snowmman

here's the example for the 50C series year see how the constraints are different compared to 63A series year. (I've not fully verified all the numbers I'm using..I correct them when I flag an error and it's obvious I typoed) legalRangeRegular["50C"] = { "AA": ['47880001','55080000',0], "BC": ['12600001','55800000',0], "CA": ['54000001','61560000',0], "DB": ['39600001','68040000',0], "EB": ['79200001','99999999',0], "EC": ['00000001','16200000',0], "FB": ['07200001','26280000',0], "GC": ['24840001','54000000',0], "HA": ['69480001','82440000',0], "IA": ['27000001','33480000',0], "JA": ['74160001','92520000',0], "KA": ['45360001','54360000',0], "LC": ['06840001','52200000',0], } legalRangeStar["50C"] = { "A*": ['01800001','02160000',0], "B*": ['08280001','09720000',0], "C*": ['01800001','02520000',0], "D*": ['04680001','05400000',0], "E*": ['06480001','07200000',0], "F*": ['03960001','08280000',0], "G*": ['09000001','04680000',0], "H*": ['02520001','10080000',0], "I*": ['01080001','02880000',0], "J*": ['03960001','01440000',0], "K*": ['01800001','04860000',0], "L*": ['09360001','11160000',0], }

this is the data structure I'm using for range checking and run for each district. the ranges and last letter legality depend on the district. and something like this is unique per series year and star notes. I copied all the numbers from the book. this is 63A only. the two letters used for the dictionary lookup are start/end letter extracted from the serial. Only legal combos shown, otherwise assumed illegal. the two numbers extracted are then a known printed, legal, start/end for the number part of the serial. the third number is just a field so I can count there. So I should be counting to the exact thing the book says for all series years in the cooper list interestingly sometimes they start the serial from the prior series year. Sometimes they start from 00000001. They don't wrap thru 00000000 when they sequence the letter at the end. They leave all 0's for a star note. The star note sequences are separate. There's no intuitive pattern, it's just all unique per district/series year/star. Sometimes districts had no runs, it appears. (not here) note some districts had both A and B runs. Others didn't

Good point about the series year being smaller than the serial and probably more error prone in human transcription from microfiche. That's what I've been assuming. Hoover memo first page said series were included "where known" but all serials seem to have some series. Maybe his comment reflected difficulty in getting the series perfect. Who knows why he said that.

yeah, I've been posting some stuff about this at dbcooperforum when I create my list, I"m going to assume the D run 50C notes are really 50D series. There are no 50D or 50E series notes in the cooper sample, which is a little unexpected. There are other FBI typos also. So while it may not affect a large number of notes...there's the added wrinkle of the amount of human work that was done transcribing from microfiche, and what error rate that had, and what kind of typos. the worst typo would be a full bundle start/stop pair.. that would mean 100 notes would be wrong. I've added full range check from the collector book that's the authority in this area. however he notes, there is still some discrepancy in what the ranges are supposed to be, and what got printed. Notably in the 63/63A area. I've not run into discrepancies yet though, just things that look like fbi typos. checksix repeats some of the obvious errors like 50C series for L district with a D run, (last letter in serial) which never happened. it did for 50D series.

I put a better theory about the FBI mistype of C at dbcooperforum. I think assuming the C is 0 is wrong, since it's unlikely there were non-star consecutive serials, and especially unlikely that the first one I find is a mistyped serial, where you have to assume C was meant to be 0. I posted: EDIT: another theory would be that the C was a mistype, and that assuming it's supposed to be a 0 is incorrect, because it's unlikely there were non-star consecutive serial numbers and that one "just happened" to be on the one with consecutive serials.SO: it would mean there is a serial with one digit, that could be 0, 2-9i.e. it could be any of 9 other serials (1 is already taken)that's the more likely explanation here. (with the fbi sorting the mistyped C before 1 in this case)

Yeah, I've been musing how the FBI sorted the list. they could have keypunched the serials unto computer paper cards (the keypunch cards) and had a computer sort. The way the serials are typed in the list, makes it easier for manual verification, because the context provides a limit for "what's legal" in both a vertical and horizontal dimension. Also easier for humans visually to verify. I found an apparent typing error by the FBI in that list. C instead of 0. Although, if you substitute in the correct 0, the serials were in the right order. (maybe their sort sorts C before 1) The 2nd thing I found, is that same serial is part of a consecutive non-star serial pair. I posted the details at dbcooperforum on the tena bar subject just now. I posted the image from fbi file 55 so you can see/compare/agree or disagree with me, also. EDIT: I'm still early in my list creation. so don't know what more might be interesting in the list.

i've found it's always good to bring up old stuff again. people's perceptions change, different people are in the mix, new data shifts views (like all the fbi files) it was a lot more weird in the old days when there were no fbi files. And part of the deal is people who think their point of view is the one true perception. I think the cooper thing attracts people who believe their brains are magical pattern perceptors, and they sense a pattern other people can't see. since it reflects self-perception, it's no wonder people get all defensive/attacking/confrontational. Partly all of this is a reflection of self. IMHO.

okay. thanks for finding this.

okay. I am continuing with my list. I have a variety of checking mechanisms. I plan on checking against the check six site with automation. So I'll check his list which is not public. I'll post my list when I'm done.

It's interesting that Sea First got sequential star notes, but apparently no sequential regular notes. Did you look for sequential non-star notes? I don't think there are any.

Flyjack, I'm in the process of creating a text list of the 9998 serials from the fbi Hoover memo images in fbi file 55. I know it's a lot of work. If you were interested in sharing your list, that would be nice, save me some work.

Flyjack: How did you create your list of 9998? Have you noticed that some of the star notes have sequential serial numbers? I've identified a couple. Also some star notes are not sequential but from the same printed sheet..i.e. the serial numbers are close enough that they are from the same printed sheet. It's interesting a bank got star notes like this. What is the total number of star notes vs 9998? I'm wondering if it is in line with the star note distribution printed for the various series years.

Good points. One interesting thing. When the Ingrams washed the bills in the kitchen sink, they obviously caused some of the degraded edges to come off the bills. Hence the rounded appearance. But, if the "rubber band stuck to bills" theory is correct, then apparently all traces of rubber bands were removed from the bills before the FBI saw them and took photographs? This is an interesting problem. possible scenarios: There are crumbling rubber bands, that might fall off on the beach and never make it home. There is sticky rubber band fragments sticking to bills. But apparently they got washed away before the FBI saw them. There's kind of a "magic bullet" problem here. The rubber bands exist only in memory. Whatever their condition, they left no trace that is visible to us in FBI photographs, the bills the Ingrams kept, or other FBI evidence gathering or reports. The rubber band evidence was apparently totally removed from the scene, or in the kitchen sink.

That interview with the Seafirst Bank employee seems pretty definitive to me. It seems to me, that rubber bands were not introduced into discussion or FBI memos, until the money was found in 1980? Was there any mention of rubber bands before 1980?

No, you're talking about the early Shelton reference (the "Indian" family. There's another, later. Phase II. 2004. Oh wait, maybe they're all the same. Not sure. Seems like you've connected the dots better.

hey I don't support this idea of KC. BUT: have people seen that the FBI did investigate KC in the latest FBI files. I was wondering if Blevins would have been all excited to see the references in the FBI files. Also: did people note the list of "Phase II" suspects that were still considered plausible in 2004 when they dispatched agents to collect DNA with respect to 3 or 4 of those still-not-cleared suspects? (sadly, they still had McCoy on that list, but there are others, redacted. They had some reasons why #1 was still on the list, based on their investigation) I was wondering if people had pursued the name of the #1 on that list. They have some info, but most is redacted. KC didn't make the cut. I was surprised to see stuff from 2004 in the files. Still seems like there is more stuff to come in the future. around 21278 pages now (61 files)

I hadn't read the article, thanks for the link. first thoughts on the article: looking at the picture, the bills should have been constrained by a paper strap, in multiple bundles secured by rubber bands, as the more likely packaging to cooper, but I think that doesn't change things much. The idea that the bills were as shown, secured by rubber bands only, is very unlikely. The available documentation doesn't support that description. (mostly it comes from Carr pushing his bias, based on some undocumented info and conversations he had..but his point of view colored his descriptions of that info) Additionally, testing the effect of a single bundle in water isn't interesting. A large number of strapped packets, with groups secured by rubber bands, in a bag, would behave differently. There's nothing to suggest that the first arrival in water, was individual bundles, either from the sky or otherwise. Testing single bundles first, is an assumption/bias about bundles arriving in water.

Flyjack, you've done good work and I agree with all this. Too bad we don't have a list of start/end serials for the currency Cooper got. All we got are the start/end pairs for the packets he didn't get out of the approx. $230,000 (15 or 16 packets of 100 bills depending on which serials you use) I believe there is reference to $230,000 somewhere? (or was that deduced as $200k + (15 * (100 * $20) ) implying $30k was removed, and cooper got $200k I forget. I think that aligns with 15 * $2000 (which is $20 * 100 bills) being removed, from the microfiche list before the Hoover list was published. (of supposedly 10,000 bills, I've not counted that list yet) The idea that strapped 100 count packets were ripped open and recombined before giving them to Cooper, is ridiculous. They didn't have time for that.Nor would it have been that important. As you've shown, it wasn't a fixed protocol. I believe Carr had a bias, and his bias affected a lot of his information he propagated. Now, if there were rubber bands around multiple packets, when they were found, then it's interesting that apparently no trace of paper strapping was found. But then again, the idea that crumbling rubber bands were found, is debatable. And no, I don't think there was a hurried micorfiche of individual bills done that night. The microfiche had already be done. All that happened was recording of the start/end serials of the packets Cooper got. (which we don't have documentation of, only indirectly through the "Hoover memo" list.

The sky is blue

Hǎo ba, kàn qǐlái hòumén gōngzuò zhèngcháng. Zuìhòu. Wǒmen jīn wǎn qù huáqiáng biān ba?

Quade: dickweed If you were attempting to show that you have the power to ban people, the experiment failed. You know I'm right that you can't ban people. That's why you knew it was pointless to try to ban me for any length of time. I can understand asking "Go away. Leave our thing". But if you start wanting to debate what actually works and what doesn't, then you're just another liar if you want to pretend you've got magic pixie dust. You don't. You have the problem of wanting to invite more shitforbrains to the site at all times. So you allow creating new usernames from yahoo or gmail, which provide unlimited numbers of email accounts. Your weak attempts at "banning" are tied to IP address and user account. Anyone who cares enough (there's no reason to care though) can just create another account (email+dropzone account) and use a free anonymous proxy. You can endlessly block each new account and new ip address, but what's the point? It's just a waste of your time. I think I proved my claim: 1) You're a dickweed 2) You will lose every low pull contest 3) You can't ban me. If you can ban me, try again. Never do anything unless there's a goal and the outcome is conclusive, though. Right? Skydiving is a black and white thing..why be fuzzy? Your attempt was a fail. You can't prove I was banned. (edit) I'm assuming this thing called "banning" can only be proved if someone is kept from posting for a period of time that you determine? (edit) What I love, and the reason I post now, is that your weak banning attempt was not because of anything you're trying to maintain at DZ.com, but because I called you out. That's the saddest thing. You're a dickweed too. (edit) Here's a clue Quade: You're attempt at control is wrong, and a fail. If you want to affect content creation on this site, try another strategy. If you want to drive traffic to your site, by preserving a "culture", try another strategy. If you just want to pretend you can control reality: fail. If you want to demonstrate some tightness about skydivers: fail. If you want to demonstrate I'm an asshole: well, as always, that's up to the reader. (edit) Hey I thought of another way you can demonstrate loserness. Delete this post.