New Forum & News Updates

[Shutter]

yes, of course you do but IMO you are premature in your dismissal. Questioning is part of the process but outright mockery and dismissal for an unknown is a form of self imposed intellectual censorship.

I would be very careful in who you are talking to!

I'M NOT CENSORING ANYONE...GOT IT!

Don't tell me that I am censoring you by not believing in a THEORY. I'm not mocking you either! I have been very respectful in my comments to you. don't ever accuse me of that again!

[FLYJACK]

yes, of course you do but IMO you are premature in your dismissal. Questioning is part of the process but outright mockery and dismissal for an unknown is a form of self imposed intellectual censorship.

I would be very careful in who you are talking to!

I'M NOT CENSORING ANYONE...GOT IT!

Don't tell me that I am censoring you by not believing in a THEORY. I'm not mocking you either! I have been very respectful in my comments to you. don't ever accuse me of that again!

That is NOT what I said, I said it is a form of SELF censorship. Mocking is also a form, done by others.

[Shutter]

I can't speak for others who also don't believe in this theory, and agree the mocking has to stop. it will stop from this point forward, or the comments will be removed..fair enough? you did include dismissal in the comment..

[FLYJACK]

I can't speak for others who also don't believe in this theory, and agree the mocking has to stop. it will stop from this point forward, or the comments will be removed..fair enough?

Frankly, the comments don't affect me or bother me. I believe in free speech and exchange of ideas, good, bad and ugly.

What bothers me is seeing smart people trap themselves in an intellectual box, prematurely reject new ideas instead of engaging in exploration. Isn't that the purpose of this forum.

[Shutter]

I can't speak for others who also don't believe in this theory, and agree the mocking has to stop. it will stop from this point forward, or the comments will be removed..fair enough?

Frankly, the comments don't affect me or bother me. I believe in free speech and exchange of ideas, good, bad and ugly.

What bothers me is seeing smart people trap themselves in an intellectual box, prematurely reject new ideas instead of engaging in exploration. Isn't that the purpose of this forum.

I can't make people believe something, nor am I the smart guy on the forum. this theory is extremely far fetched and will cause disruption. is it fair, no, but it's reality when you are mixed in with intelligent minds. they can't always be right either, so you must drive on. I can't stress enough to you to contact the Corps and find some answers. as Trapper mentioned, I don't think you will change the forums position on this. if you can prove it, well that's a different story in itself.

I think the dredge put the money on the beach..I almost had the Learning channel to do a test but couldn't find a dredge company to agree with the testing..I can't go much further, nor do I attempt to make the forum believe what I believe without documentation. it's much more plausible than most other theories, and simple as I've explained in the past IMHO.

[FLYJACK]

where is the proof flow reversal takes place between the Lewis river and Tina Bar? we seem to have a lot of documentation about the occurrence around the joining of other rivers, or dams, and other man made objects, or natural. you appear to be placing this occurrence where ever you wish along the Columbia river.

We have zero documentation that this can move objects backwards for long periods without going right back to where the reversal started. you are claiming objects can move backwards and not lose any ground. while thousands of objects are typically found downstream when lost.

We have anecdotal and professional evidence that flow reversal does go beyond TBAR. Tidal flow reversal is continuous from the mouth, it doesn’t stop and start. Surface flow may be transitory due to winds, but we are concerned with tidal flow reversal.

You are correct, we have no evidence to show that the flow reversal can move objects (underwater). IMO, this will be very difficult to test now.

TBAR is a known deposit area for junk. I would guess that the flow reversal pushed the money (bag) up beyond TBAR then when it ended (tidal) the river then pushed it back onto TBAR or close by. It may have been washed up or been dredged onto its found position. These events are also called tidal floods.

[Shutter]

Frankly, the comments don't affect me or bother me. I believe in free speech and exchange of ideas, good, bad and ugly.

this sounds like a political statement heard in the last year over and over. if you have a group of people disagree with you doesn't give you the right to scream censorship. these are opinions, and free speech grants that in both directions, but some feel it's only one direction.

[FLYJACK]

Frankly, the comments don't affect me or bother me. I believe in free speech and exchange of ideas, good, bad and ugly.

this sounds like a political statement heard in the last year over and over. if you have a group of people disagree with you doesn't give you the right to scream censorship. these are opinions, and free speech grants that in both directions, but some feel it's only one direction.

I am not accusing you of censoring others..

I am suggesting you are censoring yourself. "intellectually"

[Shutter]

TBAR is a known deposit area for junk. I would guess that the flow reversal pushed the money (bag) up beyond TBAR then when it ended (tidal) the river then pushed it back onto TBAR or close by. It may have been washed up or get dredged onto its found position. These events are also called tidal floods.

Now, here you agree with floating objects, but you told Trapper a buoy test wouldn't work? and you need to show reverse flow from the Lewis river down to T-bar to start with, and not from the Hayden island to T-bar area, which again is where another river connects...

[FLYJACK]

TBAR is a known deposit area for junk. I would guess that the flow reversal pushed the money (bag) up beyond TBAR then when it ended (tidal) the river then pushed it back onto TBAR or close by. It may have been washed up or get dredged onto its found position. These events are also called tidal floods.

Now, here you agree with floating objects, but you told Trapper a buoy test wouldn't work? and you need to show reverse flow from the Lewis river down to T-bar to start with, and not from the Hayden island to T-bar area, which again is where another river connects...

For this theory a dredge is still in play, but a submerged object can still get washed up. Rivers have extremely dynamic properties.. some currents flow both ways at different levels, sideways or even from bottom to surface on shorelines. In a flood tide the water level rises, then at normalization it drops. That could deposit a submerged object on a shoreline. We don't know..

IMO, if money was submerged (some bundles still in the bag) then a buoy surface float will have limited value. Unlike a submerged object, surface float is affected by winds.

But, the big problem is the current conditions vs the possible float event pre 1980. The dramatic change invariables can't be replicated.

A money bag with some bundles left in it would be a sail underwater..

Can a test can be developed where we can put a money bag with the equivalent of some bundles of money during a good flow reversal event and track it from the Lewis?? Attach a fishing line with slack?

[Shutter]

I am suggesting you are censoring yourself. "intellectually"

wrong, I go by proof. all I see is weak, very weak possibilities, if that. nothing in my readings support this theory. next you will use a Blevins tactic stating I'm a "detractor" I don't see any evidence of reverse flow causing objects to move miles backwards. perhaps there is no documentation, but I'll bet once again the Corps can clear this up with a phone call.,

similar to a suspect, I will leave it to the person with the theory to provide more proof of the concept. Trapper again had a good idea. drop something the same weight as a bundle into the river and watch the magic unfold.

[Shutter]

To test the theory accurately, I believe you would have to start in the middle of the path between the Lewis and T-BAR...that is if flow reversal even occurs there...this would be far enough away from joining rivers..

[FLYJACK]

I am suggesting you are censoring yourself. "intellectually"

wrong, I go by proof. all I see is weak, very weak possibilities, if that. nothing in my readings support this theory. next you will use a Blevins tactic stating I'm a "detractor" I don't see any evidence of reverse flow causing objects to move miles backwards. perhaps there is no documentation, but I'll bet once again the Corps can clear this up with a phone call.,

similar to a suspect, I will leave it to the person with the theory to provide more proof of the concept. Trapper again had a good idea. drop something the same weight as a bundle into the river and watch the magic unfold.

We have evidence of Flow Reversal.

Done, you have no understanding on this. Using Blevins is a smear tactic.. you have every right to be in denial.. have at it

[Shutter]

We have evidence of Flow Reversal.

Done, you have no understanding on this. Using Blevins is a smear tactic.. you have every right to be in denial.. have at it

STOP, putting words in my mouth, understand! this is not a case of "denial"

I'm well aware of reverse flow, and I'm well aware that nothing supports the moving of objects several miles upstream. there is nothing "true" about this theory to put me in denial vs not being possible. I've seen no proof of the possibility. someone in denial would not be looking at data, or links surrounding this event. Blevins uses the censorship tactic that leads to detractor tactics, not smear tactics on my part. I see similarities.

you have an understanding of this? tell me, when will the next reverse flow occur at mile marker 124?

[Shutter]

I've been nothing but respectful to you with my comments. you brought the censorship card into play accusing me of it with the dismissal claim. then you labeled me in "denial" for not agreeing with this theory. I've spent time looking into this offline and still do not agree with the concept. to date, it appears to occur around other rivers joining in, and weakens the more as it travels. it has to have a reason vs just happening out of nowhere. tides only play a part of this.

I've told you more than once to contact the Corps, and you have never said a thing other than attacking me for disagreeing. we have went 3-4 pages on this.

River flow is actually three-dimensional because the velocity depends not only on downstream distance but also on depth and transverse position. This is so because friction against the bottom and banks causes the velocity to decrease from a maximum at the surface near the middle of the stream to zero along the bottom and sides.

Because we wish to emphasize here the manner by which the flow varies in the downstream direction, we will neglect cross-stream velocity components as well as cross-stream variations of the downstream component, by considering the speed u as the water velocity averaged across the stream and a function of only the downstream distance x and time t. Because the flow in a river almost never reverses, the fact that we take x directed downstream implies that u is a positive quantity