link the money to Tina Bar, in the form the money was found at Tina Bar. 

 

The flaw with this argument/analogy is that it ignores several remarkable facts including:

1) There were three independent packets of money found stacked upon each other.
2) There were rubber bands still intact which provide an excellent barometer for a number of parameters that the packets could not exceed.
3) The money find represents a small portion of the total package that we know existed (other money, bank bag, Cooper's body, parachutes, attache case, etc.)...not a single piece of any of these other items have been found.
4) Money is valuable, therefore, it is highly unlikely anyone saw the packets until they were discovered meaning that they were completely hidden from view for nine years.

The money find, all things considered, cannot be fairly compared to a random log or piece of debris that ends up on Tena Bar.

No.1: Three intact bundles together may indicate these three bundles were in the presence of other Cooper bundles when three bundles got separated from the rest? We know that the serial numbers in these bundles were in the same order as when given to Cooper. What we dont know is how and when three bundles got separated from the rest of the money, if it did, and how it could have been transported to Tina Bar except by the dredging. Three bundles intact making there way to Tina Bar by some hydrological process is virtually as impossible as your two shoes lost in Seattle made their way to Tina Bar as a pair also!       

No. 2 above is false, and meaningless.

No.3 is irrelevant.

No.4 seems true. Whatever process put three bundles on Tina Bar must also cover them up from view - that seems likely. There are only a few processes that could do that. Planting and burial is one of those options, but very unlikely for other very sound reasons in evidence.

I don't buy it.

The three packets being found together is significant. It is not reasonable to assume that three independent packets could arrive together via dredge or float-down method. By the way, I'm not buying the "one bundle" theory either...no proof.

There is no "proof" the 3 packets arrived separately. The rubber bands were not "intact" the location(s) of the crumbling and brittle fragments is not known.

There is evidence that suggests the packets were part of a bundle. The Bank employee claimed he randomized/resized and rubber banded the ransom money bundles. The TBAR packets were not resized, that can ONLY mean that the Bank employee was referring to a grouping of packets as the bundle he resized and rubber banded.

If TBAR packets were in 100's (bills) and the Bank employee was truthful then the ransom money had to be rubber banded in bundles of groups of packets, that suggests the 3 TBAR packets money arrived as part of a bundle. The only way around it is if the 3 packets were separated from a bundle prior to TBAR arrival or the Bank employee is wrong. Possible, but evidence suggests it is more likely that the 3 packets arrived as part of one rubber banded bundle.

You continue to mix up terms and invent your own terms. The bank employee Mr Baker was not wrong! He assembled the money to be delivered to Cooper in what he referred to as "B U N D L E S".  He wrapped each bundle he made with rubber bands. No paper straps were involved anywhere in his process. He says that! He was asked and he says that!     

You keep saying Ckret was wrong. Baker was wrong. And you are right.

You claim the FBI agents and crew and Tina specifically were all using "formal banking terms" - which is an amazing claim on its own face.  Bundles vs packets vs packages vs .............. all formal banking terms everyone was using and familiar with ...............................................................................

Why dont you just call Ckret up and discuss it with him? I mean you can keep posting this stuff a thousand more times but the result will always be the same.

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

At some point it comes down to considering what's involved with each scenario. I just do not believe a bundle of cash is, by some natural manner, going to end up washing ashore on Tena Bar, self burying, then get discovered nine years later. I think that the odds of such an occurrence are one-in-a-trillion at best all things considered.

Likewise, the dredge theory strikes me as equally implausible. It's just too fantastical in my mind.

That leaves only one scenario; the money was buried by human intervention. Of course, this assumes that the Ingram's were telling the truth.

Millions of pieces of debris which have made the trek to T_Bar could make the same claim. It's called Innumeracy. In the case of the Cooper money there may be some mitigating factors. We just don't know all of the hydrological options in spite of the fact millions of things are brought to Tina Bar hydrologically, annually!

Human intervention does not even register on the probability scale of options. Natural forces don't talk - people do! Human intervention has about the same probability as Tom Kaye's propeller theory!

That is why most people vote for the dredging. Its a known fact that could link the money to Tina Bar, in the form the money was found at Tina Bar. 

 

The flaw with this argument/analogy is that it ignores several remarkable facts including:

1) There were three independent packets of money found stacked upon each other.
2) There were rubber bands still intact which provide an excellent barometer for a number of parameters that the packets could not exceed.
3) The money find represents a small portion of the total package that we know existed (other money, bank bag, Cooper's body, parachutes, attache case, etc.)...not a single piece of any of these other items have been found.
4) Money is valuable, therefore, it is highly unlikely anyone saw the packets until they were discovered meaning that they were completely hidden from view for nine years.

The money find, all things considered, cannot be fairly compared to a random log or piece of debris that ends up on Tena Bar.

No.1: Three intact bundles together may indicate these three bundles were in the presence of other Cooper bundles when three bundles got separated from the rest? We know that the serial numbers in these bundles were in the same order as when given to Cooper. What we dont know is how and when three bundles got separated from the rest of the money, if it did, and how it could have been transported to Tina Bar except by the dredging. Three bundles intact making there way to Tina Bar by some hydrological process is virtually as impossible as your two shoes lost in Seattle made their way to Tina Bar as a pair also!       

No. 2 above is false, and meaningless.

No.3 is irrelevant.

No.4 seems true. Whatever process put three bundles on Tina Bar must also cover them up from view - that seems likely. There are only a few processes that could do that. Planting and burial is one of those options, but very unlikely for other very sound reasons in evidence.

I don't buy it.

The three packets being found together is significant. It is not reasonable to assume that three independent packets could arrive together via dredge or float-down method. By the way, I'm not buying the "one bundle" theory either...no proof.

There is no "proof" the 3 packets arrived separately. The rubber bands were not "intact" the location(s) of the crumbling and brittle fragments is not known.

To the contrary, witness testimony is that three separate and independent packets were found on Tena Bar. It is you who has to prove otherwise.

Furthermore, witness testimony also provides that the packets still had their rubber bands on them when they were discovered. Again, it is you who has to prove otherwise.

Simply claiming everyone and everything is wrong and asserting that they have to "prove" that they're correct is backwards.

Why is this so hard for you guys to see, it is simple logic..

The Bank employee was correct, he randomized/resized and rubber banded the bundles.. Ckret misunderstood bundles and assumed packets, PROOF - CKRET stated that the TBAR "packets" (he used term bundle) were in random amounts based on that conversation with the Bank employee, they weren't and he was wrong. Why, because they weren't randomized/resized - the bundles of packets were.

Explain how the Bank employee randomized/resized the 3 TBAR packets and they ended up in 3 x 100's and in order..


and the TBAR bills were in order, matching the list, PROOF that they (TBAR packets) were NOT randomized/resized by the Bank employee. He must have been referring to the Bundles (of packets) there is no other possibility.

.

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

At some point it comes down to considering what's involved with each scenario. I just do not believe a bundle of cash is, by some natural manner, going to end up washing ashore on Tena Bar, self burying, then get discovered nine years later. I think that the odds of such an occurrence are one-in-a-trillion at best all things considered.

Likewise, the dredge theory strikes me as equally implausible. It's just too fantastical in my mind.

That leaves only one scenario; the money was buried by human intervention. Of course, this assumes that the Ingram's were telling the truth.

Millions of pieces of debris which have made the trek to T_Bar could make the same claim. It's called Innumeracy. In the case of the Cooper money there may be some mitigating factors. We just don't know all of the hydrological options in spite of the fact millions of things are brought to Tina Bar hydrologically, annually!

Human intervention does not even register on the probability scale of options. Natural forces don't talk - people do! Human intervention has about the same probability as Tom Kaye's propeller theory!

That is why most people vote for the dredging. Its a known fact that could link the money to Tina Bar, in the form the money was found at Tina Bar. 

 

The flaw with this argument/analogy is that it ignores several remarkable facts including:

1) There were three independent packets of money found stacked upon each other.
2) There were rubber bands still intact which provide an excellent barometer for a number of parameters that the packets could not exceed.
3) The money find represents a small portion of the total package that we know existed (other money, bank bag, Cooper's body, parachutes, attache case, etc.)...not a single piece of any of these other items have been found.
4) Money is valuable, therefore, it is highly unlikely anyone saw the packets until they were discovered meaning that they were completely hidden from view for nine years.

The money find, all things considered, cannot be fairly compared to a random log or piece of debris that ends up on Tena Bar.

No.1: Three intact bundles together may indicate these three bundles were in the presence of other Cooper bundles when three bundles got separated from the rest? We know that the serial numbers in these bundles were in the same order as when given to Cooper. What we dont know is how and when three bundles got separated from the rest of the money, if it did, and how it could have been transported to Tina Bar except by the dredging. Three bundles intact making there way to Tina Bar by some hydrological process is virtually as impossible as your two shoes lost in Seattle made their way to Tina Bar as a pair also!       

No. 2 above is false, and meaningless.

No.3 is irrelevant.

No.4 seems true. Whatever process put three bundles on Tina Bar must also cover them up from view - that seems likely. There are only a few processes that could do that. Planting and burial is one of those options, but very unlikely for other very sound reasons in evidence.

I don't buy it.

The three packets being found together is significant. It is not reasonable to assume that three independent packets could arrive together via dredge or float-down method. By the way, I'm not buying the "one bundle" theory either...no proof.

There is no "proof" the 3 packets arrived separately. The rubber bands were not "intact" the location(s) of the crumbling and brittle fragments is not known.

To the contrary, witness testimony is that three separate and independent packets were found on Tena Bar. It is you who has to prove otherwise.

Furthermore, witness testimony also provides that the packets still had their rubber bands on them when they were discovered. Again, it is you who has to prove otherwise.

Simply claiming everyone and everything is wrong and asserting that they have to "prove" that they're correct is backwards.

Why is this so hard for you guys to see, it is simple logic..

The Bank employee was correct, he randomized/resized and rubber banded the bundles.. Ckret misunderstood bundles and assumed packets, PROOF - CKRET stated that the TBAR "packets" (he used term bundle) were in random amounts based on that conversation with the Bank employee, they weren't and he was wrong. Why, because they weren't randomized/resized - the bundles of packets were.

Explain how the Bank employee randomized/resized the 3 TBAR packets and they ended up in 3 x 100's and in order..


and the TBAR bills were in order, matching the list, PROOF that they (TBAR packets) were NOT randomized/resized by the Bank employee. He must have been referring to the Bundles (of packets) there is no other possibility.

.

I assume you realize that it is possible for both (your theory) and the witness account (three separate packets) to be true? All we need to focus on--and the only thing that is relevant--is the form in which the money on Tena Bar was found. Nothing else. Your theories about packets and bundles do not have to factor into the Ingram find at all.