A core sample would of been nice. I don't know if one would be a benefit now?

Ok, sorry to change the subject, but I just did a test.

I cut up pieces of paper the size of common currency. mainly from the top to the bottom of a bill. I cut enough pieces to get one half inch of bills. simulating one hundred bills. actually a little more..

I put a rubber band on the bundle, and the band was loose. it wasn't a good fit at all. test photo A
Then I shifted the bundle showing how easy it was to manipulate...test photo B
Then I doubled up on the rubber band. it took a lot of strain to do this. the rubber band stretched close to it's limit. test photo C.

If they didn't double up the bands. the bundles were loose in the bag. this is if we have the right bands as well.
The bundle that was doubled up with the rubber band was hard to move the paper. it was tight.....end test?

Note the strain on one portion of the rubber band on photo C....

Here's a blowup - you can see the strain when bands are doubled wrapped. Those stress points would age and break first, with the paper below them weakened and decaying faster.

Since a single wrap does not even hold a bundle together ... there is an obvious problem.

But I discovered another paradox. Tom presents two bundle photos on his website. One bundle is double wrapped and the other bundle appears single wrapped. Are we to assume from this the Cooper bundles were wrapped both singly and/or double wrapped?  What allowed Tom to take this liberty ?


     

Seems they doubled up when they knew the bills were not under there control. the tank test provided no danger in losing the bills. I don't know if that's what they were thinking?

I dont know if Tom knows if the bundles were double or single wrapped at the bank - maybe both!? But, it obviously makes a big difference in the structural dynamics of the bundles ....... whatever size they were! Shall we consult Shri Lamakan'ani at Delphi on this? 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote

If the money had been at Tina Bar in 1974, it seems strange that only a couple of inches of sand covered it in 1980 when it was found. 

Agreed, but wouldn't the constant erosion make it appear it was at the surface?

The Tina Bar money location would only be exposed to water and erosion during relatively high flooding periods.  Based on having lived on a Columbia tributary for a couple of years, sands are shifted during flooding but regular soil is broken up and heads down stream never to be seen again.

I don't know where the clay in Palmer's analysis came from, but the channel between Caterpillar Island and the Columbia's eastern shore line, just upstream of Tina Bar, used to be labeled "mud flats" (on the printed version of topographical charts) before it was dredged and the current marina was constructed in that channel.  Since sand is not mud, I would suggest that area could be a possible source for the clay layer.  Is clay heavier than sand?

Ok... You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
[Dry density in g/cm3]
Concrete = 2.40
Sand = 1.52
Sandy Loam = 1.44
Loam = 1.36
Silt Loam = 1.28
Clay Loam = 1.28
Clay = 1.20
Dry density for most soils varies within a range of 1.1-1.6 g/cm3

Palmer identifies a "clay lump" layer as the third layer starting at 2 feet- to four feet, below surface. He says that 'clay lump" layer IS the dredging spoils layer. See chart. (you are probably sick of seeing this chart! 

Tom says Palmer misidentified his clay-lump layer ... see Tom's site on that.

So what is the origin of the mud in mud flats at Caterpillar Island? Are you saying that mud is the mud in Palmer's clay-lump layer. Have we now got three theories: the Palmer, Kaye, and R99 theories of the 'clay-lump' layer ?

What is "reworked sand" ?

While we are at this stage of dredging, and rubber bands on the money. if we dismiss the dredge theory. how is it fragments were found in the dredge material according to Palmer's layer's? they say it was above the dredge material, but the chart shows fragments in the dredge material.

If the money was believed to have been placed there, or got there through natural means. how did pieces get several feet below the area it was found in?

How did up to 3' of new material arrive on the beach after 1974?

These are problems that cause me to continue to search for answers to this part of the problem. is the fragments found at 3' verified?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote

If the money had been at Tina Bar in 1974, it seems strange that only a couple of inches of sand covered it in 1980 when it was found. 

Agreed, but wouldn't the constant erosion make it appear it was at the surface?

The Tina Bar money location would only be exposed to water and erosion during relatively high flooding periods.  Based on having lived on a Columbia tributary for a couple of years, sands are shifted during flooding but regular soil is broken up and heads down stream never to be seen again.

I don't know where the clay in Palmer's analysis came from, but the channel between Caterpillar Island and the Columbia's eastern shore line, just upstream of Tina Bar, used to be labeled "mud flats" (on the printed version of topographical charts) before it was dredged and the current marina was constructed in that channel.  Since sand is not mud, I would suggest that area could be a possible source for the clay layer.  Is clay heavier than sand?

Ok... You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
[Dry density in g/cm3]
Concrete = 2.40
Sand = 1.52
Sandy Loam = 1.44
Loam = 1.36
Silt Loam = 1.28
Clay Loam = 1.28
Clay = 1.20
Dry density for most soils varies within a range of 1.1-1.6 g/cm3

Palmer identifies a "clay lump" layer as the third layer starting at 2 feet- to four feet, below surface. He says that 'clay lump" layer IS the dredging spoils layer. See chart. (you are probably sick of seeing this chart! 

Tom says Palmer misidentified his clay-lump layer ... see Tom's site on that.

So what is the origin of the mud in mud flats at Caterpillar Island? Are you saying that mud is the mud in Palmer's clay-lump layer. Have we now got three theories: the Palmer, Kaye, and R99 theories of the 'clay-lump' layer ?

Clay is the lightest thing you list in the above table.  If those things precipitated out of the river water directly over the shipping channel, then clay should be the last thing down and essentially on top of the others.  But they should be mixed again during a dredging process that got them to the shore line.  I don't think that will result in a "clay layer or lump" from the dredged materials.

The "mud" that was removed from between Caterpillar Island and the Columbia River to create a channel for that marina (where Amazon used to keep her boat) had to end up somewhere and Tina Bar is just a short distance downstream.

Georger, do you have a technical description for "mud"? 

While we are at this stage of dredging, and rubber bands on the money. if we dismiss the dredge theory. how is it fragments were found in the dredge material according to Palmer's layer's? they say it was above the dredge material, but the chart shows fragments in the dredge material.

If the money was believed to have been placed there, or got there through natural means. how did pieces get several feet below the area it was found in?

How did up to 3' of new material arrive on the beach after 1974?

These are problems that cause me to continue to search for answers to this part of the problem. is the fragments found at 3' verified?

How did up to 3' of new material arrive on the beach after 1974?

Nobody has worked up a historical record of the geology of Tina Bar, so far as I know. You are asking for data that does not exist for Tina Bar. The events of deposition and erosion or movement of sands, was not covered in the Palmer report (or even mentioned). Did Tom work up a record? We all know the natural forces that build and change Tina Bar - Tom added another force: large wakes by passing ships. But beyond Palmer's strata he found and the 1974 Dredging report, there is no historical record for the geology of Tina Bar, that I know of.

I mentioned on DZ years ago that we needed some elevation profiles for the area encompassing Tina Bar. Sluggo took this seriously because of his interest in geology-paleontology and he produced a number of elevation profiles. I will attach one. At the top of Sluggo's profile I have inserted Palmer's trench. His trench is tiny by comparison to the whole of Tina Bar, but, 'all of the data we have about formation strata at Tina Bar' comes from this (almost  microscopic!) trench Palmer dug. In contrast to that, see Tom's photo on his website which gives a broader view of strata in the vicinity of the Ingram find. Tom's photo presents a much broader view when compared to Palmer's singular trench!

Can Tom's wider perspective and Palmer's smaller perspective be reconciled? Of course Palmer's view is from 1980 ... Tom's view is much later, 2008?  But I see some similarity. One similarity may be in Palmer's Layer 'B', a layer of cross bedded sand. Cross bedded sand layers are pretty easy to identify because of their recognizable morphology. Palmer's cross bedded Layer 'B' is clearly visible in several of Palmer's trench photos, and in one photo Palmer is pointing to the line between Layer 'B' and his Layer 'C', the clay lump layer below. In Tom's photo from 2008 there is a large deep layer of cross bedded sand clearly visible. Is the cross bedded layer in Tom's photo the same cross bedded layer Palmer found in 1980? I don't know, but some part of these cross bedded layers could be the same! The lower part of Tom's cross bedded layer may be the cross bedded layer Palmer found in 1980? I sure would like to know what Tom thinks about this?

If, and it's a big "if", the lower part of the cross bedded formation in Tom's photo is the same cross bedded layer Palmer found in 1980, then of course the Ingram money came from a layer just above that which at the time in 1980 would have been Palmer's "upper active layer" Layer A.  I really would like to know what Tom thinks about this
 
The goal is to know when and how the Ingram money came to be on Tina Bar. Identifying the strata the money was in or next to helps answer that question, but we have to resolve the issue of the strata which has emerged (Kaye vs. Palmer). And since there was no core samples or chemistry for anything at Tina Bar ... we are lacking guidance.

Maybe someone at the USGS or at Portland State could offer assistance in resolving these issues over strata at Tina Bar?

[edit] Look at Sluggo's profile for Tina Bar stretching back to River Road (501). What we have always needed is chart of the strata formations which comprise Tina Bar ... at various dates. That was something Sluggo and I discussed and wished we could have!