Does anyone know the exact location the picture above was take, can it be pinned on a map?
Tom does - he took the photo. The photo is on his website. My guess is they are close-by. Tom says:
The eroded beach now clearly exposed several continuous layers of consolidated clay alternating with clean sand (Fig. 1). Measurements based on the level of the grass at the top of the beach and the exposed tree roots (Fig. 2) indicated that the now-exposed clay layers were at the same approximate depth as Palmer's original trench. In fact this passage seems to answer my question in my post earlier, asking if strata in the Palmer trench and present day strata match. Tom seems to be saying they do:
Measurements based on the level of the grass at the top of the beach and the exposed tree roots (Fig. 2) indicated that the now-exposed clay layers were at the same approximate depth as Palmer's original trench.And, if the strata are the same then some part of the strata the Ingram money was in still exists ... on the exposed bank
behind and further inland of the 1980 Ingram find position. So in one sense a sample of those original strata is still available!?
And if that is true then R99's request for 'elevations between Tina Bar and the Flushing Channel (north/south) and the river and NW Lower River Road (east/west)' can be related to the strata at the original elevation and location of the Ingram find.... which I believe is what R99 is trying to determine?
Tom's premise is very clear right at the opening of his Palmer section, namely:
Fact: Modern day Tena Bar is severely eroded and exposing natural clay layers that run the length of the beach.
Fact: The Palmer Report discovered and interpreted a buried clay layer as man-made from the dredging operation.
Interpretation: Palmer's original report claiming the clay layer was a result of the dredging was inaccurate.The logic of this is straightforward: If the clay layer in Tom's photo IS the same clay layer Palmer identified as dredging spoils in 1980, then Tom may be correct and Palmer got it wrong, for two reasons! (1) The 1974 dredging spoils DID NOT go behind Tina Bar to the present site of Tom's 2008 clay layer, and (2) if Tom's photos are near the Ingram find, then that may very well be far enough removed from the 1974 north dredge spoil pile, to remove any clay layer at the Ingram site from being due to dredge spoils?
We are juggling a lot of information and ideas here. Let me just sit and let this settle out...
Poll