Sorry, NMI. I posted on your last post by mistake. I have a bad habit of hitting modify instead of quote. that's why you will see the last edit by me on your post.
What I was trying to say was....
Hmmm, I agree with Georger. could you give specific reasons. I'm guessing it starts with the rubber band testing?
CS says:"The rubber band experiments allow less than a year for the money to become entombed in the sand."
From what I see, this statement was made without the consideration that the money bundles were enclosed in a container underwater and weren't exposed to any kind of water-flow. You can look at my previous post about the condition of things underwater for more than a century in a static environment. The erroneous statement above opens the door to all kinds of wackos claiming their loved ones or suspects dug a hole and put the money there in 1979. Those rubber bands could have been enclosed in the bank bag, underwater, for a decade, and been in same condition as found.
The whole problem with Kaye's analysis starts with the statement: "the rubber bands were still intact and crumbled when touched". That is not the description I have from the Ingrams and it conflicts with Tom's own assessment: "bands decomposed in less than a year (6 months to a year)" based on his experiments where bands were left in the water or buried in sand.
The obvious contradiction is: If all bands break within a year whether buried in sand or in water, then how is it possible the Ingram bands were "still intact"? By Tom's own experiments: "the bands break in less than a year whether buried or in water".
Tom then goes back and says: "This means the money was buried within the first year after the hijacking". Well... how? If bands break in less than year while the Ingram bands found in 1980 were still "intact" ?
Tom is going in circles of nonsense with his statements. (It's like something Blevins or Weber would say!)
So, you are forced to back up and finally ask: "well were the Ingram bands actually intact" as Tom says? And what does Tom mean by "intact"? And how in hell can bands be
both "intact" and "crumbled when touched"? Healthy viable rubber bands don't 'crumble when touched"!
Maybe what Tom means by "intact" is "in place" ... or ... "remnants of bands were still in place and visible"? Because in reality bands which 'crumble when touched' are not viable healthy intact rubber bands - duhhh!
This is the utter confusion we are in because of this piece of confusion: " the bands were intact" ... which may not even be true and probably is not true, and is not what the Ingrams told me! This is not a question of Tom vs Jerry!
This is a question of what was the actual condition of the rubber bands when the money was found. And until we get that basic question answered in some form human beings can understand and communicate about, we have nothing but confusion and hundreds of posts being made by all kinds of experts and nobody knows WTF he or she is even talking about!
Farflung - come to our aid!
And to add further misery to this debacle,
nobody has done one piece of lab analysis on any Ingram bands or band fragments that were on the Ingram money! Until that work is done this whole discussion is speculation and nothing more. And very likely, Ingram band fragments exist which could be analyses to this very day!!! So, how many fucking idiots does it take to screw in a rubber band light bulb?
Poll