FLYJACK RESPONDS:

 "" Why is this important......  Georger has really become irrelevant in the Cooper case.. his case knowledge is stale and stuck in 2011. His arguments display poor analysis. Cooper newbies confuse his arrogance with competence. I am using Georger as a foil to advance my argument and the Cooper case.

The conventional thinking has been that the TBAR money arrived as 3 separate "packets" which constrains how they could have arrived on TBAR.. In fact, that is an assumption, not a fact. The TBAR analysis has been constrained by an assumption which I argue is very unlikely. It is more likely that the money arrived as one single rubber banded bundle of a number of packets of 100 bills each and theories and analysis should be pursued with that in mind.

Georger may not realize it but his ego is restricting the Cooper investigation within a false paradigm. That explains why Georger and a few others have not advanced this case in a decade. Assumptions and errors elevated to fact and used to reject evidence is just poor analysis. Eric Ulis.. Robert99.. Georger.. ""


Here we go again. In 2010 FJ appeared at Dropzone and said the same thing about Jo Weber and asked the Mod to kick Jo off Dropzone, to enable him to work at DZ! The Mod refused and FJ left Dropzone in a tantrum, for years -

It's simple Flyjack:   WHAT IS YOUR TINA BAR MONEY THEORY ?  if you actually even have one!?       

*Since when does the violin player stop the orchestra so he alone can 'Advance the Beethoven Performance!' Its CRAZY on its face.

Doesn’t matter what one thinks or assumes or believes, it’s what one can prove or at least support with evidence.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Doesn’t matter what one thinks or assumes or believes, it’s what one can prove or at least support with evidence.

There are times when there is not enough evidence to tell the complete story. Therefore, assumptions, conjecture and the like are required.

In addition, being critical is required. We should question assumptions. We should question what we think we know.

Most importantly, we have to be intellectually honest. We can't be homers. If enough evidence points a certain direction--or opposite a certain direction--we have to defer.

Agree 100%, but in the face of new evidence, one has to be willing to scrap their theories and start from scratch.

Regarding the packet/bundle question, the perfect person to ask would be Alfred Friedberg, the money guy that Daren had on his podcast not long ago.

It may have been in front of our faces all along: we could not see the forest for the trees!

Key fact:  The bank prepared an annotated list of serial numbers from which the FBI was able to prepare a second list of actual serial numbers given to Cooper, and,   the ‘groups’ of banded bills prepared and sent off to Cooper. The word you use to call these 'groups' of bills is irrelevant!!

Problem:  The Ingrams were unable to give a precise description of what they found and they destroyed the natural order of their find. They pulled their find apart on the kitchen table. The Ingrams say they saw and removed remains of rubber bands but did not see any evidence of paper straps. The Ingrams were unable to reconstruct precisely how and where rubber bands were placed on the bills they found! They only say they pulled their find out out of the sand at Tina Bar “in parts and pieces”. Whether the bills they pulled out had one set of rubber bands around the whole mass, or the mass consisted of three or more pieces each with rubber bands around it, is not known?  The Ingrams could not reconstruct the original order of the find. They presented 12 groups of bills in a sandwich bag at the Portland FO. 

FBI Lab to the rescue:   Using the bank annotated list the FBI was able to determine that the Ingram bill serial numbers were still in the same order as when given to Cooper, and similarly the serial number ‘groupings’ of bills prepared at the bank was also still in tact.  The Lab assessed that the Ingram find represented some $5800 and 3 bundles of bills originally given to Cooper. Th word "bundles" usedby the Lab is just a word having no formal banking efficacy. Its just a common English word - see a dictionary! 

Fragments found during the Excavation:   Are the serial numbers on the found fragments part of the serial numbers assigned to the Ingram groups by the bank , or not? The annotated bank list will have to be consulted.  If the fragment serial numbers are not accounted for in the Ingram bundle serial numbers then these serial numbers represent new money separate from the Ingram Find bills,  present on Tina Bar but not part of the Ingram find. It’s that simple.

If fragment serial numbers represent  new money not part of the Ingram find, then that affects the morphology of Cooper money found on Tina Bar, which has theoretical implications.  The serial number on fragment shown is G21056376B. Either that serial number is part of an Ingram group, or it is not! Its time to get down to facts and stop all of the theoretical bullshit!

A: Im not sure we would know. I was hoping you would know or would look for the serial number in your list of lists? I mean you are the guy with the lists and a phD in serial number lists organised in packets, bundles, and gumbles - all official banking terms in Pakistan and Montreal ? The serial number is on some list, in some grouping. Why not look on your copies of the Lab reports? I already did. No mention of that frag on any Lab report we have. In fact, no Lab reports on any fag that agents found! The frags seems to have been shuffled off to Buffalo or Montreal never to be seen or heard of again. Do you have the frags ? 

Point is there is nothing about the frags except one serial number. You trace it. That is what you are here for.