You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Another error found on Kaye website. Read this from Kaye's website ...

The "Palmer Report" stemmed from the FBI bringing in Portland State University geologist Dr. Leonard Palmer to analyze the sand bar where the money was found. In between the 1971 hijacking and the 1980 money find, the Columbia River was dredged and sand was deposited on Tena Bar in 1974. Palmer's report determined that the money was in a layer of top sand laid down by the dredging. This implied that the money was somewhere else upstream for years before coming to rest on Tena Bar. The counterpoint was that the delicate rubber bands were still intact on the bundles when found. The bands pointed to an earlier time frame for the money coming to rest on Tena. Debate factor = 9 of 10

Under no condition does the Palmer report say, imply, or determine that: "Palmer's report determined that the money was in a layer of top sand laid down by the dredging.

The Palmer report and the Palmer chart specifically assign the dredging layer to layer 'C', the "clay-lump" layer ... as previously described; not the "top sand" as Kaye says!

Kaye is just flat out wrong. Kaye needs to correct this factual error on his website. It is a profound error of fact.

Georger has me convinced the money arrived via dredging.  It also makes the most sense, considering the condition of the money.  I have yet to see anything that would make me think otherwise.

Ok, I confess.  I'm confused.  The way I read Georger's post is that the money didn't arrive via dredging (because it's not in the dredge layer), but sometime after from sand that was deposited from upstream somewhere, like during a flood period. Am I missing something here?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Another error found on Kaye website. Read this from Kaye's website ...

The "Palmer Report" stemmed from the FBI bringing in Portland State University geologist Dr. Leonard Palmer to analyze the sand bar where the money was found. In between the 1971 hijacking and the 1980 money find, the Columbia River was dredged and sand was deposited on Tena Bar in 1974. Palmer's report determined that the money was in a layer of top sand laid down by the dredging. This implied that the money was somewhere else upstream for years before coming to rest on Tena Bar. The counterpoint was that the delicate rubber bands were still intact on the bundles when found. The bands pointed to an earlier time frame for the money coming to rest on Tena. Debate factor = 9 of 10

Under no condition does the Palmer report say, imply, or determine that: "Palmer's report determined that the money was in a layer of top sand laid down by the dredging.

The Palmer report and the Palmer chart specifically assign the dredging layer to layer 'C', the "clay-lump" layer ... as previously described; not the "top sand" as Kaye says!

Kaye is just flat out wrong. Kaye needs to correct this factual error on his website. It is a profound error of fact.

Georger has me convinced the money arrived via dredging.  It also makes the most sense, considering the condition of the money.  I have yet to see anything that would make me think otherwise.

Ok, I confess.  I'm confused.  The way I read Georger's post is that the money didn't arrive via dredging (because it's not in the dredge layer), but sometime after from sand that was deposited from upstream somewhere, like during a flood period. Am I missing something here?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Another error found on Kaye website. Read this from Kaye's website ...

The "Palmer Report" stemmed from the FBI bringing in Portland State University geologist Dr. Leonard Palmer to analyze the sand bar where the money was found. In between the 1971 hijacking and the 1980 money find, the Columbia River was dredged and sand was deposited on Tena Bar in 1974. Palmer's report determined that the money was in a layer of top sand laid down by the dredging. This implied that the money was somewhere else upstream for years before coming to rest on Tena Bar. The counterpoint was that the delicate rubber bands were still intact on the bundles when found. The bands pointed to an earlier time frame for the money coming to rest on Tena. Debate factor = 9 of 10

Under no condition does the Palmer report say, imply, or determine that: "Palmer's report determined that the money was in a layer of top sand laid down by the dredging.

The Palmer report and the Palmer chart specifically assign the dredging layer to layer 'C', the "clay-lump" layer ... as previously described; not the "top sand" as Kaye says!

Kaye is just flat out wrong. Kaye needs to correct this factual error on his website. It is a profound error of fact.

Georger has me convinced the money arrived via dredging.  It also makes the most sense, considering the condition of the money.  I have yet to see anything that would make me think otherwise.

Ok, I confess.  I'm confused.  The way I read Georger's post is that the money didn't arrive via dredging (because it's not in the dredge layer), but sometime after from sand that was deposited from upstream somewhere, like during a flood period. Am I missing something here?

Mark, one of the problems discussing the money is no baseline to compare against. Well here is one finally - a simplified version of the substance and flavor of the Palmer Report, the report people refer to. I have been careful to paraphrase a few of Palmer's notes/comments which add flavor to his reasoning. If there are any questions, please ask.

Summary of the Palmer Report:

In the area of where ransom money was found, Dr. Palmer noted he found four different layers, as follows:

1.Upper active layer: A six to eight inch depth layer of reworked beach sand which contained the money recovered. This sand layer also contained new soda pop cans and other non rusted debris which was not severely damaged or rusted or aged. This is an upper active layer of sand recently laid down which is currently being worked by the river and natural forces. Such layers are typically sterile which helps explain the survival of the money in this layer.   

2. Post Dredging Cross Bedded Layer: An eight to twenty four inch depth layer of cross bedded medium to coarse sands indicating that the river and river waves have worked repeatedly on this layer since 1974. This layer contained older pop cans, glass, rusted nails and spikes and other rusted or aged artifacts which were in a much more deteriorated condition compared to artifacts found in the upper active layer.   

3. Clay Lump Sand Layer: A distinctive dark colored layer two feet thick at the money site to over four feet thick 25 yards from the money site (closer to the dredge pile shown in the 1974 USGS photo) and is a mixture of coarse sand and fragments or lumps of organic clay ranging from one inch to five inches in size. This clay layer in all probability, was deposited during the 1974 dredging.

4. Older Sand Layer:  This pre-dredging layer is uniform in texture and composition and is light in color, deposited prior to 1974. 

Notes & Explanations:  Palmer felt that at the height and in the layer found, the money was deposited probably within a year or so of discovery, and more than four years after the dredging in 1974.  He added that he felt certain this was not a case of the money having worked it’s way up through the post dredging sand to the upper active layer. He felt certain that the upper active layer and the cross bedded layer below were two distinct layers and the money was confined to the upper active layer only. Palmer based this on three facts:

*The money was rounded on its corners which cause is from the flow of water and perhaps tumbling en route.

*The money was remarkably well preserved. The upper active layer of sand on beaches is sterile and one of the best preservatives of any soil. Signs of rubber bands were still in place around the money although they were badly deteriorated. All of this fits with preservation in an upper layer of sterile sand. The money would have lasted no more than a year in nature unless protected.

*The money was found only in the surface layer, and none was found in the post dredging sand below.  See chart below -

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Another error found on Kaye website. Read this from Kaye's website ...

The "Palmer Report" stemmed from the FBI bringing in Portland State University geologist Dr. Leonard Palmer to analyze the sand bar where the money was found. In between the 1971 hijacking and the 1980 money find, the Columbia River was dredged and sand was deposited on Tena Bar in 1974. Palmer's report determined that the money was in a layer of top sand laid down by the dredging. This implied that the money was somewhere else upstream for years before coming to rest on Tena Bar. The counterpoint was that the delicate rubber bands were still intact on the bundles when found. The bands pointed to an earlier time frame for the money coming to rest on Tena. Debate factor = 9 of 10

Under no condition does the Palmer report say, imply, or determine that: "Palmer's report determined that the money was in a layer of top sand laid down by the dredging.

The Palmer report and the Palmer chart specifically assign the dredging layer to layer 'C', the "clay-lump" layer ... as previously described; not the "top sand" as Kaye says!

Kaye is just flat out wrong. Kaye needs to correct this factual error on his website. It is a profound error of fact.

Georger has me convinced the money arrived via dredging.  It also makes the most sense, considering the condition of the money.  I have yet to see anything that would make me think otherwise.

Ok, I confess.  I'm confused.  The way I read Georger's post is that the money didn't arrive via dredging (because it's not in the dredge layer), but sometime after from sand that was deposited from upstream somewhere, like during a flood period. Am I missing something here?

Mark, one of the problems discussing the money is no baseline to compare against. Well here is one finally - a simplified version of the substance and flavor of the Palmer Report, the report people refer to. I have been careful to paraphrase a few of Palmer's notes/comments which add flavor to his reasoning. If there are any questions, please ask.

Summary of the Palmer Report:

In the area of where ransom money was found, Dr. Palmer noted he found four different layers, as follows:

1.Upper active layer: A six to eight inch depth layer of reworked beach sand which contained the money recovered. This sand layer also contained new soda pop cans and other non rusted debris which was not severely damaged or rusted or aged. This is an upper active layer of sand recently laid down which is currently being worked by the river and natural forces. Such layers are typically sterile which helps explain the survival of the money in this layer.   

2. Post Dredging Cross Bedded Layer: An eight to twenty four inch depth layer of cross bedded medium to coarse sands indicating that the river and river waves have worked repeatedly on this layer since 1974. This layer contained older pop cans, glass, rusted nails and spikes and other rusted or aged artifacts which were in a much more deteriorated condition compared to artifacts found in the upper active layer.   

3. Clay Lump Sand Layer: A distinctive dark colored layer two feet thick at the money site to over four feet thick 25 yards from the money site (closer to the dredge pile shown in the 1974 USGS photo) and is a mixture of coarse sand and fragments or lumps of organic clay ranging from one inch to five inches in size. This clay layer in all probability, was deposited during the 1974 dredging.

4. Older Sand Layer:  This pre-dredging layer is uniform in texture and composition and is light in color, deposited prior to 1974. 

Notes & Explanations:  Palmer felt that at the height and in the layer found, the money was deposited probably within a year or so of discovery, and more than four years after the dredging in 1974.  He added that he felt certain this was not a case of the money having worked it’s way up through the post dredging sand to the upper active layer. He felt certain that the upper active layer and the cross bedded layer below were two distinct layers and the money was confined to the upper active layer only. Palmer based this on three facts:

*The money was rounded on its corners which cause is from the flow of water and perhaps tumbling en route.

*The money was remarkably well preserved. The upper active layer of sand on beaches is sterile and one of the best preservatives of any soil. Signs of rubber bands were still in place around the money although they were badly deteriorated. All of this fits with preservation in an upper layer of sterile sand. The money would have lasted no more than a year in nature unless protected.

*The money was found only in the surface layer, and none was found in the post dredging sand below.  See chart below -

Georger, do you mind if I post this onto the new website? this is information that needs to be saved, and not lost in the pages?

Here is what I have so far.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The close up of the bundle I found has a mystery to it. take a look by the Presidents head. is that a rubber band fragment, or the circle around the president? it's missing the smaller line that is with the border of the president....

It's a money fragment, check the obverse of an old $20 bill, that's the White House