georger

You seem confused.

Your separating of the various pieces of evidence into separate problems to be solved, is crucial. I agree. Just keep picking away, one thing then the next. Sooner or later an evidence based theory or two may emerge. Tom has made several small discoveries that mean something. Your band tests mean something - important! The bills, their makeup and chemistry, the bands and their chemistry, ... all interactive in different environments. Ive seen gooey bands so I know the melt transition phase is real! I have a barber with a gooey ball of old bands stuck to his window - I laugh every time I go into his shop! The money is an interactive story of chemistries interacting in some number of environments. Now Im preaching and I will stop! Keep working on it!! Thanks. I wish we had the FBI Lab reports in full ....Good Job Nick...

Brian gave Tom bill fragments to analyze. One of the fragments was made up of 4 layers of bills. Tom presented his findings from his forensic analysis at CC23 and of note, he found it to be remarkably clean in between the layers of the fragment…. no soot, silt, mud ect. This might suggest these parts of bills were fused in some other process in some other location and never were exposed to water at Tena Bar? If Palmer is correct the money was somewhere in some other environment prior to it being at Tena Bar? It is also correct, the Ingrams did not wash ALL of the money. Im glad you included that fact.

Got anything on Musk Ox?

Good description of what the Ingrams did and their description of the money as found ...Tom Kaye - “So being this clean kinda says this money was never exposed to the water in the way you’d think.” Whether you choose to accept it or not it puts further constraints on how the money got to tbar. ... and ... One of the fragments was made up of 4 layers of bills. Tom presented his findings from his forensic analysis at CC23 and of note, he found it to be remarkably clean in between the layers of the fragment…. no soot, silt, mud ect. How in the hell is that consistent with tumbling along a sandy river bottom? First, any attempt to get Flyjack to change his mind, is 100% pointless. FJ is totally invested in his "theories" which are devoid of any facts! I am not convinced the money was ever 'in' the river or was even brought up on TBar by the river. Think about this. Is there anything about the money that requires it was ever "in the river". No question the money was exposed to Columbia water "on the high tide line". Nobody I know accepts FJ's theory that the money was delivered to TBar via the river especially in the manner he suggests. A closer analysis of the money may suggest several different locations and different conditions the money (and bands) passed through before finally found in 1980. In other words a history more complex than anything FJ knows or can even suggest. Forensic evidence gleaned from the analysis of the money should be guiding this discussion vs people's theories ! That is what Tom is attempting to do. I do not think FJ is speaking for Tom Kaye in any regard. Anything that can shed light on what the Ingrams saw and did is priceless in this debate. Thanks for focusing on that.

Unreal! That I did not know. Good grief...............................

NEW - Florence Schaffner was followed after the flight by a man who claimed that the hijacker was working with the CIA … https://thecinemaholic.com/where-is-florence-schaffner-now/

For those who dont speak 'latin', "Ad hoc" is a Latin term meaning "for this purpose only, describing something created out of immediate necessity that may not have been part of a larger original plan. Common examples would include an ad hoc committee formed to address a temporary emergency, an ad hoc solution to a particular problem like a broken window, and the like. One issue is whether something is actually ad hoc or not. Until you talk to the original source it can only be speculation

ok ... your featured speaker at Coopercopn25 should be Flyjack. Give him a week to explain 'path'.

Too complicated and open ended to be useful.

Crazy. Human microbes did not decompose the Cooper money! This is crazy. This isnt worth responding to - - - - - this is stupid. Play with yourself.

Or what!? Are you threatening me or the forum now ?

I think .... very clearly, your limitations have now been exposed. Your knee-jerk logic is not logic. Your scientific background is obviously lacking. ........................ all of that just for starters.Your analysis of the money issue in the Cooper case is not just incomplete but wrong, juvenile and stupid. You seem to be a person with real personal issue -

I discovered that the money itself is covered with bacteria.... the sand is therefore irrelevent. Really? That will come as news to the scientific community. What pickup truck did yous get you education in? Any advice on Tylenol and vaccines ? I think you and Palmer and Fred Mopar are about the only humans on Earth that actually claim the money got its shape by rolling on the bottom of a river! Are all candy bars made by tumbling them in a river? ? You have crossed the line to humor and insanity!

*Regarding the fact that the money itself was remarkably well preserved, Professor PALMER advised that sand is sterile, and in nature, is probably the best preservative of any soil. (One reason is the exposure of beach sand to UV). This could also be the reason that the rubber bands were still in place around the money, although they were badly deteriorated. This would also lend credence to the fact that the money had been deposited in sand, the major portion of time since it was lost. The money would have lasted no more than a year in nature unless protected. Palmer added that fragments of the money could have been washed anywhere down stream in the Columbia, but he doubted that any additional money found would be as well preserved unless it had been deposited in an upper layer of sand. .................................................................................................................... Is beach sand sterile - No, beach sand is not sterile; it contains a vast number of microorganisms, including various types of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites. Many of these microbes can be pathogenic to humans and can cause infections or illnesses through contact, particularly if you have cuts or other breaks in your skin, or if ingested. Why beach sand isn't sterile: Beach sand serves as a natural habitat for a diverse range of microbes that thrive in the near-marine environment. Contaminants such as fecal bacteria from animal and human waste can reach the sand via water or direct spread. The sand itself can act as a reservoir, supporting the persistence and even multiplication of certain microbes, even when water quality tests are clean. The microbial story of the Cooper money was never explored. Microbial tests have routinely been done in the public areas of the Columbia for decades, testing for microbial blooms, hazardous materials, and agricultural contamination. Public records and yearly test results are available. The Cooper money microbial profile fits somewhere in yearly microbial water data, ... its another clock that has not been consulted. The FBI Lab probably lacked the resources and the request to look for a comparison in order to date the Ingram find.