Poll

How did the money arrive on Tena Bar

River Flooding
1 (5%)
Floated to it's resting spot via Columbia river
2 (10%)
Planted
6 (30%)
Dredge
11 (55%)
tossed in the river in a paper bag
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 17

Voting closed: August 16, 2016, 09:05:28 AM

Author Topic: Tena Bar Money Find  (Read 1263396 times)

Offline Unsurelock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4005 on: October 04, 2018, 08:22:38 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nobody knows how much cash was originally with the Ingram find, or its shape, or in any number of deposits along Tina Bar, or the year of deposition.

I'm not following. Can you expand?
 

FLYJACK

  • Guest
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4006 on: October 04, 2018, 10:29:53 AM »
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
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!  ;D     

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.


Yes, I know there were three packets found...
 

FLYJACK

  • Guest
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4007 on: October 04, 2018, 10:31:35 AM »
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
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!  ;D     

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.

Flyjack's speculations do not overturn sworn testimony!

I believe what Flyjack is doing is "massaging" the Tina Bar money find and money story to fit his suspect scenario. Accounting for the money has been the downfall of every suspect peddler. Flyjack is trying to avoid that trap through a convoluted revision of the whole money story including claims of people using "formal bank terminology", how the money was prepared, denial of evidence already obtained ... he might as well fit a Moon Landing into his account too.   .   

Nope, it has nothing to with any specific suspect > ZERO,,, there is no denial of any evidence. It is just logic from the evidence.

Not overturning any testimony.

Answer/challenge the question instead of using baseless accusations..

Explain how the Bank employee randomized/resized the 3 TBAR packets and they ended up in 3 x 100's and in order..
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 12:29:34 PM by FLYJACK »
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3182
  • Thanked: 467 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4008 on: October 04, 2018, 02:22:38 PM »
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
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!  ;D     

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.

Flyjack's speculations do not overturn sworn testimony!

I believe what Flyjack is doing is "massaging" the Tina Bar money find and money story to fit his suspect scenario. Accounting for the money has been the downfall of every suspect peddler. Flyjack is trying to avoid that trap through a convoluted revision of the whole money story including claims of people using "formal bank terminology", how the money was prepared, denial of evidence already obtained ... he might as well fit a Moon Landing into his account too.   .   

Nope, it has nothing to with any specific suspect > ZERO,,, there is no denial of any evidence. It is just logic from the evidence.

Not overturning any testimony.

Answer/challenge the question instead of using baseless accusations..

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


Has been covered before many times by many people ...  Read the thread.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 02:26:28 PM by georger »
 

FLYJACK

  • Guest
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4009 on: October 04, 2018, 04:04:32 PM »
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
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!  ;D     

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.

Flyjack's speculations do not overturn sworn testimony!

I believe what Flyjack is doing is "massaging" the Tina Bar money find and money story to fit his suspect scenario. Accounting for the money has been the downfall of every suspect peddler. Flyjack is trying to avoid that trap through a convoluted revision of the whole money story including claims of people using "formal bank terminology", how the money was prepared, denial of evidence already obtained ... he might as well fit a Moon Landing into his account too.   .   

Nope, it has nothing to with any specific suspect > ZERO,,, there is no denial of any evidence. It is just logic from the evidence.

Not overturning any testimony.

Answer/challenge the question instead of using baseless accusations..

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


Has been covered before many times by many people ...  Read the thread.

no it hasn't, nobody has explained it..

.
 

Offline EU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1759
  • Thanked: 322 times
    • ERIC ULIS: From the History Channel
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4010 on: October 04, 2018, 07:30:40 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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


You're assuming that every packet had something other then 100 bills in it. It is completely possible that many packets were left unchanged while others were changed. The only thing that was stated was that the packets were of varying sizes. The standard 100-bill packet would be one variable.
Some men see things as they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

RFK
 

FLYJACK

  • Guest
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4011 on: October 04, 2018, 08:45:34 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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


You're assuming that every packet had something other then 100 bills in it. It is completely possible that many packets were left unchanged while others were changed. The only thing that was stated was that the packets were of varying sizes. The standard 100-bill packet would be one variable.

The evidence is that they had 100 bills per packet ($2000 each). It was the "bundles" that were of varying sizes. Don't think anyone stated the packets were resized,, even Ckret called them bundles.

There is no way around this, the TBAR packets were not random sized.. they were in order.. The bank employee claimed he randomized/resized the bundles.. he must have been referring to bundles of packets not individual packets.

Also, it really makes no sense to resize 100 half inch packets.. more likely the bundles of packets to make it look hastily prepared.
 

Offline EU

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1759
  • Thanked: 322 times
    • ERIC ULIS: From the History Channel
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4012 on: October 04, 2018, 09:23:08 PM »
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

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


You're assuming that every packet had something other then 100 bills in it. It is completely possible that many packets were left unchanged while others were changed. The only thing that was stated was that the packets were of varying sizes. The standard 100-bill packet would be one variable.

The evidence is that they had 100 bills per packet ($2000 each). It was the "bundles" that were of varying sizes. Don't think anyone stated the packets were resized,, even Ckret called them bundles.

There is no way around this, the TBAR packets were not random sized.. they were in order.. The bank employee claimed he randomized/resized the bundles.. he must have been referring to bundles of packets not individual packets.

Also, it really makes no sense to resize 100 half inch packets.. more likely the bundles of packets to make it look hastily prepared.

None of this "resizing" stuff makes sense. Beyond that, I wouldn't get married to terms like "packets" and "bundles." What I do know is that there were three packets found on Tena. To theorize that the packets were once bundled requires evidence.
Some men see things as they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

RFK
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3182
  • Thanked: 467 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4013 on: October 04, 2018, 11:17:10 PM »
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

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


You're assuming that every packet had something other then 100 bills in it. It is completely possible that many packets were left unchanged while others were changed. The only thing that was stated was that the packets were of varying sizes. The standard 100-bill packet would be one variable.

The evidence is that they had 100 bills per packet ($2000 each). It was the "bundles" that were of varying sizes. Don't think anyone stated the packets were resized,, even Ckret called them bundles.

There is no way around this, the TBAR packets were not random sized.. they were in order.. The bank employee claimed he randomized/resized the bundles.. he must have been referring to bundles of packets not individual packets.

Also, it really makes no sense to resize 100 half inch packets.. more likely the bundles of packets to make it look hastily prepared.

None of this "resizing" stuff makes sense. Beyond that, I wouldn't get married to terms like "packets" and "bundles." What I do know is that there were three packets found on Tena. To theorize that the packets were once bundled requires evidence.

Bundle, bunch, roll, clump, wad, parcel, sheaf, bale, bolt; package; pile, stack, heap, mass; informalload; thatathing: buncho; glob; blob; handful; mouthful; group; grouping; stack;  ............................. all formal banking terms, all principle players in the Cooper hijacking were familiar with and used which includes all crew, FBI agents, Tag Group, etc and etal!  :rofl:

Conclusion: Cooper was a Portland banker.  ;)

or

Everyone involved in the Cooper hijacking was an expert in "banking terminology" and since each used a different term for the money, each had a different accounting for the Cooper money? That means there are at least 147 different accounting's for the Cooper money! Good grief. This could take a while ...
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 11:55:00 PM by georger »
 
The following users thanked this post: haggarknew

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9300
  • Thanked: 1024 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4014 on: October 05, 2018, 08:37:58 AM »
The money found in 1980 is confusing through the FBI and the media...

One report states a "a wadded up bunch of $20 bills" or "fist size clump" was found after the Ingram's find..newspaper reports as well as video states $3,000 was found by Brian, not $5,800 even after checking serial numbers...another newspaper stated "one bundle" and Cooper was given several bundles...

do we have enough to claim two separate bundles were found since we have newspaper reports, or was Cooper only given a couple bundles or several as they agent stated? answer, no, with reports all over the board how can anyone come to any conclusions as to what was actually found by Brian or the FBI?

All we know is a good estimate is around $5,800 found, and serial numbers missed in the original estimate in 1980..

Is it possible they put several bundles together, yes..you could also notice a difference in each bundle if they were different amounts when picking through the bag, you would feel the difference...Carr was pretty specific when stating they had different amounts..he had to of read it somewhere in the 302's...this is part of the problem by not having all the facts...

This is similar to Blevins claiming an agent stated the case was closed because Kenny is dead...at about the same time Robert got this news a rumor/joke was floating around the FBI focused on agent Carr. they played a trick on him saying the case was closed..it's possible they used Kenny in this joke and this could of been taken seriously by other agents not involved or a joke that turned into fact over night..the agent who made the claim could of been feeding off of this joke..
 

FLYJACK

  • Guest
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4015 on: October 05, 2018, 12:09:47 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The money found in 1980 is confusing through the FBI and the media...

Carr was pretty specific when stating they had different amounts..he had to of read it somewhere in the 302's...this is part of the problem by not having all the facts...


Carr stated that the TBAR "bundles" were in different amounts from his discussion with the Bank employee.. not from 302's

The Bank employee stated he resized the "bundles",, Carr assumed the Bank employee was referring to the "packets" and got it wrong.

If TBAR "packets" were NOT resized and WERE in order and the Bank employee RESIZED and REBANDED the bundles then he must have resized the "groups of packets" and that means they were banded as one bundle.

I am not claiming this is a fact.. I believe it is more likely than not. More importantly, to ASSUME that the packets ONLY arrived separately restricts the means and analysis by which the money may have arrived.

« Last Edit: October 05, 2018, 12:12:19 PM by FLYJACK »
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3182
  • Thanked: 467 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4016 on: October 05, 2018, 01:04:39 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The money found in 1980 is confusing through the FBI and the media...

Carr was pretty specific when stating they had different amounts..he had to of read it somewhere in the 302's...this is part of the problem by not having all the facts...


Carr stated that the TBAR "bundles" were in different amounts from his discussion with the Bank employee.. not from 302's

The Bank employee stated he resized the "bundles",, Carr assumed the Bank employee was referring to the "packets" and got it wrong.

If TBAR "packets" were NOT resized and WERE in order and the Bank employee RESIZED and REBANDED the bundles then he must have resized the "groups of packets" and that means they were banded as one bundle.

I am not claiming this is a fact.. I believe it is more likely than not. More importantly, to ASSUME that the packets ONLY arrived separately restricts the means and analysis by which the money may have arrived.

Have you got a quote Carr where used the terms packets and bundles ?

Or the bank employee? His name is Baker!  Why dont you ever use his name?   
 

FLYJACK

  • Guest
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4017 on: October 05, 2018, 01:17:50 PM »
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
The money found in 1980 is confusing through the FBI and the media...

Carr was pretty specific when stating they had different amounts..he had to of read it somewhere in the 302's...this is part of the problem by not having all the facts...


Carr stated that the TBAR "bundles" were in different amounts from his discussion with the Bank employee.. not from 302's

The Bank employee stated he resized the "bundles",, Carr assumed the Bank employee was referring to the "packets" and got it wrong.

If TBAR "packets" were NOT resized and WERE in order and the Bank employee RESIZED and REBANDED the bundles then he must have resized the "groups of packets" and that means they were banded as one bundle.

I am not claiming this is a fact.. I believe it is more likely than not. More importantly, to ASSUME that the packets ONLY arrived separately restricts the means and analysis by which the money may have arrived.

Have you got a quote Carr where used the terms packets and bundles ?

Or the bank employee? His name is Baker!  Why dont you ever use his name?

Carr used the term "bundle" not packets or packages... and I do have the quote.

You are still dodging the real issue.. TBAR packets (call them bundles if you wish to be inaccurate) were not resized.. How does that happen if the Bank employee resized and re-banded them.

It is a long held assumption that they arrived as independent packets.. not fact.

Evidence and logic contradict that assumption, that is all I am pointing out.

Nobody can reconcile TBAR money in order and not resized AND the Bank employee resizing and re-banding "bundles". Unless he was referring to bundles as groups of packets.. not the individual packets.
.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2018, 01:29:41 PM by FLYJACK »
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3182
  • Thanked: 467 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4018 on: October 05, 2018, 01:58:34 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The money found in 1980 is confusing through the FBI and the media...

One report states a "a wadded up bunch of $20 bills" or "fist size clump" was found after the Ingram's find..newspaper reports as well as video states $3,000 was found by Brian, not $5,800 even after checking serial numbers...another newspaper stated "one bundle" and Cooper was given several bundles...

do we have enough to claim two separate bundles were found since we have newspaper reports, or was Cooper only given a couple bundles or several as they agent stated? answer, no, with reports all over the board how can anyone come to any conclusions as to what was actually found by Brian or the FBI?

All we know is a good estimate is around $5,800 found, and serial numbers missed in the original estimate in 1980..

Is it possible they put several bundles together, yes..you could also notice a difference in each bundle if they were different amounts when picking through the bag, you would feel the difference...Carr was pretty specific when stating they had different amounts..he had to of read it somewhere in the 302's...this is part of the problem by not having all the facts...

This is similar to Blevins claiming an agent stated the case was closed because Kenny is dead...at about the same time Robert got this news a rumor/joke was floating around the FBI focused on agent Carr. they played a trick on him saying the case was closed..it's possible they used Kenny in this joke and this could of been taken seriously by other agents not involved or a joke that turned into fact over night..the agent who made the claim could of been feeding off of this joke..

The newspaper articles were all over the map - mass confusion at first. Plus the Ingrams themselves were milking the press and giving multiple accounts ... because ... they wanted a reward and were denied by Himmelsbach. They even contacted radio stations to lobby for a reward! All of this history is DOCUMENTED. Add to that there was friction in the Ingram family over the whole matter. Crystal Ingram finally ratted the family out and told the FBI the Ingrams had not turned in everything they found! Nobody knows to this day if the Ingrams turned in everything they found or if their "stories" (plural) were the whole story and truthful.

Beyond all of the Ingram's 'subterfuge', pictured below is what they turned in. Crystal Ingram brought in four more bills several days later. Everything shown in this photo was sent in to the DC lab for analysis and finger printing. Crystal Ingram turned in four more bills and they were sent in to the lab several days later.

There is every reason to believe the Ingrams are not a believable group of people! Nobody apparently has divulged the full truth of how the Ingram made this discovery and what happened next, even though there were at least 5-6 people involved. The record beginning the next day after the discovery is pretty well known, because the Ingrams (several different Ingrams) contacted various people in regard to their discovery which ultimately lead to Dwayne Harold Ingram calling the FBI ...

The picture below is what the Ingrams turned in minus four more bills turned in later. The DC lab separated the groups of bills as best they could, analyzed the money to some extent, and finger printed some of the bills using the old silver nitrate test method. The serial numbers on the bills were checked against the inventory list given the FBI by the bank. That inventory list had stop and start marks for each "bundle" assembled and rubber banded by bank employee Baker and this allowed the FBI to determine that the Ingram find represented basically three bundles assembled and banded by Baker, and the serial numbers in each bundle were still in the same order as when bundled and bagged and given to be delivered to Cooper.

So far as I know, the fact that different people have used different terms to refer to the 'bundles' as packages or packets or groups or bundles or whatever ... is merely an artifact of language and has nothing to do with how Baker assembled the money and what was given to Cooper. The fact of that is demonstrated by the fact that Tina, for example, using the terms "small packages" and "bundles" all within the same sentence for describing the same thing, namely the groups of assembled bills each rubber banded that were in the bag she brought in and gave to Cooper!

Flyjack's contentions are invented nonsense in this whole matter, as far as I can tell. Flyjack has no real evidence for anything he says!   

               
« Last Edit: October 05, 2018, 02:08:33 PM by georger »
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3182
  • Thanked: 467 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4019 on: October 05, 2018, 02:04:26 PM »
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
The money found in 1980 is confusing through the FBI and the media...

Carr was pretty specific when stating they had different amounts..he had to of read it somewhere in the 302's...this is part of the problem by not having all the facts...


Carr stated that the TBAR "bundles" were in different amounts from his discussion with the Bank employee.. not from 302's

The Bank employee stated he resized the "bundles",, Carr assumed the Bank employee was referring to the "packets" and got it wrong.

If TBAR "packets" were NOT resized and WERE in order and the Bank employee RESIZED and REBANDED the bundles then he must have resized the "groups of packets" and that means they were banded as one bundle.

I am not claiming this is a fact.. I believe it is more likely than not. More importantly, to ASSUME that the packets ONLY arrived separately restricts the means and analysis by which the money may have arrived.

Have you got a quote Carr where used the terms packets and bundles ?

Or the bank employee? His name is Baker!  Why dont you ever use his name?

Carr used the term "bundle" not packets or packages... and I do have the quote.

You are still dodging the real issue.. TBAR packets (call them bundles if you wish to be inaccurate) were not resized.. How does that happen if the Bank employee resized and re-banded them.

It is a long held assumption that they arrived as independent packets.. not fact.

Evidence and logic contradict that assumption, that is all I am pointing out.

Nobody can reconcile TBAR money in order and not resized AND the Bank employee resizing and re-banding "bundles". Unless he was referring to bundles as groups of packets.. not the individual packets.
.

There is no EVIDENCE of anything you are saying - and you have never presented any evidence because no such evidence exists! This whole thing is an artificial construction on your part which contradicts sworn testimony and facts.

If you have ANY evidence present it!  Your appeal to "logic" is utter nonsense. There is no "logic" to anything you are saying. This is a monstrous waste of time!