What’s Flyjack’s evidence of his packet theory? Seems to fly in the face (pardon the pun) of most documented evidence, no?

I'll speak for myself thank you very much.

There is nothing that I have read that contradicts the belief that Cooper was provided packets of cash--each packet contained 100 $20 bills--bound by a rubberband with no identify bank information. Simple as that.

I do not believe that any number of these packets were clumped together to form what I refer to as a brick. That said, the sole reference concerning varied sizing of packets, or whatever, to make them appear hastily collected for the benefit of DBC makes no sense and strikes me as an error.

Again, for those with a stick up their ass, mistakes exist all over the place in these files. So if someone wants to hang their hat on some outlier description of something, well then have at it and enjoy the ride.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What’s Flyjack’s evidence of his packet theory? Seems to fly in the face (pardon the pun) of most documented evidence, no?

FJ's reply today is:

 FLYJACK #63333

I have explained Carr's money "bundle" error many times...

Georger just ignores it..

The only difference is whether there were 2 bands holding the bundle or a single band..  both fan out.. the single fans out more.
Edited 1 hour ago by FLYJACK "

That's it!  Carr's money "bundle" error.  The drama continues by design.

Perhaps some packets being bound by one rubberband and others being bound by two rubberbands is what was meant by the reference of different-sized packets. If this were accurate it may explain the FBI reference which would have been misunderstood by the agent.

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

What’s Flyjack’s evidence of his packet theory? Seems to fly in the face (pardon the pun) of most documented evidence, no?

FJ's reply today is:

 FLYJACK #63333

I have explained Carr's money "bundle" error many times...

Georger just ignores it..

The only difference is whether there were 2 bands holding the bundle or a single band..  both fan out.. the single fans out more.
Edited 1 hour ago by FLYJACK "

That's it!  Carr's money "bundle" error.  The drama continues by design.

Perhaps some packets being bound by one rubberband and others being bound by two rubberbands is what was meant by the reference of different-sized packets. If this were accurate it may explain the FBI reference which would have been misunderstood by the agent.

The agent? wHAT AGENT? Are you referring to Carr ?   

Do you see that FJ's packaging is different from Carr/Kaye's, which has implication for "fanning out" - diatoms?  Its like the difference between a Chevy and a Mac Truck?
For one, one weighs more than the other.

I call them packets because that's what they are.

So, you use the word packet because you chose that word over 'cracker jack'.  Your word packet has no meaning!

Whjat is my deal you ask?  My "deal" is: words have meanings. Did they not teach you that in school?   

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I call them packets because that's what they are.

So, you use the word packet because you chose that word over 'cracker jack'.  Your word packet has no meaning!

Whjat is my deal you ask?  My "deal" is: words have meanings. Did they not teach you that in school?   

In this case "packet" or "bundle" or "cracker jack" can be applied however you want to apply them. Each packet had 100 bound bills. Period.

Now the word "dumbass" has only one meaning and applies to only one person here.

Conversation if thats what it was, is over.  Its really too bad that someone who aspires to the position you claim (and want!) cannot even conduct a simple conversation with people. I think you have run into that issue before with others. Good luck.

As long as the packets end up submerged in the river they're going to gather diatoms.

Quote

As long as the packets end up submerged in the river they're going to gather diatoms.

Not sure this is 100% accurate. According to Tom’s paper, money that does not fan out - in this example money that has been buried - does not accumulate diatoms on the interior of bills. Only along the edges.

Here are the relevant passages:

The slightly rough texture of the bills created micro-voids at the edge of the stack where smaller diatoms like Melosira spp. as well as fragments could enter. Typically within 3–4 mm in from the edge, the void would close up due to the natural variation in texture and often a “tide line” was found where diatoms and fragments would pile up in larger numbers. Beyond the “tide line” the internal area of the stack was void of diatoms

The results demonstrated that the bills would sink after a short period of time and that the bills would fan out in the water. The individual surfaces of virtually all the bills were directly exposed to river water which would allow diatom infiltration.

If the previous experiments and investigations rule out diatom infiltration while buried, then the findings suggest that diatoms found their way onto the bills during water immersion. As shown in Fig. 4, a stack of bills once saturated, will fan out in water exposing all surfaces to micro-particles in the water environment. The exposure of the fanned out stack to the river, suggests the simplest way for large, intact but fragile diatoms to be found alone interior to the bill stack. This would have occurred prior to burial and be in the water long enough for fan out to occur.

The diatom saturated water experiment showed that penetration is possible but only for the smaller range of diatoms and only a limited distance in from the edge on the order of millimeters. No “tide lines” of diatoms or small sand fragments were found on the Cooper bill. Since we know from the experiment that diatom accumulations were likely to happen on the edges, the lack of aggregations suggests they were destroyed with the severe degradation around the edges of the bundle. The inner degraded edge where the SEM samples were taken from showed no accumulations, suggesting the bills had congealed into a solid lump (consistent with the condition that the bills were found in), preventing any further diatom infiltration.

My point is that the surface of the bills must be exposed to the river water for diatoms to infiltrate. That requires fanning out. If a packet doesn’t fan out, it would reduce the likelihood of diatoms penetrating the interior of the bills. They would only be found along the edge. In other words, it requires more than submersion to accumulate diatoms. It requires exposure of the bill’s surface to the river water during immersion.