New Forum & News Updates

[georger]

While I believe this scenario to be extremely unlikely, I marked "maybe" because, in theory, it's possible.

1) From the Bonneville Dam to the ocean, the Columbia is actually considered an "estuary" - other than
- weather (wind)
- spring runoff;
- Bonneville Dam releases

The river 'flow' in this area is pretty static, and directly related to tidal flow.  You can find on the web kayaking groups from the dam to the ocean that acknowledge the river reverse flows 2x per day (with the tide).

2) The 20lb $ bag, even waterlogged, would not "weigh" 20lbs in water - it would be closer to 13 lbs...smarter posters on this forum can explain the physics better than I, but for me, the best way to understand this is what it's like to lift my kid outside of the swimming pool vs. inside of it.

3) Tidal cycles from low to high in late Nov. 1971 were only about 6 hours. 

Thus, the Q is, is up to 6 hours of reverse flow enough to move the equivalent of a 13lb object 10 miles underwater?  I highly doubt it, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it out of hand.

Your point number 2 above is completely wrong.  The money bag and the money is going to weight exactly the same thing whether it's in the water or setting on your dinning room table.

The bank bag was not air tight.  So once enough water is absorbed by the bag itself and the money, the total weight countering any initial buoyancy will be overcome and the bag is going to sink to the bottom.

Take the case of a submarine.  The submarine itself weighs the same on the surface as when it is submerged.  On the surface, the submarine displaces a volume of water equivalent to its weight.  However, in order to submerge, the submarine has to take on additional water in special tanks.  The weight of the water loaded into those tanks plus the weight of the submarine itself, must equal or exceed the weight of water that the submarine displaces when submerged.

Ignoring the planes on the hull, if the submarine wants to go deeper, add more water to the tanks.  If the submarine wants to surface, then blow some of the water out of the tanks.   

My concern with FlyJack's theory is he is simplifying what happens in reverse tidal flow propagating in water moving the opposite direction. Everything I have read on this subject talks about cavitation, eddies, transverse vs longitudinal waves, cross currents, vortexes, etc. This includes particles and objects being trapped and oscillating, traveling at times in circular eddies, and the like. I tend to believe this would be especially true at the mouth of the Lewis (Lewis Columbia junction - just as it is true at the Willamette/Columbia intersection). So it would be anything but a free smooth ride from the Lewis to Tina Bar.

And, as I keep pointing out, it must happen multiple times over years of time, to supply pieces of money found at different depths (in different layers) at Tina Bar.

The central question in my mind is: did tides help erode out previously existing money at Tina Bar, or did tides supply the money to the sandbar as the Fazios wanted everyone to believe?
     

[brbducksfan]

Georger - Thank you for the DZ link on this.

R99: Yes, "dry land" weight is the same on land or in water...but thanks to things like specific gravity, the relative weight of an object is not the same in water as it is on land.

Take a 50 lb rock and lift it on dry land - remember the energy it takes to lift/move it.  Now, drop that rock into a pool, get in and lift it - did it take the same energy?  No.  Buoyancy counteracts gravity underwater.  Incidentally, the 2/3 number I used wasn't random.  I pulled it from a mining/dredging website for rocks they deal with (ex. granite, sandstone, basalt), and their calcs show that these rocks have an "underwater weight"of about 2/3 of their dry land weight underwater. 

Other factors like the density of the parachute bag and the $ itself and the surface tension of water also apply here, which make it probable the $ bag could have traveled in the water.  Whether it traveled upstream, I still think is extremely unlikely, but it's at least possible in an estuary.

[brbducksfan]

While I believe this scenario to be extremely unlikely, I marked "maybe" because, in theory, it's possible.

1) From the Bonneville Dam to the ocean, the Columbia is actually considered an "estuary" - other than
- weather (wind)
- spring runoff;
- Bonneville Dam releases

The river 'flow' in this area is pretty static, and directly related to tidal flow.  You can find on the web kayaking groups from the dam to the ocean that acknowledge the river reverse flows 2x per day (with the tide).

2) The 20lb $ bag, even waterlogged, would not "weigh" 20lbs in water - it would be closer to 13 lbs...smarter posters on this forum can explain the physics better than I, but for me, the best way to understand this is what it's like to lift my kid outside of the swimming pool vs. inside of it.

3) Tidal cycles from low to high in late Nov. 1971 were only about 6 hours. 

Thus, the Q is, is up to 6 hours of reverse flow enough to move the equivalent of a 13lb object 10 miles underwater?  I highly doubt it, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it out of hand.

Your point number 2 above is completely wrong.  The money bag and the money is going to weight exactly the same thing whether it's in the water or setting on your dinning room table.

The bank bag was not air tight.  So once enough water is absorbed by the bag itself and the money, the total weight countering any initial buoyancy will be overcome and the bag is going to sink to the bottom.

Take the case of a submarine.  The submarine itself weighs the same on the surface as when it is submerged.  On the surface, the submarine displaces a volume of water equivalent to its weight.  However, in order to submerge, the submarine has to take on additional water in special tanks.  The weight of the water loaded into those tanks plus the weight of the submarine itself, must equal or exceed the weight of water that the submarine displaces when submerged.

Ignoring the planes on the hull, if the submarine wants to go deeper, add more water to the tanks.  If the submarine wants to surface, then blow some of the water out of the tanks.   

My concern with FlyJack's theory is he is simplifying what happens in reverse tidal flow propagating in water moving the opposite direction. Everything I have read on this subject talks about cavitation, eddies, transverse vs longitudinal waves, cross currents, vortexes, etc. This includes particles and objects being trapped and oscillating, traveling at times in circular eddies, and the like. I tend to believe this would be especially true at the mouth of the Lewis (Lewis Columbia junction - just as it is true at the Willamette/Columbia intersection). So it would be anything but a free smooth ride from the Lewis to Tina Bar.

And, as I keep pointing out, it must happen multiple times over years of time, to supply pieces of money found at different depths (in different layers) at Tina Bar.

The central question in my mind is: did tides help erode out previously existing money at Tina Bar, or did tides supply the money to the sandbar as the Fazios wanted everyone to believe?
   

Finding $ at different depth layers ... this one has me completely baffled - whether a 'no pull' @ Tina Bar, DBC planting the $, or the $ coming to beach from the water (dredge, tidal flow, whatever), I'm having a hard time coming up with viable theories that explain that.

[georger]

While I believe this scenario to be extremely unlikely, I marked "maybe" because, in theory, it's possible.

1) From the Bonneville Dam to the ocean, the Columbia is actually considered an "estuary" - other than
- weather (wind)
- spring runoff;
- Bonneville Dam releases

The river 'flow' in this area is pretty static, and directly related to tidal flow.  You can find on the web kayaking groups from the dam to the ocean that acknowledge the river reverse flows 2x per day (with the tide).

2) The 20lb $ bag, even waterlogged, would not "weigh" 20lbs in water - it would be closer to 13 lbs...smarter posters on this forum can explain the physics better than I, but for me, the best way to understand this is what it's like to lift my kid outside of the swimming pool vs. inside of it.

3) Tidal cycles from low to high in late Nov. 1971 were only about 6 hours. 

Thus, the Q is, is up to 6 hours of reverse flow enough to move the equivalent of a 13lb object 10 miles underwater?  I highly doubt it, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it out of hand.

Your point number 2 above is completely wrong.  The money bag and the money is going to weight exactly the same thing whether it's in the water or setting on your dinning room table.

The bank bag was not air tight.  So once enough water is absorbed by the bag itself and the money, the total weight countering any initial buoyancy will be overcome and the bag is going to sink to the bottom.

Take the case of a submarine.  The submarine itself weighs the same on the surface as when it is submerged.  On the surface, the submarine displaces a volume of water equivalent to its weight.  However, in order to submerge, the submarine has to take on additional water in special tanks.  The weight of the water loaded into those tanks plus the weight of the submarine itself, must equal or exceed the weight of water that the submarine displaces when submerged.

Ignoring the planes on the hull, if the submarine wants to go deeper, add more water to the tanks.  If the submarine wants to surface, then blow some of the water out of the tanks.   

My concern with FlyJack's theory is he is simplifying what happens in reverse tidal flow propagating in water moving the opposite direction. Everything I have read on this subject talks about cavitation, eddies, transverse vs longitudinal waves, cross currents, vortexes, etc. This includes particles and objects being trapped and oscillating, traveling at times in circular eddies, and the like. I tend to believe this would be especially true at the mouth of the Lewis (Lewis Columbia junction - just as it is true at the Willamette/Columbia intersection). So it would be anything but a free smooth ride from the Lewis to Tina Bar.

And, as I keep pointing out, it must happen multiple times over years of time, to supply pieces of money found at different depths (in different layers) at Tina Bar.

The central question in my mind is: did tides help erode out previously existing money at Tina Bar, or did tides supply the money to the sandbar as the Fazios wanted everyone to believe?
   

Finding $ at different depth layers ... this one has me completely baffled - whether a 'no pull' @ Tina Bar, DBC planting the $, or the $ coming to beach from the water (dredge, tidal flow, whatever), I'm having a hard time coming up with viable theories that explain that.

and one more complication, I think.    The money must be buried fast so as not to be seen. Otherwise the find date might have been 1974? 1972? 1971?  Could the tides have supplied enough material to convey and bury the money on the same day?

[brbducksfan]

While I believe this scenario to be extremely unlikely, I marked "maybe" because, in theory, it's possible.

1) From the Bonneville Dam to the ocean, the Columbia is actually considered an "estuary" - other than
- weather (wind)
- spring runoff;
- Bonneville Dam releases

The river 'flow' in this area is pretty static, and directly related to tidal flow.  You can find on the web kayaking groups from the dam to the ocean that acknowledge the river reverse flows 2x per day (with the tide).

2) The 20lb $ bag, even waterlogged, would not "weigh" 20lbs in water - it would be closer to 13 lbs...smarter posters on this forum can explain the physics better than I, but for me, the best way to understand this is what it's like to lift my kid outside of the swimming pool vs. inside of it.

3) Tidal cycles from low to high in late Nov. 1971 were only about 6 hours. 

Thus, the Q is, is up to 6 hours of reverse flow enough to move the equivalent of a 13lb object 10 miles underwater?  I highly doubt it, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it out of hand.

Your point number 2 above is completely wrong.  The money bag and the money is going to weight exactly the same thing whether it's in the water or setting on your dinning room table.

The bank bag was not air tight.  So once enough water is absorbed by the bag itself and the money, the total weight countering any initial buoyancy will be overcome and the bag is going to sink to the bottom.

Take the case of a submarine.  The submarine itself weighs the same on the surface as when it is submerged.  On the surface, the submarine displaces a volume of water equivalent to its weight.  However, in order to submerge, the submarine has to take on additional water in special tanks.  The weight of the water loaded into those tanks plus the weight of the submarine itself, must equal or exceed the weight of water that the submarine displaces when submerged.

Ignoring the planes on the hull, if the submarine wants to go deeper, add more water to the tanks.  If the submarine wants to surface, then blow some of the water out of the tanks.   

My concern with FlyJack's theory is he is simplifying what happens in reverse tidal flow propagating in water moving the opposite direction. Everything I have read on this subject talks about cavitation, eddies, transverse vs longitudinal waves, cross currents, vortexes, etc. This includes particles and objects being trapped and oscillating, traveling at times in circular eddies, and the like. I tend to believe this would be especially true at the mouth of the Lewis (Lewis Columbia junction - just as it is true at the Willamette/Columbia intersection). So it would be anything but a free smooth ride from the Lewis to Tina Bar.

And, as I keep pointing out, it must happen multiple times over years of time, to supply pieces of money found at different depths (in different layers) at Tina Bar.

The central question in my mind is: did tides help erode out previously existing money at Tina Bar, or did tides supply the money to the sandbar as the Fazios wanted everyone to believe?
   

Finding $ at different depth layers ... this one has me completely baffled - whether a 'no pull' @ Tina Bar, DBC planting the $, or the $ coming to beach from the water (dredge, tidal flow, whatever), I'm having a hard time coming up with viable theories that explain that.

and one more complication, I think.    The money must be buried fast so as not to be seen. Otherwise the find date might have been 1974? 1972? 1971?  Could the tides have supplied enough material to convey and bury the money on the same day?

I think you're absolutely right on this.  In theory, I could see how a dredge could produce the $ at different depths, but then I'd think you'd expect to find the $ shards all over the beach then, and not at a concentrated area.

[Robert99]

Georger - Thank you for the DZ link on this.

R99: Yes, "dry land" weight is the same on land or in water...but thanks to things like specific gravity, the relative weight of an object is not the same in water as it is on land.

Take a 50 lb rock and lift it on dry land - remember the energy it takes to lift/move it.  Now, drop that rock into a pool, get in and lift it - did it take the same energy?  No.  Buoyancy counteracts gravity underwater.  Incidentally, the 2/3 number I used wasn't random.  I pulled it from a mining/dredging website for rocks they deal with (ex. granite, sandstone, basalt), and their calcs show that these rocks have an "underwater weight"of about 2/3 of their dry land weight underwater. 

Other factors like the density of the parachute bag and the $ itself and the surface tension of water also apply here, which make it probable the $ bag could have traveled in the water.  Whether it traveled upstream, I still think is extremely unlikely, but it's at least possible in an estuary.

I do not see any application of "specific gravity" to what is being discussed here.  And the term "relative weight" needs a better explanation as to how you are using it.  And you can forget "surface tension", which is an extremely weak force in situations such as this.

Take your rock, which weighs 50 pounds on dry land, and put it completely underwater on a scale.  That scale will read less than 50 pounds by the weight of the water that it displaces.  To calculate this, you need to know the volume of the rock.

Would you like to discuss the Monty Hall Problem?

[Robert99]

While I believe this scenario to be extremely unlikely, I marked "maybe" because, in theory, it's possible.

1) From the Bonneville Dam to the ocean, the Columbia is actually considered an "estuary" - other than
- weather (wind)
- spring runoff;
- Bonneville Dam releases

The river 'flow' in this area is pretty static, and directly related to tidal flow.  You can find on the web kayaking groups from the dam to the ocean that acknowledge the river reverse flows 2x per day (with the tide).

2) The 20lb $ bag, even waterlogged, would not "weigh" 20lbs in water - it would be closer to 13 lbs...smarter posters on this forum can explain the physics better than I, but for me, the best way to understand this is what it's like to lift my kid outside of the swimming pool vs. inside of it.

3) Tidal cycles from low to high in late Nov. 1971 were only about 6 hours. 

Thus, the Q is, is up to 6 hours of reverse flow enough to move the equivalent of a 13lb object 10 miles underwater?  I highly doubt it, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it out of hand.

Your point number 2 above is completely wrong.  The money bag and the money is going to weight exactly the same thing whether it's in the water or setting on your dinning room table.

The bank bag was not air tight.  So once enough water is absorbed by the bag itself and the money, the total weight countering any initial buoyancy will be overcome and the bag is going to sink to the bottom.

Take the case of a submarine.  The submarine itself weighs the same on the surface as when it is submerged.  On the surface, the submarine displaces a volume of water equivalent to its weight.  However, in order to submerge, the submarine has to take on additional water in special tanks.  The weight of the water loaded into those tanks plus the weight of the submarine itself, must equal or exceed the weight of water that the submarine displaces when submerged.

Ignoring the planes on the hull, if the submarine wants to go deeper, add more water to the tanks.  If the submarine wants to surface, then blow some of the water out of the tanks.   

My concern with FlyJack's theory is he is simplifying what happens in reverse tidal flow propagating in water moving the opposite direction. Everything I have read on this subject talks about cavitation, eddies, transverse vs longitudinal waves, cross currents, vortexes, etc. This includes particles and objects being trapped and oscillating, traveling at times in circular eddies, and the like. I tend to believe this would be especially true at the mouth of the Lewis (Lewis Columbia junction - just as it is true at the Willamette/Columbia intersection). So it would be anything but a free smooth ride from the Lewis to Tina Bar.

And, as I keep pointing out, it must happen multiple times over years of time, to supply pieces of money found at different depths (in different layers) at Tina Bar.

The central question in my mind is: did tides help erode out previously existing money at Tina Bar, or did tides supply the money to the sandbar as the Fazios wanted everyone to believe?
   

Finding $ at different depth layers ... this one has me completely baffled - whether a 'no pull' @ Tina Bar, DBC planting the $, or the $ coming to beach from the water (dredge, tidal flow, whatever), I'm having a hard time coming up with viable theories that explain that.

and one more complication, I think.    The money must be buried fast so as not to be seen. Otherwise the find date might have been 1974? 1972? 1971?  Could the tides have supplied enough material to convey and bury the money on the same day?

Not likely.  But the whole scenario probably occurred while Tina Bar was under several feet of water during the spring runoff.

[brbducksfan]

Georger - Thank you for the DZ link on this.

R99: Yes, "dry land" weight is the same on land or in water...but thanks to things like specific gravity, the relative weight of an object is not the same in water as it is on land.

Take a 50 lb rock and lift it on dry land - remember the energy it takes to lift/move it.  Now, drop that rock into a pool, get in and lift it - did it take the same energy?  No.  Buoyancy counteracts gravity underwater.  Incidentally, the 2/3 number I used wasn't random.  I pulled it from a mining/dredging website for rocks they deal with (ex. granite, sandstone, basalt), and their calcs show that these rocks have an "underwater weight"of about 2/3 of their dry land weight underwater. 

Other factors like the density of the parachute bag and the $ itself and the surface tension of water also apply here, which make it probable the $ bag could have traveled in the water.  Whether it traveled upstream, I still think is extremely unlikely, but it's at least possible in an estuary.

I do not see any application of "specific gravity" to what is being discussed here.  And the term "relative weight" needs a better explanation as to how you are using it.  And you can forget "surface tension", which is an extremely weak force in situations such as this.

Take your rock, which weighs 50 pounds on dry land, and put it completely underwater on a scale.  That scale will read less than 50 pounds by the weight of the water that it displaces.  To calculate this, you need to know the volume of the rock.

Would you like to discuss the Monty Hall Problem?

Monty Hall: pick stick switch

Specific gravity, surface tension, etc.  - My point is that the river current (whether reverse or otherwise) wouldn't need the energy to move a 20lb object - it would need something much less.  I used a 2/3 ratio as an extremely conservative estimate to get to 13 lbs, as 2/3 is the general ratio used for the "water" weight of rocks.  Frankly, willing to bet the density of rocks is exponentially greater than that of the $ bag- I bet the $ bag's 'water weight' was a lot less than 13 lbs.  And if the $ was separated from the bag, given the density of paper vs. water, surface tension absolutely matters - ever seen a paperclip 'float' on water?

[georger]

While I believe this scenario to be extremely unlikely, I marked "maybe" because, in theory, it's possible.

1) From the Bonneville Dam to the ocean, the Columbia is actually considered an "estuary" - other than
- weather (wind)
- spring runoff;
- Bonneville Dam releases

The river 'flow' in this area is pretty static, and directly related to tidal flow.  You can find on the web kayaking groups from the dam to the ocean that acknowledge the river reverse flows 2x per day (with the tide).

2) The 20lb $ bag, even waterlogged, would not "weigh" 20lbs in water - it would be closer to 13 lbs...smarter posters on this forum can explain the physics better than I, but for me, the best way to understand this is what it's like to lift my kid outside of the swimming pool vs. inside of it.

3) Tidal cycles from low to high in late Nov. 1971 were only about 6 hours. 

Thus, the Q is, is up to 6 hours of reverse flow enough to move the equivalent of a 13lb object 10 miles underwater?  I highly doubt it, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it out of hand.

Your point number 2 above is completely wrong.  The money bag and the money is going to weight exactly the same thing whether it's in the water or setting on your dinning room table.

The bank bag was not air tight.  So once enough water is absorbed by the bag itself and the money, the total weight countering any initial buoyancy will be overcome and the bag is going to sink to the bottom.

Take the case of a submarine.  The submarine itself weighs the same on the surface as when it is submerged.  On the surface, the submarine displaces a volume of water equivalent to its weight.  However, in order to submerge, the submarine has to take on additional water in special tanks.  The weight of the water loaded into those tanks plus the weight of the submarine itself, must equal or exceed the weight of water that the submarine displaces when submerged.

Ignoring the planes on the hull, if the submarine wants to go deeper, add more water to the tanks.  If the submarine wants to surface, then blow some of the water out of the tanks.   

My concern with FlyJack's theory is he is simplifying what happens in reverse tidal flow propagating in water moving the opposite direction. Everything I have read on this subject talks about cavitation, eddies, transverse vs longitudinal waves, cross currents, vortexes, etc. This includes particles and objects being trapped and oscillating, traveling at times in circular eddies, and the like. I tend to believe this would be especially true at the mouth of the Lewis (Lewis Columbia junction - just as it is true at the Willamette/Columbia intersection). So it would be anything but a free smooth ride from the Lewis to Tina Bar.

And, as I keep pointing out, it must happen multiple times over years of time, to supply pieces of money found at different depths (in different layers) at Tina Bar.

The central question in my mind is: did tides help erode out previously existing money at Tina Bar, or did tides supply the money to the sandbar as the Fazios wanted everyone to believe?
   

Finding $ at different depth layers ... this one has me completely baffled - whether a 'no pull' @ Tina Bar, DBC planting the $, or the $ coming to beach from the water (dredge, tidal flow, whatever), I'm having a hard time coming up with viable theories that explain that.

and one more complication, I think.    The money must be buried fast so as not to be seen. Otherwise the find date might have been 1974? 1972? 1971?  Could the tides have supplied enough material to convey and bury the money on the same day?

Not likely.  But the whole scenario probably occurred while Tina Bar was under several feet of water during the spring runoff.

interesting possibility - that could deposit and cover the money in one cycle maybe a week long? But, money frags in the strata is left hanging ... but I like your metaphor! 

We have these discrete layers that Palmer found including that thick cross-bedded layer just below the upper active money layer. Frags came from below the cross-bedded layer if we believe the reports (and I do). That represents slices of geological time more than one short high water cycle. And presumably some source keeps supplying money to this area of T-Bar! This is almost a lottery scenario ............

That is why the best solution so far (to me) is the dredging scenario. That is why everyone voted 'dredging' during the last poll. 

Lets keep working this problem ..... we have some good heads here now. 

[Shutter]

The dredge theory has it's problems as well. the main concern is whether the pump will destroy the money. the pump is made for suction, so one has to wonder whether or not it would shred the money? did a majority of the money go back into the river once it was piling up on the spoil? the material that comes out is in a slurry form, or a high percentage of water. it makes a mess vs a neat pile of sand. they also left a lot of the sand and never used it. the spoils can be seen for some time after the operation.

the most obvious would be the dredge..no other theory has direct evidence after the fact, or exact dates. that still doesn't prove the dredge left the money on the beach. one could speculate that while pushing the sand down the beach would produce the different layers needed, but it's odd that only a fraction surfaced, but could possibly be explained above. where piles delivered vs spreading the material? spreading the material would be a problem in long distance, it's better to have piles placed and then spread them out.

Palmer shows a rather deep dredge line far from the spoil while the Fazio's claim they didn't go that far? if they did, it's the about same depth reported where the money was found, up to 3 feet deep with pieces found. Tom Kaye believes Palmer showed parts of the natural sediments of Tina bar, and not dredge material. my problem is the depth of the dredge material in an area with severe erosion. one would think the dredge material would be gone, or closer to the top. the second layer Palmer identifies is consistent with the test sample taken from the Columbia right off T-bar. the dredge theory leaves a lot of unanswered questions just as the other theories...

[FLYJACK]

Apologies if the longtime Cooper sleuths have covered this doc already..  but I found it fascinating and it opens up some other possibilities.

It is a comprehensive report on the shoreline erosion/remediation for Sauvie Island. It maps out the dredge deposit sites (including TBAR) and dates/volumes on Sauvie only back to the 70's.

I have included the map below.

One theory I had played with earlier was that the Columbia dredge operation dumped spoils upstream of TBAR and erosion caused the money to drift/land on TBAR above the 1974 TBAR spoils.

If so, the dredge operation may have assisted in an upstream transport.


It also confirms the Columbia tidal flow reversal to Sauvie, as well as moving objects upstream.

"This varies with tidal stage and river flow volume, and reversals have been observed as far upstream as Sauvie Island (personal communication, 2 local residents). As the ocean water advances the river will reach slack tide and eventually a reversal. Flow reversal can impact shoreline erosion by repeatedly transporting large logs and debris, which can scour the bank as they move up and down the river with the tide."

"Shoreline Erosion on Sauvie Island, Oregon - Oregon State University"

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[FLYJACK]

It also shows a history of flow/discharge. low = farther/stronger tidal flow reversal

1977 was very low..

[377]

Georger wrote: "We have these discrete layers that Palmer found including that thick cross-bedded layer just below the upper active money layer. Frags came from below the cross-bedded layer if we believe the reports (and I do). That represents slices of geological time more than one short high water cycle. And presumably some source keeps supplying money to this area of T-Bar! This is almost a lottery scenario

That is why the best solution so far (to me) is the dredging scenario. That is why everyone voted 'dredging' during the last poll."

I agree. Dredging is the most likely explanation. Centrifugal pumps can pass big objects through relatively untouched but they can also destroy fragile stuff from the violent flow inside the impeller cavity. The arent grinders like some types of positive displacement pumps.

Centrifugal Trash Pumps are designed to pump large amounts of water that contains hard and soft solids such as mud, leaves, twigs, sand, and sludge. Most devices are portable, heavy-duty centrifugal pumps that feature deeper impeller vanes and larger discharge openings than other pumps.

Good explanation of various types of pumps: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

377

[Robert99]

While I believe this scenario to be extremely unlikely, I marked "maybe" because, in theory, it's possible.

1) From the Bonneville Dam to the ocean, the Columbia is actually considered an "estuary" - other than
- weather (wind)
- spring runoff;
- Bonneville Dam releases

The river 'flow' in this area is pretty static, and directly related to tidal flow.  You can find on the web kayaking groups from the dam to the ocean that acknowledge the river reverse flows 2x per day (with the tide).

2) The 20lb $ bag, even waterlogged, would not "weigh" 20lbs in water - it would be closer to 13 lbs...smarter posters on this forum can explain the physics better than I, but for me, the best way to understand this is what it's like to lift my kid outside of the swimming pool vs. inside of it.

3) Tidal cycles from low to high in late Nov. 1971 were only about 6 hours. 

Thus, the Q is, is up to 6 hours of reverse flow enough to move the equivalent of a 13lb object 10 miles underwater?  I highly doubt it, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it out of hand.

Your point number 2 above is completely wrong.  The money bag and the money is going to weight exactly the same thing whether it's in the water or setting on your dinning room table.

The bank bag was not air tight.  So once enough water is absorbed by the bag itself and the money, the total weight countering any initial buoyancy will be overcome and the bag is going to sink to the bottom.

Take the case of a submarine.  The submarine itself weighs the same on the surface as when it is submerged.  On the surface, the submarine displaces a volume of water equivalent to its weight.  However, in order to submerge, the submarine has to take on additional water in special tanks.  The weight of the water loaded into those tanks plus the weight of the submarine itself, must equal or exceed the weight of water that the submarine displaces when submerged.

Ignoring the planes on the hull, if the submarine wants to go deeper, add more water to the tanks.  If the submarine wants to surface, then blow some of the water out of the tanks.   

My concern with FlyJack's theory is he is simplifying what happens in reverse tidal flow propagating in water moving the opposite direction. Everything I have read on this subject talks about cavitation, eddies, transverse vs longitudinal waves, cross currents, vortexes, etc. This includes particles and objects being trapped and oscillating, traveling at times in circular eddies, and the like. I tend to believe this would be especially true at the mouth of the Lewis (Lewis Columbia junction - just as it is true at the Willamette/Columbia intersection). So it would be anything but a free smooth ride from the Lewis to Tina Bar.

And, as I keep pointing out, it must happen multiple times over years of time, to supply pieces of money found at different depths (in different layers) at Tina Bar.

The central question in my mind is: did tides help erode out previously existing money at Tina Bar, or did tides supply the money to the sandbar as the Fazios wanted everyone to believe?
   

Finding $ at different depth layers ... this one has me completely baffled - whether a 'no pull' @ Tina Bar, DBC planting the $, or the $ coming to beach from the water (dredge, tidal flow, whatever), I'm having a hard time coming up with viable theories that explain that.

and one more complication, I think.    The money must be buried fast so as not to be seen. Otherwise the find date might have been 1974? 1972? 1971?  Could the tides have supplied enough material to convey and bury the money on the same day?

Not likely.  But the whole scenario probably occurred while Tina Bar was under several feet of water during the spring runoff.

interesting possibility - that could deposit and cover the money in one cycle maybe a week long? But, money frags in the strata is left hanging ... but I like your metaphor! 

We have these discrete layers that Palmer found including that thick cross-bedded layer just below the upper active money layer. Frags came from below the cross-bedded layer if we believe the reports (and I do). That represents slices of geological time more than one short high water cycle. And presumably some source keeps supplying money to this area of T-Bar! This is almost a lottery scenario ............

That is why the best solution so far (to me) is the dredging scenario. That is why everyone voted 'dredging' during the last poll. 

Lets keep working this problem ..... we have some good heads here now. 

FYI, everyone DID NOT vote for the dredge!

[georger]

The dredge theory has it's problems as well. the main concern is whether the pump will destroy the money. the pump is made for suction, so one has to wonder whether or not it would shred the money? did a majority of the money go back into the river once it was piling up on the spoil? the material that comes out is in a slurry form, or a high percentage of water. it makes a mess vs a neat pile of sand. they also left a lot of the sand and never used it. the spoils can be seen for some time after the operation.

the most obvious would be the dredge..no other theory has direct evidence after the fact, or exact dates. that still doesn't prove the dredge left the money on the beach. one could speculate that while pushing the sand down the beach would produce the different layers needed, but it's odd that only a fraction surfaced, but could possibly be explained above. where piles delivered vs spreading the material? spreading the material would be a problem in long distance, it's better to have piles placed and then spread them out.

Palmer shows a rather deep dredge line far from the spoil while the Fazio's claim they didn't go that far? if they did, it's the about same depth reported where the money was found, up to 3 feet deep with pieces found. Tom Kaye believes Palmer showed parts of the natural sediments of Tina bar, and not dredge material. my problem is the depth of the dredge material in an area with severe erosion. one would think the dredge material would be gone, or closer to the top. the second layer Palmer identifies is consistent with the test sample taken from the Columbia right off T-bar. the dredge theory leaves a lot of unanswered questions just as the other theories...

One thing I wish we had was a better mapping of where pieces were found and at what depths. I asked Dorwin about this and he just couldnt remember where each pieces was found - he kept saying there were thousands.

For example, where is Dorwin standing relative to the Ingram find when he is holding up the one piece filmed in the tv video? He he seems to be below the Ingram find and closer to the river? Thats a guess on my part. I still dont have a strong sense of where the larger frags were found in the 60yd x 40yd grid shown in the tv video.

Shutter I know you are good at orienting yourself on that tv video - any guesses you could make about the above could be crucial.